The only real Atheist is a dead Athiest.
I have used this statement in another thread as a reply to a theist on the subject of morality. However I think it is deserving of some analysis. So lets begin as such:
Q: What is a theism?
A: A personal theology.
Q: What is theology?
A:The study of the nature of God and religious belief. (google-dictionary)
Q What is religion or religious belief?
A: A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. (google dictionary)
Q: Do atheists have beliefs about the self and the universe which they follow with great devotion?
A: Yes all atheists must have such beliefs and follow those beliefs with great devotion.
Q: Do Atheists have religious beliefs?
A: Yes if they are to continue to live, they must have beliefs, and those beliefs must be followed 'with great and particular devotion'.
Q What becomes of an atheist who does not follow the beliefs essential to his/her/it's continued existence?
A: The atheist becomes a dead atheist!
Ergo: The only real Atheist is a DEAD atheist.
M
Q: What is a theism?
A: A personal theology.
Q: What is theology?
A:The study of the nature of God and religious belief. (google-dictionary)
Q What is religion or religious belief?
A: A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. (google dictionary)
Q: Do atheists have beliefs about the self and the universe which they follow with great devotion?
A: Yes all atheists must have such beliefs and follow those beliefs with great devotion.
Q: Do Atheists have religious beliefs?
A: Yes if they are to continue to live, they must have beliefs, and those beliefs must be followed 'with great and particular devotion'.
Q What becomes of an atheist who does not follow the beliefs essential to his/her/it's continued existence?
A: The atheist becomes a dead atheist!
Ergo: The only real Atheist is a DEAD atheist.
M
Comments (57)
So everyone who existed before the advent of religion was... dead. Bit of a miracle there are any of us here at all, isn't it? Anyway, it's not so much of an analysis as an attempt at word play taking advantage of the inherent vagueness of dictionary definitions. We could probably prove God is a Panda using similar methods.
Quoting Baden
What kind of an odd-ball statement is that. Religion did not 'advent' at a given point in human history, it is essential to human history.
Neanderthal man buried his dead as a 'ritual'. He had a theism.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/
(Try to engage with the thread rather than your personal dislike of the poster... its more philosophically fun that way! :) )
M
Burying your dead isn't an indicator that you believe in one or more deities.
I don't have anything against you that I know of or remember or care about and if you take offence at such mild criticism then you're being over-sensitive imho. Anyway, no, humans did not always have religion. The fact that ritual is very old and embedded in human history doesn't refute that simple fact. The earliest evidence of religion comes after the earliest evidence of humans, so there's no evidential basis for your claim. Besides, your contention that because atheists have beliefs they must have 'religious' beliefs is obviously false because it results in a classing of all belief as religious. It would be a much more justifiable and interesting angle to take to argue that many atheists' beliefs are [I]influenced[/I] by religion. But again, as things stand, no better than claiming God is a Panda.
So up until the magical " advent" of religion (dates yet to be provided): the burial ritual should be considered as an irreligious exercise; one of empty futility? Decorating manure, or some primitive scatological practicality?
For real?
M
What a bizarre non sequitur.
"What a bizarre non sequitur. "
If the ritualistic burial of the dead, dressing the dead and furnishing them with jewels or material objects, is not a clear indication of a 'religious' or extra-corporeal belief system, then what does the ritual indicate?
It follows logically that the decoration of corpses (who have no religious or extracorporeal value or nature) is: nothing more than the practical decoration of manure; which is precisely what a corpse IS outside of some (religious) belief system.
M
Respect for the dead.
Is that the same kind of "respect" that rappers often refer to?
M
By the way this is the actual primary Google definition of religion:
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Which atheists don't have. And there's no way to reasonably gerrymander that into claiming they do. But maybe you can approach whatever point you want to make from a more plausible angle. I'm struggling to understand what you want to get across here re atheism.
Perhaps your google is different to mine here is the entire definition:
religion
r??l?d?(?)n/
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation
"the right to freedom of religion"
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"
Why the semantics?
M
When an atheist claims to be an atheist he isn't claiming not to have a pursuit or interest which he follows with great devotion; he is claiming not to believe in the existence of one or more deities.
Your "argument" conflates definitions (with the one you're using more of a metaphor).
Yes, but cherry picking one shade of meaning and ignoring the rest in order to make your comparison is a word game that we all can engage in to draw false equivalences between distinct terms. That aside, what I'm more interested in is what you want to get at re atheism. It seems to me you're overstating your case, but there may be something there worth discussing regardless. Rappers and Pandas aside.
:(
Perhaps there is an element of the game of words in the distinction between theist and atheist. The point that is being attempted at is an engagement with the word game that is too often played at the expense of the a-theist.
That, he/she is somehow lacking in something or devoid of something when this is not the case. Atheists do not generally consider corpses as manure, and as such have a 'respect' for the dead and this "respect" is dependent upon a belief in some immaterial or extracorporeal quality within or associated with the material corpse itself. 'Respect' is dependent upon an established belief system it has an entirely moral basis, that is no different to the moral basis afforded by a scribbled theology.
The failure of modern philosophy has been its failure in the construction or formulation effective theistic reality that is the theism of all men; the functional basis of the atheist's intellectual, moral and philosophical life. This theism predates established religions and predates most religious formal God-constructs.
A-theists are often considered to have moral code that is distinct from the theist who has a substantive (usually cherry picked) theology to 'substantiate' his morality. Yet it is impossible for humans to exist upon absolute atheistic terms.
The athiest (more often than not) has a Philosophy, whilst the Theist has a religion or a belief in God, and then a subservient and (generally obsequious) Philosophy. The a-theist however is considered to be party to the (A) absence of a theism; when the contrary is in fact true; in that the Theist is the one with a contained and contracted view of the Universe, as a deduced product of his ridiculous God-thing.
Any notional concept of 'God' is borne out of or arises out of Philosophy; the inverse is NOT equally true. The theist's 'God' is the ne-plus ultra for the Theists Philosophy. The atheist does not suffer from an absence of a 'God' or 'Gods', but affords it/them, the greater possibility of 'a' Philosophy, which is unfortunately contaminated and contained within the 'God' thing.
As such the correct term for the Theist should perhaps be: the A-philosophical.
M
Mod question
Has this thread been closed or shifted as it is gone from, or not present under the heading All Discussions?
M
It's open. But there wasn't enough philosophy in it to justify staying in General Phil, so I moved it to the lounge. Maybe philosophy of religion is a better place for it though. So, moved again.
I don't have a problem with your assumption that atheists must have religious beliefs, provided religion is sufficiently broadly defined, like "where do I stand in the cosmos?" kind of thing. One can wonder where one stands without assuming that there is a deity also standing around.
"The only real Atheist is a DEAD atheist"
Everybody ends up dead, eventually. It's one of God's great mercies that eventually we get out of here.
We don't have a lot of evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead with rituals. I hope they did, and if they did, I hope they got some comfort out of it. But there is only a few finds (after all these thousands of years) that could indicate ritual burial.
There are a few (1? 2?) skeletons that have been found that also show that very disabled children were cared for into adulthood. Neanderthals weren't baboons, so sure -- they deployed various cultural behaviors. Just like homo sapiens did/do.
Have a nice day.
The censorship, or particular attention to my "not enough philosophy"... contains a nice little validation and a 'little Philosophy'.
M
...then I think we should! Let's do it! :smile: :smile: :smile:
According to my dictionary, a panda is something which is "increasingly rare". And judged by his prevalence in modern philosophical considerations, so is God, "increasingly rare". Coincidence, I think not. Ergo, God is a Panda.
*Bows gracefully* Is there money to be made from this type of thing, do you think?? :nerd:
(Anyhow, in the absence of knowing what all this is about, I'll leave Marcus to it... [Exit])
Just saw this reply. As you didn't quote me properly, I missed it. Anyhow, that makes significantly more sense to me than the original.
If God=Panda. then Panda=God
Most religions would agree that the Panda is indeed a manifest form of God.
And indeed, from the perspective of the Panda (whatever that might be),
If a Panda could paint a picture of his God...., it would very likely look like a Panda.
M
OK, look, I think the objections here arose from a confusing and unconvincingly argued OP. Your recent long post seems to be an effort at making a more recognizably philosophical point, and pursuing that might make for a more fruitful conversation.
"When an atheist claims to be an atheist he isn't claiming not to have a pursuit or interest which he follows with great devotion; he is claiming not to believe in the existence of one or more deities."
I suspect you are missing the point.
The atheist has a 'godless' theism of sorts. One that is denied him through the impossible notion of atheism. Primitive man may well have had a godless theism of sorts.
Current and historical theistic notions of God have arisen from the mind of man, have been expressed verbally and through art, and have evolved concomitant with the evolution of the human intellect.
Theism therefore is the evolution of a process that represents the formal material and collective refinement of a primordial thought construct upon the immaterial.
These notions of the immaterial begin as thought constructs, arising from experience. They are then formalized into reasoned expressions of the original thought-construct, and are then transmitted to others, via language and symbols, following which they are collectively agreed upon (within the relevant cultural or social grouping) and become the basis of an established belief system.
What happens to the original (primordial) thought construct through this process evolution? We believe that it (the primordial thought-construct) has become more refined and more sound? But what if in fact it becomes more diluted and less refined as a consequence of the process 'evolution'? It is after all, thought upon the immaterial, and the immaterial may not be equally subject to refinement by progressive usage, on the contrary it might become more materially functional, and hence less immaterial, as the process continues its evolution.
It is therefore arguable that neanderthal man may have had a less refined but more valid or pure theism than modern man's general theistic notions.
During this process, the original thought construct is codified into a theology one that persists in time and is amenable to recording and a graphic historicity. This confirms the persistence of the original thought construct, but goes no distance to confirming its modern validity or continued purity. It may well have been entirely contaminated by the process.
The primordial or original thought construct persists in all men, it may be a fundamental ingredient to mans reasoning in toto.
God is merely a refinement of the original thought-construct and is non-essential to a Theism or belief system that is constructed upon a notion of the immaterial.
In the beginning there was only a private theism, that has since been socially refined into its various (often repugnant) forms. Atheism therefore, is simply a label applied to those who do not adhere to the collectively refined formal construct of a 'universal theism' that no man can escape. It cannot be escaped because thought itself is immaterial, and thinking or recollecting is an entirely immaterial or metaphysical experience.
To refer to one as an atheist, is simply to assert that he does not agree with a particular exogenous refinement of his own thought. There is no such thing as an atheist, as no man can deny the inescapable metaphysical experience of himself.
The only real atheist is a dead atheist.
M
No, the atheist just claims not to believe in the existence of one or more deities.
"No, the atheist just claims not to believe in the existence of one or more deities."
You have missed the point entirely, and I apologize for having not made it clear enough for you.
M
God or gods are essential to theism. Theism means belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
A god or gods are not essential for a belief system constructed upon the notion of the immaterial.
Your error appears to be falsely assuming that religion is necessarily theistic.
This is just a string of equivocations amounting to nonsense.
By your "logic", any devotion toward anything whatsoever constitutes a form of theism.
A bird devoted to building a nest is a theist and a dog devoted to ass sniffing is a theist.
Don't you think you've broadened the definition of theism too much to actually be useful?
If everyone is a theist because being alive means you are devoted to something, then it's no longer a useful term.
Theism and atheism refer to beliefs concerning god, not any old belief. Theists are emotionally devoted to their belief systems, but that emotional devotion (with which you wish to paint (read: sully) all atheists) isn't what makes theists "theists".
Theism and atheism is about god belief, which is not the same as having "beliefs about the self and the universe" or following beliefs with great devotion.
What's the point of this thread? If you're trying to show atheism to be incoherent, you're better off deleting this thread because all it really does is render theism nonsensical.
This. Coupled with an, "Oh, it's another 'atheists are religious too!'" thread. And an eye roll.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Coming from the guy claiming that the only real atheist is a dead atheist?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Yes, good question. Sums up my reaction to this thread of yours. I could take a stab at it, although I'm no Freud.
Theism, a belief in 'God' is a belief in an immaterial entity. This 'concept' like any other has had an origin, one that pre-dates the Judaeo Christian concept and that of all established religions. One who believes in a God or Gods as such, is termed a theist and one who does not have such a belief is considered an atheist.
The refined concept 'God/Gods' is a refined concept and it has been continually refined since it originated. However it has an antecedent or original unrefined basis, that is perfectly in tact. Just as the instinctual urge to procreate remains perfectly in tact but is refined into the conception of sexual function and the associated beliefs around sexual function. The same for hunger and eating, there is a primordial and instinctual basis for these practices and their associated beliefs, a primordial basis that is related back to human instinct.
So too does the concept God have a primordial psychological basis. Man will not engage in sex without the instinctual foundation. Man will not believe in God without the primordial basis for 'theism'. This primordial basis is likely to have originated from and be dependent upon 'thought upon the immaterial'.
Awareness of ones thoughts constitutes thoughts upon the immaterial, and as such all men maintain the fundamental basis for theistic beliefs... they are essential to that which makes a thinking man distinct from other animals. It is not surprising then that other animals do not (apparently) have beliefs and do not have Gods. God as a concept is dependent upon the capacity to believe.
Whilst an atheist and a theist clearly disagree upon the refined concept that happens to be a God, BOTH have a psychology that is dependent upon that which came before... the origin of the God concept, vis thought upon the immaterial.
We have no way of knowing what form or logical construct was before the emergence of the particular and ephemeral God-thing, however it is likely (if we survive ourselves long enough) that the God-thing will be dispensed with or replaced by a different or more evolved 'form' of the primary basis which remains in tact. Man cannot survive without theism or that which is the basis of theism.
The a-theist can deny God, but cannot deny or refute the instinctual or primary basis for the belief in God.
God is merely a somewhat fashionable refinement of mans essential thought. Beliefs come and go but their fundamental basis remains in tact.
All the very intelligent people who have made themselves feel great in the refutation of 'my point' should pat themselves on the back. Well done! I love you too.
However it takes a little more courage and thought to go against the grain and think upon the idea in a constructive manner.. I am not posting the idea to cause people to get into a strop. I don't mind arguing a point, however not everything within the idea is false and little is gained by simply applying the sometimes angry boot.
When an idea is posted, the usual format is to point to all of its faults (great there are plenty) there is never a shortage of flies when there is shit.
However if Philosophy is to evolve we should also try to engage with the possible kernals of truth, in a manner that permits the 'idea' to evolve, and permits others to feel they are not entering the lions den.
There are a lot of lions about.
Take a chill pill, have a wank... relax.. we are here to consider ideas.. not savage them.
M
Not in remotely the same way that religious people do. Atheists generally base their beliefs on scientific fact and research. And their beliefs can change over time as new information arises and science books change. Religious belief, which is based on ancient text, does NOT change. This is the main difference here.
I have to call BS on this, where did you ever get such an idea?
Every thinking human has ideas about self and the universe but to call them beliefs is ridiculous.
Again, your error is in assuming this instinct is necessarily expressed as theism. It can be expressed in many different forms.
What you seem to overlook, is the fact that theists have fundamental beliefs about the singular governing entity of the universe. And that belief is predicated on no scientific evidence, and often times contradicts scientific evidence.
An atheist's fundamental belief system is based off of a malleable foundation, that is affected by scientific discovery, and is rooted in a logical, scientific paradigm. At this point it is not even a belief, but rather, the truth. You can choose to believe that 2+2 is 4, or you can choose not to, one is the wrong belief, and the other is simply true, regardless of belief or not. Similarly, an atheists belief if not as much of a belief, as it is true due to the aforementioned scientific foundation..
With regards to atheists's belief of the non existence of god, this, whilst can be viewed as a belief, is predicated on a scientific foundation, whilst a theists belief of the existence of god, is not.
To elaborate, one of the many discrepancies in the bible is, that the earth is 5000 years old. This is quite obviously contradictory to scientific discovery, and hence, modern science itself. Hence, the belief in the bible despite scientific evidence that suggests the contrary, is an illogical and unscientific belief. Therein lies the difference between an atheist and theist.
Idealistically (i say idealistically, to account for the people who are atheists but still believe in the tooth fairy, etc.) an atheist would never have a belief that is contradictory to scientific discovery and justification, whilst a theist does the opposite.
Again you are applying a rather shallow and 'criticism-hunting' approach to what I write. I dont mind the criticism if it is a reflection of what I am attempting to say.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
There is a primordial basis for these practices 'eating & sex'. That primordial basis is instinctual or related back to human instinct. I am not stating that the belief in God is instinctual, but rather that the theistic system, the expressed logic of Theism, has a primordial basis, similar to, but not the same as, the instinctual basis of belief systems constructed upon the instinctual imperatives towards sex and food.
Theism, as it is equally a belief system about a God-thing is constructed upon a thought construct a basis that is common to all men as it is essential to the mechanistic function of thought, and most importantly in the human context of meta-thought or thought upon thought. Thought as the practice 'suicide' indicates may not be entirely subservient to instinct.
It does not follow that ALL of our thoughts arise from simple instinctual imperatives (perhaps most do) I have not asserted this, (as you seem to suggest). The theistic logic, the belief system that all humans have, arises out of 'thought upon the immaterial', which in the human context begins with a consciousness of, and an awareness of ones thought. It is the basis of man's humanity and is the essential distinction between man and animal.
The theist therefore can only assert that he has a God (+) Theism and the atheist can only assert that he has a God (-) Theism. Both are wearing the same underpants but one believes the other is naked whilst the other believes his companion to be dressed in a ridiculous superfluity of sorts.
Both the assertions 'atheism' and 'theism' alike serve to reassert the underlying universal theism and render us blind to IT's; principles, mechanics, origins and trajectory. They and their empty distinction, are the fountainhead of philosophical and intellectual paralysis.
The basis of man's theism presently has, superimposed upon it, a rather silly debate about the existence or non existence of a God thing. Now the inclusion of a God thing into or upon the true theistic basis of human existence may well have an instinctual basis in itself , in that the God-thing might well be a consequence of man's; fear of dying, his materialism, his superior notions of himself, his cruelty etc. The God-thing (and the puff and smoke it entails) allows for man to be cruel to his fellows in the name of the presence or absence of the God-thing; and in this sense the God thing does allow for man to behave and think as a trousered ape. However this God-thing is merely an ephemeral flatulence that arises from a deeper universal base.
Philosophy continues to plead with man to extract himself from the God-thing (presence or absence etc), and think about himself in a reasonable and honest way. The God-thing is the child of philosophy let us help it mature rather than listen to the squabbling over the color of ones underpants.
M
You can submit much wordier comments to try to salvage your original point, but there's only so much that words can do. If your "great idea" is fundamentally flawed and not so great, then all of these words are tantamount to salad dressing.
Now, to boil it down, your point seems to be fundamentally flawed, whichever way you look at it. If you take it at face value, then it seems simply mistaken, as Michael has effectively shown, yet if you delve deeper into your subsequent ramblings, then it seems trivial. Yes, an atheist can believe in an immaterial entity, but no, this doesn't in itself contradict atheism when properly defined, since the immaterial entity is left unspecified. Does that have a vague relation to theism? Yes. Are there other such vague relations, like certain rituals or practises, such as funerals and weddings and so on? Yes. Is that particularly insightful or significant? No, I don't think so. Is that what all of the fanfare was about? Your title is major clickbait.
Where did the quotation marks come from in respect of the "great idea"?
Please put me in contact with he who has penned these fine words! :grin:
The number one fan of an apparently great idea?
Indeed we are in disagreement, I see no way out of this; and indeed you have every right to think, not-think and write as savagely as you wish.
Warmest thanks.
Respectfully yours etc.
M
One is not broadening the theistic definition (it already reaches out imploringly, towards a ridiculously impossible vista of magic and heavens etc).
We are (some of us at least) trying to get behind the definition to its fundamental basis and atheistic origin or foundation.
M
I'm merely pointing out the fundamental flaw in your understanding. Whether or not it's shallow or "criticism hunting" is irrelevant to its validity. Further, you don't address and refute the criticism but only reiterate what you've already expressed, claiming that my criticism is unrelated to what you're trying to say.
This muddy idea you keep driving about an underlying universal theism is silly on the face of it simply because, as anyone making such a claim should know, there are non-theistic religions in the world.
There are gods within Buddhist doctrine, for instance, but these gods exist on the same existential plane as all sentient beings. They're not the childishly theistic 'father in the sky' gods but merely fellow sentient beings who do not realize their true nature of emptiness, according to Buddhist doctrine.
"ok here's a fundamental definition for you---- An atheist can be defined as a person who predicates his/her beliefs of the creation of the universe onto scientific theory, and probability. A theist, is someone who predicates it unto an external influence that is impossible to prove or disprove, and is derived off of ancient explanations of how the universe works. "
Your counter argument contains some of the point that is being made.
" ok here's a fundamental definition for you---- An atheist can be defined as a person who predicates his/her beliefs of the creation of the universe onto scientific theory, and probability."
As you state the atheist is "predicating" his beliefs onto whatever
The theist "predicates it" onto something else.
What we are attempting to determine is not the 'belief' (these are both pedestrian and ephemeral) but rather the nature of the predicate, behind the two; as "it" is likely to be the same in both cases.
We must then ask; how and why has the same predicate produced or described two opposing subjects?
This is the point at which (I believe) the puppeteers leave the stage, and 'Philosophy' 'breaks a leg'.
M
Can you please use the quote function by highlighting text and pressing the quote button or your replies may be missed (and it's messy).
Apologies Boss,
I'm a bit of a slob!
:yum:
M
Ok, well, like I said, it would help all round. Thanks.
The reasons an atheist typically believes in a scientific description of the universe are generally quite different from the reasons a theist believes in a religious description of the universe.
This is the difference between science and superstition (note: not all atheists are rational in their beliefs about the universe, and not all theists are superstitious; I am generalizing):
One side makes a presumption and gets upset when that assumption is challenged, and the other side makes it their business to challenge assumptions.
Science and superstition; they're not the same.
Some other notable differences: superstitious beliefs diverge wildly while the results experimental science converge toward something consistent. Superstitious claims can be inherently normative as opposed to descriptive, scientific claims cannot (although they can come to bear on our ethical decisions, they cannot arbitrate what is ethical like superstitious beliefs can).
An important difference is that superstitious beliefs have no or little predictive power (and if they do it's indirect or concealed from its adherents. E.g: the bible tells us to have priests bless houses with black mold and if that doesn't work to burn them down (which was a useful practice but not for reasons relating to god or spirits or blessings or any other such supernatural phenomena).
Religion began when schizophrenic/schizotypal and stoned homo-sapiens started telling compelling stories to their forest-dwelling illiterate kin. Stories evolved into ritual and belief, and the whole enterprise exploded in diversity. The story of science isn't entirely dissimilar, but instead of being compelling though the mediums of emotion, ritual and spiritualism, it became compelling and spread thanks to the tangible results it delivers. But the deliverances of religion are no longer required... We have written language (for which we owe some thanks to religious thinking) and we can educate ourselves enough to expect ethical behavior without devout religious orthodoxy. We no longer need magically invent or intuit answers to our unending series of inquiries because science has been able to provide much more reliable answers to many of them
Science cannot answer everything, and if people want to believe that their god lives hidden behind whatever empirical and epistemological barriers that remain, and that's their prerogative.
As an atheist I've made it my own prerogative to eschew superstition and superstitious belief in every way I that I can.
"Science and superstition; they're not the same"
Science is the transient superstition of the atheist
Superstition is the transient science of the theist
They have the same propensity for change in time, and originate from the same 'thing'.
If you doubt this, consider the history of science, and equally, consider the history of Superstition?
I remain surprised at the reluctance to consider the cause, and the general obsession to reiterate the effect.
M
I imagine that if you could explain universal underlying theism you would have already.
Are you talking about our propensity to associate effects with causes (superstitiously (irrationally) or scientifically (empirically)) or our desire to gain answers in the first place?
Do you think there is really no fundamental difference between the way superstitious beliefs are formed vs the way scientific beliefs are formed?
Haha, by contrainting the argument to the bare fundamentals of defining "it," sets an unfair prescedent, and essentially strawmans the opposition haha.
It is impossible to differentiate a theist and an atheist without analyzing the contents of their beliefs.
-S