The usual and standard for every person is obviously not being a theist until one decides to become one.
-
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!
"Lack of belief"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
The usual and standard what?
"Something" is "not being a theist" of course. Not being a theist is the usual and standard as everybody are not theists before they decide to become one not the other way around. Nobody start off as theists and have to decide to stop being a theist.
Last edited:
I agree however a lot of times theists like to say that god makes it obvious too everyone, written in our hearts and such. If theism is real then default may not be atheism.
How would that work? Would a god have written our dna in such a way that it produces a brain that believes in the existence of gods?
As one who is theist and makes (continual) claims of humans are gods, I think I can explain how it works.
Though not sure if I can do it concisely, but will try as I'm not up writing wall of text post in this moment.
In Reality, there is no separation in God's Kingdom. From the intellectual perspective, it may be helpful to understand distinctions, but not helpful (and actually a huge hindrance) if elevating distinctions to a level of separation. Therefore creation (i.e. humans) are an extension of God. (I'd stipulate that a bit, for sake of distinctions and I think greater understanding, but again not up to that right now.) Everything that is actually existing about us, is God. The rest is illusion and is actually not existing. (Would possibly take a huge wall of text to explain that point, but instead I choose to move on.) The illusionary self rests fundamentally on a threat to its own existence. And is, in essence, fear based. All doubts, concerns, fears, and questions of existence come from this illusionary self. All knowledge, trust, certainty and most important Love regarding all that exists comes from God, Divinity, Reason, Light.
So, sound bite form of all this is: our existence is God.
Questions, inquiries, seeds of doubt about our existence (as God) are unreal.
But sure as heck appear to be real. Just as an entire universe where God is nowhere to be found appears 'most real.'
It is not.
Instead it is a mistaken projection (illusion) that is a world view of Creation 'taking the place' of the Reality that is, and always has been, around, within God, or God's Creation.
I do wish to be clear that wall of text explanation is not something I'm usually shy about presenting or getting into. I feel capable of doing that (intellectual) justice and arguably better at it if dialogue is occurring.
Also wish to be clear that the threat to the illusionary self's existence comes not from God. Not even a little bit. It comes from its own self, which as backwards as that is, is the fundamental nature of seeing a world without God, as if that could be 'reality.'
I actually made a thread once trying to define theism as the "lack of belief that gods don't exist".
I think it rather demonstrates the point that lack of beliefers have just as much in common with theists as they do (strong) atheists.
Unfortunately, the theists wouldn't bite.
I suppose it could make its presence known, being everywhere and all, similar to the feeling of being watched. Thats the thing, if I believe I am being watched, then that "feeling" is only real if there is an actual entity doing the watching. Could be that we dismiss intuitive feelings in order to unlearn theism.
Falv's totally awesome god definition:
god(s): n A supernatural entity with mastery over some aspect of nature or human interests.
Note: In whichever belief-system in which you are working, gods will be the highest level of being.
god-concepts:
1: The absolute creator and ruler of the universe. There can be only one. (Monotheism/Deism)
2. One of many superbeings with control over a specific aspect of nature. (Polytheism/pantheons)
3. The universe and everything in it is God. (Pantheism.) And it is conscious. (Panentheism)
Note: I do not consider the universe to be god, unless it also has a consciousness.
Augustus
…
Fair point.
Lots of 'lack of beliefers' claim not to hold an opinion on the existence of gods, yet insist that babies don't believe in god. If an omnipotent god exists then they babies could indeed be 'hard coded' to believe from birth.
Only someone who is certain god doesn't exist could make such an assumption logically though. Some even claim not to understand what a god is, yet also assert that babies definitely don't believe in whatever it is.
Yet another reason it is a bit silly to think of babies as holding a philosophical position on anything.
Nah.....lack of belief is much more akin to strong atheism because of the practical side, ie, no religion guides us.
Wouldn't (something akin to) consciousness fit this definition? Has mastery over aspects of nature and/or human interests.
The supernatural part is debatable, but leads to the question of what would be a viable example of phenomenon existing in the universe that is supernatural? Like, once we find that in the universe, aren't we going to do everything in our power to explain how it got into our universe and is therefore natural to our universe (so not supernatural)?
I'm not joking when I say science itself is plausibly supernatural.
If we are in the universe, and we have consciousness (including awareness that there is a universe), doesn't this necessary mean that the universe has some degree of consciousness?
If we discovered a nano-particle that had consciousness, but turned out only 1 teeny tiny portion of that particle had it, would we then conclude that the entire particle is without consciousness, or stick to the assertion that that one of the properties of the nanoparticle is that it has demonstrative consciousness?
All rhetorical questions as I think the answers are self evident.
(So does the universe)
As a matter of fact yes. We are the best evidence we have for consciousness existing in the universe.
Why say "yet"? There's no contradiction there...
They could also be 'hard coded' to believe from birth if believing some god exists gives an evolutionary survival advantage. That the god actually exists is not required. When would a growing brain get to the point where it would be able to have a belief?
Of course it would be silly to think of babies as holding a philosophical position on anything. Who would think such a thing?
Not being a theist is not something, it's something negated.
Assuming there are no entities with consciousness elsewhere in the universe if all organisms on Earth with consciousness died out there would be no consciousness left in the universe.
Augustus
…
That's not really relevant.
The point is that if a god exists then babies might be theists from birth. The only way to state that they are not is if you deny that such a god exists.
It is incompatible with a belief that god might exist/a refusal to be drawn on god's existence.
If you refuse to say 'god doesn't exist' then you can't say babies definitely aren't theists.
They might also be theists from birth if a god doesn't exist.
Do babies have a brain capable of having a belief and if so at which stage in the development of the brain does it gain such a capability?