JWeinCom said:
Peh said:
By your definition I am not allowed to say that I am "not a theist" even if I am not considering myself a theist. Is that correct?
Also, if you define "not a theist" as something as literally everything that doesn't fit the definition of a theist, then this would include an atheist. Am I correct?
Your definition of atheism would exclude people who are even being presented with evidence still wouldn't believe in one due to other reasons. For example, god being a mass murderer. Is that correct?
I don't want to sound pendantic, but let's get to the bottom of it.
|
By my definition, atheist is a subset of the group "not a theist". Not only would you be allowed to say you are not a theist, but every atheist would by definition also be not a theist. You could accurately use either term if you wanted.
Think of it like rectangles and squares. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All atheists are "not a theist" but not all "not a theists" are atheists.
I didn't use the term believe in, because that can have two different meanings. That's why I specified believes in the existence of. A person who accepts that some god exists, but would choose not to follow him or worship him would still be a theist.
|
Ok, i see where you are coming from. You want to use "not a theist" as an umbrella term.
Well, it can work.
