Talk:Nontheistic religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nontheistic religions)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Atheism[edit]

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

It's not a religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

More nominations for inclusion here[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:56, July 7, 2014‎

Are you SERIOUS?[edit]

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? NOTHING!! Apparently, the author of the above likes to listen to himself/herself talk, since there is ZERO information content in "alignment" of traditions with theism.
"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. Rather than semantically meaningless dribble, why not attempt to construct an article which informs? The apparent problem is that the author(s) are unable to deal with the semantics of what a religion is. I am not sufficiently motivated to investigate whether or not the reference agrees with the miserable explanation given or not. Assuming it is, a BETTER source needs to be found, but either way the first sentence should be removed and (possibly) replaced with one which summarizes what, generally, is meant by the term "non-theistic religion". Isn't this obvious?Abitslow (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Better/simpler lead section?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Atheism of Paul Tillich?[edit]

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)

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)