Neither a theist nor an atheist.

[Learner]

Perhaps not so far off to no-one-particular I am not religious myself (by any faith) nor do I completely discount Creation as would an Atheist. Although fair to say ... I am an Agnostic of sorts.

 

[Kharakov]

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but that still makes you an atheist. If you don't believe (including saying you don't know, or some variation thereof) in god then you're an atheist. It's a binary position; you either do, or do not. Saying "I don't know" is an added qualifier, but doesn't represent some third option: it's functionally the same as saying you don't believe.

Someone can believe sometimes, and not believe at other times, and not define themselves as either "atheist" or "theist". I've had many experiences that point towards something, although at times I tend to think it may be a plot to make me into a willing slave (so I have to avoid working).

 

[Keith&Co.]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

Then perhaps you should define and describe this middle path, rather than offer a list of things you think you're not.

No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.

When my kid was little, he decided that he was white.
Didn't change any of the facts of the matter, or the way the State of Florida chose to classify him, or what the state's definition of 'black' was.
Deciding or stating that you're neither doesn't change what either word means.

Sometimes the answer to a question is that it's the wrong question to ask.

Then what's the right question to ask?

Whats north of the North Pole?

Polaris.

A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no but a rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do n-----s exist" with a yes or no.

A rational person would know what the word means and could identify rather easily whether or not therre are people in the room to which the word can be expected to apply.
Whether or not it's an appropriate word is a different question.
But if you come to my house and pretend you don't know what the word means, you're going to look like an idiot.

The difference between a black person and a n----- is that we see the latter as being all bad

Unless we're slapping palms and saying 'W'as'up, nigger.' Not everyone who disagrees with you is not rational.

The difference between poo and s--- is that we see the latter as being all bad. Good for nothing. Fit only for damnation.

Noooooo..... we used to spread shit on the fields, back on the farm.
Not everyone hews to your personal definitions.

In reality nothing is all good or all bad. Even God would have a shadow, though many people, consciously or unconsciously, think otherwise.

I honestly don't comprehend how this has anything at all to do with whether or not you believe that there are things in the universe to which the term nigger God might apply.

The concept of God, like the concept of n----, is such that its impossible to answer the question "does God exist" with a simple yes or no.

Um...no, it's not.
A thing might have good and bad elements, but the terms 'good' and 'bad' both have a meaning which can be defined, and used, because if it didn't we wouldn't have a language. The word 'god' is not entirely good or entirely bad, so those qualities don't have anything to do with whether or not gods exist.

Now, as an atheist, i don't believe the monotheistic tri-omni god my parents offered exists. But i also don't believe Corn Woman exists. And i don't believe Thor exists (shut up, Tom Sawyer). Nor Ananzi, or Jesus, or Ptah, or Odin, or Apollo, or Venus, or Gozer, or Amateratsu, Set, Apophis, Howard, or Inana. There's a wide range of gods that have been described to me that fail to seem, to me, to be real.
Although, if a guy with a proton-accelerator on his back wants to claim he is a god, i'll accept that.

 

[none]

what if I forgot what I believed and still don't believe that I actually thought I believed the things that I must have believed?

 

[no-one-particular]

There is no republicans vs democrats. There is no communists vs capitalists. There is no atheists vs theists. There is only rich vs poor.
Atheism and theism is just another way the rich have of scamming the poor.

 

[dystopian]

Perhaps not so far off to no-one-particular I am not religious myself (by any faith) nor do I completely discount Creation as would an Atheist. Although fair to say ... I am an Agnostic of sorts.

And here we have another one who doesn't understand the meaning of the word atheism (or agnosticism for that matter).

Atheist do not discount the possibility of Creation with a capital t. We don't discount the possibility that there is some god; we just don't *believe* there is. A lack of belief in the existence of something is NOT the same as an active belief in its non-existence. So if you, like us, don't believe in a god, but keep open the possibility that some kind of god MAY exist, then congratulations... you're an atheist.

Agnostics are NOT the middle road between theism and atheism. An agnostic believes that it is absolutely *impossible* to know one way or the other whether god exists or not. However, an agnostic is still either an atheist or a theist; they still either believe or do not believe, they just tack on the added qualifier that they think it's impossible to *know with certainty*.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone can believe sometimes, and not believe at other times, and not define themselves as either "atheist" or "theist".

I could choose not to define myself as a human being, but that doesn't change the fact that I am.

I've had many experiences that point towards something, although at times I tend to think it may be a plot to make me into a willing slave (so I have to avoid working).

Like I said in my post above; that doesn't mean you're not either a theist or an atheist. It also doesn't matter if you only 'sometimes' believe or not believe. You're an atheist in those moments you don't believe, and a theist in the moments that you do. There's no ambiguity there.

 

[dystopian]

Atheism and theism is just another way the rich have of scamming the poor.

What? Are you for real? How the fuck is atheism/theism 'just another way' for the rich to scam the poor? Just because you live in a country dominated by christian politics who may from time to time use religious language to rile up their base, doesn't mean the rest of us do; the atheism/theism divide is politically irrelevant in most of Europe, for instance; and has no class aspect whatsoever.

Atheism/Theism is not a class divide, it's a philosophical divide.

 

[Kharakov]

Like I said in my post above; that doesn't mean you're not either a theist or an atheist. It also doesn't matter if you only 'sometimes' believe or not believe. You're an atheist in those moments you don't believe, and a theist in the moments that you do. There's no ambiguity there.

Nope. Those labels are too strong, and they don't really define who a person is as a whole. You say a person is being atheistic when they focus on thoughts of non-belief. This does not define the person as an atheist. You can describe a person as being theistic, when they focus on belief in God. This does not define the person as a theist.

And truthfully, someone who knows God is an atheist, because they don't have belief in God, they simply know God, like they know 1+1=2. So you have that dichotomy too. It's not like God is incapable of sneaking up on a theist or an atheist...

 

[dystopian]

Nope. Those labels are too strong,

No, they're not. Just because in some underdeveloped areas, some idiots with a bible might get upset when they hear someone refer to themselves as an atheist, doesn't mean 'atheist' (or theist) is too strong a label. "Blistering fucktard with a capacity for self delusion" is a label that's too strong; "someone who believes in god" is a weak label.

and they don't really define who a person is as a whole.

So the hell what? I label myself as a human being, but that doesn't define me as a person. In fact, it is flat-out *impossible* to find a label that can define a person as a whole. Who cares? Just because a label doesn't define who you are as a whole doesn't mean that label doesn't apply to parts of you.

You say a person is being atheistic when they focus on thoughts of non-belief.

I say nothing of the sort. Where did I use the word focus? I don't give a shit if they focus on any thoughts whatsoever; whether they do or not is *irrelevant*. What I said, is that a person is an atheist when they LACK a belief in god. Nothing more, nothing less. You want to know why I said that? Because that's the fucking definition of the word 'atheist'.

This does not define the person as an atheist. You can describe a person as being theistic, when they focus on belief in God. This does not define the person as a theist.

Yes, in fact, it *does* define people as either theists or atheists. Again, because that's what the fucking words MEAN.

Theism; belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheism; disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

And truthfully, someone who knows God is an atheist, because they don't have belief in God, they simply know God, like they know 1+1=2. So you have that dichotomy too.

No, we don't.

Don't think you're being clever by claiming that since atheism is the lack of *belief*; that therefore someone who 'knows' god must be an atheist. That's a fancy bit of wordplay that doesn't actually work the way you think it does. First of all, nobody "knows" god; they may *BELIEVE* that they know god, but unless they have his cellphone number I'm pretty sure we can say they're full of shit. Secondly, just because I know some things to be true, doesn't mean I then therefore lack a belief in them since I don't need to believe anymore. I *know* that there's a toilet in my apartment; are you seriously suggesting that I therefore don't believe there's a toilet in my apartment? Assuming one 'knows' god to exist, then knowing and believing become interchangeable words; meaning that one is still either a theist or an atheist.

It's not like God is incapable of sneaking up on a theist or an atheist...

Non-existent things are generally incapable of sneaking up on anyone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no republicans vs democrats.

As the two groups continue to polarize, it becomes harder and harder to credit this sort of idiocy.

There is no communists vs capitalists. There is no atheists vs theists. There is only rich vs poor.
Atheism and theism is just another way the rich have of scamming the poor.

No, dystopian, he's not for real.
he's certainly not attempting to engage any of the people in his thread.
I think he just wants attention.

Like a kid using swear words he doesn't comprehend, just to see the looks on the faces of the people in the pews.

Anyone can play this.
There is not rich vs. poor. Poverty is not the absence of money. People on welfare can still buy trashy clothes and big screen TV's, they're just not contributing to Social Security. The false dichotomy of rich vs. poor is just a moral stance, people telling 'the poor' how they should be spending their money.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You could be a piece of gravel in my driveway. The gravel is neither atheist or theist (although I'm sure that will be disputed here.) Other things you could be, in no particular order: butterscotch pudding...manual of Oklahoma drivers' laws...Demi Moore's gardening gloves...

 

[abaddon]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

No I'm not agnostic either.

Sometimes the answer to the question is that it's the wrong question to be asking.

Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

For myself, I'm an igtheist. I can be atheist or theist depending on the definition of god. I'm atheist to most known definitions, and agnostic about all unknown definitions. It's untrue to believe a person must be either atheist or theist, unless you have just one particular (and defined) god in mind.

I'm not a christocentric person. The word 'god' does not automatically conjure Jehovah in my mind, and the word 'religion' does not automatically conjure literalist evangelicals or Catholics to my mind. Generally I think of "trying to find one extremely encompassing label for a complex of 'sacred' things" when I read the word "god", and I think of "trying to live in recognition of the sacred" when the word religion pops up. Except when I'm around either evangelicals or atheists… Then I must remind myself that they probably have Christianity stuck on their brains, and so I have to put some added effort into imagining their christocentric viewpoint in order to understand what they mean with how they use their words. Because words are context-sensitive. It's untrue to say "the word just means what it means". It has the meaning that its context gives to it.

 

[dystopian]

For myself, I'm an igtheist. I can be atheist or theist depending on the definition of god. I'm atheist to most known definitions, and agnostic about all unknown definitions. It's untrue to believe a person must be either atheist or theist, unless you have just one particular (and defined) god in mind.

This is incorrect. You must still either be an atheist or a theist when it comes to the ill-defined gods you are also agnostic about. Being an agnostic about those gods simply means you think it impossible to *know* whether or not they actually exist; a position which does not exclude either atheism or theism: you still either believe that the god exists or you don't (I'm going to guess you don't), you've just added the caveat that you can't *know* whether your belief or lack of belief is correct or not, but since that is not a requirement of either theism or atheism, it doesn't matter.

 

[Kharakov]

What I said, is that a person is an atheist when they LACK a belief in god. Nothing more, nothing less. You want to know why I said that? Because that's the fucking definition of the word 'atheist'.

Not if you look it up on the Merriam Webster website, as you well know (well, any atheist worth their salt should know the definitions that support the common modern usage of the word, rather than what atheists want the word to mean). It's a person who believes that there is no deity, or a person who believes that God does not exist.

Now, this is more along the lines of an antitheist than an atheist. But lacking belief being equated with belief against something... now that is totally biblical "those who are not for me, are against me." So you're basically fitting right in with the biblical definitions... you bibliophobic bible lover.... hahaha...

Again, because that's what the fucking words MEAN.

Theism; belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheism; disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

For someone who cares about what words mean, you really don't seem to understand how they are used, and what they really mean. I have a disbelief in your understanding of what certain words mean, such as "disbelief".

disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true


Not that I don't think about things from an atheistic perspective at some times, and a theistic perspective at others. It's just I don't say "I'm an atheist" when I'm looking at things from an atheistic perspective, unless I'm being very immature and childish, stomping my feet pretending God doesn't exist.

 

[dystopian]

Not if you look it up on the Merriam Webster website, as you well know (well, any atheist worth their salt should know the definitions that support the common modern usage of the word, rather than what atheists want the word to mean). It's a person who believes that there is no deity, or a person who believes that God does not exist.

Nonsense. The common usage of a word is often irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word. It is a *doctor* that gets to define medical terms, not a layperson. Similarly, it is an atheist who gets to define atheism; not 'society'. Incidentally, the merriam webster website does in fact use my definition. Not yours.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Please note that disbelief in the existence of a deity is the PRIMARY definition. Note also that the secondary definition, namely the doctrine that there is no deity, is in fact consistent with what us atheists call *strong* atheism. Please note also that the existence of a secondary definition for a word does NOT add to or replace the other listed definition. Merriam Webster's two definitions of atheism are consistent with the strong/weak atheism divide.

Way to shoot your argument in the foot by appealing to the dictionary, dude.

Now, this is more along the lines of an antitheist than an atheist. But lacking belief being equated with belief against something... now that is totally biblical "those who are not for me, are against me." So you're basically fitting right in with the biblical definitions... you bibliophobic bible lover.... hahaha...

Yes, hilarious.

disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true

Which is all well and good, but the refusal to believe something is NOT the same thing as explicitly believing that thing to be false. These are two different things which you would know if you had actually mastered the english language. Incidentally, the definition for disbelief you've come up with is NOT what the merriam webster dictionary you so value gives as the definition of disbelief:

dis·be·lief
noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\

1: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

2: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

It's just I don't say "I'm an atheist" when I'm looking at things from an atheistic perspective, unless I'm being very immature and childish, stomping my feet pretending God doesn't exist.

The fact that you equate the phrase "I'm an atheist" with being immature and childish speaks volumes about your maturity, me thinks.

 

[jonJ]

There is no republicans vs democrats. There is no communists vs capitalists. There is no atheists vs theists. There is only rich vs poor.
Atheism and theism is just another way the rich have of scamming the poor.

I must have missed the memo on that one. Can you please send me out my scamming-the-poor kit (atheist version) as soon as possible? Thanks.

 

[Kharakov]

Nonsense. The common usage of a word is often irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word. It is a *doctor* that gets to define medical terms, not a layperson. Similarly, it is an atheist who gets to define atheism; not 'society'. Incidentally, the merriam webster website does in fact use my definition. Not yours.

Yeah dumb dumb. Sure it does. Look up atheist, not atheism:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

In addition, usage of words is defined by those who use the words. If the majority of society uses the term atheist to mean "someone who believes that God does not exist", that is, for all intents and purposes, the definition of the word.

Of course, if you want to use the slang definition that cool cat atheists use, go ahead. Just understand that I don't actually mean "cat" when I say "cool cat atheists". And cool could mean frigid or other terms, you know, because it's slang.

Incidentally, the definition for disbelief you've come up with is NOT what the merriam webster dictionary you so value gives as the definition of disbelief:

You're right. It isn't from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

 

[untermensche]

Really the question is not about some imaginary being.

The question is about what we all can experience.

The question is: How did the universe get here?

And for some the answer is; Some sentient being or beings created it. This makes you a theist.

And for some the answer is: No sentient beings were involved. This makes you an atheist.

And for some the answer is; I don't know. This makes you an agnostic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really the question is not about some imaginary being.

The question is about what we all can experience.

The question is: How did the universe get here?

And for some the answer is; Some sentient being or beings created it. This makes you a theist.

And for some the answer is: No sentient beings were involved. This makes you an atheist.

And for some the answer is; I don't know. This makes you an agnostic.

But not all of the gods are creator gods.
To me, the question of what happens when we die is far more important than where the universe came from. This would be true whether it was created by god(s), or merely found as god(s) was passing by. Are we judged? Is there anything we can do to improve the judge(s)' reaction? Is there a dependable rubric available to us, and can we identify it among all the man-made dross?

 

[untermensche]

But not all of the gods are creator gods.
To me, the question of what happens when we die is far more important than where the universe came from. This would be true whether it was created by god(s), or merely found as god(s) was passing by. Are we judged? Is there anything we can do to improve the judge(s)' reaction? Is there a dependable rubric available to us, and can we identify it among all the man-made dross?

The creator god is the last refuge of the gods. We have better reasons to explain the winds and the weather than on some invisible gods.

We have science, and the myths of creator gods both agreeing that the universe has a start.

So the question is forced upon us.

How did the universe begin?

Answer 1: Some invisible sentient being.

Answer 2: No beings involved. The Big Bang isn't even a beginning.

Answer 3: Who knows?