Define Atheist, Agnostic, Non-Theist, Anti-Theist

[Doug Shaver]

However...it seems to me that creating these distinctions does not a have a solid basis or foundation

The difference between strong atheism and weak atheism is real, and it would exist regardless of whether we attached any label to it. Whether the difference is worth arguing about is another matter. In my experience on this and similar forums, once the subject comes up, substantive discussion nearly always ceases, and that is generally the fault of both the theists and the non-theists who are participating in the exchange. If the question is "Should we or should we not believe in God?" then the issue of what we should call people who don't believe is purely diversionary.

If the gnostics believed that we have the ability to gain divine knowledge...it would stand to reason that agnostic would simply mean believing that there is a lack of ability to obtain divine knowledge.

Assuming that "divine knowledge" means "knowledge about the divine" . . . The gnostics did believe that, but it was the way they claimed to acquire divine knowledge that distinguished them from other theists. It is not the case that all their adversaries denied any ability to gain divine knowledge. Orthodox Christianity has generally claimed to have plenty of divine knowledge while condemning gnosticism as heresy.

In modern usage, agnosticism is just the denial of having any knowledge, period. It seems to have been Huxley's intention, when he coined the word, to include the implication of nonbelief as well, and common usage does include that implication. Strictly speaking, though, one can affirm a belief in God while also claiming to be agnostic. I don't recall ever meeting anyone who does that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few of them around.

[StephenR]

Here's how the terms are usually used at my uni.

Theist - Believes in at least one personal deity.

Atheist - Believes there are no gods.

Agnostic - Uncertain if there is a god (or gods).

Deist - Believes there is at least one impersonal deity (usually a hands-off creator).

Pantheist - Believes that nature itself is god. (Panentheists believe god is the divine reality manifested in nature.)

Non-theist - All people who are not theists (atheists, agnostics, deists, etc).

Anti-theist - this is usually a moral or political commitment against theism. Anti-theists generally feel that god-concepts are harmful in some way.

------

But it depends on who you ask. Among philosophers, many who are atheists are so as a consequence of naturalism.

[Griggsy]

We ignostics find that with no referent as First Cause,etc., and He has incoherent, contradictory characteristics, He cannot exit. See my signature.

[Wolvrik]

Non-theist

There are many definitions of the word non-theist floating around out there. When this term is applied to Buddhism however, it has a meaning unique to Buddhism.

For the atheist and the agnostic there is no path to what would be referred to in Christianity as "salvation" nor do they concern themselves with this pursuit. For the Buddhist (non-theist) there is a clearly defined path to salvation or liberation. This path to liberation does not rely on "God" or a god in order to achieve it's goal. Buddhists don't deny that gods or demons exist, they are just seen as beings like ourselves that are subject to the same laws of karma and therefore are not that special. Because of this, the idea of an omniscient creator god is rejected and in this sense I suppose you could twist the atheist designation around to fit. The following excerpt states the Buddhist view fairly nicely:

Shambhala Sun | July 2001
Religion Without God

Theism implies an inherent limitation to human nature. It declares that to attain the ultimate, we must look outside of ourselves and our immediate experience. It establishes a reference point for reality that resides somewhere else and directs us to seek confirmation of the self in relation to that.

The doctrines of original sin or inherent human depravity would be examples of theism in its more extreme forms. They are typical in asserting that we can connect ourselves to the ultimate only by making a relation with that which is exterior to us, and that we can do so only through the agency of a savior, a holy book, a religious institution, and so on.

In Buddhism, the meaning of theism is best understood when set in a wider context. In a larger sense, theism refers to anything outside of us that purports to solve the human predicament. It may be spiritual; it may be secular. Some people seek salvation in an external deity. But others seek it in a philosophical viewpoint or political movement, in a relationship, in social status, or in material acquisition.

In each case, the individual seeks ultimate confirmation and fulfillment by looking outside. What is already present within his or her experience, what arises throughout the course of a day or a life, is discounted as being without ultimate value. In a sense, whether the external "answer" is materialistic, psychological or religious does not really matter.

The Buddhist approach states that what is ultimately required for human fulfillment is a perfection of being that is found in who we already are. This is the meaning of the Buddha's advice given shortly before his death and recounted in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, in which he councils his followers to be lights unto themselves, to seek refuge in themselves, and to seek no other refuge, using the dharma as a means to that end.

[Griggsy]

Wolvrik, Buddha's Wrong Path, doesn't have a creator god is why some cal it atheistic. Its divas are godling, no more real than other polytheistic gods. No reason exists to postulate them whatsoever; they fill no niche. Perhaps the right term is adeism or adevism- no interference in our affairs as were those of Epicurus as opposed to those of Greek mythology, who could interfere in the world but none have the power of creation; something created and the Titans before them..
And ignoramuses created Yahweh!
Buddha himself stated for people to question matters rather than have faith as children, in effect. as I fathom that faith. We rationalists note his advice to seek ones own inner resources : she who helps herself, does that without any God at work on her!
We naturalists do have concerns over reincarnation and karma as no evidence can exist for them.
Buddha didn't tell people to go to Hell! No one has to succour to him!
Yes, that notion of human depravity is overkill! most people are good most of the time. Study Albert Ellis's " The Myth of Self-Esteem."

[Wolvrik]

@Griggsy - Thanks for the reply. I guess I mistakenly responded to your post, sorry. I was just posting a better definition for non-theist as seen from a Buddhist perspective.

I was not making a case for the existence of a "God" ,"god", "gods", supernatural beings, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only reason it was mentioned is that there are branches of Buddhism that incorporate these ideas into their flavor of Buddhism. When this occurs (for better or worse) these "beings" are seen as explained above. Zen Buddhism is less involved the esoteric ideas. Granted karma is a theory but cause and effect are not. As for reincarnation, really who knows? I like the idea but I won't make a case for it because none can be made. Still, it comes down to "pick your metaphor". I like to see the world the way I see it as a Buddhist. I can't claim this is the "correct" or completely rational way to see it but with that always in mind, I like it. There is also the possibility that it could be correct, or not.

I do find your designation "Buddha's Wrong Path" unnecessarily condescending.

[Griggsy]

Wolvrik, thanks for the civility.
Anyway, Buddhism doesn't proclaim a creator and sustainer God who would violate the Ockham and introduce indirectly intent into science
. Per Lamberth's atelic or telenomic argument, the weight of evidence rules out any divine intent behind natural causes and effects, so no intent behind the Big Bang, none for miracles, no intent for patterns as designs, and thus no referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist.
As Paul Edwards notes in " Reincarnation," the evidence is quite against reincarnation. He finds Stevenson erring. He finds the use of children as reincarnated erroneous.

Cause and effect, most certainly, but we don't always see justice done to murderers: Mao the greatest mass murderer of the twentieth century didn't get the effect of any karma!
I condescend in order to take away the sacredness of religions. Anyone else who says yea or nay to this policy, please comment.
Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters, eh?
What is it about Buddhism that is better than any other religion? I have a Buddhist critique of Christianity that fairly criticizes it.

[Wolvrik]

All good points well taken. However, karma (presuming you accept the idea for arguments sake) is not "punishment" for humanly perceived "evils". Karma is just karma. It operates rather stupidly without making judgments. It has an undefiled nature that transcends duality. We are not always aware of the endless dimensions of cause and effect.

However, to accept any of these things requires some degree of faith which is something I could not ever understand. I've had people say to me "you gotta have faith", I respond, "Why do I have to have faith?" It is an illogical and unreasonable mental construct.

"Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters, eh?"
"What is it about Buddhism that is better than any other religion?"

That is your answer, "Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters."
At some point even the Buddha's teaching must not be relied on other than the looking to yourself for the answers. This is a unique position for a religion. I know of no other that entreats the follow to leave the teaching behind. As for reincarnation, Buddha was asked the question, "what happens after you die?" It is said that he "maintained a noble silence".

Anytime anyone takes a stand and says, "this is the way it is" this is the point where you should clearly understand that the person or teaching is in error.

Still, I like being a Buddhist and I like the rituals associated with it.

[justsumguy]

These are my definitions...
Atheist - insists there can be no god(s)
Agnostic - does not insist there is a god(s) or is not a god(s).
Theist - insists there is a god

Soft Atheist - thinks the belief in god(s) is stupid but is willing to grant the smallest of possibilities.

Militant Atheist - Insists we can't know and insists to know.

Soft Theist - thinks that atheists are stupid but cannot define their god in a way that makes any sense

Militant Theist - Insists God exists and those who do not believe them will be punished forever for daring not to believe them.

[Griggsy]

We ignostics find that as He has no referents as Primary Cause and so forth and that He has incoherent,contradictory attributes that He cannot exist so that positive[hard] atheism wins.
My form pervades arguments for and against HIs existence, and thus counters Alfred Jules Ayer and Theodore Drange's comments that ignosticism tells against both theism and atheism.

[Anti-theist]

I'm sorry but there is not wiggle room for Athiest's, because Atheism is " The doctrine that there is no deity." which makes it it's own religion, if anyone chooses to deny this then go look in up in a hard back dictionary. And guess what, Athiest's are just as bad as people of other religions and here is why, 1.Both have people who are ignorant of what they're preaching 2. Both preach that their's is the correct belief. And guess what people of the atheist religion your proof goes as far as people of any other religion, which is a dead end. I'm open not knowing because that's what puts the meaning into every decision a person makes, giving beauty to every moment your alive because it may be the last you experience. But good job showing your ignorance.

[Doug Shaver]

I'm sorry but there is not wiggle room for Athiest's, because Atheism is " The doctrine that there is no deity." which makes it it's own religion, if anyone chooses to deny this then go look in up in a hard back dictionary.

I have looked up both atheism and religion in several dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, which is generally regarded as the most authoritative of them all.

And if you think the material used for the cover of any book is an indicator of its quality, then you are in no position to be giving anybody lectures about how to prove anything.

[fluidmindorg]

Just ignore him, Doug. He's just trolling. Not worth your time.

--Dan

[Doug Shaver]

He's just trolling. Not worth your time.

No doubt, but his atheism=religion argument was similar enough to others that I've seen that I had to respond for the lurkers' benefit, if no one else's.