Personally, I consider even HAVING the words atheism, agnosticism or theism is a logical category error.
I’ll argue with my last breath, that all 3 self-assigned or other-assigned titles are just balderdash.
Now yes, I understand that either you are theistic, you are not theistic or you are not certain for whatever reason.
Well theism is so beyond wrong, the concept of ‘god’ is so
beyond wrong, that the terms are toddler level, that I utterly
refuse to go along with 1+7=22 logic.
If I do not accept your axiomatic terms, I cannot legitimately
be branded with them, though of course most people would
say, “oh, you are agnostic” or whatever.
No, you are postulating twaddle, now go away and ruin someone
elses day with your absurd word games.
But BTW, Andrew has a fantastic video on the topic of factors leading to atheism.
But all that said, since I DO acknowledge ‘transcendent heights’
that HUMAN BEINGS not ‘gods’ operate at, one might gently
classify me as being a ‘theist’ if one were to apply that garbage
can word ‘god’ to human beings (as being the gods).
Still a category error, like a football bat, but I can at least
admit that calling POTENTIAlITY and AWARENESS
and TRANSCENDENCE similar to human concepts of theism
in a ‘Religion of no religion’ sort of way is somewhat
defensible.
Worshipping just ‘truth and beauty’ say …
does that make you a theist?
Not especially.
You could say philosophically that Neutral Substance Monism
for example, which is PS adjacent could be characterized as
various labels being incorrectly applied to the ‘one stuff’,
and that’s valid.
From such a vantage point, one COULD define those three terms
as bellwehters of confusion about basic existential and ontological
facts.
But I have no desire to be classifed on a scale of confusion.
So maybe you see why I’m personally not a theist, an atheist
or an agnostic. I don’t recognize toddler terms is all.
Kevin Cann
Public Domain
12/11/2025