is there a term for not believing in god but also not being an aetheist ?

[patra_is_here]

so, since the beginning of the written word, there's been 2,870 deities in human history/culture. I don’t believe in any of those 2,870 gods specifically. I don't believe in a personal god. I don't believe in a god that directly intervenes with any of our lives. but I also do not believe that we are all here by happenstance chance from the combined chain of events since the big-bang.

 

i believe in science's view of things, as the observation of what is happening in the universe.

 

but as to the cause, i can't help but think there is slightly more, even though there's really not much reason to come to that conclusion.

[Robert_n_family]

I believe the term you are referring to is being agnostic.

[Technology]

Or nihilism, lmao.

[patra_is_here]

I believe the term you are referring to is being agnostic.

 

i thought agnostic was "i dont know", but could really go either way depending on proof.

[IntercooledFlatty]

is your name chip ?

[Convette]

Haha yeah. chiplee-izm

[patra_is_here]

no, chip is an atheist. he specifically believes there is not a god. Edited December 20, 2010 by patra_is_here

[Technology]

Chip als said he didn't believe in marriage. He can't be trusted.

[Fanta]

Chip als said he didn't believe in marriage. He can't be trusted.

 

I cannot stop laughing at this, mainly at the last portion.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Fanta

[Technology]

lol

[Fanta]

My mind just says it in a panicked whisper

[patra_is_here]

lol [whisper voice]he can't be trusted[/whisper voice]

[patra_is_here]

Chip als said he didn't believe in marriage. He can't be trusted.

 

it sorta makes sense to not believe in marriage, institutionally.

[Komeuppance]

Intelligent Design.

 

-Robert

[averse]

Why do you care about what label or term to put on what you think, it will only get in the way of your actual belief, anyway. As soon as you find a label, which likely won't exactly fit what you think, you will start to adopt that label and other beliefs attached to it that may not be what YOUR actual belief is now. Be grateful you dont have a term for it and let it be what it is!

 

Your mileage may vary.

[chiplee]

Based on what you've said, your stance is most like deism. We have a problem of definitions in our society that I'll try to explain shortly, but first let me make one thing clear up front. You don't have to be one or the other. You can be an atheist agnostic, or you can be varying degrees of atheist. In my case, for example, you're technically wrong to say that I specifically believe that there is not a god. I'm sure enough to live my life as if there is no god, but I understand that agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible stance one can have on the issue of god's existence. There just happens to be a MUCH smaller distinction between atheists and agnostics than society thinks there is. Agnostics understand that we must remain intellectually open to the possibility of ANYTHING that cannot be disproved. We cannot disprove the existence of a god, so they withhold judgment on the issue and opine about their leanings one way or the other depending on their mood. The atheist abandons agnosticism because he is able to admit to himself (or herself) that there are all sorts of things we cannot disprove, and we don't go around being agnostic to them. I don't believe in Russell's celestial teapot, but you can't prove it's not there. Should I call myself a teapot agnostic? Atheists just get it that this would become tedious if it were applied in an intellectually disciplined fashion, so they dutifully conclude that the business of "remaining open to the possibility of non-disprovable things" would be pointless. You could contend that your tooth brush doesn't actually clean your teeth but that it's the sub-microscopic gnomes in your toothpaste that do that, and as long as you were careful to describe the gnomes as "too small to be detected by even our most powerful microscopes," I could never prove you wrong. Should I remain agnostic to your toothpaste gnomes on that bases? Yes, technically I should, and I do, and that's also exactly the extent to which I'm agnostic to God's existence. An atheist absolutely DOES NOT believe there is no God, but only on this kind of pathetic technicality that there's no proof to that effect. As it turns out you can never disprove a negative claim, so agnostics are wasting their time. We should all understand that lack of evidence against, does not equal evidence for, and get on with our lives. There are much more interesting issues to contend with than god. I find it useless to remain open to one possibility while closing the door on so many others simply because society has deemed this an important issue. I am as open to the possibility of God's existence as I am to the possibility of your toothpaste gnomes doing the work when you brush your teeth, which is not very open at all, but it's not zero since I can't prove it. On exactly this basis, I am technically agnostic about god, but it is only as a concession to the nature of knowledge that I force myself to withhold judgment on the issue of God's existence. We really don't have a word for my stance on the issue of god, but the word "atheist" comes closer than the word agnostic. Dan Dennett calls us "Brights," but it hasn't really caught on. Many people actually use the term "teapot agnostic" as a way to caveat the traditional definition of agnostic with the technicality I described above. For all intents and purposes in my day to day life, there is no god.

 

but I also do not believe that we are all here by happenstance chance from the combined chain of events since the big-bang.

 

You've drawn a common conclusion here, but it's an error. Not believing in God, does not equal believing we are all here by happenstance.

 

 

but as to the cause, i can't help but think there is slightly more, even though there's really not much reason to come to that conclusion.

 

that's very natural, and I went through an identical phase of "self discovery" for quite a few years. I actually regarded myself as a deist; someone who believes in an utterly disassociated god similar to Spinoza's, but then I realized what I was doing. I was making the Universe fit my comfort level. Things always have causes in our world, but we're happy to assume into existence a causeless eternal being that is greater than us. If that's possible, then an eternal Universe is also possible, and we have no good reason to select one over the other. In this light there's nothing troubling about us coming into existence over time through billions of evolutionary permutations and matter reacting to the observable laws of nature. It's actually more beautiful this way.

 

 

I believe the term you are referring to is being agnostic.

Almost

 

 

i thought agnostic was "i dont know", but could really go either way depending on proof.

Indeed

 

 

no, chip is an atheist. he specifically believes there is not a god.

Covered this, and again, almost, but not quite.

 

 

Chip als said he didn't believe in marriage. He can't be trusted.

 

I don't believe in withholding the rights afforded to married couples from people who aren't allowed to get married. When the time came, my wife and I thought long and hard about refusing to marry until this was changed. Our decision just didn't go that way for a host of reasons, mostly selfish.

Edited December 20, 2010 by chiplee

[lmwii]

We should all understand that lack of evidence against, does not equal evidence for.

oh what a wonderful world it would be.

[patra_is_here]

you're technically wrong to say that I specifically believe that there is not a god

 

ohhh, i had thought i asked you about it and you we specifically in disbelief. I guess my memory is incorrect.

glad u cleared it up. (not being sarcastic, though it reads like i am)

 

 

 

that's very natural, and I went through an identical phase of "self discovery" for quite a few years. I actually regarded myself as a deist; someone who believes in an utterly disassociated god similar to Spinoza's, but then I realized what I was doing. I was making the Universe fit my comfort level. Things always have causes in our world, but we're happy to assume into existence a causeless eternal being that is greater than us. If that's possible, then an eternal Universe is also possible, so there's nothing troubling about us coming into existence over time through millions of evolutionary permutations and matter reacting to the observable laws of nature. It's actually more beautiful this way.

 

I see what you're saying, but it's slightly different than my take. as I am completely comfortable in thinking there's no god. a godless universe makes sense to me. again, I just can't believe in a god, or a deity, or even something that could "think" , in terms of physical reality, as being the thing that created this.

 

although, a no-size universe that doesn't actually exist (no physicality, only the perception of physicality) to where we're all non-independent deity-less perception/creators seems more plausible. or at least equally implausible as a god created universe.

 

I really hate the mental paradox that always seems to arise when i start thinking about this stuff, and it's always invariably brought up as a mental side topic to something else i was talking about with someone.

[chiplee]

ohhh, i had thought i asked you about it and you we specifically in disbelief. I guess my memory is incorrect.

glad u cleared it up. (not being sarcastic, though it reads like i am)

 

Your memory is probably fine. As society defines atheists, I'm not one. As I define an atheist, I am one. Society's definition is flawed.

 

 

 

 

I see what you're saying, but it's slightly different than my take. as I am completely comfortable in thinking there's no god. a godless universe makes sense to me. again, I just can't believe in a god, or a deity, or even something that could "think" , in terms of physical reality, as being the thing that created this.

 

although, a no-size universe that doesn't actually exist (no physicality, only the perception of physicality) to where we're all non-independent deity-less perception/creators seems more plausible. or at least equally implausible as a god created universe.

 

I really hate the mental paradox that always seems to arise when i start thinking about this stuff, and it's always invariably brought up as a mental side topic to something else i was talking about with someone.

 

What am I missing, do you think a god started it all, or not? Or are you just torn? Being torn is pretty much a great stance.

[chiplee]

i guess, i sorta think god started it all, except i don't think god is how it's defined by any religion or society. they all seem incorrect. I can only really explain how it feels by giving an analogy. When I hear anyone speak of god (any god), I feel like they're describing something in the most juvenile, illogical way, in another language.

 

even my first sentence in this post "I sorta think god started it all" doesn't really feel true to me. I feel like the words don't actually capture what I mean. It's like i need another word for my view on all this. but it may be do to the fact that in my view, the word "god" is subjective, so i might not be able to let go of my anti-god biased when dealing with the word itself.

 

It stands to reason that someone who gives it some serious thought would feel let down by the available language. These terms were invented by believers, for believers, and much of our available words revolve around getting people to come down on one side or the other with little wiggle room in between. I'd say you're on the right track if you don't like the words they invented or the absolutist and presumptuous definitions they attached to them.

[SubZero]

Intelligent Design.

 

-Robert

 

I agree.

[BrazilBoy]

All I know is if you have a few shots fired over your head you won't be yelling "Darwin save me!"

[chiplee]

All I know is if you have a few shots fired over your head you won't be yelling "Darwin save me!"

 

People who don't believe in god wouldn't be yelling for anyone to save them. They would realize that their life depended on the guy next to them in a war/combat situation or on their adversary's aim in a civilian/urban violence situation. Either way, those who rely on god to stop bullets tend to have their genetic code selected against, so your Darwin reference isn't entirely pointless.

[JAinsworth]

This thread has been cleaned up and re-opened. Please keep on topic and not personally attack each other.

Jimmy

[SubZero]

People who don't believe in god wouldn't be yelling for anyone to save them. They would realize that their life depended on the guy next to them in a war/combat situation or on their adversary's aim in a civilian/urban violence situation. Either way, those who rely on god to stop bullets tend to have their genetic code selected against, so your Darwin reference isn't entirely pointless.

 

 

You're probably right about atheists not calling on God to save them for they already made up their minds that this is all there is and then back to dust you go, the end. But for the rest that are not 100% sure and mainly the ones that believe in God if given the opportunity to call on God just before certain death, most of them would be calling on God to help them.

 

I believe in creation and when God made man in His image the genetic code was perfect, God also granted man free will and domain over all other created living creatures, unfortunately man misused his free will and sinned.

The consequence of sin is death and our genetic code changed ever since because of sin. From dust God created Adam, then God created Eve from Adam and they were both perfect creations. But since their sin of wanting to be like God made them into mortal beings their genetic code was no longer perfect thus making everyone after them genetically imperfect. And here we are today, healthy or sick we still die and become dust once again.

 

If God could be explained, then that would make him a false god. No one can explain God that without cause has always existed. I think its funny when people portray God as an old man, balding with a long gray beard, God never ages and is always at his prime!

It was impossible for Darwin to explain God, for just like me and everyone else, God is way too mighty for our simple minds, so Darwin did the best he could, he found a way to explain God away. I chose to put faith in God and take Him for His Word.

 

So here we are mainly divided into 2 groups by those who believe in evolution and nothing after death and by those who believe in creation and that after death is when life really begins for eternity. Its our granted free will, to believe or not to believe.

 

Chiplee, you obviously enjoy learning and like sharing your vast knowledge, since we all die someday anyway, why do you not give God a chance? Going to heaven instead of hell would allow you to continue your learning hobby, only not from text books but from God's infinite mind.