What do I call myself if I don't believe in religion?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
If you don't believe in religion, then you are called "non-religious". This is a simple question with a simple answer, why didn't anyone say this yet?


Because there are better answers than your generic one. "Non-religious" doesn't mean anything, as regards to theism, agnosticism or atheism, which was the OP's point -- they didn't like being called an atheist when they weren't one.
edit on 14-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hi NOTurTypical,

I understand you don't classify me a christian. I'm okay with that. I don't either. I try to have respect for traditions that have been in my family for centuries. My grandfather was a devout catholic (can't get much more pagan than that!) and my grandmother was protestant. I KNOW, the irony, right? All of my husbands grandparents come from various christian denominations. Then throw in the Native American ancestors...

We are all each unique, with our different views. I certainly don't mind, nor care what your beliefs are. People believe what the want to believe.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


I didn't say anything about you though.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by TrueBlood
 


As an Atheists, you have your options open.
I am an Atheist.
I don't have any view of any established religion.

If you already made up your mind, that there is no god or diety.
Then you are an Agnostic.


I think you have this backwards. If you don't believe in a god, you are an Athiest. If you choose to have your options open, you're Agnostic. Right?


Yes, they have the two backwards.

Some atheists will argue with you until they're blue in the face about "disbelief" versus "lack of belief", but if one equates "lack of belief" with atheism, then there is no such thing as agnosticism, which there obviously is. Someone who insists that they have a "lack of belief", but they don't "disbelieve in God", they are an agnostic, not an atheist.

(Which invariably results in claims of "Agnostic Atheism" and "Gnostic Atheism" and other terminology, all born out of the point that atheists make a non-neutral claim, while agnostics only make neutral claims.)


And there has to be a theism before there can be atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the divine, that is a personal worldview, but it does mean that there is no divine, only the rejection of it. And for someone to reject something, it has to exist to be rejected. There is no such thing as pure atheism. Atheism is merely a worldview. But again, for them to reject God, then that means God has to exist in order to be rejected.


Atheism (from Greek: a + theos + ismos "not believing in god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism


That does not say that God exists or not, merely the personal viewpoint of the atheist. There is no such thing as pure atheism, because denial is still a part of reality.

One can be falsely accused of something, let's say a bank was robbed, a person is accused but denies it because he did not do it. That does not mean the bank was not robbed, only the person did not do it. So let's suppose this, a person sitting at home one evening and the cops invade their home because someone called the police and said the man had bombs. They made the story up, yes. But the threat of bombs is a reality and the threat was assumed. Is the threat a fabrication or is the accusation a fabrication? Only the accusation is. There may have been no bombs, but the police knew from experience the threat that was proven through real events prior to the false accusation.

Bombs are real, threats are real, so therefore, the police acted accordingly. Only the accusation was fabricated. His denial was toward the accusation, not the real threat of real bombs. If the man said "bombs do not exist" and yet prior experience has proven it, then he is abomb, or someone who denies bombs. Maybe only in his home bombs do not exist, however, the material for the bomb can be found.

Atheism is merely a denial by an individual, it does not mean there is no God, only he rejects it. But again, for something to be rejected, it has to exist in the first place.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The Original Poster specifically said that they do not believe in religion, so automatically he or she is non-religious.

If the person believes in God, then I have to ask, what TYPE of God does the person believe in ? A personal God with interacts in our lives? An impersonal God which just creator the universe and doesn't do much else?

Depending on the answer, they may be a Deists.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Depending on the answer, they may be a Deists.


Geez, read the thread -- that's exactly what we determined that OP is.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBlood
I do not believe in religion. Infact, I honestly believe it's religion that is holding us back as a species, but that's not what I wanted to get into. I do believe in a "God" or "gods" (or some being that initated the "big bang") because something created the universe. I say that I don't believe in religion and people call me an atheist, but by definition, I can't be an atheist because I believe in a higher creator. So what do I define myself as? Can religion be seperated from God?


You are a deist.


Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator.


From Wikki: Deist





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join