Never heard of God! ?

I’m just running a quick poll to get ATS member’s opinions on the following subject.

Here is my question.

If someone had never heard of God, how would you categorize him or her, as (a) Atheist (b) Theist (c) Agnostic or (d) something else completely different?

Now I know that it is a tricky thing to define\categorize and is a fairly unique position for someone to hold, but if you can make your choice and give a reason behind your thinking, then that would be great.


I will go first….


(c) Agnostic


Reason…
They cannot be Atheist or Theist because they are not in a position to make that decision, so because such a person would be essentially unsure or at least undecided, through no fault of their own, I might add, then the closest category I would have to put them into, would have to be the Agnostic one.

I look forward to your hearing your thoughts and perspectives…


- JC

Why, do they need to be categorized?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Nihilism; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.


I am not religious, I do not fit into any of these categories, maybe I missed some?
I think the existance of a god or gods is irrelevant, I just dont care either way

reply to post by Joecroft


This type of labeling is what has gotten the world in shape it is. I resist it, as we all should, in my opinion.

I would go for D) -something completely different-. If they hadnt heard of god or grown up in a society with religious beliefs, and knew nothing of a supposed creator being, I would just call them 'unelightened'. Thats not to say that they are wrong or right though. From not having the god argument put to them they cant be classed as atheist,theist or agnostic as they dont have the knowledge of god to be defined in those categories!! I know what im trying to convey but finding it hard to put into words. Il try an example,if I didnt know meat existed you couldnt call me a Vegetarian or Vegan as Ive never been given the choice to decide that fact for myself.I hope this helps with your survey!!

reply to post by watchitburn

Originally posted by watchitburn
Why, do they need to be categorized?

Why does anyone, categorize anything?

Originally posted by watchitburn
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Yes I agree with those, Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, all of which have an underlining theme to them, that of being undecided, unknowable or unsure.

An agnostic can decide that something is unknowable and therefore be agnostic, but they can also be in the position of undecided i.e. the position of “I don’t know”. What I mean by undecided is that they have not decided, that it is unknowable (pending further information etc) because they don’t claim to know, either way. IMO this is a very important point, when trying understand agnosticism.

Because Agnosticism fits at least one of the criteria, which is the position of “I don’t know”, then IMO this is the closest, you can get to defining someone who “has never heard of God”. The person who has “never heard of God” hasn’t and cannot make any decision, other than to say “I do not know”.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Yes I go along with those definitions as well, but I also see that a rejection of a deity as a non-belief, and as such, is a belief in itself. In short it is a belief that something does not exist but it is still a belief.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Nihilism; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Sounds pretty depressing lol

Originally posted by watchitburn
I am not religious, I do not fit into any of these categories, maybe I missed some?

You are definitely in one those categories, you are either an Agnostic or an Atheist.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by imonlyhuman
This type of labeling is what has gotten the world in shape it is. I resist it, as we all should, in my opinion.

It’s not labeling in the sense of negativity or prejudice towards a particular group.

It’s about categorizing it, so as to gain a better understanding of it; it's not about pointing the finger.

Also someone who has never heard of God, is pretty unique! I persoanlly dont have a problem with it.

I can’t even believe how your post has received any stars, it is totally ill thought out and is missing the entire point of the question.

At least everyone else has got it! and has made a decent attempt at the question.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
It’s not labeling in the sense of negativity or prejudice towards a particular group.

It’s about categorizing it, so as to gain a better understanding of it; it's not about pointing the finger.

Also someone who has never heard of God, is pretty unique! I persoanlly dont have a problem with it.

I can’t even believe how your post has received any stars, it is totally ill thought out and is missing the entire point of the question.

At least everyone else has got it! and has made a decent attempt at the question.

No, I understood what you were asking, I just don't agree with asking it.

Even the discussion of the categorization of an individual is an exercise in judging the individual. It may not be intentional or even desired but it is there nonetheless. Categorizing, in itself, is a judgement of acceptable boundaries from the categorizer’s (?) belief system. The grouping of individuals is what pits one individual against another. Do you not see this? Your question may not intend negativity or prejudice towards a particular group, but that is always the outcome when individuals are "grouped. When an individual is categorized and especially when they accept that categorization, then group values / mentality takes over and the individual conforms to the group belief system. It is a human safety mechanism. If I’m “X” and Jack’s “Y” and Sally’s “X”, then Sally and I are more likely to become friends because we have “X” in common. Where does that leave Jack?

I'm sorry if you don't see what I'm saying, I can't verbalize it any better. Rest assured, I am not trying to derail your thread, just stating my opinion...

reply to post by dooleysleftleg

Originally posted by dooleysleftleg
I would go for D) -something completely different-. If they hadnt heard of god or grown up in a society with religious beliefs, and knew nothing of a supposed creator being, I would just call them 'unelightened'. Thats not to say that they are wrong or right though. From not having the god argument put to them they cant be classed as atheist,theist or agnostic as they dont have the knowledge of god to be defined in those categories!!

Thanks you for your post, this was the kind of post and thinking I was looking for. At least you have thought it through, with an argument to boot and more importantly, you have actually answered the question in my OP! and rather well, I might add.

Originally posted by dooleysleftleg
I know what im trying to convey but finding it hard to put into words. Il try an example,if I didnt know meat existed you couldnt call me a Vegetarian or Vegan as Ive never been given the choice to decide that fact for myself.I hope this helps with your survey!!

Yes I understand the problem and I will admit that it is extremely difficult to categorize and convey it accurately. Your analogy though has intrigued me and I think you are right, in that they couldn’t be called a Vegan or a Vegetarian. They are kind of in a state of limbo. In fact the best way to sum it up IMO, is that they have yet to come to a decision because they do not know the thing of which, they are to make a decision about lol hope that make sense.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


What God are you referring to here? If you're referring to a person who doesn't see Jesus as God then I would ask them do you believe in Jesus in any other way? Maybe they could be Muslim?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by imonlyhuman
Even the discussion of the categorization of an individual is an exercise in judging the individual.

It may not be intentional or even desired but it is there nonetheless. Categorizing, in itself, is a judgement of acceptable boundaries from the categorizer’s (?) belief system.

But people categorize and label things everyday and they don’t necessarily do it, in the form a negative judgment, it can also be done in the positive, or even in a neutral context.

Atheists don’t have a problem with being called atheists, theists don’t have a problem with being called theists, and agnostics don’t have a problem with being called agnostics.

Originally posted by imonlyhuman
The grouping of individuals is what pits one individual against another.

Your question may not intend negativity or prejudice towards a particular group, but that is always the outcome when individuals are "grouped.

Only if the categorization is being done in a negative way…If one guy likes rock music, another likes classical and another one likes pop, then that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be pitted against the other.

I personally don’t have a problem with agnostics and atheists and I certainly don’t hate them.

Originally posted by imonlyhuman
When an individual is categorized and especially when they accept that categorization, then group values / mentality takes over and the individual conforms to the group belief system. It is a human safety mechanism. If I’m “X” and Jack’s “Y” and Sally’s “X”, then Sally and I are more likely to become friends because we have “X” in common. Where does that leave Jack?

Well, once again, I think it has more to do with whether it’s negative categorization that is being dished out, and we can’t just assume that all categorization is in the negative form.

You may have other things in common with Jack, like “A” or “B” and you aren’t necessarily against or hate Jack, just because he has “Y” and you have “X”.

Not long ago, the Black African man was considered a second-class citizen with hardly any rights; that was how he was categorized and it was wrong and shameful to do so. Today though, he is categorized as being equal, which is a positive categorization.

All categorizations need to be weighed up carefully, to decide if they are positive, negative or neutral. We can’t just automatically assume that all categorizations are negative and judgmental.

Anyway I hope you can see that this thread is not about attacking anyone’s beliefs, it’s about helping to define those beliefs, not judge them.

Originally posted by imonlyhuman
I'm sorry if you don't see what I'm saying, I can't verbalize it any better. Rest assured, I am not trying to derail your thread, just stating my opinion...

Thank you, your opinion is valued…


- JC

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
What God are you referring to here? If you're referring to a person who doesn't see Jesus as God then I would ask them do you believe in Jesus in any other way? Maybe they could be Muslim?

Questions, questions, always questions lol

Man, you post a question and all you get is questions…

(The above is just me talking to myself, do not be alarmed)


Ok to answer your question, I’m thinking strictly of a belief in a God i.e. the creator of everything, as it is defined in the dictionary. The decision and specifics, as to which religion or Christian denomination you believe in, or whether you just believe in a higher power, with no religious inclinations, would have to be sorted out later. Although it is possible, that those things could be sorted out first.

- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


I believe in my own version of God. Something like a mark to help me explain my version of everything. My view of God is more of metaphor. I believe a lot of what Atheist present to the table and I'm an evolutionist.

I would go with E) Living in a cave but then i think to myself...... even then they'd probably of heard at least something pertaining to God even if the word God was not used, but some kind of belief in something...... ugh.... other. Whether they believe in God or not everyone has heard of God one way or another, the idea of God at any rate, if no particular god per say.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
I believe in my own version of God. Something like a mark to help me explain my version of everything. My view of God is more of metaphor. I believe a lot of what Atheist present to the table and I'm an evolutionist

Well God has been defined as the creator of the universe and everything in it, that’s really the main starting point, for trying to answer the question in my OP.

Just out of curiosity, what is your version of God?


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


My version of God is kind of the Jews and most likely Muslims explain God. Except I don't really worship God and follow any religion. I just the version of God to explain what I believe better.
God in Judaism
I took a lot from this article and implied it to my views on my version of God. Even though I'm looking for converts or people to think like me. I believe my version of God is more of a metaphor.

This may sound crazy, but I believe every single person on the face of this earth (deep down inside) knows that there is God. God is hardwired into everyone.The confusion is WHO God is, not to mention WHAT God is

reply to post by Joecroft


I think I understand where you are going with this, and I apologize if i got off topic.

But to categorize someone who has no knowledge of god or another higher power with athiests and agnostics, is like comparing a cell phone to an apple and an orange. They have no context to base an opinion on.

I once knew a young woman from Ecuador. She was bright and quick witted, but having not grown up around western culture she didnt get our jokes sometimes.
I asked her what time is it when an elephant sits on your fence? (time to get a new fence of course.)
But she just looked at me like I was stupid and said elephants dont sit on fences.
So I clarified that if for some some crazy reason an elephant did decide to sit on your fence, what time would it be?
She looked at her watch and said 3:30

She had no context for such an absurd question, it made no sense.

I hope all this made sense, its the best I can do to describe what I'm thinking.

But still it's a great thread topic and I look forward to seeing more comments.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
My version of God is kind of the Jews and most likely Muslims explain God. Except I don't really worship God and follow any religion. I just the version of God to explain what I believe better.

Well the Jews believe in the God of the Old Testament, as do the Muslims and Christians. They are just all believing and worshiping the same God but just in different ways.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
God in Judaism
I took a lot from this article and implied it to my views on my version of God. Even though I'm looking for converts or people to think like me. I believe my version of God is more of a metaphor.

Ok I don’t have much to go on here, but I’m kind of assuming you are Jewish?

And your version of God is a metaphor for what exactly?


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


No I'm not Jewish. I did try to go to a synagogue in my area but chose not to. Well we could debate how differently Jews, Christians and Muslims worship or see God. Anyhow. I created my own version of God using ideas from God in Judaism. Kind of something to explain the Big Bang and also get me into Masonry while not making me religious in sense. I don't follow the Bible. I believe the Bible and other religious text are not true. I just have my own version of God.

reply to post by Joecroft
I've heard of people like this, I think it was these people who lived in a super remote region among mountains and forest in Indonesia. They believed that you could only wear black and some other color like a dark green, otherwise the forest spirits would get you.
So I guess my answer would be something else such as spirit beings playing tricks, or attacking people, abducting people, killing people, all to see how much they can manipulate people to act in a specific way, probably mostly out of fear.
These people, as far as I know, did not take recourse in calling on a higher sort of spirit to protect them from these lower type nuisance entities.