Atheism and theism

[aneeshm]

The atheism and theism debate is as old as philosophy itself - that is not what I wish to go into here . I would like to ask the members here to tell me how many agree with the definitions Indian philosophy provides for atheist and theist ( which are called naastik and aastik , respectively ) . I must tell you that it requires you to be open minded to shake up definitions so much , but I believe that this is something new that can be brought to the table for those interested .

An aastik is defined as a person who defines himself and his beliefs as what he is and believes , whereas a naastik defines himself in terms of what he is not and does not believe .

These definitions are quite broad , but can capture the essence of both the states and types of thought succinctly . Do you agree with them ?

 

[Sidhe]

They would make a good orgiinal point for philosophical discussion but they are far to vague to give a real insight into atheism or theism.

I myself prefer the more literal aproach

Theism belief in God or Gods

Agnostic: Belief that gods cannot be proven to exist or not to exist and thus you cannot know, or assertion that you have no idea

Atheism: Belief that god or gods do not exist.

You can quite happily fit yourself into any of those without the need to be particulalalry vague if you want to be precise then simply explain exactly what you believe.

It's kind of the opposite of your two meanings, you start off with absolute meaning and then you sub divide that. Rather than you start off with a vague concept of what either could be that is indistinct and nebulous which could lead you to a more absolute definition. Either way I supose has it's merits but I would prefer my way I think.

 

[aneeshm]

The problem with using the definitions as believer and disbeliever in a God or Gods is that the concept of God varies too much between cultures . The Hindu pantheistic monistic God is very different from the Semitic monotheistic dualistic ones , and is equally different from the polytheistic Gods . The definitions I provided capture the essential attitude , rather than specific form , of atheism and theism .

 

[Sidhe]

Agreed but that's why I advocate dividing your belief into something a little less specific. From either direction if you start with a vague concept and build to a more specific relgious outlook or start with an absolute and make it less definitive.

It's kind of like mathematically Integrating an equation or differentiating it. The equation is the same it's a matter of which angle you want to look at it from. Make it more complex or reduce it to the more simple? Actually to be precise it's more like taking an integrated equation or a differentiated one and then applying differentiation and integration respectively, but I think you get the idea.

I see no problem with both but prefer to do it from the absolute perspective.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The atheism and theism debate is as old as philosophy itself - that is not what I wish to go into here . I would like to ask the members here to tell me how many agree with the definitions Indian philosophy provides for atheist and theist ( which are called naastik and aastik , respectively ) . I must tell you that it requires you to be open minded to shake up definitions so much , but I believe that this is something new that can be brought to the table for those interested .

An aastik is defined as a person who defines himself and his beliefs as what he is and believes , whereas a naastik defines himself in terms of what he is not and does not believe .

These definitions are quite broad , but can capture the essence of both the states and types of thought succinctly . Do you agree with them ?

Sounds like a lot of words just to say "atheism: lack of belief in a god."

 

[Birdjaguar]

They would make a good orgiinal point for philosophical discussion but they are far to vague to give a real insight into atheism or theism.

I myself prefer the more literal aproach

Theism belief in God or Gods

Agnostic: Belief that gods cannot be proven to exist or not to exist and thus you cannot know, or assertion that you have no idea

Atheism: Belief that god or gods do not exist.

You can quite happily fit yourself into any of those without the need to be particulalalry vague if you want to be precise then simply explain exactly what you believe.

Do all forms and non forms of god fall into this scheme? Where do the buddhists fall? Where do you put the people who say "I don't care whether or not god exists."?

 

[Sidhe]

People who don't care are agnostic too, you just qualify it with the lack of caring is an extension of not ebing able to know whether God exists. As for Budhism since they do not dismiss the idea of a creator they simply just don't follow one, then they are agnostics. They have no idea whether a creator exists but they don't dismiss the idea. You just have to qualify your agnosticism is all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

People who don't care are agnostic too, you just qualify it with the lack of caring is an extension of not ebing able to know whether God exists. As for Budhism since they do not dismiss the idea of a creator they simply just don't follow one, then they are agnostics. They have no idea whether a creator exists but they don't dismiss the idea. You just have to qualify your agnosticism is all.

It would seem that "I don't know" and "I don't care" are not the same at all. Why would you lump them together?

The buddhists seem pretty positive that the "empty state" exists.Why would they be agnostic? Or doesn't the "empty state" qualify as a creator?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I thought there weren't enough options up there, so I said I believe in spirit, but not in form.

It sounds like it has a whif of induction vs. deduction, which can be separate of theism/atheism. The empirical elimination of theories that are proven to probably be wrong, leaving behind sturdier theories could fall under the "what I don't believe line.

But then theist and non-theist characteristics can fall under deductive. Someone might have premises they start with that have nothing to do with "God". Unless you are suggesting a wider definition of God as any postulate.

 

[Sidhe]

It would seem that "I don't know" and "I don't care" are not the same at all. Why would you lump them together?

The buddhists seem pretty positive that the "empty state" exists.Why would they be agnostic? Or doesn't the "empty state" qualify as a creator?

Why should I make a distinction all. Just have three definitions and then extend them to include whatever distinctions your religion has. Why should I have to talk a load of mumbo jumbo and say blah blah blah when I can say I'm agnostic but in that I don't dismiss god but acknowledge that the source of all things whether it be a god or something else is the creator. People just like making everything ultra complicated, it's really odd? Ok call it a subdivison of agnosticism, call it non theistic agnosticism whatever, my original point is I start from what ever tight definition you want then explain that, I didn't expect to have to define my definitions so much. If you want to sub categorise everything go ahead call that my original definitions now insert that into my original post, that's my answer.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why should I make a distinction all. Just have three definitions and then extend them to include whatever distinctions your religion has. Why should I have to talk a load of mumbo jumbo and say blah blah blah when I can say I'm agnostic but in that I don't dismiss god but acknowledge that the source of all things whether it be a god or something else is the creator. People just like making everything ultra complicated, it's really odd? Ok call it a subdivison of agnosticism, call it non theistic agnosticism whatever, my original point is I start from what ever tight definition you want then explain that, I didn't expect to have to define my definitions so much. If you want to sub categorise everything go ahead call that my original definitions now insert that into my original post, that's my answer.

I was just looking for clarification on what you meant and how you accounted for those two posiitons. Sorry I asked.

 

[aneeshm]

Why should I make a distinction all. Just have three definitions and then extend them to include whatever distinctions your religion has. Why should I have to talk a load of mumbo jumbo and say blah blah blah when I can say I'm agnostic but in that I don't dismiss god but acknowledge that the source of all things whether it be a god or something else is the creator. People just like making everything ultra complicated, it's really odd? Ok call it a subdivison of agnosticism, call it non theistic agnosticism whatever, my original point is I start from what ever tight definition you want then explain that, I didn't expect to have to define my definitions so much. If you want to sub categorise everything go ahead call that my original definitions now insert that into my original post, that's my answer.

The problem is that the conventional definitions simply break , and do not work , when applied to non-dualist systems of thought . That has been my entire point till now , you see .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I like it.

 

[Sidhe]

I was just looking for clarification on what you meant and how you accounted for those two posiitons. Sorry I asked.

Oh don't mind me I'm just in a grumpy mood

The problem is that the conventional definitions simply break , and do not work , when applied to non-dualist systems of thought . That has been my entire point till now , you see .

Ahhhhh sorry time to go beat myself over the head with a hammer, yeah ok when I've finished I'll try and reply properly.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem is that the conventional definitions simply break , and do not work , when applied to non-dualist systems of thought . That has been my entire point till now , you see .

Without a clear definition of god, thesim, atheism and agnosticism are pretty meaningless. Most people here think only in terms of western christian theology so they fail to grasp how that won't work when including eastern religions/theology in a discussion. Only as long as theism and atheism are confined to western culture do the common definitions make sense.

 

[kingjoshi]

I don't see how the propsosed definition has anything to do with atheism/theism. I still view myself based upon my beliefs, not my lack of belief in any common defintion of God. I don't follow any religion, but I have my own philosphies and morality. I don't see how a lack of belief in god or following any religion has anything to do with how I define myself.

Sidhe, you keep saying people want to make it more complicated, but you don't see how your own system's ambiguities and flaws make it more complicated.

As Birdjaguar as pointed out, different definitions of god but continual usage of that all-encompassing term is problematic. But it's not one that will go away.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe, you keep saying people want to make it more complicated, but you don't see how your own system's ambiguities and flaws make it more complicated.

.

As has been made clear my definition is based on western belief, it is fairly easy to distinguish your belief based on western concepts such as atheism agnosticism and theism. You simply qualify your position. This does not lead to ambiguity if you express your ideas with a more exact position. Pretty much you take the basic definition and then use it to expound your own, it works well enough.

Can't answer the orginal posters preposition yet though, need to think on. And do a bit of research I'll get back to you.

 

[mdwh]

An aastik is defined as a person who defines himself and his beliefs as what he is and believes , whereas a naastik defines himself in terms of what he is not and does not believe .

It would be right if it was talking specifically about belief in God, rather than any belief.

Clearly, atheists still believe things, and they do not define themselves in terms of "what they don't believe" - atheism is just one label amongst many that may define a person. But yes, it is a label in terms of what you are not - the reason I use it is not so much because what I don't believe is inherently important, but because the fact that so many people do believe in God, and it's important for me to say that I'm not one of them.

To the others in this thread, agnosticism is a separate concept - about knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

Buddhists who don't believe in God aren't theists, so they're atheists. They're probably agnostics too.

I don't think there's a word for someone who doesn't care whether God exists or not.

I don't care whether some given random person in the street exists or not, but I believe that that person exists. I don't care whether invisible elephants exist, and I don't believe in them.

See? It's a separate concept to belief.

 

[North King]

I love Indian philosophy, but I don't think that this is true all the time, so I have to disagree.

 

[aneeshm]

Without a clear definition of god, thesim, atheism and agnosticism are pretty meaningless. Most people here think only in terms of western christian theology so they fail to grasp how that won't work when including eastern religions/theology in a discussion. Only as long as theism and atheism are confined to western culture do the common definitions make sense.

That is what I have driving at all this time - that atheism and theism are meaningless in the Indian monistic context , and thus may have to be redifined when discussing God with people of a different philosophical background ( such as I ) .