Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[Ayjaydee]

Some say he's a cowardly atheist. But there is a recognized distinction.

An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). He says "God does not exist." Although more and more atheists are beginning to say, "I don't believe god exists because of insufficient evidence," leaving room for the possibility of his existence.

An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. He says "I don't know if god exists or not."

.

What do they call someone who doesnt care?

 

[sciatica]

i thought it was
"neither a borrower nor lender be"
...
which is very good advice by the way. money is the roof of all evil knievel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do they call someone who doesnt care?

That would be an "apatheist". Seriously.

 

[Skwim]

What do they call someone who doesnt care?

Apatheist.

OOPS! I see Subduction Zone beat me to it. But it's so seldom one gets a chance to use the word I'm leaving my post stand as is.

.

.

 

[Ayjaydee]

That would be an "apatheist". Seriously.

Doesnt apathy connote some bit of laziness? Vs a realization it isn't important

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is it about you that makes you not an atheist?

What is it about you that makes you not a theist?

Basically, why I can't be either is because I cannot explain the "spiritual/mystical experiences" I have had. It felt that I could be very certain I experienced something, and not any sort of mental state I could easily dismiss, but, ultimately, it may have just been my brain being weird. That does happen. But the brain doing anything is how everything that we perceive as happening happens to our perspective. There is the question of that.
I also draw heavily from those such as Einstein and Tyson, with "shades" of Buddhism and Taoism. With this, it becomes a rather funny question, and "god" must be defined. And I must admit, I am human and see the cosmic harmony that unfolds around as probably the closest thing to "god" that we can know. Of course it's a rather limited view, but we have even more limited minds and perspectives. It could probably be said that order and chaos are the gods of the universe, governing through what we call Newtonian and Quantum laws of physics. Of course they are impersonal and faceless, but through a series of orderly and chaotic random events we are here.
Or so it seems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?
Sounds like someone that doesn't give a crap either way.

In my experience, those who insist to be neither often give the least damns, craps, and anything else about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doesnt apathy connote some bit of laziness? Vs a realization it isn't important

Nah. Apathety is uncaring and unconcerned about it, the opposite of empathy which is having feelings of concern towards another.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Nah. Apathety is uncaring and unconcerned about it, the opposite of empathy which is having feelings of concern towards another.

Well that's me. The amount wasted energy dealing with such a useless subject in this place alone would power a small town!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well that's me. The amount wasted energy dealing with such a useless subject in this place alone would power a small town!

Well, just remember, you are here among us and participating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesnt apathy connote some bit of laziness? Vs a realization it isn't important

I think it would not be wise to add unneeded context. It is a simple"I don't care".

 

[Ayjaydee]

Well, just remember, you are here among us and participating.

There are many interesting subjects to deal with here besides the existance of supernatural beings . Such as humans wasting time and energy trying to know the unknowable . The best fun is watching them squabble with each other over what none of them know! It's an excellent study of what it means to be human.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily. In many Asian countries such as Japan, the term/concept "theist" is very typically applied to Abrahamics. By their own of understandings, they would consider themselves atheist with the Western "atheist/theist" dichotomy.

Well, there you go.

However, by that same standard, we would consider them theists given the nature of their traditional beliefs (such as Shinto and Buddhism).

Would we? I'm not sure I would.

The Tao also eludes this concept of "atheist vs theist." But that is literally the way, that life and the universe just does not care to produce binary results and concepts.

IOW, the Tao is compatible with either theism or atheism? That's fine, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Even something that seems so simple as "life" and "alive" can become very grey and colorful even, and make it apparent that what we might think isn't so necessarily either is or is not. We first have to define what is, and that alone is simply nothing that can be approached with a "yes/no" question or perspective.

"I recognize that my beliefs might be mistaken" <> "I have no beliefs."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically, why I can't be either is because I cannot explain the "spiritual/mystical experiences" I have had. It felt that I could be very certain I experienced something, and not any sort of mental state I could easily dismiss, but, ultimately, it may have just been my brain being weird. That does happen. But the brain doing anything is how everything that we perceive as happening happens to our perspective. There is the question of that.

If you can't explain your spiritual experiences, then presumably you aren't explaining them with a god or gods, so how would they relate to the question of whether you're a theist or not?

I also draw heavily from those such as Einstein and Tyson, with "shades" of Buddhism and Taoism.

What are you drawing from Tyson?

I listened to an interview where he talked about his beliefs and the term "atheist." I didn't get the impression that he accepted anything theistic or supernatural as true: Episode 289 - Neil deGrasse Tyson

With this, it becomes a rather funny question, and "god" must be defined.

It only "must" be defined in order to be a theist. You don't need to have a personal definition of "god" to not believe in any gods.

If you can't conceive of "god" as a concept, then you certainly can't conceive of a god existing... or conceive that it's true that a god exists. Anyone who can't define "god" for themselves can't help but be an atheist.

And I must admit, I am human and see the cosmic harmony that unfolds around as probably the closest thing to "god" that we can know. Of course it's a rather limited view, but we have even more limited minds and perspectives.

"Close to" isn't "is." You must either think that "the cosmic harmony" either is "god" or falls short of the mark, no?

It could probably be said that order and chaos are the gods of the universe, governing through what we call Newtonian and Quantum laws of physics. Of course they are impersonal and faceless, but through a series of orderly and chaotic random events we are here.
Or so it seems.

Lots of things could be said, but you have either actually said them or you haven't.

 

[questfortruth]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

In Greek the letter a means as well "instead of". Thus A-theism translates from its original use as "anything but not theism."

 

[dfnj]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

Atheist is a very pro-theist term. A better word would be non-theist because atheist sounds like in opposition. Most atheists don't opposed theism. They just do not acknowledge its existence.

The classifications get pretty sophisticated and philosophical:

Epistemology - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

False:
"Your quedtion is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not now I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as '"pantheistic."'

The point was that he doesn't, but others try to force it upon him. He gives his reasons, he says otherwise, but people still insist he is an atheist.

I can't be accurately described as an atheist. Nor a theist, as that typically is used to describe those who believe in a personal deity.

I am not going to debate Tyson right now. But if you read the quotes of Einstein you will see that I was correct. He did not like those that claimed "there is no God". He especially did not like those that said "there is no God" and tried to use him as a source.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

" You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. "

He does not agree with those that claim "there is no God". But that is not the modern definition of atheism. Modern day atheism includes most forms of agnosticism. One can be an agnostic Christian. One can say that they believe in Jesus but are not sure that he was God. But that does not appear to be the sort of agnostic that Einstein was. At best you can claim he believes in "Spinoza's God" but that is such a vague description it is almost the same as no God at all.

 

[Heyo]

At this point it may be a semantic argument.

Of course it is. Agnosticism is the mother of all semantic arguments. The argument goes as follows:
In order for a statement to be valid it has to have meaning. "God' is a word without meaning. Therefore any sentence containing the word "god" in a way where it is semantically significant, is not a well formed statement.

Atheism is said to be a large tent. One does not have to say "there is no god", one only needs a lack of belief in a god or gods. If as an agnostic you lack that sort of belief you could claim to be an atheist too. But no one will try to force that label on you.

I accept the label (reluctantly) in the definition of "not a theist" because I'm sure not one of those. "Theists" don't exist because the definition rests on a word without meaning ("god").

 

[Heyo]

If you tell me what you mean by "opposite to deist," then I'll probably be able to tell you how to describe such a person.


Why on Earth would we consider theists and deists to be "opposites?"


But believers in what? Gods. And "theist" is the term for a believer in one or more gods.

We are talking sets here. We have the set of "believers in god" (X) which contains the sets of "believers in a personal god" (theists) and the set "believers in a non-personal god" (deists).
In your definition you have to swap "X" and "theist" as you think "theist" to be the umbrella term.
Either way we need a name for "X".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He does not agree with those that claim "there is no God". But that is not the modern definition of atheism. Modern day atheism includes most forms of agnosticism.

Einstein specifically stated "I am not an atheist." That basically means one cannot rightly claim him as one.

At best you can claim he believes in "Spinoza's God" but that is such a vague description it is almost the same as no God at all.

I'm pretty sure if it was no god at all he would have said so, other than saying he doesn't believe in a personal god and the he is not an atheist.

One can be an agnostic Christian.

Which makes absolutely no sense as to be a Christian is to have faith in Christ, that he was real, and is the promised Messiah.

One can say that they believe in Jesus but are not sure that he was God.

That has been debated for a long time. But it's not a debate about agnosticism, it's a debate over whether god is trinitarian concept of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all being god, or those who see Jesus as the son of God and definitely not god.