"I don't believe in any gods, but I'm not an atheist..."

[Aporeia]

The Legendary Guest

Aporeia

The Legendary Guest

Aporeia

The Legendary Guest

Agreed, and it makes things problematic again during the exchanges with theists who want to adhere to the notion that atheists actually DO believe in (their version of) a god but reject the god itself for whatever reason their religion teaches, when what is really being rejected by the atheist is the claim that god exists in the first place.

The person you're describing is still a theist, however, and not an atheist at all. They are just an irreverent theist.

I wouldn't call them a theist because, to them, the being they acknowledge as existing is not revered. It's not a god to them. That subjective separation is important because without it, we'd be calling everything, animate or not, a god- someone, somewhere, worships it.

Then you and I must have different definitions of what a god is. In polytheistic religions like Hinduism, there are many gods, yet not all of them are revered by individual worshipers. That is what I am talking about. If you believe such a being is a deity, you believe in a god whether or not you worship that deity. Reverence is not the operative term as far as I see it.

Kind of a bad example, because Hinduism is a special case.

Really? Explain how Hinduism is a "special case" and how it is a poor example, for the sake of clarity.

Hinduism is a special case because of the belief of Brahman, the dreamer. Depending on what view you look at hinduism from, it can also appear monotheistic (all of the gods and their avatars are merely facets of Brahman), or pantheistic (Everything is Brahman to begin with). So, yes, it's a bad example because I can't think of another pantheon that does that.

Quote:

Quote:

At any rate, I'm not talking about polytheists who revere a pantheon, and focus on one in particular.

There is no implication of "reverence" for the other gods all gods of any pantheon, merely belief. This is very simple.

Someone who worships Vishnu doesn't want to piss off Kali. They don't worship Kali... unless they want something from them.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm talking about other branches of mysticism that contain people who believe in the existence of a god(s), but are wholly non-reverent, or even maltheistic.

Then by all means elaborate, because I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. A maltheist is still a theist, hence the root word, because they believe the god they hate exists. This seems fairly straightforward to me that maltheism is the belief that a god exists and is not worthy of worship.

Belief that a god exists and is not worthy of worship is belief that a god is not god, but something profanely different. If it is not worthy of worship, it is not a god, to them. The word is only useful to refer to others relationships with them.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Aporeia

WHAT DO YOU THINK I WAS TELLING YOU?

That it complicates matters...it doesn't. THAT was what I was telling YOU.

Quote:

I said from the start they were NOT theists. Never at any point did I imply the opposite.

And I never said that you did. I was explaining why it wasn't complicated, even though you asserted that it was...

Quote:

The entirety of all of my posts from the start was to facilitate this point. You would know that if you didn't pop a blood vessel in your failed attempt at reading comprehension.

Criticizing others intelligence again when you still don't understand a point. You're a walking ball of irony...

Quote:

No, that's exactly what the situation is.

No...it isn't. Here's a more appropriate summation of the discussion-

You: Aw man...it's so hard to tell if something is a sandwich or not.
Me: No, it's not. A sandwich just requires bread with ingredients in the middle.
You: But...some people might think pizza is bread because it has crust. They don't call it a sandwich. They don't treat it like a sandwich.
Me: Then it's not a ******** sandwich.

Quote:

You're just so ******** combative you can't even tell when someone is saying something you already agree with.

Except I didn't agree with you...and I explained why I didn't agree with you in the first ******** response, killer. But you're so quick to jump on everyone's a** for disagreeing with you, that you forgot that point (see, we can both play the finger pointing game... rolleyes ).

[Aporeia]

Rumblestiltskin

Aporeia

WHAT DO YOU THINK I WAS TELLING YOU?

That it complicates matters...it doesn't. THAT was what I was telling YOU.

Todd believes in Zues, is Todd a theist?

The answer is "WELL, THAT DEPENDS..." Which is complicating the matter. The answer, with given information, is not a YES or a NO, it's a WE NEED MORE INFO. Ergo, it complicates the matter. I didn't say it was a rubix tesseract.

It requires explaining something simple that ISN'T apparent. Most people don't know s**t about this, much like most people don't know the difference between AC and DC power, a conversation that could be held in under a minute.

Quote:

Quote:

I said from the start they were NOT theists. Never at any point did I imply the opposite.

And I never said that you did. I was explaining why it wasn't complicated, even though you asserted that it was...

Funny how you never explained how it wasn't complicated, or even said anything that I can retroactively twist to mean that. If it's what you meant, it sure isn't what you typed.

Quote:

Quote:

The entirety of all of my posts from the start was to facilitate this point. You would know that if you didn't pop a blood vessel in your failed attempt at reading comprehension.

Criticizing others intelligence again when you still don't understand a point. You're a walking ball of irony...

I didn't criticize your intelligence; I criticized your temperament, which is that of a spoiled child.

Quote:

Quote:

No, that's exactly what the situation is.

No...it isn't. Here's a more appropriate summation of the discussion-

You: Aw man...it's so hard to tell if something is a sandwich or not.
Me: No, it's not. A sandwich just requires bread with ingredients in the middle.
You: But...some people might think pizza is bread because it has crust. They don't call it a sandwich. They don't treat it like a sandwich.
Me: Then it's not a ******** sandwich.

What if it's a burger? Why don't we have chicken burgers? Are all burgers sandwiches, or are sandwiches distinctly not burgers? Is fried chicken a sandwich? Are poptarts sandwiches? Are cheese sticks? Are hotpockets? Are corndogs?

I can be clever, too.

Quote:

Quote:

You're just so ******** combative you can't even tell when someone is saying something you already agree with.

Except I didn't agree with you...and I explained why I didn't agree with you in the first ******** response, killer. But you're so quick to jump on everyone's a** for disagreeing with you, that you forgot that point (see, we can both play the finger pointing game... rolleyes ).

Your explanation is not only wrong, but directly in contest with something you said later.

No, maltheists are not always theists. They can be, they are not always. Non-theist animists can (and often do) hold maltheistic views.

The situation is complicated because a god is a subjective concept, and your disposition towards the entity described changes its status.

That is complex. It is not straightforward. Welcome to semantics.

[The Legendary Guest]

Aporeia

Hinduism is a special case because of the belief of Brahman, the dreamer. Depending on what view you look at hinduism from, it can also appear monotheistic (all of the gods and their avatars are merely facets of Brahman), or pantheistic (Everything is Brahman to begin with). So, yes, it's a bad example because I can't think of another pantheon that does that.

Yet regardless of which approach you take, the belief is that at least one deity exists, therefore theism. The reverence of Brahman is not the operative term, it is the belief in Brahman as divine.

Quote:

Someone who worships Vishnu doesn't want to piss off Kali. They don't worship Kali... unless they want something from them.

I said nothing about that. Regardless what, they believe that Kali exists. Belief is the operative word, not reverence.

Quote:

Belief that a god exists and is not worthy of worship is belief that a god is not god, but something profanely different.

What is a god, when it is not a god? A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If it is not a god, then they do not believe a god exists. If a god is a god, then they do.

Quote:

If it is not worthy of worship, it is not a god, to them.

Then it can be defined as "not god", therefore they do not believe in a god. This is the exact same thing as adherents of one religion not believing in the gods of other religions.

Quote:

The word is only useful to refer to others relationships with them.

Which word?

[The Legendary Guest]

Infamy In Action

kanako irigashi

Infamy In Action

kanako irigashi

Are we talking about someone who is really Agnostic?

What do you mean? sweatdrop

Here.

Oh, yes. Well actually, someone on the sliding scale leaning towards disbelief.

Do not confuse the fact that a "popular sense" exists with the actual philosophical stance. It is not possible to believe yet not believe, and to claim that an atheist disbelieves is incorrect. They lack belief. Disbelief implies that the atheist rejects something which actually exists to them.

[Aporeia]

The Legendary Guest

Aporeia

Hinduism is a special case because of the belief of Brahman, the dreamer. Depending on what view you look at hinduism from, it can also appear monotheistic (all of the gods and their avatars are merely facets of Brahman), or pantheistic (Everything is Brahman to begin with). So, yes, it's a bad example because I can't think of another pantheon that does that.

Yet regardless of which approach you take, the belief is that at least one deity exists, therefore theism. The reverence of Brahman is not the operative term, it is the belief in Brahman as divine.

I didn't say it wasn't theism, just that it's a poor example of polytheism because it occasionally breaks the rules.

Quote:

Quote:

Belief that a god exists and is not worthy of worship is belief that a god is not god, but something profanely different.

What is a god, when it is not a god? A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If it is not a god, then they do not believe a god exists. If a god is a god, then they do.

What is a god when it is not a god? What is left! It is a spirit, a liar, a demon, or something different. If a god is only a god, then it is nothing. People made gods out of spirits, ideas, things, and men. Take away the godhood, and it's still what they were pointing at.

Quote:

Quote:

If it is not worthy of worship, it is not a god, to them.

Then it can be defined as "not god", therefore they do not believe in a god. This is the exact same thing as adherents of one religion not believing in the gods of other religions.

This is not always so. There are more esoteric beliefs out there, primarily that if you name or try to conjure a being that does not exist, something that does exist can answer the call. Just because something answers to the name you call it, and claims to be what you think it should be doesn't mean it is what you think it is. When you look for a zeus where no zeus is to be found, you might just find one- the con men from the great beyond.

[The Legendary Guest]

Aporeia

I didn't say it wasn't theism, just that it's a poor example of polytheism because it occasionally breaks the rules.

Gotcha. In any event, it still serves as an example to support what I meant.

Quote:

What is a god when it is not a god?

I am talking about the law of identity in logic, not asking for a list of what might claim to be a god.

Quote:

What is left! It is a spirit, a liar, a demon, or something different.

Not gods, obviously.

Quote:

If a god is only a god, then it is nothing.

A god is a god and it is not a doorstop. Law of identity. Simple logic.

Quote:

People made gods out of spirits, ideas, things, and men.

Evidence for any such a thing as a spirit is where? Ideas are ideas and they are not gods. Things are what they are not what they are not. Men are men and not gods.

This is very basic.

Quote:

Take away the godhood, and it's still what they were pointing at.

Which was never and still remains not a god.

Quote:

This is not always so.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not.

Quote:

There are more esoteric beliefs out there, primarily that if you name or try to conjure a being that does not exist, something that does exist can answer the call.

This presupposes that beings can be conjured. Please provide credible evidence that this actually happens. I am not talking about things which people imagine happen. I am talking about beliefs people hold.

Quote:

Just because something answers to the name you call it, and claims to be what you think it should be doesn't mean it is what you think it is.

I am not arguing that people are mistaken, incorrect or imagining things, nor that people lie or things may appear to be what they are not. I am talking about beliefs people hold. There is no credible evidence for any god that I am discussing, yet people believe in them.

Quote:

When you look for a zeus where no zeus is to be found, you might just find one- the con men from the great beyond.

The Great Beyond is located exactly where again?

[Aporeia]

Quote:

The Legendary Guest

What is a god when it is not a god?

I am talking about the law of identity in logic, not asking for a list of what might claim to be a god.

Find a working definition of a god, then come back to me. It is, indeed, a situational title.

Quote:

Quote:

What is left! It is a spirit, a liar, a demon, or something different.

Not gods, obviously.

But it doesn't stop others from treating them as gods, which is the point.

Quote:

Quote:

If a god is only a god, then it is nothing.

A god is a god and it is not a doorstop. Law of identity. Simple logic.

Sigh...

Who is Zeus? Zeus is this mythological being who is attributed as the spirit who controls storms. He controls storms, that is who he is. A god is what others make him. Take away his worship, and he still controls storms... before the age of man, there was Zeus. Zeus was Zeus before he was a god. He became a god when others worshipped him.

Now, what if Zeus does not control storms, but is real, nonetheless? Others say he can, but he is not what they say he is. Zeus is a thing in the shadows who plays on the imaginations of men. If some see this, what do they call him?

Quote:

Quote:

People made gods out of spirits, ideas, things, and men.

Evidence for any such a thing as a spirit is where?

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Ideas are ideas and they are not gods.

I'm pretty sure that viewpoint is unique to you.

Quote:

Things are what they are not what they are not.

Duh. That's the point. You may live your childhood assuming your parents are good people, only to suddenly realize how shitty they are. They don't stop existing, you merely see they are not what you thought they are.

Quote:

Men are men and not gods.

Tell that to Amen Ra. He was worshipped and had supremacy over his people... so he was a god. And now he's dead.

Quote:

Quote:

This is not always so.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not.

A summation of the view, if you are still really this confused, is "your gods are not gods."

Quote:

Quote:

There are more esoteric beliefs out there, primarily that if you name or try to conjure a being that does not exist, something that does exist can answer the call.

This presupposes that beings can be conjured. Please provide credible evidence that this actually happens.

You'd think that chopping up my statements this much would lead to you READING them more closely. Of course, that didn't happen. Read it again.

Quote:

I am not talking about things which people imagine happen. I am talking about beliefs people hold.

And the difference is...?

Quote:

Quote:

When you look for a zeus where no zeus is to be found, you might just find one- the con men from the great beyond.

The Great Beyond is located exactly where again?

Well, semantically, not here to be seen... out in a direction I can't point. More rhetorically, you seem to be immune to the third person.

[God Emperor Baldur]

Infamy In Action

"But I can't PROVE that some god doesn't exist..."
If you can't find any proof for a god, but know you can't flat out deny that there may be one more than you could deny the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that silently follows you everywhere you go, you are an agnostic atheist.

The idea of no god is just as ridiculous as those claims.

[stealthmongoose]

One can be gnostic towards certain deities or agnostic in terms of atheism as well.

What I mean by that is that it is possible to disprove specific iterations, interpretations, or concepts of God whilst remaining ignorant or in a state of non-knowledge towards others.

If I am an orthodox christian who takes a literal interpretation of the BIble and someone proves that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings in existence, then my orthodox Christian Literalist God has been proven wrong, and I wouuldn't say that the label of Gnostic Atheist towards that concept is wrong.

In this way, I am gnostic atheist towards various interpretations and concepts of deities, while I remain agnostic towards others.

[The Legendary Guest]

Aporeia

Find a working definition of a god, then come back to me. It is, indeed, a situational title.

Ask a believer to do that for you. I am not among them, so I could not possibly know what they define as a god. I am talking about their beliefs concerning what they define as gods, not the semantics surrounding the definition of the word "god".

Quote:

But it doesn't stop others from treating them as gods, which is the point.

It isn't my point, but if they believe a doorknob is a god then they believe. THAT is my point.

Quote:

Sigh...

Right back at you. rolleyes

Quote:

Who is Zeus? Zeus is this mythological being who is attributed as the spirit who controls storms. He controls storms, that is who he is. A god is what others make him. Take away his worship, and he still controls storms... before the age of man, there was Zeus. Zeus was Zeus before he was a god. He became a god when others worshipped him.

Who cares? This is completely irrelevant to my point. I do not believe Zeus exists. Nobody "controls storms", that's a natural phenomenon. This is completely besides the point, which is that when a person believes in something that they call a god then it is a god to them. If others do not worship that god, or believe in that god, it is not any less of a god to the believer.

Quote:

Now, what if Zeus does not control storms, but is real, nonetheless? Others say he can, but he is not what they say he is. Zeus is a thing in the shadows who plays on the imaginations of men. If some see this, what do they call him?

Who cares what they call him, if he actually exists? Certainly not me and I am not here discussing that topic. As in not at all. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the fact that a god is a god to the believer and if they believe, then they are not atheists.

Quote:

Irrelevant.

No s**t, so why bring it up?

Quote:

Duh.

Save this for someone else or meet with ignore.

Quote:

That's the point.

Then why are you bringing up things which are not relevant to that point?

Quote:

You may live your childhood assuming your parents are good people, only to suddenly realize how shitty they are. They don't stop existing, you merely see they are not what you thought they are.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. People change their minds, and if they move from any state of belief in gods to completely lacking belief, then the label changes to "atheist". Parents are not something we believe in. You are conflating "believing that" with "believing in". I am only addressing "believing in".

Quote:

Tell that to Amen Ra. He was worshipped and had supremacy over his people... so he was a god. And now he's dead.

It's Amun-Ra, and I don't see much point in attempting to contact the dead. Is that the sort of thing you are likely to engage in? The people who worshiped him were believers and not atheists, which is my only point. The notion of whether he actually was a god is irrelevant to my point.

Quote:

A summation of the view, if you are still really this confused, is "your gods are not gods."

I don't have gods. I realize that people who believe do not believe in other people's gods. I am not confused at all, your point is simply not impacting on me because you're chasing a rabbit trail that does not logically relate to my point. I have absolutely no interest in what you're talking about, and attempting to direct you back to the actual point is getting boring.

Quote:

You'd think that chopping up my statements this much would lead to you READING them more closely. Of course, that didn't happen. Read it again.

I read it well enough the first time to grasp that it's irrelevant to a discussion about what to label atheists and theists. You are asserting that theism/atheism (they are not proper nouns) "becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence" and reverence is besides the point to belief. There is nothing complicated here. You are simply dragging in all sorts of scenarios that do not fit the discussion.

Quote:

Well, semantically, not here to be seen... out in a direction I can't point.

Which has ******** to do with anything.

Quote:

More rhetorically, you seem to be immune to the third person.

And you seem to be immune to remaining on topic, which is your assertion that atheism/theism is somehow complicated by notions of "reverence'' when both terms address belief and neither addresses "reverence".

[The Legendary Guest]

God Emperor Baldur

Infamy In Action

"But I can't PROVE that some god doesn't exist..."
If you can't find any proof for a god, but know you can't flat out deny that there may be one more than you could deny the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that silently follows you everywhere you go, you are an agnostic atheist.

The idea of no god is just as ridiculous as those claims.

Why is the idea of "no god" ridiculous at all?

[God Emperor Baldur]

The Legendary Guest

God Emperor Baldur

Infamy In Action

"But I can't PROVE that some god doesn't exist..."
If you can't find any proof for a god, but know you can't flat out deny that there may be one more than you could deny the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that silently follows you everywhere you go, you are an agnostic atheist.

The idea of no god is just as ridiculous as those claims.

Why is the idea of "no god" ridiculous at all?

Because the idea is not backed up by any science. Therefore it's believability falls within the same category as an orbiting teacup.

[The Legendary Guest]

God Emperor Baldur

The Legendary Guest

God Emperor Baldur

Infamy In Action

"But I can't PROVE that some god doesn't exist..."
If you can't find any proof for a god, but know you can't flat out deny that there may be one more than you could deny the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that silently follows you everywhere you go, you are an agnostic atheist.

The idea of no god is just as ridiculous as those claims.

Why is the idea of "no god" ridiculous at all?

Because the idea is not backed up by any science. Therefore it's believability falls within the same category as an orbiting teacup.

Ideas do not have to "backed up by science". Is the idea of a sponge wearing shorts who lives in a pineapple under the sea backed up by science? Not a bit, but the idea was enough to spawn a TV show.

You're trying to shift the burden, of course, and I realize that. You do it a lot. The thing is, there is not an idea of "no god" until someone posits the idea of "god" and that is where the burden actually lies. Try to learn that.