Can you be a theist and an atheist at the same time?

[Jumi]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one. Would you be an atheist in relation to the other God? Or would believing in at least one mean you can't be an atheist when thinking about another God?

I've been using that line where I say I'm (edit: gnostic) atheist in relation to some gods, but agnostic in relation to others ever since I heard someone say it. It made sense to me the times I've used it and seen it used, but I'm not sure if it could lead to more confusion? Or if it's seen as offensive to some theists? A recent discussion made me wonder, if it's seen as a rhetorical device and not an honest opinion by theists. Share your thoughts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one. Would you be an atheist in relation to the other God? Or would believing in at least one mean you can't be an atheist when thinking about another God?

I've been using that line where I say I'm atheist in relation to some gods, but agnostic in relation to others ever since I heard someone say it. It made sense to me the times I've used it and seen it used, but I'm not sure if it could lead to more confusion? Or if it's seen as offensive to some theists? A recent discussion made me wonder, if it's seen as a rhetorical device and not an honest opinion by theists. Share your thoughts.

It is a clever tool used by people like Dawkins to make people laugh and therefore stop them taking the subject seriously in the first place. Unless one says that all their God can make is ice-cream, then it matters little whether you believe in others as you would still believe yours made everything.
So no, you can't be both. Just a silly argument from ignorance.

 

[Ultimatum]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one.

So you'd be a theist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Unless one says that all their God can make is ice-cream...

The perfect supreme being!

 

[Kirran]

I do think that being 'a theist' requires belief in at least one deity or some such of some description. and being 'an atheist' requires the lack of any such belief. Believing in any deities stops you being an atheist.

It's like saying 'I am allergic to food in relation to cheese'.

 

[Jumi]

It is a clever tool used by people like Dawkins to make people laugh and therefore stop them taking the subject seriously in the first place.

Interesting. I didn't think it was offensive and I'm actually bit surprised it is. I've never been a theist so your input is valuable.

Unless one says that all their God can make is ice-cream, then it matters little whether you believe in others as you would still believe yours made everything.
So no, you can't be both. Just a silly argument from ignorance.

Well not all theists argue that their gods made everything or even anything.

 

[Jumi]

I do think that being 'a theist' requires belief in at least one deity or some such of some description. and being 'an atheist' requires the lack of any such belief. Believing in any deities stops you being an atheist.

Right. I'll have to think of another scale in terms of believability of various gods when I'm confronted about my beliefs the next time.

It's like saying 'I am allergic to food in relation to cheese'.

I see, perhaps my English language skills are lacking in what is being implied here. I trust this is what it may sound to native speakers.

 

[Kirran]

Right. I'll have to think of another scale in terms of believability of various gods when I'm confronted about my beliefs the next time.


I see, perhaps my English language skills are lacking in what is being implied here. I trust this is what it may sound to native speakers.

Didn't quite get the first bit, but the second part - yes it sounds absurd.

 

[picnic]

It seems like the gnostic attribute is important, because as soon as you apply that attribute, then you must exclude beliefs that conflict.

A valid combination might be: (agnostic Christian, agnostic atheist).
But a invalid combination would be: (agnostic Christian, gnostic atheist) or (gnostic Christian, agnostic atheist)

Everybody uses different definitions. For example "agnostic" might mean "uncertain" or it might mean "certain that it is impossible to know".

 

[Willamena]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one. Would you be an atheist in relation to the other God?

'Atheist' means disbelief no belief in God or gods, so if you believe in one, you don't meet the criteria. The term is universal, so not very meaningful applied relatively except, as you say, for something like rhetoric.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one. Would you be an atheist in relation to the other God? Or would believing in at least one mean you can't be an atheist when thinking about another God?

For the mature words are communication tools.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Interesting. I didn't think it was offensive and I'm actually bit surprised it is. I've never been a theist so your input is valuable.


Well not all theists argue that their gods made everything or even anything.

Well I will speak of the main three and they do.

FYI, when someone demeens God, a prophet, his son, it is like you have attacked that person or their family, personally. They are one of the same.

 

[Jumi]

A valid combination might be: (agnostic Christian, agnostic atheist).
But a invalid combination would be: (agnostic Christian, gnostic atheist) or (gnostic Christian, agnostic atheist)

This is how I mostly use it being an agnostic atheist.

 

[Jumi]

Well I will speak of the main three and they do.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism? I don't think Hindus all agree here.

FYI, when someone demeens God, a prophet, his son, it is like you have attacked that person or their family, personally. They are one of the same.

Well I don't understand that line of thinking. Attacking your God is not something I would do since I'm not an anti-theist. I just don't believe in the God.

 

[Jumi]

For the mature words are communication tools.

No disagreement here.

 

[Jumi]

The term is universal, so not very meaningful applied relatively except, as you say, for something like rhetoric.

For the record, I never used it as rhetoric.

 

[Jumi]

Didn't quite get the first bit

The usual scenario is when someone notices I'm an agnostic atheist and they have wrong ideas what is meant by it. Well now that I see there is a further chance of misunderstanding here at least in English, I'll try to find some other way to communicate my beliefs. Don't actually know what it would be.

 

[George-ananda]

Share your thoughts.

I think an atheist does not believe in the existence of any god(s). Any other use of the term is deceptive and misleading in my opinion.

 

[Jumi]

Thanks guys for the feedback. This confirms what I've noticed so far.

 

[Quintessence]

Say you believe in one God, but don't believe in another one. Would you be an atheist in relation to the other God? Or would believing in at least one mean you can't be an atheist when thinking about another God?

I've been using that line where I say I'm atheist in relation to some gods, but agnostic in relation to others ever since I heard someone say it. It made sense to me the times I've used it and seen it used, but I'm not sure if it could lead to more confusion? Or if it's seen as offensive to some theists? A recent discussion made me wonder, if it's seen as a rhetorical device and not an honest opinion by theists. Share your thoughts.

Personally, I find the terms "theist" and "atheist" 110% useless unless they are used to discuss a person's accepting or rejecting a specific god-concept. The more time I spend on RF, the more I want those two words to die a horrible death (even as I still identify as a "theist").

Thanks guys for the feedback. This confirms what I've noticed so far.

What would that be? Or perhaps you don't want to say?