What do you call a non follower of neither atheism or theism

[Polaris]

I call them either agnostics or spiritualists depending on how they live their lives.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is sort of like asking, 'What do you call something that is neither a rock nor not-a-rock?' If it isn't a rock, then it is automatically not-a-rock - there's nothing in the middle.

I don't think there's term for someone who isn't a theist and isn't an atheist: the two terms together form a universal set.

Put another way, anyone who isn't a theist has to be an atheist, by definition.

Boru

[Sword of Christ]

Put another way, anyone who isn't a theist has to be an atheist, by definition.

I agree if you don't have a positive believe in anything beyond the physical material universe then the physical material universe is all you believe in and all that entails. Many agnostic atheists may change their stance if this were to fully sink in however.

[Fruity]

Sometimes when I wonder why I stick to the off topic section and don't enter
debates more, I enter threads like this. I walk back out after one or two face palms and go back to my homies at off topic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree if you don't have a positive believe in anything beyond the physical material universe then the physical material universe is all you believe in and all that entails.

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

Boru

[Sword of Christ]

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

Boru

Atheism will always lead to materialism if you withhold a belief in anything beyond the material. If you're being fully rationally consistent and serious about it.

[Esquilax]

Atheism will always lead to materialism if you withhold a belief in anything beyond the material. If you're being fully rationally consistent and serious about it.

Ah, I remember you: you were the one who got it into his head that you could tell us what we think.

Interestingly, your fiat assertions haven't become any more true since you've been gone. Atheism is not a position on non-material things, just gods. As such, your entire position is incorrect, and so you can stow it right now.

[Sword of Christ]

Ah, I remember you: you were the one who got it into his head that you could tell us what we think.

I'm pointing out what you believe if you only believe in material existence. Seriously though it's pretty straightforward logic you ought to understand this.

Interestingly, your fiat assertions

If you only believe in matter/energy and what matter energy produces then you're a materialist. That's not an assertion that's what you in fact actually are, if you don't believe in God or the equivalent. I shouldn't have to point this fact out to you. I know that you don't know this for for a fact but I don't know anything for a fact either so that's irrelevant.

haven't become any more true since you've been gone. Atheism is not a position on non-material things, just gods.

Neither of us believes in the gods of Olympus or whatever and they would have been material beings like ourselves anyway just immortal. So that's completely irreverent to the subject of God or whatever else you want to call it, the eternal non-physical creator/purpose of existence, the higher power the source of morality and freewill. If you reject the existence in of this in favor of physical/natural explanations, which is what you're doing, then you're a materialist. Materialism is a valid position to take but it would help if you understand your own position.

As such, your entire position is incorrect, and so you can stow it right now.

Do you believe in something beyond the physical/the supernatural or don't you? This is a yes or no answer question.

[Esquilax]

I'm pointing out what you believe if you only believe in material existence. Seriously though it's pretty straightforward logic you ought to understand this.

Yes, you're pointing out what we believe, if we only believe in material existence. But that's a pretty big if, and it's an assumption that you haven't justified, and not one that many of us are willing to share with you.

Most of us- and unlike you, I'm just going to throw this out to the others so that they can actually tell you what they believe- just state that they don't know whether material existence is or is not all there is, and leave it at that. It's the only honest answer right now; we don't know everything so we can't categorically deny the non-physical, but there's also little evidence to confirm such things, and so believing in them unreservedly is unjustified.

That's it. Anything else you try to pin on us, beyond that admission of not knowing, from this point on, is just lying.

If you only believe in matter/energy and what matter energy produces then you're a materialist.

"If."

That's not an assertion that's what you in fact actually are, if you don't believe in God or the equivalent. I shouldn't have to point this fact out to you. I know that you don't know this for for a fact but I don't know anything for a fact either so that's irrelevant.

No, actually: one could even believe in a soul without a god behind it. One could believe in all manner of things without a god behind it: god is not every possible non-physical thing, and there are more non-physical potentials than just god. There are sects of Buddhism that don't have god figures, but have nonmaterial teachings: you are simply demonstrably wrong, here.

Neither of us believes in the gods of Olympus or whatever and they would have been material beings like ourselves anyway just immortal. So that's completely irreverent to the subject of God or whatever else you want to call it, the eternal non-physical creator/purpose of existence, the higher power the source of morality and freewill. If you reject the existence in of this in favor of physical/natural explanations, which is what you're doing, then you're a materialist. Materialism is a valid position to take but it would help if you understand your own position.

It would help more if you'd actually bother to understand the position of the people you're talking to, rather than ramming them into categories they don't wish to share.

Again, I'm saying I don't know. There's no rejection of your god, there's no acceptance of solely material means; there's just the observation that you have failed to fulfill the burden of proof for the god you believe in, and are therefore not rationally justified in holding it.

"I don't know," is the only honest position you can hold on this question, at the moment. Why would I hold a different one?

Do you believe in something beyond the physical/the supernatural or don't you? This is a yes or no answer question.

There's always the third answer: I don't know. Why would I hold a position if I don't hold to either of the binary options you're attempting to force me into?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Atheism will always lead to materialism if you withhold a belief in anything beyond the material.

But being an atheist and withholding a belief in anything beyond the material aren't the same thing. All that atheism says or implies is a lack of belief in gods, not the lack of belief in the non-material. For example, one can be an atheist and hold a belief in ghosts or psychic powers or homeopathic medicine or any number of non-material things. This would result in an atheist who was at the same time a non-materialist.

Boru