I was surprised looking up the terminology and finding out that there is not one that properly defines “one who does not believe in organized religion”, and/or believes that “it is beyond a human beings ability to fathom and communicate with the supernatural”, yet still believes in a God or Creator. One can think of Atheism, which professes the denial of any supernatural entity, and of Agnosticism where believers honestly confess that they neither believe or disbelieve.
But what about me! I do not believe in Religion, nor do I believe in Atheism. I am more in tune with the Agnostics, but even there, I cannot say I don’t believe in what we know as God (or a Creator)! What do we say then? I’m a Godist? That doesn’t make much sense, because then you will be asked: Which God?! Which Holy Spirit?! Tell me, tell me, Right Now!
Then you must pause, take a deep breath, and say: “the one you believe in” with a smile š
So where do we stand? Those who have the same line of believe system, what should we call ourselves?
If we do not deny Evolution, we do believe in a Creator, then what the hell are we? What should we call ourselves?
You think, why is this important to bring up. It is important because I find modern day definitions too narrow or absent for those who do not believe in Religion, Atheism or Scientology.
We must start a campaign for a new terminology for people who may already believe in:
-The existence of a Creator
-The truth of Evolution
-The acceptance of the fallibility of Human Beings
-The inability of Human Beings to know the true essence of God’s intentions (therefore, religious doctrine becomes moot)
-The existence of subjects and matter that lead one to produce questions about possible Creation (but not in seven days)
These are just some basic points. I think it’s time to create a new terminology to describe those who believe in God, but do not follow their religion in practice.
Sam Dali 
Look up Deism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First off, thank you for your comment! I really appreciate it. Yes, I am aware of Deism. But, I’m more concerned with mainstream media and pop culture that really does not know how to define themselves. Sure, they can call themselves a Deist, but that doesn’t fly. We need to create a new terminology that best defines and sits well with people in the 21st century! š
LikeLiked by 1 person
gregmercer601 is absolutely correct. And I fail to see what is lacking in a philosophic ideology that was embraced by the likes of George Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Paine. You would presume that this question sprang into being, the moment you first thought of it. And you’re straining for a distinction – with no real difference. Religious believers are wont to draw silly distinctions – based on name and title only – which accounts for the ridiculous number of established religious bodies, in the world today. Are you really proposing one more?
As a confirmed atheist, I’ve often counseled people – trying to ween themselves from their particular brand of Christian religion – to first recognize the Christian apotheosis of Jesus to the Godhead. And launch their boats on the still waters of Deism – if they are to first experience the almost mystic revelations from personal experience and contemplation. It’s of little import whether you make landfall, on the farther shores of atheism, or not. Either way, one is nearer to the truth.
With sincerest regards,
Donnie
LikeLike
Thank you Donnie for your wonderfully thought out and worded comment. I appreciate it.
I’d like to make two points in response. One is that I am not in saying we should create another religion, because that would require its “practice” of it, which is not what I am proposing. And as for Deism specifically, as I mentioned in a previous comment, unless that word can be promoted somehow in today’s world, I don’t see many people identifying themselves as a Deist these days. Or could we? That’s up to the people to decide.
Secondly, it is important to be consistently creating new ideas and terminologies to exercise free thought and help identify oneself through the changing times. If by creating new ideas, it becomes a threat of creating new “religions”, so be it. But, again, I believe that Deism or the new terminology I am proposing cannot be a religion because one can only “observe” it. I cannot see why or how I would “practice” Deism, or want to “convert” anyone to it. Because, at its core, believing in God and not religion is something one has to experience for themselves, which I think is the essence of how we can be spiritual, yet respect one’s individuality.
LikeLike