What is a non-theistic religion?

In matters like this...

...we should all drop the labels.

The labels are worthless, because they mean different things to different people

It is okay to describe one's position and then say, "This is primarily an atheistic (or agnostic or theistic) position. BUT DESCRIBE IT.

My position is primarily an agnostic position. Here is how I normally describe it:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible); — Frank Apisa

How about zero evidence and zero possibility? On your criteria, you must accept the proposition that you owe me USD 1,000. And that the universe is run by the magic hippopotamus - after all, you have no evidence. Btw, what do you mean by "God"?

tim wood
4.1k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa

How about zero evidence and zero possibility? — tim wood

Zero evidence says nothing about whether gods can or cannot exist.

As for "zero possibility" ...why did you make that up?

On your criteria, you must accept the proposition that you owe me USD 1,000. And that the universe is run by the magic hippopotamus - after all, you have no evidence. Btw, what do you mean by "God"?

That is an absurd, and failed, attempt at logic.

Where did I make a case based on a lack of evidence, Tim?

Did you just dream that up?

"Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism ."

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322

This is from a conversation from different thread with me and @180 Proof

Theism (as I understand it's sine qua non attributions) defines g/G with claims (1) there is at least one Mystery (2) that Created Existence & (3) Intervenes - causes changes - In the Universe (as per e.g. scriptures, prophesies, testimonials, theodicies, metaphysics, etc) — 180 Proof

My response to him:

but when is God ever defined as something different than claims 1,2, and 3? — Pinprick

His response to me:

See wiki re: (e.g.) deism, pandeism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire: — 180 Proof

I take his response to imply that the “isms” he listed are not Theistic. Hence this thread :grin:

Thanks, but this doesn’t seem to address the issue. Essentially if Theism refers to only certain types of religions, then it would make sense that Antitheism only refers to the same religions as Theism. The question then is what about the other religions that are excluded from Anti/Theism? I assume Atheism would include all religions, Theistic or otherwise. But there doesn’t seem to be a word that describes someone that disbelieves religions that are not Theistic, but who has a different stance towards Theistic religions, which seems odd to me.

There is something very confusing about the way you are framing this. Baden gave you everything you need to answer your question, the terms you are asking about are clearly defined yet you treated it like a non-sequitor.
If a religion is not theistic, then atheism isnt a position one is able to have about that religion because atheism is a position on theism (namely, the absence of theism). If one is an anti-theist, then one is only anti-theistic religions although Im still not clear on what you have in mind for a “non-theistic” religion. Those “isms” you listed are types of theisms, and I do not see how a specific definition of god (the 1,2 and 3 traits) implies any of those “isms” are not theism.
A generic definition of theism was given by 180 Proof, the various “isms” are variations/sub categories of theism (and thus a variation on 180’s definition of theism) so it doesnt make sense to then reference those “isms” as being implied not theistic based on not exactly matching the generic definition. They won’t match the generic definition, they are more specific and further defined types of theism.

:up:

If Antitheism only concerns theistic claims about God’s existence, does that mean that non-theistic claims about God’s existence are at least plausible in the Antitheist’s eyes? — Pinprick

Speaking for myself as an anti-theist, I'm agnostic (and even ignostic) with respect to 'non-theistic concepts of divinity' because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché).

If so, then that would mean followers of non-theistic religions would also be Antitheists as well, correct?

I don't think so. Many Japanese Buddhists, for instance, also revere? (worship?) traditional Shinto 'deities'.

I don't think so. Many Japanese Buddhists, for instance, also revere? (worship?) traditional Shinto 'deities'. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I think that's right. I have Taoists in my family, and a couple of them would pray to deities like the "kitchen god," Guan Gong, Guan Yin, etc.. They would also do ancestor worship (bai sun). But most of them just thought of those deities as mythological characters. They would still do the ancestor veneration rituals (mainly for Chinese/Lunar New Year) but it wasn't to worship, rather to pay respect and continue the tradition. Some Taoists have a more pantheistic conception of God (with or without the minor deities). Others believe in a "Jade Emperor." And yet others still will say they don't believe in a god at all.

Many Japanese Buddhists, for instance, also revere? (worship?) traditional Shinto 'deities'. — 180 Proof

‘Born Shinto, marry Christian, die Buddhist’.

Pragmatic.

The point about antitheism and atheism generally, is that following Descartes’ ‘grand division’, most of the engineers and scientists flocked to explanations which could be expressed in terms of res extensia, for obvious reasons. The Royal Society, first scientific body in the world, explicitly excluded consideration of matters religious from its charter, which was understandable considering the religious turmoil of the day. Nobody wanted anything to do with the arcane disputes of the schoolmen. So Enlightened Philosophy henceforth was explicitly grounded in anything other than God; whatever explanations might be considered, the had to ring-fence anything that might be construed as associated with God, or for that matter even scholastic philosophy. ‘Don’t mention the war!’

Born Shinto, marry Christian, die Buddhist’.

Pragmatic. — Wayfarer

:rofl: :up: you can be born again if you do that and repeat the entire process. Always remember to die a Buddhist :grin:

I’m trying to understand the term Antitheism better. — Pinprick

It seems it's possible to be a theist and yet an antitheist for the latter is defined as an active opposition to god. An atheist being an antitheist is natural evolution doing its thing but a theist who is an antitheist is someone who must hold that god does more harm than good, something not too outlandish if one looks at all the atrocious acts being committed in his name.

If a religion is not theistic, then atheism isnt a position one is able to have about that religion because atheism is a position on theism (namely, the absence of theism). If one is an anti-theist, then one is only anti-theistic religions — DingoJones

I take Atheism to apply across the board, since it is the denial of any God’s existence. This would apply to Theistic conceptions of God or otherwise, but the word is misleading. I would agree with your last sentence, but I wasn’t sure, which is why I asked.

Those “isms” you listed are types of theisms, and I do not see how a specific definition of god (the 1,2 and 3 traits) implies any of those “isms” are not theism. — DingoJones

Because, wouldn’t a Theist be someone that agrees with the Theistic conception of God? If so, then anyone who disagrees with Theism’s conception of God could not be a Theist, they would be an Antitheist(?).

Speaking for myself as an anti-theist, I'm agnostic (and even ignostic) with respect to 'non-theistic concepts of divinity' because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché). — 180 Proof

That’s basically what I meant by “plausible;” Agnostic.

I don't think so. Many Japanese Buddhists, for instance, also revere? (worship?) traditional Shinto 'deities'. — 180 Proof

Ok, but which conception of God would they believe to be true? Theistic, or non-theistic? Holding both beliefs would be contradictory, so holding one excludes you from being capable of holding the other, right (at least logically)?

Yeah, I saw that in the link @Baden provided. Very interesting. Does this mean that Antitheist’s can believe anything they like regarding the existence of any Gods, as long as they are against the spread of Theism?

I take Atheism to apply across the board, since it is the denial of any God’s existence. — Pinprick

You're mistaken. E.g. (JCI) monotheists are atheists with respect to "other gods" (e.g. Olympian Pantheon, Nordic Sagas, Hindu Vedas, Indigenous tribal totems, etc).

Ok, but which conception of God would they believe to be true? Theistic, or non-theistic? Holding both beliefs would be contradictory ...

No. Holding 'simultaneously' that both theism and anti-theism are 'true' is contradictory. As Wolfman & Wayfarer point out (above), the 'apparent inconsistency' (of (e.g.) Daoist pandeism (or pantheism?) combined with worship of local deities + ancester veneration) is only apparent and quite pragmatic, or non-binary - different 'objects of hope' for addressing different 'modes of fear' - in terms of cultural (traditional) context.

Does this mean that Antitheist’s can believe anything they like regarding the existence of any Gods, as long as they are against the spread of Theism?
2h — Pinprick

In my humble opinion, yes.

Holding 'simultaneously' that both theism and anti-theism are 'true' is contradictory. — 180 Proof

1. Four possible positions: Theism is different to Atheism is different to Agnosticism is different to Antitheism

2. There are only three possibilities re existence of god viz. Theist: god exists; Atheist: god doesn't exist and Agnostic: god may or may not exist

Ergo

3. Antitheism has nothing to do with existence of god (for there are no positions on the existence of god other than the three described in 2 above and antitheism is a fourth possibile position on god)

Ergo

4. (Antitheism & theism)/(antitheism & atheism)/(antitheism & agnosticism) are all consistent i.e. these are not contradictions.

[Antitheism is simply to consider religion/god harmful]

:chin:

Lost me completely.

Lost me completely. — 180 Proof

:chin:

Match the following:

God beliefs:
1. god exists
2. god doesn't exist
3. god may/may not exist

Formal positions (all being different from each other)
a. Theism
b. Atheism
c. Agnosticism
d. Antitheism

1 to a, 2 to b, and 3 to c. Considering that a, b, c, and d are all different positions d (antitheism) can't be matched to 1 or 2 or 3, otherwise you'd be saying d (antitheism) is the same as a (theism) or b (atheism) or c (agnosticism) which is false. Ergo, antitheism, has nothing to do with the existence of god and so doesn't contradict theism or atheism or agnosticism.

:chin:

Match the following:

God beliefs:
1. god exists
2. god doesn't exist
3. god may/may not exist

Formal positions (all being different from each other)
a. Theism
b. Atheism
c. Agnosticism
d. Antitheism — TheMadFool

:roll: :monkey:

As I've previously pointed out here to you, Fool, mixing ontological apples with epistemological oranges loses the coherent plot: (my) anti-theism claims that theism's negation is true (i.e. that the specific claim about divinity called "theism" is not true) AND THEREFORE any theistic g/G's negation is true as well; thus, atheism (i.e. theistic g/Gs [TOKENS] are fictional) is entailed by anti-theism (i.e. theism [TYPE] is not true).

As I've previously pointed out here to you, Fool, mixing ontological apples with epistemological oranges loses the coherent plot: (my) anti-theism claims that theism's negation is true (i.e. that the specific claim about divinity called "theism" is not true) AND THEREFORE any theistic g/G's negation is not true as well :chin: ; thus, atheism (i.e. theistic g/Gs [TOKENS] are fictional) is entailed by anti-theism (i.e. theism [TYPE] is not true). — 180 Proof

:grin: lost me completely

Doesn't see how if you've read on past the last semi-colon. :eyes:

Doesn't see how if you've read on past the last semi-colon. :eyes: — 180 Proof

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between antitheism and atheism? If there's no difference then why different words for the same idea? If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism. :chin:

What's the difference between ANTItheism and Atheism? — TheMadFool

It's the difference between Type and Token, or set and member ... concept and referent ... epistemic "ANTI" and ontic "A". The latter belongs to the former; if the former is true, then the latter necessarily is true.

If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism.

Anti-theism is a second order (meta) claim about theism and not a claim about g/G (which would be a first order (object) claim). Likewise, atheism is, as I conceive it, an ontic - existence - entailment of postive truth-value anti-theism, just as 'composite numbers are not members' is entailed by the set-membership rule 'only natural numbers greater than one that are not products of two smaller natural numbers' (re: prime numbers).

Ok but what do you make of the following quote:

It [antitheism] includes, therefore, atheism, :ok: but short of atheism, there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a deity; but it is anti-theistic :chin: since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it asserts that there is a god; but it is anti-theism, :chin: for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possessed of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. — Robert Flint (1877)

???

Not sure I agree with you here, one could be an anti-theist but not an atheist. One could believe in god and hate/resent god for his biblical acts and be an anti theist for that reason. I dont think your breakdown covers that angle.

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between antitheism and atheism? If there's no difference then why different words for the same idea? If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism. :chin: — TheMadFool

This I agree with, the two words do not mean the same thing. Anti-theism is pretty clearly about religion and ideology surrounding god, not the existence of god per say. Atheism is a direct stance on the existence of god. I think you got yourself a good point for once (:wink: )

Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many theistic branches that make up that old-time "burning bush", and very much, besides, an "almighty"-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions.

A believer who hates g/G can call herself "anti-theist" but that objection - rejection - isn't philosophical (i.e. critique as a result of reflective inquiry). "Hatred" of g/G by e.g. a JCI theist is merely indistinguishable from 'satanism' - just another 'faith' (i.e. subjective stance or avowal à la fideism).