"I am not a Theist & not religious but I believe in

[Zzyzx]

.
Does the following seem self-contradictory?

From ONE post in a current thread –

God speaks through ALL His creation including us men, and just because we deny to hear Him (because of sin) doesn't mean it is lost.

Of course I don't expect you to believe in God just because I do, and that I believe it was His revelation

had very little education, and struggle to express myself, especially with the things God has revealed to me.

This is exactly why God used His Prophets and even His Son to personally talk to us.

I am here to 'reveal by Undeniable Scientific Evidence' our Creator.

Infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life" may be beyond your understanding, or the refusal thereof, but is definitely not mine.

AND

I am not religious, how can I explain this to you?

I will not become a religious theist/atheist just to please you.

I'm serious my friend, since I have told you at least 500 times in debates that I am not a Theist, yet you still keep referring to me as a Theist.

Note: Theism is defined as: Belief in the existence of a god or gods

Religion is difficult to define but generally involves some belief in a supernatural entity that may (or may not) influence human affairs – or perhaps an afterlife


Question for debate: If one believes in God can they NOT be a Theist and NOT be religious?

[arian]

.
[Replying to post 37 by arian]

I will focus on debate with those who are serious and capable debaters – and who know the difference between science and personal opinion / emotion / testimonials. This thread has accomplished what was intended – demonstrate that the self-contradiction (or cognitive dissonance – holding contradictory positions simultaneously) in "I am not a theist but I believe in god" -- when Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods"

Yes, and I have posted both Wikipedia's, and Webster's, and other Dictionary definitions showing you over and over again that the singular 'god' part is 'of the' gods studied in theology. Whether one, or a thousand, they are all Deities, which by definition is demons. That each religion that worships a god is either one, or more from the other gods created by religions, only some religions claim theirs is the greatest one.

Actually Z, I believe (if my memory serves me right) I learned this from you, it was you who used to ask me all the time: "Why is your god more special then any of the tens of thousands of other gods out there?" So, with Gods help I shown you.

I have revealed The Creator I call God, the One referred to in the Bible, and shown Him through science as the "Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit I Am Who I Am". NOT from theology which is the study of god/gods and how they are worshipped by their individual religious creators, .. but science. Thus revealing that my claim is not self contradictory since I am not a theist, nor do I believe The Creator to be a divine (demonic) being.

The thread "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator" accomplished the objective of demonstrating that was a boastful, hollow, unsupportable claim (as anyone can verify by noting the total lack of scientific evidence presented).

Boastful? You're the one that cut out ONE verse from a long post 'challenging' me to prove myself, and which I did over and over again in spite of all the cutting, misrepresenting's and derailments that went on throughout all those pages.

Perhaps others will choose to respond to such things as:

'happy scientific-atheist' religion!"

"Here is the monkey, .. and then there is the human, two legs, two eyes, hands, feet and they both eat bananas!"

So a round-rock could cause the eyes to create illusions of a bowling ball in the brain? Rock to brain: "Make me into a bowling-ball, .. make me into a bowling-ball!"

Well yea, .. because it's happening while sitting on the toilet or as I was looking in the mirror, so according to you, that cannot possibly constipate scientific evidence

And I feel (by your debates) that you know what I'm talking about? Unless you have not yet 'evolved' to a higher degree of 'Illumination' yet?

And again, back to your old tricks Z, cutting and pasting out of context, which clearly supports what you say next: "Don't attempt to make anyone look foolish. Let them do so themselves."

As I say elsewhere, "Don't attempt to make anyone look foolish. Let them do so themselves."

Amen Z, ... amen.

[bluethread]

I know I am late to the game, but as the OP states, "religion" is hard to define. That is, people generally like to define it such that it only applies to theists. However, at least one theistic philosophy defines it contextually as the activities that follow from a philosophy. Therefore, if it is possible to be an atheist and not religious, it is also possible to be a theist and not religious. One need only fail to engage in the activities that follow from whatever philosophy one espouses.

[acapiz]

McCulloch ....from another thread

Let us refuse to divorce hermeneutics from common sense. Words and phrases should not have vastly different meanings when used in religious contexts.

This struck me as being very wishful when I read it. We could start with the word God and never move on. A person who believes in God can be anything you want to call them. What do you call a person who does not believe in what someone else believes in. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Elijah John]

Responding to the OP and not having read the whole thread, pardons if I am redundant.

One can be a DEIST without being a Theist. A Deist believes in God based on nature and Reason alone. A Theist believes in god based on revelation.

But the author in question seems to believe in revelation too, so granted, it is a bit confusing, as leas based on the above definition.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Responding to the OP and not having read the whole thread, pardons if I am redundant.

One can be a DEIST without being a Theist. A Deist believes in God based on nature and Reason alone. A Theist believes in god based on revelation.

But the author in question seems to believe in revelation too, so granted, it is a bit confusing, as leas based on the above definition.

What would you call someone who has made a vocation of studying the night sky every night for many years? An astronomer? A scientist? This hypothetical person however chooses to eschew all modern astronomical facts and techniques, and uses no modern astronomical tools whatsoever, but simply what he can perceive with his eyes and with his reason. For reference he prefers to rely on a couple of ancient books, The Almagest and the Planetary Hypothesis by Ptolemy. Which inform him that the universe is geocentric and and that the movements of the stars and planets are the product of nested spheres. And this person has come to the conclusion, based on this stunted understanding of nature and reason, his limited personal observations and reliance on ancient revelation, that the earth is clearly the center of the universe, that the sun, the stars and the planets obviously all circle around the earth, and that the positioning of the stars and the planets directly effect events on earth and human activities in a way that can be predicted. It wouldn't be a great surprise to anyone that his limited understanding of the ACTUAL facts, which are vastly more comprehensive then he understands, have led him to conclusions that are no longer supportable. There is a difference between being an astronomer, an actual scientist using all the modern techniques and information currently available, and an astrologer, continuing to subscribe to ancient make believe, founded on assumptions concerning nature, reasoning which has long since been shown to be baseless, and ancient revelations which, to no real surprise, were mostly make believe right from the start.

[arian]

I know I am late to the game, but as the OP states, "religion" is hard to define. That is, people generally like to define it such that it only applies to theists. However, at least one theistic philosophy defines it contextually as the activities that follow from a philosophy. Therefore, if it is possible to be an atheist and not religious, it is also possible to be a theist and not religious. One need only fail to engage in the activities that follow from whatever philosophy one espouses.

Excellent point, thank you bluethread!

So let's recap;

When we say 'religious', it means an activity, like playing tennis every morning for an hour, .. right? Also, someone who actively worships god/gods, like if they never miss a church service we call religious, right? It is that repetition that is religious, not what that person is doing; playing tennis every morning, going to church every Sunday etc.
How about someone whose wife makes him show up in church for Christmas, just that one time in the entire year and this guy dreads talking about god/gods much less worship them, would we call him religious just because he was 'made' to show up in church with his wife and kids for Christmas?

So if we tell someone; "Your religious", does it have to mean he/she plays tennis every morning? They could show up to work an hour early every work day for 30 years (like my eldest brother has) religiously, right?

So like you said, and what I have been saying; that both theists and atheists can be either religious about their theism/atheism, or non-religious. So it's not about semantics, but what the word actually means without the baggage it has picked up over the centuries. Like the word 'gay', now people think you are a homosexual if you use the word 'gay' in expressing how you feel today.

But here is my point when I say I believe in God, but not a theist and not religious;
The term 'theism' is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

This definition would be correct in my case IF, .. that is IF my God, the God of the Bible was a 'Divine being', OR of wood, stone, paper or plastic statue, OR the moon, the sun, a planet, nature, a man, woman, angel, or the tens of thousands of god/gods they study in theology, .. but He is NOT.

We can claim that either the moon, Mother nature, or a wooden Tatum Pole created the universe, and is intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures, .. right? And because of the great importance we placed on the moon, Mother nature or the Totem pole, we could worship it religiously, and thus we have created a 'religion' for all these god/gods. This is what I mean that I do not worship a god, or (plural) many gods created by religion. In this sense, and only this sense I am NOT religious, because I do not worship any god/gods created by religions. Does that make sense now?

But God in whose image I was created in, the one I can describe through science as our 'mind/spirit', the one described in the Bible who is not a Deity, or the demon 'Legion', .. or Lucifer (as the new Jesuit Pope announced), nor any of the god/gods created by religions that theologians study, but He who IS, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind I Am Who I Am, now Him I worship and serve religiously with all my heart, soul and mind, as it is obvious in my debates also.
Remember, I did not create Bible-God, I recognized Him as I contemplated on my own mind. So I said; If my mind creates, and is infinite and eternal, then there must be a Creator like my mind who created my body I reside in, and this universe I live in.

So who is God?
The best description of Him is what He gave to His Prophet Moses; "I Am Who I Am" which now I understand and makes perfect sense.

How would I describe Him?
As the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind "I Am Who I Am"

Where is He? "He Is", so as God created everything in His Mind (as we create in our mind), then He Is, and everything created is IN Him/Mind.

So there are 'religions' which create god/gods and ascribe whatever the religion ascribes him/her/it to be, and then there is 'religious', which describes how we do things.

In conclusion:
I do not worship god/gods created by religions which they study through theology, I worship the One True God possible whom I have described through science as He who Is, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind.

So for me (and anyone who gets to know God) to deny God (as I have described Him, just as He is described in the Bible) I would have to deny my own mind. And as we can see, there is a religion that does just that, it is called Big-bang Evolution. It places all importance on the physical (the brain) and denies the spiritual (mind). Takes the Intelligent Creator (our mind) and reduces it to a 'purposeless, unplanned, animal instinct' (the brain), .. where the physical (brain) creates the physical impulses (mind), so who cares about infinite regress!? So they spend billions of $ to smash things hoping to find that God-particle that caused everything to exist. Yet they admit that the God-particle is everywhere, yet not creating universes? Why? Does it need mans help, his intervention so that this God-particle could create?? Like they do with food and spraying humans to hopefully cause a mutation they can call 'evolution'.
If our existence "just happened" without anyone's will or plan, it should be creating universes all the time. Besides, these magical god-particles don't even need time or space, they create it for themselves. So even the idea to 'look for the god-particle within space and time is ludicrous. The perfect incubator for these particles should be in 'nothing', otherwise they cannot hatch.

What I revel here does not come from pride (as some would suggest), it comes from joy. I do not claim to be smarter then anyone here, matter of fact I say this often that I have been terribly under schooled, lived most of my life (52 years out of 58) in religious ignorance where my faith was in my Religion and it's personalized created god/gods taught by Mediums (Diviners that receive their divinations from the supernatural realm) where my faiths foundation was built on blind faith, built on sand without evidence or any real substance which are the basic, but the most important requirements in remaining in any religion. If you break this basic 'blind-faith' rule in Christianity, I was excommunicated. In other religions like in Islam, it costs the lives of those who dare to question, or even comment negatively. In the Big-bang Evolution religion, as we can see more and more of this in the News, .. it can cost you your job, and if you refuse to recant and keep voicing your anti-religion beliefs, it will also cost you your life.

This is why I am not a theist or religious about those god/gods they study in theology, but know who I am, and who God the Infinite Eternal Creator IS by having observed myself, and the world around me, .. as in 'science'.

[KenRU]

I'm serious my friend, since I have told you at least 500 times in debates that I am not a Theist, yet you still keep referring to me as a Theist.

and

Of course I don't expect you to believe in God just because I do, and that I believe it was His revelation

The above statements are both by Arian and they are without a doubt contradictory.

THEISM: (from dictionary.com)
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

He cannot in one breath say that he believes in god and in another say that he is not a theist, without being contradictory.

He may or may not be religious, but he is a theist, whether he acknowledges it or not is irrelevant.

[Zzyzx]

.

He cannot in one breath say that he believes in god and in another say that he is not a theist, without being contradictory.

Paraphrasing: "Don't confuse 'em with definitions, their mind's made up"

Theistic (admitted or not) arguments often depend on re-defining words or stretching meanings way beyond rational. "A day can mean a thousand years" and "This generation" can mean 100 generations later. "Sin" can mean whatever the speaker dislikes.

All it takes is setting aside reasoning and rationality in favor of "believing on faith alone -- without evidence"

[arian]

OP "I am not a Theist & not religious but I believe in God" - as posted by Zzyzx

Just to clarify things, how about; "I don't believe or serve the god/gods created by the various religions we have today, which they study through 'theology'"

Believing in and serving gods created by religion and studied in theology is kind of the same contradiction as what I just seen at the office while paying my electric bill. Big sign on the line-rope said; "No animals allowed (except for seeing eye dogs)"
So I asked myself; "are all these people in line considered as 'seeing-eye dogs' and not apes?" when obviously for any dummy who knows even a little bit of 'science that observes one species evolving into another' that they are bipedal primates, cause not one of these animals in line were standing on all fours!?

Also, I found it interesting that Wikipedia on 'Homo sapiens' had a picture; Male (left) and female (right) Homo sapiens sapiens in Thailand, NOT of a 'tall blond blue eyed German couple' - in the US or Germany ???

[KenRU]

OP "I am not a Theist & not religious but I believe in God" - as posted by Zzyzx

Just to clarify things, how about; "I don't believe or serve the god/gods created by the various religions we have today, which they study through 'theology'"

This just sounds like a vain attempt to elevate your belief system above all others. No theist believes the god of their chosen religion was "created".

And if you believe in a god (including the god of the bible), then theology is exactly how your faith is studied.

Theology (dictionary.com)

noun, plural theologies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

You believe in the god of the bible. You serve this god. The definition of theology accurately depicts how your religion would be studied.

Your assertion above could be said by the follower of any other religion, and therefore is no different than someone saying: my religion is the true one, all others are wrong.

So, no, your statement does not clarify anything.