Nontheist

[Twilight Hue]

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and non-religious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of gods and differs from atheism, or active disbelief in any gods.

I suppose I will have to consider myself a nontheist since atheism has been defined by many as someone who disbelieves in a God.

I an neutral about the existence of any God since I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists.
Prior, imo, atheism ought to cover this since an "a" prefix usually means without. So an atheist is someone without a God such as someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a God, however since it has been defined otherwise it becomes a matter of more confusion than necessary.

I'm not neutral in terms that there is no possibility of a god whatsoever as its strictly conceptual in nature , meaning there is actually nothing to effectively point out even a possibility that would ever support such a concept in the slightest way.

 

[PureX]

Ok. Now this conversation has become useless banter.

What part weren't you able to understand?

 

[Audie]

Ok. Now this conversation has become useless banter.

" blather"

 

[ppp]

What part weren't you able to understand?

It was all crystal clear. Your prose was impeccable.

 

[osgart]

Words are being watered down here. Atheism rules out the existence of Gods and is often confused with anti theism. Non theism strikes me as someone who has no emotional nor reasonable reason to consider any theistic position. Apatheism couldn't care less if Gods existed or not.

I'm an atheist but far from anti theist about gods in general. Specific Gods have a nasty influence on society so I'm against such Gods because there is no good reason for them, and plenty of good reason to think they are unhealthy to live for.

In my religion there must be an eternal source of intelligence in nature, but the word God suggests power, authority, benevolence, or malevolence. I don't believe in any definition of God. Nature does not exhibit any God perfections, nor does it show any care for life at all. The physical world is vastly indifferent and hostile to life. For all I know life is an eternal beggar in the universe. Cosmic consciousness is more likely. However the soul is a unit of consciousness self that exists.

 

[lukethethird]

Ignosticism
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

 

[F1fan]

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and non-religious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of gods and differs from atheism, or active disbelief in any gods.

I suppose I will have to consider myself a nontheist since atheism has been defined by many as someone who disbelieves in a God.

I an neutral about the existence of any God since I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists.
Prior, imo, atheism ought to cover this since an "a" prefix usually means without. So an atheist is someone without a God such as someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a God, however since it has been defined otherwise it becomes a matter of more confusion than necessary.

I would say an atheist is someone who is without theism. To say 'without God' suggests the other category is with God, and that implies some sort of God exists.

 

[F1fan]

"Belief" has nothing to do with anything. And neither does religion.

Theism is a philosophical position based on the idea that God/gods exist in some way that matters to humanity.

Like the Crusades, witch trials, Creationism, the moral basis for American slavery, etc.

Atheism is then the antithetical to that position:

Good for atheism.

which would be that no God/gods exist in a way that matters to humanity. (I added the "matters to humanity" part because if God/gods existence has no effect on or significance to humanity, then the position AND it's antithetical are both moot.)

False. Atheists tend to approach religious claims at face value. It is another thing to consider how religions have both benefitted and harmed humans and their societies. Just as I wrote a biased list above you are biasing atheism to massage it into a darker description. Wanna be honest? Then be honest.

Non-theist is not a commonly used term because it's so unspecific that it could include nearly any "ism" or idea. It can be useful, however, in designating a position that neither accepts the theist position, nor rejects it. As in being undecided, or indifferent. However, this designates a personal position rather than a universal claim.

Many believers are confused by the "ism" in atheism, and assume it must be some sort of dogma, just like they have. Of course they don't think through their thinking very well because if atheism is a dogma, and it is wrong, then religious dogma could be wrong too. So how do you determine correct from incorrect? Reasoning and facts. That helps atheists, not theists.

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to a slightly different philosophical position based on the idea that we humans can know God's existence, and can know God/gods. This is a separate position from theism/atheism because both theism and atheism can be either gnostic or agnostic.

What any individual chooses to assume (believe) regarding these philosophical proposals and positions is infinitely variable and of no consequence to the logical validity of the positions, themselves. The word-labels don't define anyone's beliefs or 'unbeliefs'. The word-labels define the ideological propositions and counter propositions. How any specific human relates to those positions is up to them to clarify and justify as they see fit.

Well philosophy seldom has any more evidence than theisms, so just as irrelevant objectively, and only performs for the arbitrary individual.

Religions are a collection of ideals, practices, rituals, stories, images, rules, and so on that people can use to help them live according to whatever theological position they choose to hold as their truth. Theism is to religion as music is to Celtic folk songs.

And sometimes religions kill each other because they have the truer one true God.

 

[F1fan]

Ignosticism
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

As I recall @blü 2 is an advocate for this. Let's see if he offers his view.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose I will have to consider myself a nontheist since atheism has been defined by many as someone who disbelieves in a God.

I an neutral about the existence of any God since I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists.
Prior, imo, atheism ought to cover this since an "a" prefix usually means without. So an atheist is someone without a God such as someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a God, however since it has been defined otherwise it becomes a matter of more confusion than necessary.

That makes you an agnostic atheist as I use those words. Why choose definitions to comport with the theists' use of words if those definitions don't work for you? I don't. I simply tell others what I mean when I use the word atheist - no god belief here. If that causes confusion in somebody, that's somebody not ready for intelligent discussion - somebody whose judgment and ability to process information properly are seriously doubted. Anybody who insists that somebody like me isn't an atheist because I'm also agnostic doesn't have anything of value to say to me. It's a litmus test, an instant disqualifier of the speaker's ethos, like pronouncing that evolution is only a theory, or science is a religion, or using the word scientism in protest about the way a critical thinker processes evidence.

Buddhism is not an atheistic religion.

I don't use the word religion unless there is a god belief. By that reckoning, atheistic religion is an oxymoron.

Buddhists are not atheists. They simply don't look at and address the question of God. They simply focus on the higher nature of reality in a non-theistic manner

Some Buddhists are atheists. As I use the word, anybody who has no god belief is an atheist. Atheist and nontheist are synonymous. Anywhere one word can be used, either can be used.

They don't say, "I don't believe in the existence of God", the way those who self-identify as atheists do.

When asked if they have a god belief, if they have none, they will generally tell you that.

Non-theism is neutral. Atheism is not neutral. It is declarative, A-Theism = No-God. That is a negative position on the question, not a neutral one.

Nontheism and atheism are synonyms for me. They refer to the same set of people - those with no god belief. As most atheists use the word, atheism means having no god belief, not that there are no gods. That latter position is called gnostic (or strong) atheism, and most critical thinkers will tell you that it is unfalsifiable and represents a leap of faith - a logical fallacy (non sequitur). Harmless as it may be to hold that belief, there's no need to take the leap and no value in it. The gnostic atheists lives and thinks exactly like the agnostic one everywhere else.

Theism is a philosophical position based on the idea that God/gods exist in some way that matters to humanity. Atheism is then the antithetical to that position: which would be that no God/gods exist in a way that matters to humanity.

As most atheists use the word, atheism is the complement to theism. It includes both those atheists who claim that gods don't exist and those that don't make that claim. That is, the theist believes in gods, and the atheist doesn't. Thus, theism and atheism are a MECE pair - mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, meaning that everybody is one or the other, and nobody can be both or neither.

both theism and atheism can be either gnostic or agnostic.

Yet you continue to imply that agnostic atheists are intellectually corrupt, hiding from something, and playing word games.

What any individual chooses to assume (believe) regarding these philosophical proposals and positions is infinitely variable

The gods theists choose to believe in are infinitely variable. Atheists are consistent in rejecting them all.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism = number of gods believed in is zero

Non-theism = number of gods believed in is zero

Agnostic = believes that the existence of gods is unknowable

I think originally agnostic= can't know due to all descriptions not described in falsifiable terms, much the same as ignosticism.

 

[Windwalker]

In the broader sense the a in atheism means without as in without theism, it is neutral. A broader definition of atheist would include Buddhists.

In a really broader sense, squirrels and rabbits are atheists too, as well as sperm cells. But such broad senses makes the term meaningless. So too does calling Buddhists atheists.

 

[ppp]

Words are being watered down here. Atheism rules out the existence of Gods and is often confused with anti theism.

I don't believe that gods exist. I am unable to rule out the existence of gods, and more than I am unable to rule out the existence of Vulcans. I don't believe that Vulcans exist either.

In a really broader sense, squirrels and rabbits are atheists too, as well as sperm cells. But such broad senses makes the term meaningless. So too does calling Buddhists atheists.

Buddhists are agents capable of assessing conceptul propositions. Squirrels, rabbits and sperm cells are not. You are pulling in random examples of the later as to somehow make a point about the former.

 

[lukethethird]

In a really broader sense, squirrels and rabbits are atheists too, as well as sperm cells. But such broad senses makes the term meaningless. So too does calling Buddhists atheists.

You can define atheism in its narrowest of terms to suit yourself but most thinking people that self-identify as atheists live in the scientific age and don't speak in terms of what they "believe in" or "don't believe in," that is the language of believers such as yourself. So no, thinking people don't state that they "don't believe in" the existence of Gods as you stated. Atheists merely don't believe by not sharing in the belief that gods exist, which is a neutral stance, and yes, a thinking Buddhist can identify as an atheist.

 

[osgart]

I don't believe that gods exist. I am unable to rule out the existence of gods, and more than I am unable to rule out the existence of Vulcans. I don't believe that Vulcans exist either.

Buddhists are agents capable of assessing conceptul propositions. Squirrels, rabbits and sperm cells are not. You are pulling in random examples of the later as to somehow make a point about the former.

If you can't rule all that out doesn't that make you agnostic.

 

[Windwalker]

As most atheists use the word, atheism means having no god belief, not that there are no gods. That latter position is called gnostic (or strong) atheism, and most critical thinkers will tell you that it is unfalsifiable and represents a leap of faith - a logical fallacy (non sequitur).

......

The gods theists choose to believe in are infinitely variable. Atheists are consistent in rejecting them all.

In rejecting them all, that is in fact strong atheism. It's not agnosticism. It's an outright rejection. So all this soft-pedaling stuff is rejected. Agnostics don't reject God. How you can reject something that you claim is unknowable if it is true or not?

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.​

Your last statement is what I see as consistently true. Calling that agnostic atheism is not valid.

 

[Windwalker]

You can define atheism in its narrowest of terms to suit yourself but most thinking people that self-identify as atheists live in the scientific age and don't speak in terms of what they "believe in" or "don't believe in," that is the language of believers such as yourself.

I self-identified as an atheist for quite a long time in my post-fundamentalist Christian life. I was really clear in what I meant in calling myself an atheist, as a critical thinker, Bible-debunking, rationalist. I meant I did not believe that God existed. Or put another I way, I believed that the God the fundamentalist Christians believed in wasn't real. I still don't. That is an very active belief. And dollars to donuts, so is yours. Your posts say that all the time.

And your implying I'm not a "thinking person", is just your typical rubbish in lieu of substance coming out of you. You can't help yourself can you? I suppose not.

So no, thinking people don't state that they "don't believe in" the existence of Gods as you stated.

Those in denial think people like me are not thinking people and don't know what the hell we are talking about. But suit yourself if you wish to tell yourself I'm not bright, if it helps you fall asleep better knowing you're found the real truth now. (Once a true believer, always a true believer).

Atheists merely don't believe by not sharing in the belief that gods exist, which is a neutral stance, and yes, a thinking Buddhist can identify as an atheist.

Some Buddhists may see themselves as atheists. And some Buddhist do see themselves as theists. Just like you can also have Christian atheists (believe it or not, they do exist. I know some personally).

My point is Buddhism is "non-theist" because they don't include God as the focal point of their religion. They are not "rejecting" God in so doing. It is just omitting God is all. It is neutral. Atheism is not neutral.

I say that as a former champion, and current supporter of rational atheism, and not this anti-theism stuff that is popular these days as "neo-atheism. Anti-theism is anything but neutral, nor is it very rational.

 

[ppp]

I don't believe that gods exist. I am unable to rule out the existence of gods, and more than I am unable to rule out the existence of Vulcans. I don't believe that Vulcans exist either.

If you can't rule all that out doesn't that make you agnostic.

Did you ignore the first sentence? How is a person who does not believe that gods exist not an atheist?

 

[lukethethird]

I self-identified as an atheist for quite a long time in my post-fundamentalist Christian life. I was really clear in what I meant in calling myself an atheist, as a critical thinker, Bible-debunking, rationalist. I meant I did not believe that God existed. Or put another I way, I believed that the God the fundamentalist Christians believed in wasn't real. I still don't. That is an very active belief. And dollars to donuts, so is yours. Your posts say that all the time.

And your implying I'm not a "thinking person", is just your typical rubbish in lieu of substance coming out of you. You can't help yourself can you? I suppose not.

Those in denial think people like me are not thinking people and don't know what the hell we are talking about. But suit yourself if you wish to tell yourself I'm not bright, if it helps you fall asleep better knowing you're found the real truth now. (Once a true believer, always a true believer).

Some Buddhists may see themselves as atheists. And some Buddhist do see themselves as theists. Just like you can also have Christian atheists (believe it or not, they do exist. I know some personally).

My point is Buddhism is "non-theist" because they don't include God as the focal point of their religion. They are not "rejecting" God in so doing. It is just omitting God is all. It is neutral. Atheism is not neutral.

I say that as a former champion, and current supporter of rational atheism, and not this anti-theism stuff that is popular these days as "neo-atheism. Anti-theism is anything but neutral, nor is it very rational.

Atheists don't reject god, I don't even know what makes me an atheist half the time because I have no idea what your idea of god is vs someone elses, I don't define god, it is not my problem, it is just safe to say that I don't share in your beliefs regarding gods nor atheism.

 

[blü 2]

As I recall @blü 2 is an advocate for this. Let's see if he offers his view.

You called?

I'd say the simple traditional view was a linear scale with ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING at one end and ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY IN A REAL GOD at the other. The midpoint has traditionally been called AGNOSTIC (from the Greek, 'no knowledge') meaning DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY (whether by personal or by philosophical doubt).

Ignosticism / igtheism is the perceived impossibility of placing oneself anywhere on the scale at all, because (much as you said) the question is meaningless, 'god' having no definition appropriate to a real entity. (Here 'real ' means 'having objective existence', 'existing in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses' and the alternative to 'real' is 'imaginary / purely conceptual'.)

All these terms are capable of acquiring all kinds of nuances and further contexts, so I simply sketch this as an outline of my own view.