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

[Logikal]

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.

You have shown you have no clue what the words really mean. The three terms in use are NOT compatible. That is you cannot mix and match them because you want to. The psychology folks that have people believing anything are a work again. Stop being emotional and become MORE RATIONAL. The folk on the street, in da hood, etc. are emotional people and use slang terms that are only for THAT CONTEXT. Rational people use the correct definitions of the term ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, and THEIST. No dictionary is needed because CONTEXT makes the difference. Using standard context will allow other humans besides the ones near you to understand what you are saying. Your usage NOW is laughable as if you are a little kid who doesn't really know what he is saying. I am not saying YOU ARE a little kid but sound like one by the way you think here.

THEIST is understood as a human being that believes in some deity. It does not matter which one.

ATHEIST as understood by rational humans that speak English IS a human being that DENIES or REJECTS the idea that any deity (aka GOD) exists PERIOD. It is the psychology folks that want to use the silly etyomolgy stuff like "A" means without and "Theist" means a person who believes in God so an A -Theist must mean a person without a belief in God. This too is child-like. A new born is NOT an atheist. A month old baby is NOT an atheist. Atheism is a CHOICE a human makes. All of these religious terms are CHOICES and is NOT FORCED involuntarily on any human being at all.

AGNOSTIC is understood as the position a human being takes when he or she is NOT SURE which side to take: atheist or theist. The agnostic is a human who DOES NOT DENY OR REJECT the possibility of a God existing somewhere. This person will say IT IS POSSIBLE but he or she is not aware of it.

You cannot mix and match these terms intelligibly and be taken serious. It is like saying can a human being like, dislike and be uncertain that he likes vanilla ice cream all at the same time?

I want to repeat: All of these religious terms are CHOICES and is NOT FORCED involuntarily on any human being at all. All of the terms have a logical relationship: they are contraries. That is if one is true the other must be false --no if and or buts about it. You cant have more than one be true at the same time without sounding like a young child.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Interesting. I never use that definition because it's deceptive and misleading. I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of, say, the universe. Then again, I also don't frequent mental institutions.

 

[Logikal]

Interesting. I never use that definition because it's deceptive and misleading. I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of, say, the universe. Then again, I also don't frequent mental institutions.

ATHEISM is NOT a LACK of BELEIF. Atheism is the REJECTION of the claim "GOD exists!"

 

[Quintessence]

ATHEISM is NOT a LACK of BELEIF. Atheism is the REJECTION of the claim "GOD exists!"

Er... okay? I didn't say atheism was "lack of belief?" Why are you shouting?

 

[Father Heathen]

Only meat eating vegans can be both.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting. I never use that definition because it's deceptive and misleading. I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of, say, the universe. Then again, I also don't frequent mental institutions.

It's not that they don't believe in anyone else's Gods. It's that they don't believe/follow any form of theism. For example, if you see the Sun as a God, it's not the Sun's existence I disbelieve, but any form of theism associated with it.

 

[Quintessence]

It's not that they don't believe in anyone else's Gods. It's that they don't believe/follow any form of theism. For example, if you see the Sun as a God, it's not the Sun's existence I disbelieve, but any form of theism associated with it.

I agree, but that's not what the bare bones definitions of theism or atheism get at. Hence, rubbish terms.

 

[Logikal]

It's not that they don't believe in anyone else's Gods. It's that they don't believe/follow any form of theism. For example, if you see the Sun as a God, it's not the Sun's existence I disbelieve, but any form of theism associated with it.

You are still confused:
ATHEISM means a human being REJECTS or DENIES the claim "God exists". It does not MATTER WHICH DEITY OR WHICH RELIGION. To reject ANY or ALL deities is ATHEISM period -end of story. That is what the term MEANS in context.

 

[Quintessence]

You are still confused:
ATHEISM means a human being REJECTS or DENIES the claim "God exists". It does not MATTER WHICH DEITY OR WHICH RELIGION. To reject ANY or ALL deities is ATHEISM period -end of story. That is what the term MEANS in context.

Words can have multiple definitions, and usually do. You don't get to be the sole dictator of what "atheist" means, especially since you aren't one yourself.

Again, seriously... what's with the shouting? Are you angry about something?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are still confused:
ATHEISM means a human being REJECTS or DENIES the claim "God exists". It does not MATTER WHICH DEITY OR WHICH RELIGION. To reject ANY or ALL deities is ATHEISM period -end of story. That is what the term MEANS in context.

I'm not confused, and I think the subtlety of the discussion eluded you.
If someone believes the Sun is a God, then (as an atheist) I'm hardly claiming the Sun doesn't exist, am I?
I am rejecting it's godhood.

Incidentally, I occasionally use Caps for emphasis, but it loses all effectiveness in that fashion when 50% of your posts are crafted with Caps jammed on.

 

[Logikal]

Any word can have multiple definitions, YES. If this is the case then you ought to specify the area you live in or work in or something so other humans can understand what you refer to. The words in question here have standard contextual definitions for English speaking people. If you are in a click that re-defines the terms you should pass that info on to the readers in the forum. The average speaking English person will likely not use YOUR clicks' context though.

 

[Logikal]

I'm not confused, and I think the subtlety of the discussion eluded you.
If someone believes the Sun is a God, then (as an atheist) I'm hardly claiming the Sun doesn't exist, am I?
I am rejecting it's godhood.

Incidentally, I occasionally use Caps for emphasis, but it loses all effectiveness in that fashion when 50% of your posts are crafted with Caps jammed on.

You are missing what I have said. The concept of Atheism is a denial of whatever GOD you state. So if someone believes the Sun is a God, then the Atheist will claim the Sun is a God is false. That is, there is no Sun God in existence. You are confusing the physical properties in the sentence as being the concept of GOD. The physical properties of the Sun you are taking literal. No you ought not suggest the Sun does not exist. That is your misinterpretation. If Joe Smoe says "The Sun is a God" the atheist will not say the Sun does not exist. The atheist denies any existence of a GOD no matter what one points to or makes up. So in your example the atheist will simply remove the word GOD from whatever object you attach it to; in this way you are not denying the object associated with GOD but only the concept of GOD is being dealt with.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are missing what I have said. The concept of Atheism is a denial of whatever GOD you state. So if someone believes the Sun is a God, then the Atheist will claim the Sun is a God is false. That is, there is no Sun God in existence. You are confusing the physical properties in the sentence as being the concept of GOD. The physical properties of the Sun you are taking literal. No you ought not suggest the Sun does not exist. That is your misinterpretation. If Joe Smoe says "The Sun is a God" the atheist will not say the Sun does not exist. The atheist denies any existence of a GOD no matter what one points to or makes up. So in your example the atheist will simply remove the word GOD from whatever object you attach it to; in this way you are not denying the object associated with GOD but only the concept of GOD is being dealt with.

Which is...ya know...exactly what I said.
Ergo : I'm hardly claiming the Sun doesn't exist, I am rejecting it's godhood.

Feel free to realise we're not disagreeing here.

 

[Deidre]

Interesting perspective. I've always looked at atheism in its purest form, 'a lack of belief in gods.' (any gods) As time goes on, there are variations of it though.

 

[Logikal]

Interesting perspective. I've always looked at atheism in its purest form, 'a lack of belief in gods.' (any gods) As time goes on, there are variations of it though.

No what you are subscribing to is the ETYOMOLOGY version which is problematic. The reasons are obvious and are clearly a problem: a new born baby would fit the "lack of belief" criteria you thought was ok. Any material object would also fall in that criteria such as your shoes, pants, house, car, would all lack belief. It makes sense to have additional criteria than the vague "lack of belief" alone. At the same time it is not cool for people to just make absurd stuff up out of the blue. Let's make atheism mean a bird. While we are at it we can redefine circle, woman etc. Words have contexts and that is our gauge to understand one another. So we have to have some standards to prevent jerks from just making stuff up and have millions of people follow them. The atheist is simply denying what the theist claims. The etymology of a + theist is irrelevant.

 

[Ouroboros]

Only meat eating vegans can be both.

So the proper definition of pescatarians, ovatarians, and carnivores is really implicit avegans.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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.

You cannot be an atheist and a theist at the exact same time.
In cases where your theism dictates that the God you believe in is the only one, then they would indeed reject all other God beliefs.
But that's not being an atheist, that's being 'atheistic' or 'like an atheist'.
They are still a theist because of their one God belief, while an atheist rejects all God beliefs.

So I'll just go with the simple answer: "By definition, no."

The agnostic thing shouldn't matter here.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, "I don't claim to know this God does or doesn't exist".
Most rational theists and atheists are agnostic.
Only the fundamentalist or hard atheist types will really say they "know" God(s) do/es or don't/doesn't exist.

So, if you want to claim you're smart (unlike me), you'll say you're agnostic to all Gods while still being an atheist/theist.

 

[Jumi]

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").

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

There are quite a few things. One is what you noted above, I think that actually goes into the core of what's wrong. The terms aren't specific and that's why it's hard when people assume what your beliefs are just because you are theist or atheist. I made a thread earlier about how we are speaking past each other when discussing theism-concepts.

Another is that people draw conclusions based on minimal information. If an atheist says(for example) "I'm an agnostic regarding most gods, but atheist regarding an anthropomorphic creator god" it is assumed they are "New Atheist" including agreement on things said by Dawkins et al.

 

[psychoslice]

I love studying religion, but at the same time I don't believe in a god, well at least a personal god in the sky.

 

[Jumi]

You have shown you have no clue what the words really mean. The three terms in use are NOT compatible. That is you cannot mix and match them because you want to. The psychology folks that have people believing anything are a work again.

No need to try to be insulting. And you are wrong about common usage agnostic is commonly combined with theism and atheism.

Stop being emotional and become MORE RATIONAL.

I have used no emotion here. I wanted a discussion on something that I see as common in discussion and a usage of words I've learned on observation I wanted to abandon. The fact that you think this was an emotional thread means you've misunderstood.

Your usage NOW is laughable as if you are a little kid who doesn't really know what he is saying. I am not saying YOU ARE a little kid but sound like one by the way you think here.

I am not saying you are attempting to insult me on purpose, but it seems like it. You don't need to insult people to get your point across.

You cant have more than one be true at the same time without sounding like a young child.

I'll just leave these here and hope you consider them before trying more insults:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism