And I'd argue that this thread suggests otherwise, even given the observation that "could potentially be simpler" is a fairly low hurdle to clear.
-
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!
"Non-theism" - my current identification label, and how I use it, and how it may be both alike and different from some people who identify as atheist
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I've seen a few different forms of it.
I've actually seen agnosticism described on this forum as "between atheism and theism", but that's not exactly what some agnostics have told me.
Basically, I see agnosticism as standing apart from both theism and atheism, not even getting into a real debate of the two, but still critiquing both, and doing it in such a way where you think it's most logical (possibly because you see the claims and stances of both as being unfalsifiable to some extent), and rather than truly being the most logical about it, appealing to your own authority and credibility to form an opinion of atheists and theists.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
And I'd argue that this thread suggests otherwise, even given the observation that "could potentially be simpler" is a fairly low hurdle to clear.
If my thread suggests otherwise, then I guess it could still be a learning experience - for the both of us. ie, people may side against non-theism as a label because of my posts, but I'm not going to fault them for further making up their mind on a subject.
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."
"Oh!" said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
"Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night," Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: "for to get their wages, you know."
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)
I doubt that either of our posts have such sway.
Speaking of learning experience, I have a couple of additional questions:
- Does non-theism, imply non-deism, non-pantheism, non-panentheism, and non-animism as well?
- Do you see a substantive difference between non-theism and ontological naturalism?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I'd say no.
However, deism is a really complicated question. I'm iffy that non-theism could imply deism. Because in some ways, I think deism actually materializes God.
The deism question, I feel, could actually make a whole thread all on its own, but it might not end up a particularly conclusive thread due to everyone's different definitions and perceptions.
It depends.
If a non-theist is particularly learned, they might be more prone at believing in the way of ontological naturalism.
But I actually don't think that non-theism implies it, either.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
I'm a devout non-theist.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
@Jayhawker Soule - I'm going to expand more on this by saying -
I think the definition of deism frames God as being something far off. I think it implies that God is fairly small, as well.
Because if God is everywhere, or even close, I feel that he's still an active observer, despite doing nothing. At which point, I'd argue whether that's actually deism - can someone be in the room, and do nothing, but it still be said that they have no intervention?
If it were a human, I'd say that they were still intervening - just not meddling.
I think we'd have to define "intervene" and talk about the possibilities that come with it. In the case of a person, I'd debate that a person can intervene in events while doing nothing.
I'm finding this thread far to complex to follow. Perhaps we should pivot to a simpler topic.
What's your view of non-veganism?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I think it's interesting, but when it comes to diet and what's best, I think there needs to be more research. I've watched shows on Netflix about diet. Some of the shows seem to contradict, at least when it comes to some claims.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
True. This is a subject I'm thinking more about as we speak.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I wanted to apologize for that - in general and to everyone.
With the things I talked about, it's probably too much for one thread. It's often easier to make one single paragraph with substance for an OP, and debate that. A paragraph is often enough to find people who agree and disagree.
The deism subject - that's a whole other topic, too.
Personally, I tend to vacillate between veganism and non-veganism pretty regularly...lol
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
After much reflection and discussion, I've come to a point where I feel it's appropriate to step back and concede this debate, while keeping an open ear to additional input. I initially chose to identify as a non-theist in an effort to sidestep the often heavy connotations I saw associated with the term atheist. However, I've realized that the term non-theist carries its own unique set of implications and baggage.
Ideally, I would prefer to express my stance of non-theism in a single, succinct sentence that encapsulates all of my points without the need for elaborate explanations or a lengthy paragraph. Since I could not do it, I see it as potentially another sign of the baggage that can come with the term "non-theist".
I will still use the term "non-theist" for myself, but no longer treat it as not having baggage.
I see now what you mean.
Ideally, I would prefer to express my stance of non-theism in a single, succinct sentence that encapsulates all of my points without the need for elaborate explanations or a lengthy paragraph. Since I could not do it, I see it as potentially another sign of the baggage that can come with the term "non-theist".
I will still use the term "non-theist" for myself, but no longer treat it as not having baggage.
I think you've subconsciously recognised this in your desire to avoid labels like atheist or agnostic, you've just made the all too common error of assuming the problem can be resolved with just another label (ironically, a major part of the history of religion). I'd suggest you're half way to a (non-theistic) revelation.
I see now what you mean.
All labels have baggage. The one with the baggage that is fairest and best represents you is PoetPhilosopher.