Where in the line of 'Theism' would I fall?
Offline First off, I would like to say that Im glad that I found this place, as it follows many of the guidelines and thought processes that my 'belief' (or lack thereof) system is set.
(And as per the title) Theism - Atheism, Monotheism(no), Polytheism, Nofuckingtheism etc...
First off, I am totally anti 'Organized Religion' I have my own beliefs and thoughts about organized religion which chances are will be spouted elsewhere at a more appropriate time. 
However, my lack of 'faith' in any sort of organized religion leaves me somewhere in the middle of believing in something bigger than myself, but not categorizing it as "God" or anything that has been written by another MORTAL and provided to me as an ABSOLUTE. Who's to say that 'God' is nothing more than 'Good and Orderly Direction'?
I guess my frustration level lies somewhere in the middle of (what I understand to be) Organized Religion vs Atheism. Both of which to me seem to point to an absolute, which is what I have the biggest issue with. Am I missing something here? It appears that Atheism has more room for questioning of what is and what isnt, which appears to be the more appealing label. But at the same time, it also points to (what most would consider) an - Absolute. (Belief that there is NO God) Am I wrong?
Im not saying that there isnt a higher power, Im just saying that it isnt what is portrayed to me in your literature. (And I havent burst into flames yet or been struck down by lightning so I must be pseudo correct eh?)
Thoughts?
-Me
- Login to post comments
Either Agnostic Deist or Agnostic atheist depending on how you decipher your post.
Why would 'God' have to be supernatural, then? Why not just let good and orderly direction be your guide?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I can't help with a title unfortunately, it seems a little grey from the information you've posted so far. There is something else I would like to respond to in your post though.
I couldn't agree more with this. In fact I even have it in my signature. If you look up the word blasphemy at dictionary.com you get this:
... and to me, organised religion does this all the time. The very act of trying to humanise god (if one/any exist to begin with), say what god does or doesn't want, say what his thoughts are, say he must be worshipped in certain ways, say that you must put your left foot in first followed by your right foot then shake it all about etc. The whole song and dance, claiming to represent god and speak for him. To me THAT is blasphemy, the ultimate blasphemy. The ironic thing being that without organised religion there would be no such thing as blasphemy.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Yes.
Theism: There is a god. You can't prove there isn't.
Atheism: You say there's a god? I don't see any proof.
In a nutshell, atheism only exists because theism exists. You never hear of a-unicornists, do you? You are one, though. You don't believe in unicorns, so you are an aunicornist. It's possible for atheists to make groups, like Rational Response Squad, but that's not because of any atheist dogma. There is no atheist dogma, only atheists with common causes. And trust me, most atheists never give "atheism" a thought. They just live their lives without theism.
Yes. You are wrong.
Suppose I tell you that there is a Glarbofect. You're going to say, what's a Glarbofect? If I say, "It's a transsubstantial incarnation of the etheriality of propositional existence," are you going to believe that it exists? Of course not. You're going to say, "What the fuck are you talking about, dude?"
That's atheism. Just as you don't say, "There are certainly no Glarbofects," atheists don't say, "There are certainly no gods." We just demand exactly the same degree of evidence for god(s) as we do for anything else. When all of that evidence is in, the god concept comes up lacking, so we don't believe in it.
If you can make a coherent case for a higher power, you'll be up for a Nobel Prize. If you can't, we'll just ask that you not make laws concerning what a higher power thinks I ought to be doing.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Glarbofect. Sweet - do you mind if I use that?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Of course you can quote it, but you must give credit to the spirit of the Annunaki warrior who I was channeling when I just let my fingers go over the keyboard, without exerting any conscious effort.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Right on! I hate being told to believe something by someone who then refuses to offer any evidence or logic for the beliefs. Even while I was a theist, I felt that organized religion was just an meddlesome middle-man.
To get to the point of your post, I think you need to examine the term "god" to decide whether you believe any exist.
Is that "higher power" something you want to label as a "god"? I believe the laws of physics rule the motion of particles and energy, but I don't call them "gods." If you would consider such a power a god but you're not sure whether it exists, I would call you an agnostic.
When I say I'm an atheist, just mean that I don't believe in gods. Similarly, I don't believe in ghosts, unicorns, or faeries, but they don't have special words for people who don't believe in those things. I don't have proof that gods (or ghosts, unicorns, or faeries) don't exist, I just don't believe that they do, and it would take a heck of a lot of evidence to change my mind.
Philosophy and Politics
My Foster Kittens
Math/Science help: in Pittsburgh PA or Online
Understood, and these 'higher powers' are not construed of 'Gods'. A 'God' in its simplest sense means the 'all' of that whateverthehellyouwantittobe. I can't support that, as there is no such thing as the "All" (unless it is everchanging) construing something as a 'God' would almost be as to label it as 'Perfection' -And I cant buy that... There is no such thing as perfect.
Personally I believe its all just a manifestation of energy(s). Which falls into the realm of physics/science, but I have also witnessed things of the metaphysical as well. Do I believe it was a 'spirit'? Well, I DO believe it did have a consciousness, but it was a manifestation of energies that we couldn't physically see.
Science says that while energy cannot be created/destroyed only transformed from one form to another, but it makes no mention to its consciousness. (I guess it cant)
I guess that this is where I fall... Somewhere in the middle (not wanting to commit to either side completely)
-Me
Joe, there is a VERY important distinction that you need to understand.
Theist-I believe there is a god.
Strong Atheist-I believe there is no god.
Agnostic Atheist-Urhm...can you give me some evidence for this "god" thing please?
Agnostic Atheists don't make a claim. They simply ask for evidence. They withhold belief until it is presented.
Do you think there is a god or that there is not a god? Or do you have no clue?
If you have no clue on the god thing you are an agnostic atheist.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I think that I am leaning towards the Agnostic Atheist. It does seem to be a more comfortable 'label' (If you will) for my belief system.
I will reiterate though, that it is nice to have a place like this to discuss such thought processes freely. You all rock man!
(And now, its time for ShoXC) WOOOOO
-Me