None of the above

Ted Grant II

Ted Grant II

Registered Senior Member
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/definitions-theism-atheism-agnosticism.95294/

I propose a fourth religious position (apart from theism, atheism and agnosticism)

Every person, from conception to (say) 2 years old is none of the above.

No baby could be said to be a Christian. It knows nothing about Christianity.
Likewise, it couldn't be an atheist or a n agnostic. These require a degree of knowledge of the god concept.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be a religious label for babies, except perhaps Innocent.
So I propose NOTA for babies.
I can also conceive of an intelligent (adult) being that is a NOTA.
Perhaps it applies to God himself ?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Pretty sure God is a theist.
Click to expand...

A theist believes in God or gods (by definition).

God doesn't believe God exists.

He knows God exists.
A subtle, but important distinction.

Therefore he isn't a theist.

Therefore (by definition), God is an atheist !
 
Ted Grant II said:
A theist believes in God or gods (by definition).

God doesn't believe God exists.

He knows God exists.
A subtle, but important distinction.

Therefore he isn't a theist.

Therefore (by definition), God is an atheist !
Click to expand...

Pretty sure

You can BELIEVE something

without KNOWING

But you cannot KNOW something

without BELIEVING you KNOW it

You may DISBELIEVE the subject

but not DISBELIEVE the KNOWING

:)
 
Last edited:
Ted Grant II said:
A theist believes in God or gods (by definition).

God doesn't believe God exists.

He knows God exists.
A subtle, but important distinction.
Click to expand...
A silly distinction. Knowledge encompasses belief - i.e. we believe what we know. Many people also believe what they don't know. The important distinction is between what we actually know and what we only believe.
 
Ted Grant II said:
A theist believes in God or gods (by definition).

God doesn't believe God exists.

He knows God exists.
A subtle, but important distinction.

Therefore he isn't a theist.

Therefore (by definition), God is an atheist !
Click to expand...

what if there is more than one god? and god of what? and what if there is more than one creator?

what if there was an original creation of ultimate truth where there are no defects ( therefore no deception, lies, suffering, pain etc) of all the elements that could possibly exist in the right arrangement/order and no missing elements and it embodies the perfect system (the original source) that we all have some small link or memory from to long ago which we call heaven and then it broke off scattering us as seeds (the small spark of light/illumination) and started to divide creating more and the different mutating gods are formed from these elements as well as the lack thereof and in their likeness so you have shitty gods and good ones just like you have shitty bosses and good bosses or good parents or shitty parents. some of these are accidental mutations. just as we have traveled and been thrust so far away from original source, we long to go back to the truth of what we know was right and good. some have forgotten and been mutated so much and forgot where they originally came from, took to the particular fragmented universe they inhabit and ignorantly believe that is all there is, blinded by the temporal situation, even betraying the truth and for some still remember faintly keeping faith somehow so we try to awaken eachother through the trials and tribulations as we fight the darkness and imperfections that lead us astray from remembering who we really are and that was pure love and so we try to create that love wherever we are/make it home. some universes are more inhospitable where we fight eachother for resources. sadly, those who have totally forgotten have become enemies and have given into total selfishness/darkness/cruelty, some through ignorance and makes our struggle that much harder while some take the high road. we are so very, very far away from our real home and thus we are lonely searching, asking, wondering and asking ourselves why we have this calling to "know" so we are whole again. like a scent that travels, we are scattered and we may eventually die but that source will always remain like a spring and a well of hope and at least a soul confirmation that the truth was always there of everything we wondered about or knew in our hearts was right.

works for me.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
what if there is more than one god? and god of what? and what if there is more than one creator?

what if there was an original creation of ultimate truth where there are no defects ( therefore no deception, lies, suffering, pain etc) of all the elements that could possibly exist in the right arrangement/order and no missing elements and it embodies the perfect system (the original source) that we all have some small link or memory from to long ago which we call heaven and then it broke off scattering us as seeds (the small spark of light/illumination) and started to divide creating more and the different mutating gods are formed from these elements as well as the lack thereof and in their likeness so you have shitty gods and good ones just like you have shitty bosses and good bosses or good parents or shitty parents. some of these are accidental mutations. just as we have traveled and been thrust so far away from original source, we long to go back to the truth of what we know was right and good. some have forgotten and been mutated so much and forgot where they originally came from, took to the particular fragmented universe they inhabit and ignorantly believe that is all there is, blinded by the temporal situation, even betraying the truth and for some still remember faintly keeping faith somehow so we try to awaken eachother through the trials and tribulations as we fight the darkness and imperfections that lead us astray from remembering who we really are and that was pure love and so we try to create that love wherever we are/make it home. some universes are more inhospitable where we fight eachother for resources. sadly, those who have totally forgotten have become enemies and have given into total selfishness/darkness/cruelty, some through ignorance and makes our struggle that much harder while some take the high road. we are so very, very far away from our real home and thus we are lonely searching, asking, wondering and asking ourselves why we have this calling to "know" so we are whole again. like a scent that travels, we are scattered and we may eventually die but that source will always remain like a spring and a well of hope and at least a soul confirmation that the truth was always there of everything we wondered about or knew in our hearts was right.

works for me.
Click to expand...
Also called theism.
 
Ted Grant II said:
A theist believes in God or gods (by definition).

God doesn't believe God exists.

He knows God exists.
A subtle, but important distinction.

Therefore he isn't a theist.

Therefore (by definition), God is an atheist !
Click to expand...
Nyuk nyuk.

I'm not sure that having proof of God's existence disqualifies one from being a believer in God.

Does it mean Moses became an atheist when God presented himself to him?


I believe it's going to rain today, and lo! it is raining. Does that mean I do not believe it's going to rain?
 
spidergoat said:
Also called theism.
Click to expand...

No, it's not! the hypothetical framework has no specific entity or entities outside of itself to create. they are a product of, however powerful. the original creation is not even an entity but pure perfection blueprint (whole puzzle in perfect arrangement) and the subsequent offshoots//universes are a form of mutations and types of fragmented consciousness shaped/formed/adapted by their environment with differing properties. it's also the wording that is used to express consciousness.

that's like saying you are a theist because you exist and have consciousness. if that's how you want to define theism.
 
Last edited:
Ted Grant II said:
I propose a fourth religious position (apart from theism, atheism and agnosticism)
Click to expand...

You're a bit behind the times.

I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.

(#3398170/72↗)​
 
Tiassa said:
You're a bit behind the times.

I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.

(#3398170/72↗)​
Click to expand...

yet they are winners when they manipulate that math in their favor. it's not the ones who believe in the creed, code, and cult. it's the ones who use the math and use the creed, code, and cult to deceive that they don't and are playing by the same rules. even the spanish inquisition could all be whittled down to mathematics/abstract. math is not aware of the hows and whys or the truth of anything except it's own domain/understanding/process. the logic of math can be harnessed and used in the service of untruth (illogical by pure definition) as well as truth (logic by pure definition). math is not truth. math is true to math, that's all. no more and no less.

ironicly, your sober approach/view and non-commital to either though is good in that you don't lose focus of the whole picture and that's more empowering in times of critical decision-making and foresight than being out in left or right field view. if you get mired in a fixed theoretical model, you can get trapped by that framework if you can't see the validity of other models. flexibility is good.
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
You're a bit behind the times.

I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.

(#3398170/72↗)​
Click to expand...
It's not possible to be neither theist nor atheist.
 
spidergoat said:
It's not possible to be neither theist nor atheist.
Click to expand...

You presuppose the validity of the dualism. That is, the question whether God exists (theist) or not (atheist) is, ultimately, irrelevant without demarcating arbitrary boundaries.

Here, think of it this way: The God of the Sun, the God of Fire, the God of the Wind, &c. Why are there "gods"? Why do they have specific dominion? The power that enforces this is greater authority than the so-called gods.

Or another way: Why did a loving God create a Universe with such evil? Because He must. But why must He? Whatever enforces that limitation is a greater authority than the so-called God. (There is also the problem of a "loving" God; there is only one reliable tautology about the nature of the monotheistic godhead: God is. The tautology requires the vagary of is-ness, or, mere being, and can thus seem a linguistic puzzle, which is fair enough since we consider a semiotic question. Nonetheless, the more qualifiers we use to describe God—i.e., loving, good, &c.—the more finite limits we place upon It.)

The problem is that a monotheistic godhead can only work, logically, a limited number of ways, which eventually boils down to one, which is panentheism without divine consequence.

The apparent dualism of theism and atheism is itself a fallacy.
 
Tiassa said:
You're a bit behind the times.

I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.

(#3398170/72↗)​
Click to expand...
That's a good point.

Though it is one of those things that causes me to ask the obvious (to me) question:

If this apathetist were a betting man, and had a jillion dollars to place on one of the three options, which would he place it on? (After all, one of them is true, whether he cares or not.)


As an atheist, I know the logic for the non-existence of God is indefensible, but if I were to make a bet, I know how I'd bet.
 
Tiassa said:
Why did a loving God create a Universe with such evil?
Click to expand...

Short answer

god DIDN'T

Long answer

Read up on a mountain of physics books

However the creation of evil is interesting

My views on good/evil are well known I think but in short

THEY DON'T EXIST

(as in not in a REAL material sense)

Think of it this way

That are CONCEPTS on a sliding scale

If you consider something as being GOOD

what are you consider it good against?

If you conceivably live in a world where everything is good

is everything equally good?

or somethings gooder than others?

Extra good - Good - Not so Good - No Good

Sure you really can live in a world where everything is flows along smoothly and you think this is Good

And if nothing is happening which you would consider No Good

that may not be the assessment of your fellow humans

And your views, and those of your fellow humans, still would not have existence

:)
 
Tiassa said:
You presuppose the validity of the dualism. That is, the question whether God exists (theist) or not (atheist) is, ultimately, irrelevant without demarcating arbitrary boundaries.

Here, think of it this way: The God of the Sun, the God of Fire, the God of the Wind, &c. Why are there "gods"? Why do they have specific dominion? The power that enforces this is greater authority than the so-called gods.

Or another way: Why did a loving God create a Universe with such evil? Because He must. But why must He? Whatever enforces that limitation is a greater authority than the so-called God. (There is also the problem of a "loving" God; there is only one reliable tautology about the nature of the monotheistic godhead: God is. The tautology requires the vagary of is-ness, or, mere being, and can thus seem a linguistic puzzle, which is fair enough since we consider a semiotic question. Nonetheless, the more qualifiers we use to describe God—i.e., loving, good, &c.—the more finite limits we place upon It.)

The problem is that a monotheistic godhead can only work, logically, a limited number of ways, which eventually boils down to one, which is panentheism without divine consequence.

The apparent dualism of theism and atheism is itself a fallacy.
Click to expand...
You're making it too complicated. And you are getting the terminology wrong. Theism and Atheism aren't positions on existence, they are positions on belief. Either you believe in some form of God or you don't. There is logically no middle position.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Nyuk nyuk.

I'm not sure that having proof of God's existence disqualifies one from being a believer in God.

Does it mean Moses became an atheist when God presented himself to him?


I believe it's going to rain today, and lo! it is raining. Does that mean I do not believe it's going to rain?
Click to expand...
.

You mean when god showed his ass to Moses?

<>
 
Ted Grant II said:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/definitions-theism-atheism-agnosticism.95294/

I propose a fourth religious position (apart from theism, atheism and agnosticism)

Every person, from conception to (say) 2 years old is none of the above.

No baby could be said to be a Christian. It knows nothing about Christianity.
Likewise, it couldn't be an atheist or a n agnostic. These require a degree of knowledge of the god concept.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be a religious label for babies, except perhaps Innocent.
So I propose NOTA for babies.
I can also conceive of an intelligent (adult) being that is a NOTA.
Perhaps it applies to God himself ?
Click to expand...
.

There is no knowledge required to be an atheist. If no one had ever had any thought of gods, everyone would be atheist.

<>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top