Nuances With Nonbelief

[muichimotsu]

With some other discussions coming up on this, I thought it prudent to bring up that the terminology is broader than some may realize.

Atheism as a term historically started off merely accusing someone of not believing in the right god, seemingly more a henotheistic position that you didn't really believe in the God if you believed in pagan deities (or the Christian God from the Romans' perspective). From there, it became more associated with people that to some degree didn't believe God exists (a whole other discussion in itself of whether disbelief entails a positive assertion, etc) rather than just being the wrong kind of believer in a god. Deists, pantheists, etc, were accused of being atheists, the term still used in a pejorative fashion in some circles (I can't imagine why /sarcasm)

But you also have nontheism as a broader term covering nonbelief in deities to various degrees and for many different reasons

This covers things of a semantical nature, like ignosticism/igtheism and theological noncognitivism, bringing into question the coherence of the term "God" in the first place; ideas of an irreligious nature like post theism that suggest we have gotten beyond the need for God in the first place (not as common); ideas that are more unified in a sense, such as secular humanism (another debate in itself as to whether it's a religion in any meaningful sense or at most a worldview); and ideas of a more fundamental nature regarding the impact of God's existence or nonexistence, such as apatheism, which has at least 2 variations, practical atheism, living as though God doesn't matter or more directly stating that whether God exists or not are both unimportant in themselves for existential or practical reasons, as well as the epistemological aspects with agnosticism, generally either the idea that the supernatural is fundamentally unknowable or that we cannot reason out the existence of the supernatural either in its nonexistence or existence.

There are several religious traditions or variations within traditions traditionally considered more theistic that have a nontheistic aspect, such as Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Even Christianity has theological notions presented by thinkers like Paul Tillich that can be considered transtheistic, going beyond the idea of a personal deity to a ground of being, along with the Nontheistic Quakers (which I'd never heard of, though I'd heard of Quakers), even Daoism and other religions I feel I shouldn't mention beyond that they have a temple and use particular imagery, sometimes connected with Anton Lavey

 

[Chriliman]

With some other discussions coming up on this, I thought it prudent to bring up that the terminology is broader than some may realize.

Atheism as a term historically started off merely accusing someone of not believing in the right god, seemingly more a henotheistic position that you didn't really believe in the God if you believed in pagan deities (or the Christian God from the Romans' perspective). From there, it became more associated with people that to some degree didn't believe God exists (a whole other discussion in itself of whether disbelief entails a positive assertion, etc) rather than just being the wrong kind of believer in a god. Deists, pantheists, etc, were accused of being atheists, the term still used in a pejorative fashion in some circles (I can't imagine why /sarcasm)

But you also have nontheism as a broader term covering nonbelief in deities to various degrees and for many different reasons

This covers things of a semantical nature, like ignosticism/igtheism and theological noncognitivism, bringing into question the coherence of the term "God" in the first place; ideas of an irreligious nature like post theism that suggest we have gotten beyond the need for God in the first place (not as common); ideas that are more unified in a sense, such as secular humanism (another debate in itself as to whether it's a religion in any meaningful sense or at most a worldview); and ideas of a more fundamental nature regarding the impact of God's existence or nonexistence, such as apatheism, which has at least 2 variations, practical atheism, living as though God doesn't matter or more directly stating that whether God exists or not are both unimportant in themselves for existential or practical reasons, as well as the epistemological aspects with agnosticism, generally either the idea that the supernatural is fundamentally unknowable or that we cannot reason out the existence of the supernatural either in its nonexistence or existence.

There are several religious traditions or variations within traditions traditionally considered more theistic that have a nontheistic aspect, such as Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Even Christianity has theological notions presented by thinkers like Paul Tillich that can be considered transtheistic, going beyond the idea of a personal deity to a ground of being, along with the Nontheistic Quakers (which I'd never heard of, though I'd heard of Quakers), even Daoism and other religions I feel I shouldn't mention beyond that they have a temple and use particular imagery, sometimes connected with Anton Lavey

What's interesting about Christianity is that God became a man, which means we need not look any further than man(Jesus and those who emulate his teachings) to find God. You may be inclined to define God as the whole of human experience, wherein the most perfect way of being and acting reveals itself. I understand this can open up a slew of other questions, but that is the basics of it.

 

[muichimotsu]

What's interesting about Christianity is that God became a man, which means we need not look any further than man(Jesus and those who emulate his teachings) to find God. You may be inclined to define God as the whole of human experience, wherein the most perfect way of being and acting reveals itself. I understand this can open up a slew of other questions, but that is the basics of it.

But if God became a man, is that not lowering itself and thus taking away its uniqueness?

Why should we reduce God to human experience in any sense? Saying you believe in humanity and comparing that to believing in God seems silly when we can show a person being untrustworthy: God's trustworthiness is based on inferences of events and not anything demonstrable or falsifiable

Perfection is speculative and hollow, if you ask me. Seeking out something you can never actualize or should not arguably seek because it would stagnate and undermine any need to progress, which makes the whole process a waste of time and energy that only serves some sanctimonious self-satisfaction

If you just define God in such a way that it seems more compelling, then it arguably just supports theological noncognitivism and ignosticism/igtheism's point that the term is ill defined and cannot be so precise as, say, a plant

 

[Chriliman]

But if God became a man, is that not lowering itself and thus taking away its uniqueness?

I wouldn’t think so because God didn’t cease being God, he just took on a new form that we could comprehend.

Why should we reduce God to human experience in any sense? Saying you believe in humanity and comparing that to believing in God seems silly when we can show a person being untrustworthy: God's trustworthiness is based on inferences of events and not anything demonstrable or falsifiable

If God can’t reduce himself to human experience then there’s no way we can understanding him. I’m simply saying God can speak through people, but isn’t necessarily limited to that form of communication.

Perfection is speculative and hollow, if you ask me. Seeking out something you can never actualize or should not arguably seek because it would stagnate and undermine any need to progress, which makes the whole process a waste of time and energy that only serves some sanctimonious self-satisfaction

Throw out the term perfect then. I just mean the best way of living an abundant life, which involves progress and growth as well as love and compassion.

If you just define God in such a way that it seems more compelling, then it arguably just supports theological noncognitivism and ignosticism/igtheism's point that the term is ill defined and cannot be so precise as, say, a plant.

Eh, if a compelling idea yields useful results, I’m all for it.

Edit: That is as long as the idea isn’t false or harmful in any way.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn’t think so because God didn’t cease being God, he just took on a new form that we could comprehend.

That's convenient to have your cake and eat it too with a man-God hybrid

If God can’t reduce himself to human experience then there’s no way we can understanding him. I’m simply saying God can speak through people, but isn’t necessarily limited to that form of communication.

You can claim that, but you can't actually demonstrate your correlation indicates causation in the slightest about the "God" source

Throw out the term perfect then. I just mean the best way of living an abundant life, which involves progress and growth as well as love and compassion.

'Best' is little different than perfect, it entails completion and no need for progress, my point would still stand

Eh, if a compelling idea yields useful results, I’m all for it.

Edit: That is as long as the idea isn’t false or harmful in any way.

Pure pragmatism for beliefs not only has the problems you have to qualify after you posted, but even just the usefulness of beliefs even if they aren't entirely false or harmful is insufficient to conclude that they are benign when the demonstrable facts are that religious beliefs are not subject to the same kind of correction we'd apply to science, etc. They're damaging in how people are unwilling to really challenge them because they're seen as sacrosanct

 

[FireDragon76]

What's interesting about Christianity is that God became a man, which means we need not look any further than man(Jesus and those who emulate his teachings) to find God.

Most Christians around here seem to think the Bible, not Jesus, is the revelation of God. In fact there is an unspoken tension in Protestantism over just what the basis of authority is, with liberals generally giving more priority to Jesus.