nontheist

A person who is neither a theist, nor an atheist (nor, for that matter an agnostic).

A nontheist neither believes God exists, nor that God does not exist.

To a notheist, both theism and atheism are a complete waste of mental bandwidth. In other words, to a nontheist the question of the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant.

A nontheist is different from an agnostic: An agnostic generally believes we simply cannot know whether God does or does not exist. A nontheist, on the other hand, generally believes that it is possible to figure it out, but why bother?

The Buddha is the first historically known nontheist. Most Buddhists are nontheist.

The Buddha was often asked whether God existed. Usually, he replied with a complete silence. Once, however, he told the story of the man shot by a poisoned arrow.

When the doctor came and wanted to pull the arrow out of the wound, the man grabbed the doctor's hand and asked:

"Before you start treating me, Doctor, tell me, who was it that shot me? Was he of warrior class or some other class? Was he tall or was he short? Was he young or was he old? Was he dark skinned or light skinned?"

The doctor ignored the questions and pulled the arrow out. Had he answered the questions, the patient would have died.

That is why, said the Buddha, I will not answer your question about God. If I did, you would just spend your time in endless speculation, and never awaken from your current state.

(1) Almost everyone who employs the term "nontheist" already uses it in the given way.

(2) As indicated in dictionaries, most native speakers of English use the term "atheist" for the more definite concept of "one who denies that God exists." It is desirable to abide by common usage and it is foolish, and probably futile, to try to reform people's usage of terms.

(3) It would be more natural to call infants and fetuses "nontheists" than to call them "atheists."

(4) It is desirable to have a system in which the familiar three classes, theists, atheists, and agnostics, are mutually exclusive, and that would not be possible if the term "atheist" were instead used for the more general concept.

Is there a God?

• Theist: "Yes."
• Atheist: "No."
• Agnostic: "Impossible to answer."
• Nontheist: "Are you going to eat that?"

The term "nontheist" is an attempt to get around the social problems that have cropped up around the term "atheist".

Here is the problem: "Atheist" admits of two different definitions: "a person who believes God doesn't exist" or "a person who doesn't believe that God exists". The former characterizes an intellectual position, while the latter characterizes a personal trait. Someone who had never even entertained the idea that a perfect being controls the universe would be an atheist on the second definition, but not on the first; he could become an atheist on the first if he considered the idea and pronounced it foolishness. Both definitions are in common use. Now, many people aren't sure whether God exists. They don't believe that God exists and they don't believe that God doesn't exist. They call themselves "atheists" because if they know one thing, it's that they aren't theists. They're following the second definition.

Meanwhile, many theists are terrifically anxious because they are charged with a burden of proof in debates concerning God's existence. Since they claim the position of theism, they must bear the onus of rendering God's existence epistemically probable. Consequently, they'd like it if atheists also bore a burden of proof, similar to their own. So they define "atheist" according to the first definition, as "someone who holds the position that God does not exist". That way, atheists have to render God's nonexistence epistemically probable.

Then when a hapless member of that group of uncertain atheists comes along, talks with a theist, and says "Hey, hold on, there, theist, I don't have to bear any burden of proof. You're the one making a positive claim here," the theist says, "You have to support God's nonexistence just as much as I have to support God's existence". The atheist is flustered: "I don't even believe in God's nonexistence! I'm just not a theist!" To which, the theist retorts, "Then you're not an atheist".

What to do? Some atheists, following Antony Flew, distinguish between the two definitions, as positive and negative atheism. Positive atheism is the intellectual position claiming God's nonexistence. Negative atheism is the personal trait, whereby the trait-holder simply doesn't believe in God. Sometimes these are called 'strong' and 'weak' atheism. Then the response to the theist is "Maybe I'm not a strong atheist or a positive atheist, but I sure as hell am a weak atheist or a negative atheist!"

Others eschew the distinction making and search for a new term that might avoid all the confusion. Enter "nontheist": "Maybe I'm not an atheist, but I sure as hell am a nontheist!"

You might wonder why people don't just partake of the term "agnostic". It's because that term could mean anything: "someone who neither believes in God's existence nor nonexistence", "someone who holds God's existence to be roughly 50% likely", "someone who holds no estimation whatever concerning the likelihood of God's existence", "someone who holds that we cannot estimate the likelihood of God's existence", "someone who holds that cannot know for sure one way or the other concerning God's existence", all the way to the original Thomas Huxley definition, which is something like "someone who treats religious propositions according to the precepts of evidence and rationality, and so withholds judgment when appropriate".

Of course, this is all completely trivial and manifestly so. People who hold that God exists bear a burden. People hold that God doesn't exist bear a burden. People who hold neither position do not bear a burden. Call any of these people what you like.

In this context it means that no-one can produce evidence one way or the other as to God's existence; there is no test, positive or negative. You cannot formulate a model of the world with God, and the world without God, and then compare the universe as it is to your models. The problem inheres on at least two levels: First, God is seen as being outside the universe; second, you only have one universe.

Concerning anything outside the universe, one can have no statements, for the universe is the entirety of what we can experience, and hence know. The only way god could conceivably "exist outside the universe" is if it were some sort of mathematical theorem. As we only have one universe, we cannot speculate what universes with or without God would be like, and hence no test can be made; as such, to say "God exists", or "God does not exist" is the same as saying "Green is green-coloured".