To me, neither term is applicable. But if we observers are going to go with a term that could apply and fit with both our observations of this relationship and definition for god(s), then theism is quite plausible. We actually do observe this creature's being that created them, influencing all aspects of their life and sustaining them. This interaction/sustenance begins during pre-birth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you sure you are an Atheist?
- Thread starter Nefelie
- Start date
To me, neither term is applicable. But if we observers are going to go with a term that could apply and fit with both our observations of this relationship and definition for god(s), then theism is quite plausible. We actually do observe this creature's being that created them, influencing all aspects of their life and sustaining them. This interaction/sustenance begins during pre-birth.
Except that in this discussion we're not trying to find "god."
They're around.
Here is an old thread I started that kinda touches on it a little.
Please note, it's in the Pagan DIR, so not really somewhere I would normally frequent. I played nice, and they were kind enough to give me some responses.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-purpose-of-worship.176799/
There is no turd...
True...!!
It's just a kinda shorthand I fall into. What I mean by it (as you might guess) is that I try to accept the world around me for what it is.
That isn't a way of saying 'theists are delusional', though. More, it's where I am at in terms of my life experience, and what is has led me to believe about the universe in which I dwell.
A lot of it comes down to saying 'I don't know' about things, in truth. I find a level of comfort in that.
I've thought about it more than once. It's something I pick at from time to time, just to make sure (as I learn more about the world) that I still fit the atheist glove better than others. But self-describing purely as an agnostic feels disingenuous, ultimately. The concept that God is unknowable doesn't sit too well with me, since it seems to make assumptions about God I'm not willing to. And suggesting I am sitting on the fence isn't accurate either. It makes it sound like God and atheism are given equal weight on opposite ends of a see-saw, and that is nowhere near where my head is.
However, I am agnostic in so far as I believe that if there is a form of God, it is most likely nothing like the form of God most humans worship anyway.
(edit - it should be noted that I tend to see atheism as just a quick way of describing my lack of belief in God that says very little about what I do believe in. Agnosticism would also be a quick descriptor which would more commonly lead to people misunderstanding even my basic lack of belief)
Oh, and I have read a reasonable amount on Max Planck, without really studying him. Not especially an area of interest for me (I'm more history geek than science geek!) but he was certainly an interesting thinker.
I'll do the google thing at some point. Just thought you might have been aware of some particularly approachable sites where this was discussed.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.” The atheist says, “I don't have a belief that God exists.” You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The label of agnostic is not mutual exclusive with atheist or theist.
Last edited:
But neither identity is intrinsic to the creature. It is only intrinsic to our perspective of them. A projection of their being, if you will.
Definition for god: an adored, admired, or influential person, having power over nature or human fortunes
So, while none these creatures may self identify as such definition that is applicable for them, each definition could apply to them. For a parent to a child is an influential person, creator having power over the human fortunes of their offspring.
Due to the fact that in each case, because the creature is unable to self identify themselves as pertaining to the inherent definition said to apply to them, this would mean in 2 of the 3 cases, our definition still applies, while in the third instance it is somehow, magically not applicable. Yet, we don't really know the beliefs of a baby, and project lacking onto them because we (or some of us) think it applicable. The ironic thing is in all cases of us, we are/were them.
Some gods are clearly visible. Arguably all gods are visible, and depends on how one is choosing to look for them and/or understand the effects of said gods.
But with babies, their creators/influential beings that watch over them are observable to us. If we choose to deny them as gods, then that's a personal choice we make, but is counter to our observations and definition of god(s).
If you impose a definition of "god" on the thoughts of a baby, you mean.
I think it's more honest to acknowledge that a baby has no concept of god.
You're going to have to provide some actual support before I accept your assertion that fetuses believe their mothers to be gods before they're even conscious.
That is certainly not a proper word to use in here.
Again, a plausible definition for gods is: having power over nature or human fortunes
I understand that for some, who wish to note that they lack a belief, but also wish to note that they have beliefs of what god is supposed to be (for them and all people) that any simplistic definition, that may be found in all dictionaries, is not the definition they wish to go with in their 'lack' (really denial, but pay no attention to that).
So, if gravity is a force that has power over human fortunes, and if any human identifies this as god(s), then an atheist would be not deifying it, based on lack of reason (to do so) rather than lack of belief that it is force/power influencing human fortune.
Worship = adoration and/or reverence for. So any human that has deep respect for gravity would be in essence worshipping it. Any human that ignores gravity, its effects, and perhaps loathing its existence or power, would be non-worshipping of gravity's power.
What I think occurs is the atheistic type wishes to denounce its own reverence for things, deny it as reverence, and suggest it is something else entirely that shall not be described beyond denial for that would likely dance on the line of actual belief, if not outright express it.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
So last week I was told Gods can be "air" or "my heart." This week we're saying anyone who is a parent is also a God?
Good grief!
McBell
Admiral Obvious
That is one of the really fun things about the word "god".
It can be defined to mean whatever the one using the word wants it to mean.
Particularly helpful when pushing an agenda.
Marsh
Active Member
I don't disagree with you, and yet, if some Christians were defining atheism it would read as follows: Atheist, an individual who hates God and who falsely claims not to believe in God's existence.
Ancestor worship is extremely common. That it is so foreign to many Westerner minds is honestly quite sad, IMHO.
Marsh
Active Member
Johnnie, welcome to the forum.
It's more the definition of "belief" that's the crux.
Ancestor worship:
- is usually of dead ancestors. Living ancestors aren't worshipped, just respected.
- is not generally believing ancestors to be gods.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Are they all Gods though? I'm familiar with the concept, it's just I thought the idea of spirits of dead ancestors watching over was more like guardian angels or something along those lines.
Do adherents to ancestor worship call each dead ancestor "God?"
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Seems to me it is the belief that fetus/baby have a god belief that is the crux...
Seems said belief is merely a belief in and of itself.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
How you seem to be implying it in this thread is most certainly foreign.
At least to me.
Marsh
Active Member
Do you mean, would deny a person had ever been a theist? If they are deceased then it is a safe bet they no longer have an opinion on the subject. Yes?