Atheist, agnostic, or non theist?

[Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

"Non theist" recognizes 'theism' is a vague term that can mean different things. For the purposes of this debate 'theism' represents the classic belief in a god or gods who are personal, formed in the image of man, or that man was formed by in 'his image.' The 'theist' believes in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and 'knows' us personally, a 'God' who walks with us and talks with us; a god in the fashion of the 'God' in Job who walks with Satan and communes with Job.

The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

[Divine Insight]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

I reserve the right to be specific.

When it come to the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. I claim to be a knowledgeable atheist. I claim to know for absolutely certain that the God of those religions cannot possibly exist as it is described in their dogma.

I would even go further than saying that I'm just a knowledgeable atheist knowing that their God cannot exist, but I would even say that I am an "anti-theist" when it comes to their theology. I not only don't believe in those theologies but I actively reject them as being extremely immoral and terrible theology. So I openly accept and embrace the title of "anti-theists" with respect to the Abrahamic religions. I not only don't believe in them, but I passionately denounce them as being immoral theologies.

~~~~

I'm only agnostic with respect to some other theologies such as various forms of Pantheism. But I wouldn't state is as a wishy-washy "gee I don't know". That makes it sound like I never gave them much thought of never considered them from a seriously critical perspective.

I prefer to view those theologies at basically agnostic theologies (i.e. theologies that even those who believe they might be true have to confess that they are unknowable). I'm pretty sure that even the Dalai Lama will openly confess that he can't know for certain whether Buddhism is true or not. So in that sense even he is an agnostic devote of the religion.

Admitting that there are some things that simply cannot be known is not a sign of weakness, or an inability to make up ones mind. I'm agnostic in terms of who the universe began too. I simply don't know the answer to that question. Why pretend to know something that may potentially be unknowable?

"Non theist" recognizes 'theism' is a vague term that can mean different things. For the purposes of this debate 'theism' represents the classic belief in a god or gods who are personal, formed in the image of man, or that man was formed by in 'his image.' The 'theist' believes in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and 'knows' us personally, a 'God' who walks with us and talks with us; a god in the fashion of the 'God' in Job who walks with Satan and communes with Job.

This sounds to me like you are restricting all theologies to be similar to this thesis. Like Greek Mythology, and many other middle-eastern and Mediterranean religion.

When it comes to these kinds of personal jealous God characters I'm definitely atheist. I see no reason to believe in any of them.

The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

Agreed. But then what about other views of "God"? Pantheism, Taoism, etc.?

I see no reason to believe in any of the "Spoiled Brat" type of Gods. The Biblical God is definitely a spoiled brat God. He's basically no better than the Satan of the very same religion. All the God of the Bible amounts to is a Satan (a selfish pride deity) who places himself before everyone else.

How is the God of the Bible any different from Satan if he too demands that everyone must bow down and kiss his feet lest he'll be mean to them beyond they wildest nightmares?

That's both the God of the OT and Jesus in the NT. They are both egotistical zealots prepared to be mean to anyone who doesn't bow down and worship them. This is why I renounce these religions as being immoral. The God of the Bible is no better than the worst child abuser you could ever imagine. How does that represent a moral benevolent entity?

[wiploc]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?

It can be, and often is, used with perfect clarity.

Some people make a calling of pretending to misunderstand, but they'd do that with any term you substituted.

Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?

If you're going for clarity, you want to avoid the word "disbelieves." It defines various conflicting ways.

"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

It can be used clearly. People who intend to misunderstand will do that regardless of what word you use.

...
The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

That may be your non-theist position, but there are many others.

How are you going to classify people who aren't theists, but who also aren't "open to a higher power beyond human description? How will you classify people who aren't theists but who don't find "the concept of this god of popular theism absurd"?

How many categories are you going to wind up with?

If you want a simple normalized database (everybody fits in a category, and nobody fits in more than one category), then consider doing it like this:

A. Theists are people who believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists are people who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

You don't have to use those labels, but those are good categories.
Then we can have another simple normalized database if we want to talk about knowledge instead of belief:

The gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
The agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.

[Zzyzx]

.

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?

Perhaps it is the term Christian that should be retired as too vague and misleading. Under that umbrella term are sects so diverse that they have demonstrated a willingness to kill one another over differences in doctrine, literature, and/or rituals.

Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?.

I prefer to identify as Non-Theist, partially to avoid the all-too-common Theist misconception that Atheist means 'God Denier' or 'God Hater' (rather than, “without belief in gods�). Many are so intent on defending their favorite god and holy book that they apparently regard anyone who does not worship as they do and believe their god tales as a person who claims that gods do not exist.

Even with the clear statement in my signature, many cannot grasp the concept. “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�,

Perhaps the lack of grasp is due willful ignorance, or a debate tactic, or the product of listening to sermons. Preachers rightfully fear the rise of non-belief as a threat to their income and influence – and perhaps pass their fears on to pew warmers.

Here in debate even the fanatics have not attempted to challenge my stated position. The best they can do is to try to shoehorn me into a position they think they can attack ("You are a god denier"), but such attempts fall flat when I firmly refute any attempted warping of my position.

Textbook dichotomous thinking (yes-or-no, love god or hate god, black or white) is often evident in Apologetics arguments -- failing to recognize that the alternatives they can conceptualize may not be all that are available.

[Danmark]

It can be, and often is, used with perfect clarity.

...is contradicted by...

A. Theists are people who believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists are people who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I agree with Zzyzx that 'Christian' and Christianity are even more vague than 'atheist.'

Let us take fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity. If the absurdity and childlike belief that takes literally both early Genesis and Revelation does not immediately demonstrate how ridiculous and primitive it is, then it is probably hopeless to try to convince one otherwise. It isn't just the talking snake that loses its legs, and the impossible flying chariots, and the Earth standing still, nor is it the virgin birth and ascensions to heaven by dead people that should strike one as hopelessly silly, but it is the entire cosmology which includes angels, demons, and the entire 'spiritual realm' that exposes such beliefs to be in the same category with other ghosts and goblins that should convince a rational person of its falsity.

It is so wacky I am embarrassed to give it enough credence to debate it at all.
I suggest there is no actual difference between the 'atheist' who totally rejects such beliefs, and the 'agnostic' who deems them 99.9999999999999% unlikely. Such 'agnosticism' is itself absurd.

Another reason I prefer 'Non Theist' is that it refuses to even credit such belief with enough credulity to coin a word from it, "atheist."

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Danmark]

I agree with everything you said in post 6. However, everything you said is directly related to Hebrew Mythology. Why focus on Hebrew mythology when there are so many other theological religions and ideas of what a "God" might be like? Including very abstract non-personal ideas of a "god".

Like I say when it comes to Hebrew mythology (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) I dismiss them all as being clearly false, utterly absurd, highly immoral, as well as being extremely unintelligent. To suggest that any "real god" might be like the god of Hebrew mythology is nothing short of an insult to any "real god" that might even exist.

Christianity is the greatest insult to any God that might exist. Christianity not only supports the immature jealous God of Judaism and Islam who has the ignorance of an uneducated barroom drunkard, but on top of that Christianity demands that God is so weak and inept that he has no choice but to jump through hoop that some supposedly fallen angel demands that God much jump through.

In other words, Christianity holds that this God had no choice but to arrange to have a few ignorant humans brutally crucify him on a pole so that he could beat a fallen angel at the game the angel is forcing this God to play.

The Christian God is necessarily weak, inept, and extremely unintelligent.

Their own theology demands that this must be true. It not a theology worthy of even considering. So why focus on it or give it any credence by talking about it as though it's the only picture of a God that we have? Even the Goddess of Wicca is far more intelligent and capable than the God of the Hebrews.

But far more importantly there are even far more intelligent ideas of what a God might be like in the Eastern Mystical realm of pantheism and Taoism, etc.

You seem to be totally focused on Hebrew mythology. I understand that when we lump all the disagreeing Abrahamic factions together they probably represent about 2/3 of the world's population. But the fact that so many people have been coerced into obeying the authority of these religions isn't impressive.

Both, Christianity and Islam were historically very violent religions threatening to kill anyone who actively speaks out or challenges their dogma directly.

Today's Christianity is but a mere watered-down ghost of what the religion used to be. It's just coasting along on the momentum of the fear of hell, the promise of an eternal life, the social pressures within Christian communities to reject those who refuse to believe it even if those people are members of their own family.

It's basically a fear-based dogma that is just coasting along on fear, and/or the hope of eternal life for those who claim to not fear it.

It clearly is not a sound dogma as even modern day Christians literally reject the Bible and demand that it means things quite opposite to what it actually has to say. Even they recognize the absurdity, immaturity, and ignorance of the original doctrines that the theology is ultimately based upon.

What saddens me is how many well-educated modern day people continue to support these ancient myths. It's extremely sad that our species, while boasting of being the greatest animals on earth, continue to behave in such ignorant and superstitious ways.

It's an embarrassment to humanity. But then I guess this is what should be expected of primates that are only barely ahead of chimpanzees on the road of evolution.

The bright note is that some of us are actually showing signs of moving far beyond this level of ignorance. We can only hope that the bulk of humanity will eventually catch up and humans can start behaving intelligently at some point in the future.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Before we can attempt to define those who aren't theists, we must start with a solid understanding of what it means to be a theist. The definition you've provided ignores many theists who don't fit your very narrow view.

Both atheists and non-theists are simply those who don't qualify as theists. There's nothing confusing about that as long as one starts with a proper understanding of what it means to be a theist.

Theist - One who believes in god/gods.

Atheist/Non-Theist - One who doesn't.


Tcg

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Hebrew mythology is the one most of us on this forum grew up in. That is the reason I focus on it. The more pictorial and detailed the image of God, the more I distrust it. Yes, I am more drawn to Buddhist mythology to the extent it does not claim some picturesque, human like deity like Greek, Roman, and Hebrew myths.

I agree with the Buddhist notion that all is illusion. I fondly hope there is a god. I just see no evidence of it. I see no need to invent any kind of god or 'force' or anything of the kind. I'm not going to invent or accept something, just to make myself feel comfort.

I accept what appears to be the fact, that there is no supernatural, there is no god, there is no creative entity; the universe is chaos and without purpose, design, or meaning. It just is. This may be uncomfortable, but I'd rather believe in reality than compromise my integrity by believing in something because of tradition or wishful thinking.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

I think that the problem with your reasoning has to do with these confused definitions.

An intellectually lazy individual might express "Gee...I dunno." but such folk are spread throughout theism, non-theism and Agnosticism and so cannot honestly be seen a reliable description for Agnostic.

Thus any definitions to do with atheism and theism, based upon or following this description of Agnostic are just as likely in error.

Even the fact that this subject comes up for debate reasonably frequently, tells us that.