My argument to prove God exists (IIf)

6.) Non-Theists

When you mention the issue of non-theists the first thing people will think of is usually Buddhism, and thats if they have ever actually thought about it at all.

Actually the term 'non-theist' isnt actually the proper term, if we examine those who supposedly come under this umbrella term we will see that they are not non-theist but actually non-Deist. To say that one is non-theist is to say that one does not hold or adhere to any form of theology pertaining to any religion they hold or adhere to. This is wrong.

If we name some religions that come under (quite mistakenly) 'non-theist' such as Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and various 'ancestor worship' practices we will find that there is a theology that accompanies them. The difference between these religions and Abrahamic ones (and their derivatives) is the 'personification' of the Creator or God. I will now refer to these 'non-theists' as non-deists.

But non-theism does occur between religions and within religions, for example a Sunni may see a Shiite as a non-theist because they do not hold the same theology as themself, thus the Shiite by calling themself a Muslim is committing apostasy.

It is not only an issue between sects but also within sects, a hassidic jew will see a liberal jew as a non-theist apostate, a Catholic will see a Protestant as a non-theist apostate. A Baptist will see an Anglican as non-theist, a Traditional Catholic (pre Vatican II) would actually see Pope Francis as non-theist and most likely (with reasonable cause) as an apostate.

However with the non-Deist religions this also occurs, some Buddhists see the Dalai Llama as the chief of Buddhism while others do not, some Jains do believe there are gods (who are only of a minor standing) while others do not. So some non-Deists do factor in gods and demons into their religion while others may seem to be utterly atheist. It is not that they believe their is no higher power, it is their definition of that higher power which cannot be directly translated into an Abrahamic equivalent or understanding.

It is a matter of transliteration rather than translation, a Buddhist will speak of cycles of time while a Christian will speak of revelation and prophecy. Likewise, a Christian will speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ while a Buddhist will say how a cycle of time or 'circumstances' have a personal relationship to themself. So the only real difference between the two is the personification or non-personification and definition of the higher power, or spirit, or God.

If you want an example of non-theism in a Deist context then you should examine the Unitarian church and the UU church which can cater for various people of various beliefs- theist, deist, atheist and combinations of each. So really if you don't adhere to an absolute theist belief then you can hold a Deist belief with complimentary theology.

The only real problem with non-Deist religions/faiths/creeds to that they may be infiltrated by atheist dogma. This may be possible as non-Deism make allow for the veneration of the likes of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and so on. But the Buddhists and Taoists have had first hand experience in China with enforced atheism, so in that respect Theists and Deists have more in common than bickering over largely trivial theology.


End of section 2