Which best describes your theological views?

Page 1 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

gbollard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,009
Location: Sydney, Australia

16 Dec 2007, 3:31 pm

Nominalist wrote:

Quote:

That sounds rather close to apatheism:

Ah... so there's a proper name for it.

I made up the word theoapathetic.

I didn't look it up because I didn't care

I'm surprised they cared enough to make a word for it....

I try to balance my two main religions; apatheism and jedi.

_________________
Gavin.
http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/

Angelus-Mortis
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 438
Location: Canada, Toronto

16 Dec 2007, 4:21 pm

Atheist agnostic. Since I do not believe in things that we do not know to exist, and we do not know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe in God. Although I guess that is atheist.

_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html

Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.

Ignorationi est non medicina.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Dec 2007, 7:08 pm

jfrmeister wrote:

That sounds like Deism or Spinozism.

Weak theism, at least in my own case, is probably midway between deism and theism. I am not exactly a deist, since I accept the possibility of supernatural intervention. I just don't assume that such intervention takes place, and I consider questions of the supernatural to be scientifically irrelevant.

Spinoza was a pantheist. My view of God is transcendent, not immanent.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

16 Dec 2007, 7:18 pm

Coyote27 wrote:

Odin wrote:

Atheist

You don't believe in yourself?

I don't believe in an invisible omnipotent being in the sky.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Dec 2007, 7:30 pm

gbollard wrote:

I try to balance my two main religions; apatheism and jedi.

Wasn't "jedi" one of the most common choices on a recent Australian census? As I recall, I came across that report in one of the journals I read, but I don't remember which one.

jfrmeister
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

16 Dec 2007, 8:22 pm

nominalist wrote:

jfrmeister wrote:

That sounds like Deism or Spinozism.

If you believe that supernatural intervention can take place, 1) doesn't that mean that god is therefore immanent? and 2) therefore doesn't that make god scientifically relevant?

In other words, if you think that god does intervene in this world, wouldn't that make god subject to scientific hypothesis?

_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Dec 2007, 8:44 pm

jfrmeister wrote:

If you believe that supernatural intervention can take place, 1) doesn't that mean that god is therefore immanent? and 2) therefore doesn't that make god scientifically relevant?

No, because immanence is generally used to refer to personal presence. I accept that the results of God actions can be present or observable but not God.

Quote:

In other words, if you think that god does intervene in this world, wouldn't that make god subject to scientific hypothesis?

No, because, as I said, I do not assume divine intervention. I accept that it sometimes occurs. Prediction, from my standpoint, would be impossible.

As a social scientist, I am functionally an agnostic (as Huxley defined the term). However, when it comes to nonscientific, nonempirical issues - like ethics and teleology - I am a theist. That is my approach to weak theism.

jfrmeister
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

16 Dec 2007, 9:08 pm

nominalist wrote:

jfrmeister wrote:

If you believe that supernatural intervention can take place, 1) doesn't that mean that god is therefore immanent? and 2) therefore doesn't that make god scientifically relevant?

No, because immanence is generally used to refer to personal presence. I accept that the results of God actions can be present or observable but not God.

Quote:

In other words, if you think that god does intervene in this world, wouldn't that make god subject to scientific hypothesis?

You strike me as someone who understands the concept of "non-overlaping magisteria". I see you've been carefull to construct a world where the two don't tread on eachothers turf.

_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Dec 2007, 10:20 pm

jfrmeister wrote:

You strike me as someone who understands the concept of "non-overlaping magisteria". I see you've been carefull to construct a world where the two don't tread on eachothers turf.

Yes, in fact I read the late Stephen Jay Gould's book as soon as it came out. Although I agreed with the substance of his argument, there was little in Rocks of Ages which was original.

jfrmeister
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

16 Dec 2007, 11:21 pm

nominalist wrote:

jfrmeister wrote:

You strike me as someone who understands the concept of "non-overlaping magisteria". I see you've been carefull to construct a world where the two don't tread on eachothers turf.

Yes, in fact I read the late Stephen Jay Gould's book as soon as it came out. Although I agreed with the substance of his argument, there was little in Rocks of Ages which was original.

The one problem with your position then, is that it is susceptible to FSM type reductio-ad-absurdum arguments. Belief in a god that never leaves physical evidence behind is in the same category as magical pink unicorns, flying teapots, FSM and the like.

_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 Dec 2007, 3:04 am

nominalist wrote:

ouinon wrote:

Atheism, not because i don't think a god exists, but because i am currently not choosing to believe in a god.

That sounds rather close to apatheism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

I must violently disagree with that. I can't have expressed myself very well.
As i immediately thought on seeing the term apatheism it is a combination of apathy and atheism and apparently means issue of god not considered important.

Whereas i think it is a potentially very important decision whether to believe in god or not. At the moment i choose not to . At another time i did, in a most deliberated fashion. It definitely has an effect. I am currently debating quite seriously about whether to do so again.

I would say am a classic atheist at the moment in that i currently do not believe in god. This is not a matter of indifference to me. I definitely notice the diference between believing and not believing.

I don't think it's a question of whether god exists or not in an empirical sense though.

Now i'm wondering whether it's more useful to refer to Unreality around us or the Non-Existent. Because if choose term unreality have to say god exists, as part of unreality! hmm.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2007, 3:24 am, edited 4 times in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 Dec 2007, 3:14 am

Phagocyte wrote:

ouinon wrote:

Atheism, not because i don't think a god exists, but because i am currently not choosing to believe in a god.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you have to explain this.

As above in answer to nominalist!

Does that make it any clearer?

Astreja
Snowy Owl

Joined: 5 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 133

17 Dec 2007, 3:48 am

Agnostic polytheist. I think that "gods" of somewhat limited power are possible, but don't see any way of verifying their credentials.

kitschinator
Snowy Owl

Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 156

17 Dec 2007, 12:50 pm

Agnostic.

I hope God exists, but I don't believe it.

I know there's no way to prove or disprove God's existence, so the only comfortable option is to accept that I don't know.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Dec 2007, 1:03 pm

Monotheist. I have changed a lot philosophically over time but yes, I am a monotheist.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

17 Dec 2007, 3:07 pm

jfrmeister wrote:

I am not saying that God does not leave behind physical evidence. My approach is simply to bracket the possibility.

Page 1 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Which best describes your theological views? Post Reply New Topic

Which best describes your theological views?