Question for the Atheist

[_EAllusion]

I think Deists and Pantheists are Atheists.

That's strange.

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's strange.

Maybe, but it's how I think. I think atheism has become conflated with naturalism, rather than not being theism. Deists like Voltaire and Pantheists like Spinoza were pretty regarded as atheists of their time.

[_EAllusion]

That's strange.

Maybe, but it's how I think. I think atheism has become conflated with naturalism, rather than not being theism. Deists like Voltaire and Pantheists like Spinoza were pretty regarded as atheists of their time.

I don't think atheism equates to naturalism. I'm skeptical of there being a good, coherent definition of naturalism in the first place. I just think atheism is a statement about not believing in gods. I find your use strange because it's off the path of how the term is generally used.

[_Tarski]

Tarksi, Stak -

You defined atheist as "not theist." But not everyone who is "not theist" is an atheist. Deists, for example.

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists" -wiki

I agree with this.

Only a narrow but common use of the word theism excludes deism.

If you think there is any kind of God, then you are a theist in the broad sense.


I disagree with Stak; deism is a kind of God-belief. In practice it may be similar to atheism of course but it is still a kind of theism (broad sense).

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't think atheism equates to naturalism.

It doesn't, but I think the two get conflated with one another.

I just think atheism is a statement about not believing in gods.

I think that is more or less correct, but Theism as it has been used for some time in the West is a monotheistic personal creator, which Deism, Pantheism, and Eastern Sacred Philosophies explicitly reject. I think Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

I find your use strange because it's off the path of how the term is generally used.

I'm sure it is.

[_Some Schmo]

You've accurately described my model. It's my experience that most theists WON'T admit that they don't know even though it is clear they don't when you engage them. It's not my problem if they don't understand the terms correctly. I tell them when given the opportunity.

An agnostic theist is one who doesn't know if God exists but believes one does.

Yes, I've been thinking this way for a while now. In a way, "agnostic" has lost some meaning for me, because quite frankly, everyone's agnostic in the sense that they don't really know if there's a god or not (although I suppose they aren't agnostic in the truest sense if they refuse to admit the question is unknowable).

I have a friend at work who questioned me on calling myself an agnostic atheist in a speech I gave. He declared that I couldn't be both, and so I had to educate him on what agnostic really means (because it is so widely misused and misunderstood). I even went as far to tell him that if he's honest with himself, he should also admit he is agnostic. He couldn't do it. When I pressed him on his knowledge of god, it was clear he wanted to equivocate knowledge of the mundane with knowledge of the divine. In other words, people of this type tend to think of faith as a kind of knowledge (which, of course, sullies the word "knowledge" in the same way that a Whopper or a Big Mac sullies the word "food").

I've mentioned this before:

theist = agnostic with faith
atheist = agnostic without faith

[_Ceeboo]

Hey ya SS,

I've mentioned this before:

theist = agnostic with faith
atheist = agnostic without faith

Hmmmmm?
Maybe?

Thanks for the contribution.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_JAK]

The discussion demonstrates well that individuals who use the term “atheist,” do so in a particular context and with individual perceptions of what they mean by the term.

Rick Perry said in a recent Republican debate: “Everyone knows what faith is.” I doubt it. The term is relative to the context of use. Individuals pray generally with intent to manipulate whatever they regard as God for their own benefit. “Faith” is relative not absolute.

For example, many pray for “healing” then go to the doctor or hospital for medical science to provide “healing.” If they had “faith,” what is the need for doctors or hospitals? Hence, “faith” is relative.

Someone here characterized himself as a “soft atheist.” Hence, atheist gets a modifier taking it out of the category of an absolute. “Soft” is relative. “I believe in God, but sometimes I’m not sure” – has been said.

Ceeboo: I would agree that in reality, EVERYONE is actually agnostic in that they don't know whether god(s) exist.

Belief contrary to evidence is the stuff for theists. There are those theists who refuse modern medicine and rely exclusively on prayer and faith. While their number is minimal, such theists exist. They operate in a fact-free world. Medical science is rejected in favor of faith & prayer alone. But, while theists, they are not the same kind of theists as those who belong to the United Methodist Church and whose church runs hospitals and employs modern medical science. Roman Catholics and Lutherans and other Christian denominations build hospitals. Why? Christian Scientists (who aren’t in the least scientific) don’t build hospitals and don’t employ modern medical science. They are believers in miracles but don’t view a miracle as a Methodist does. Hence “miracle(s)” is likewise relative to other countervailing views.

Christian Scientists on Healing

JAK

[_Hoops]

Individuals pray generally with intent to manipulate whatever they regard as God for their own benefit.

Not always. And, I've found, not even generally. In my own experience, rarely.

“Faith” is relative not absolute.

Relative to what?

For example, many pray for “healing” then go to the doctor or hospital for medical science to provide “healing.”

You bet! Isn't the Christian admonition to explore God's Creation wonderful?

If they had “faith,” what is the need for doctors or hospitals? Hence, “faith” is relative.

You have no idea what faith is. Going to the doctor is an excellent demonstration of faith. Faith in our fellow human, created by God, faith that God's universe is predictable, the medicine we take, and so on.

Belief contrary to evidence

You mean belief in the evidence you allow one to consider.

There are those theists who refuse modern medicine and rely exclusively on prayer and faith. While their number is minimal, such theists exist.

They do indeed. And virtually every MC I've known would council otherwise.

Roman Catholics and Lutherans and other Christian denominations build hospitals. Why?

Because religion is evil?

Christian Scientists (who aren’t in the least scientific) don’t build hospitals and don’t employ modern medical science. They are believers in miracles but don’t view a miracle as a Methodist does. Hence “miracle(s)” is likewise relative to other countervailing views.

I'm not so sure. You may mean that a CS more readily attributes an event to a miracle, but the working definition is the same. It would seem.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Deism is a kind of theism. "Deist" means "theist" in Latin. In fact, the English Deists sometimes used the term "Theist" rather than "Deist" to describe themselves. The fact that their enemies slandered them as atheists is irrelevant, since their enemies didn't know what they were talking about.

Pantheism (not to be confused with panentheism) is a slightly more ambiguous case, since if God is identical with the natural world then one is hard pressed to describe a way in which It can meaningfully be called God. There was a time when I thought of myself as a pantheist, but it didn't last long because I couldn't articulate how such a God was any different from, say, the Unified Field Theory of physics. (Many people who call themselves pantheists are actually panentheists, which is a more defensibly "theistic" position, though.)