I would have guessed that everyone starts as an indifferent agnostic until they decide what they believe.
I would have guessed that everyone starts as an indifferent agnostic until they decide what they believe.
Flavus Aquila said:
When you start asking which is more practical, however, I regard it as a question of merit. For normal purposes, I see no practical differences between being a deist and being an atheist. I do see practical differences between being a theist and an atheist, however, since monotheism typically involves effects of the deity upon human lives. But to elaborate on that, I would have to go into my own opinions on what is helpful or harmful about belief in personal god(s).
Ignorance in this discussion is not a problem for me, since I have been on both sides of the fence. So if you have more questions about Christianity and/or atheism, ask away.
Agnosticism is defined by a certain attitude towards knowledge (that God's existence, and often a lot of other things, are inherently unknowable, and according to some, inherently at 50% probability). Children's brains work with absolutes. I'd say everyone starts out as an implicit atheist, and switches to an explicit belief before long. (Of course many children do catch on to agnostic principles later on.)
I am not entirely sure that's a good fit, that is if we're talking about children who haven't entertained the concept. I am not sure I would see them as atheist in any different sense than my pet rabbit would be. On the other hand, they are more capable of entertaining the concept, but I am not really sure I would call that atheist either, unless perhaps you are talking about a brief period between the conceptualization, and accepting their parent's views.
You're describing the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism is simply a lack of theism due to being unfamiliar with the concept of theism. Explicit atheism is a lack of theism (or, in some cases, a specific denial of theism) after being introduced to the concept.
S
Shai Gar
You should have submitted the version I quoted in my first post from Quinlan.
I corrected the spelling and the definition of deistic.
Fair enough, although it still seems to some extent like saying a housekey has implicit baldness. Which, while true, still seems somewhat irrelevant.
The loss of innocence
Something speaks to the man and the woman. Something in their nature whispers to them of something that feels wrong and yet right. The thoughts and feelings writhe around in their heads and bellies like a serpent. They are drawn to the world tree, which they notice gives forth fruit.
The woman is fascinated by the world tree. She wants to touch it. The man feels this is wrong but agrees. She takes the fruit from the world tree. From that moment neither of them is ever innocent ever again. From their act, children spring forth.
The story is passed down through the ages as a projection onto the external world of the inner struggles of humanity and the friction between mans urges and the laws imposed from above.
Deification results as mankind overvalues its own expressions of inner turmoil as it spills out into the world in countless forms. The laws come not from god but from the upper levels of the three estates to which everyone is a subject.
In order to carry on this ancient order of things it is the responsibility of men to make offerings to the altar of womanhood in order to ensure the continuance of the species.
This involves the performing of a ritual in which the self is lost as the man and woman become one and unify the universal man and the universal woman. The ritual ensures the natural order of things by recognising the mortality of man and woman, the cyclical rhythms of existence and the darker shades of their own inner being, whilst ensuring physical and emotional nourishment.
The same process is recognised in mother earth herself and similar steps are taken to ensure her own rhythms are maintained.
‘Ride the snake, to the lake; the ancient lake’- Jim Morrison
I want to create a new religious category called humourism. The belief that in the final analysis all that cloaks mankinds nakedness as it freefalls through the absolute is humour. Humour is the true path between sincere insanity and insincere insanity.
How does that fit into the schema?
Something speaks to the man and the woman. Something in their nature whispers to them of something that feels wrong and yet right. The thoughts and feelings writhe around in their heads and bellies like a serpent. They are drawn to the world tree, which they notice gives forth fruit.
The woman is fascinated by the world tree. She wants to touch it. The man feels this is wrong but agrees. She takes the fruit from the world tree. From that moment neither of them is ever innocent ever again. From their act, children spring forth.
The story is passed down through the ages as a projection onto the external world of the inner struggles of humanity and the friction between mans urges and the laws imposed from above.
Deification results as mankind overvalues its own expressions of inner turmoil as it spills out into the world in countless forms. The laws come not from god but from the upper levels of the three estates to which everyone is a subject.
In order to carry on this ancient order of things it is the responsibility of men to make offerings to the altar of womanhood in order to ensure the continuance of the species.
This involves the performing of a ritual in which the self is lost as the man and woman become one and unify the universal man and the universal woman. The ritual ensures the natural order of things by recognising the mortality of man and woman, the cyclical rhythms of existence and the darker shades of their own inner being, whilst ensuring physical and emotional nourishment.
The same process is recognised in mother earth herself and similar steps are taken to ensure her own rhythms are maintained.
‘Ride the snake, to the lake; the ancient lake’- Jim Morrison
I want to create a new religious category called humourism. The belief that in the final analysis all that cloaks mankinds nakedness as it freefalls through the absolute is humour. Humour is the true path between sincere insanity and insincere insanity.
How does that fit into the schema?
Last edited:
I chose pantheistic because, by the webster definition of the term, it seems to be the best fit with my beliefs. However, I'm somewhat riding the fence between that and agnostic... sad, as riding the fence is quite painful on the goods.
Ride the fence, to the lake, the ancient lake.....doesn't have the same archetypal impact really
o_o
Christianity is monotheistic, don't even try to say otherwise. Triple God/desses are counted as one. Isn't the great mystery of christianity is how three parts are one god?
ETA: because you can't hear my voice, the "don't even try" bit is meant to be sarcastic.
Christianity is monotheistic, don't even try to say otherwise. Triple God/desses are counted as one. Isn't the great mystery of christianity is how three parts are one god?
ETA: because you can't hear my voice, the "don't even try" bit is meant to be sarcastic.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
Anything more than one, is Polytheism. And we don't need to know what flavour theist you are, just the differences between the stated ones.
This is not a thread about the differences in theism, if you want a thread for that, create it.
S
Shai Gar
It sounds as though you are styling yourself as a deity in this post... or at least as some mytholigical type.
Hence my question: Is atheism always associated with the deification of self?
Last edited:
Your thread title is labled "Religious Beliefs - Discussion of differences, not merit"
seeing as there are differences between mono, bi, tri and poly theism I figured they were up for discussion as religious belief systems.