Talk:Nontheistic religion

Atheism

Isn't Atheism one of the most notable non-theist religions? xnamkcor (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality." Atheism fits the definition used in this very wiki. xnamkcor (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism refers to a disbelief in the existence of gods. That's a single belief, not "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews". JudahH (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just be thankful "secular humanism" isn't often invoked anymore as a faith on a level with Christianity, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius (talk • contribs) 17:56, July 7, 2014‎

Atheism is an organised religion of non-believers, it fits the mould well. Of course that truth would grate the activist aitheist as their premis is 'religion is bad'. Bhudism should be removed from this topic if Aitheism isn't a religion, you can't have it both ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesi (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, atheism isn't a religion for the same reason that monotheism and polytheism aren't religions. These terms only refer to how many deities a person believes to exist. Some religions are monotheistic. Some are polytheistic. And for some religions, the notion of deities is at best not applicable. This last category consists of non-theistic religions. Again, "monotheism" isn't a religion either, but that doesn't mean Christianity for example isn't a religion; the "monotheism" simply describes one aspect of it. Likewise, the atheism aspect of non-theistic religions like Theravada Buddhism doesn't change the fact that Theravada Buddhism is still a religion. WillieBlues (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to throw my support to atheism and agnosticism as being separate from nontheistic religions. People of faith may have a hard time understanding that atheism is not a religion but an absence of religion. Ifnord (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is not inherently an absence of religion. Those of us who do not believe in god but are members of religions where that is accepted or required are still atheists. 2601:545:C002:97C0:90F0:72B1:346F:7863 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By most account, when people label themselves as atheists they're specifically atheist against Abrahamic religions. No one actually says they're atheist against the Greek Pantheon or Hinduism. The entire concept of it is linked to Abrahamic faith. The rest of us aren't anti-theists, we simply don't find it relevant. Don't put us under your umbrella. 119.236.47.178 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More nominations for inclusion here

Confucianism, Taoism, and animism deserve consideration as nontheistic religions. And if you're going to include some versions of Christianity, you should certainly add more spiritualized versions of Stoicism (in which providence, or reason, replaces the Olympian pantheon); and Neoplatonism (where the One functions similarly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius (talk • contribs) 17:56, July 7, 2014‎

Are you SERIOUS?

And I suppose "Theistic religions are traditions of thought within religions, some aligned with non-theism, others not, in which theism informs religious beliefs or practices."? What rubbish! The first line of the lede is Risible. How is a religion (or religions) "traditions of thought" within themselves? Or is this supposed to mean that they are "within" other religions???

WTF does "some otherwise aligned with theism" mean?

"in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices" WHAT?!? This is saying that nontheistic religion is nontheisism "informing" beliefs or practices? Who would have guessed?!! Just plain unhelpful.

A nontheistic religion is a "tradition"??? I think you mean organized (or traditional) nontheistic religions are. Anybody here ever heard that religions are systems of beliefs and practices? Who would have guessed!

A nontheistic religion is WITHIN a religion?? Some nontheistic religions are "aligned" with theism? Some are not "aligned" with theism? WTF is this supposed to mean??

Nontheistic religions are religions which do not presume the existence of gods. It is not directly relevant that nontheistic philosophy may 'align' with certain flavors of deism. The lede must focus on nontheistic RELIGIONS, not philosophy. It doesn't seem able to DO that; it certainly is incorrect to mention Hinduism.

Abitslow (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abitslow, you may wish to rephrase your post with more neutral and explicit language for clarity, and avoid vituperation. I've spaced out your comments to make them more readable, and removed insulting and inflamatory comments, as well as parts that do not have any information content.

You mentioned "A nontheistic religion is a "tradition"??? I think you mean organized (or traditional) nontheistic religions are." It's actually conventional to refer to both organized and unorganized religious practice as 'traditions'.

In reference to were you ask about nontheistic religions aligned with theism, that refers to times where there exists a theistic and nontheistic version of what is otherwise the same religion, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

Though it is somewhat reiteration of what I posted above, Hinduism is relevant to the discussion of nontheistic religion, as Nastik Hinduism is atheistic Hinduism. It contrasts with Astik ('regular') Hinduism, which it theistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:c002:97c0:90f0:72b1:346f:786323:27, 16 April 2020 (talk)

Better/simpler lead section?

Shouldn't it be more simple, ie. just refer to the word "god" or "deity" instead of "theism"? I could just make the changes myself but i think it needs a significant rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine for you to be bold and go ahead and make revisions. (If anyone disagrees, they might revert or modify your edits. Also, keep WP:NOR in mind.) I would argue, however, that using the word "theism" makes sense, in that it provides an "opposite" to "nontheism". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism of Paul Tillich?

I think thats its very arguable that Paul Tillich concept of God really means that he rejected a personal God (See his Talk Page). Thats why I`m not sure that to qualify him as an atheist seems proper. In some of his work he seems to mention a belief in a personal God. I`m not sure if this quote should be in the entry or not. It`s a personal interpretation and very arguable, because it seems to indicate that Tillich was a pantheist! "Secular humanist Sidney Hook wrote in an essay called "The Atheism of Paul Tillich":

With amazing courage Tillich boldly says that the God of the multitudes does not exist, and further, that to believe in His existence is to believe in an idol and ultimately to embrace superstition. God cannot be an entity among entities, even the highest. He is being-in-itself. In this sense Tillich's God is like the God of Spinoza and the God of Hegel. Both Spinoza and Hegel were denounced for their atheism by the theologians of the past because their God was not a Being or an Entity. Tillich, however, is one of the foremost theologians of our time.

I am leaving it in the entry but I would consider removing it.Mistico (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Paul Tillich concept of God should be considered atheist or pantheist. This is taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The dialogue of Systematic Theology is in five parts, each an intrinsic element in the system as a whole: questions about the powers and limits of man’s reason prepare him for answers given in revelation; questions about the nature of being lead to answers revealing God as the ground of being; questions about the meaning of existence are answered by the New Being made manifest in Jesus Christ; questions about the ambiguities of human experience point to answers revealing the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life process; and questions about human destiny and the meaning of history find their answers in the vision of the Kingdom of God. Readers of this and other works by Tillich have been impressed by the broad reach of his thought but also baffled by the philosophical terminology that he used in discussing God and faith. Those who see him as an advocate of agnosticism or atheism, however, may have misunderstood his intent. He rejected the anthropomorphic “personal God” of popular Christianity, but he did not deny the reality of God, as the conventional atheist has done. Modern “Christian atheists” who cite Tillich in support of their “God is dead” claim overlook the fact that for Tillich the disappearance of an inadequate concept of God was the beginning of a grander vision of God. Like Spinoza, he was a “God-intoxicated man” who wanted to help his fellow human beings recapture a relevant and dynamic religious faith."Mistico (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested if this would be considered a religion or not

I have googled this question and to my surprise I could not find anything on the internet with the same premise: Is there a religion based around the idea of the universe created by an intelligent non-supernatural being or race that has achieved a technological singularity? Would this be considered a non-theistic example? Xanikk999 (talk)

The Raelian Movement comes to mind. I don't know their beliefs about the existence of the universe itself, but they more or less believe that humans were intelligently designed by aliens. Still, they don't believe in deities (the aliens they believe in are viewed as being advanced organisms, not supernatural beings), and thus the religion would be a non-theistic one. WillieBlues (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalism and Religious Naturalism

Two other faith traditions that can be non-theistic are Unitarian Universalism (UU) and Religious Naturalism. The official position of the Unitarian Universalist Association is "religious pluralism" and UU congregations often contain Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans and other belief systems. The dominant belief systems among UUs is Religious Naturalism. Please see the Wikipedia articles on each of these. Elsewhere I have written: "Religious Naturalism has a long history. Naturalist movements exist in all religions, reacting to the superstitions and irrationality found in our human spiritual yearnings with theological foundations solidly ground in reason and science. These religious naturalists (no caps) tend to be the skeptics within mainstream religions, who want to probe and critique the implausible excesses of their own tradition’s theological thinking, which often veer into the fantastic, the improbable and even the insanely delusional. While these forms of religious naturalism are ancient and ubiquitous, today we are witnessing the birth of Religious Naturalism (with caps) as a separate freestanding religion of nature ground in a scientific worldview, inspired by environmentalism and having a somewhat Pagan ethos." Wayne Mellinger, "Introduction" to The Dionysian Naturalist (blog)(https://thedionysiannaturalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/this-blog-dionysian-naturalist.html?view=timeslide) Wayne Mellinger (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satanism and Nontheistic Paganism

Both major Satanic organizations, The Satanic Temple and the Church of Satan, are officially nontheistic. There are also at least two books out promoting Nontheistic Paganism ("Atheopaganism" by Mark Green and "Godless Paganism" which is a compilation edited by John Halstead. It seems really strange that Satanism at least isn't mentioned, as its most well-known orgs are nontheistic. Hyfway (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]