• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Therians//Otherkin

L

LameFox

Guest
Atheism and a lack of spirituality often do go hand in hand for a lot of people but they're not strictly the same thing, it refers to not believing in gods.
 
doesn't being atheist,by default mean that you're forced to just accept that you're human,though? like,you don't believe if spirits as a whole much less that you can have the spirit of a wolf in a human body and science has yet to prove that aliens can take human hosts and everything else is just religions and myths so doesn't that mean that you have no choice but to accept your own humanity?
Athiests don't believe in gods, that's about it, so you can still be a spiritual athiest. You can even be an athiest that believes in demons, ghosts, and souls.

Anyway, my own thoughts on the topic are mixed. I'm one of those people who desperately wants to believe in magic and spirituality, but I can't convince myself any of it is real. I don't have any problems with people who identify as therian/otherkin though, I don't even care if it's all pretend for fun. As long as people don't use their identity as an excuse to do stupid things, it's cool.
 

QueenSekhmet

A Nightmare Dressed Like A Daydream
Athiests don't believe in gods, that's about it, so you can still be a spiritual athiest. You can even be an athiest that believes in demons, ghosts, and souls.

Anyway, my own thoughts on the topic are mixed. I'm one of those people who desperately wants to believe in magic and spirituality, but I can't convince myself any of it is real. I don't have any problems with people who identify as therian/otherkin though, I don't even care if it's all pretend for fun. As long as people don't use their identity as an excuse to do stupid things, it's cool.
but gods,but definition are spiritual beings (just spiritual beings of great power that control the aspects of humanity and the universe) so you can't believe if spirits and not believe in gods: it's a oxymoron (or at least very ironic and kind of hypocritical). the only exception is if you believe EVERYTHING has a spirit but then you're not athiest because believing that ghosts exists isn't the same thing as believing that a rock has a spirit/is possessed by one.
 
L

LameFox

Guest
Sounds like you are working with some personal definitions that simply aren't what other people mean when they say those words tbh. But even the way you've described it, I could potentially believe in some spiritual entities, none of which are greatly powerful or control much of anything.
 
but gods,but definition are spiritual beings (just spiritual beings of great power that control the aspects of humanity and the universe) so you can't believe if spirits and not believe in gods: it's a oxymoron (or at least very ironic and kind of hypocritical). the only exception is if you believe EVERYTHING has a spirit but then you're not athiest because believing that ghosts exists isn't the same thing as believing that a rock has a spirit/is possessed by one.
That's only one definition of what a god is, and one rather skewed by certain cultures and religions, so I'm not sure I agree. After all, in many cultures what separates humans from gods is power or knowledge, and they have no concept of "spirits". I'm not trying to be the spokesperson for athiesm though, I'm just saying it like it is.
 

QueenSekhmet

A Nightmare Dressed Like A Daydream
That's only one definition of what a god is, and one rather skewed by certain cultures and religions, so I'm not sure I agree. After all, in many cultures what separates humans from gods is power or knowledge, and they have no concept of "spirits". I'm not trying to be the spokesperson for athiesm though, I'm just saying it like it is.
but that power or knowledge extends to the supernatural (aka: spiritual),otherwise these cultures would see their leaders as their gods (and,as far as i'm aware there is none like that though i could be wrong). either way,there is a word for people that simply aren't sure if something unproven actually exists or not and that's agnosticism and i feel like agnostic is a lot closer to what foxridley here is experiencing since no matter what you can't believe in spirits and not gods (excluding special cultural circumstances that don't apply here anyway because i am almost 100% sure no one on this site about talking animals is part of one of those cultures) because in most cases they are one and the same but you CAN be unsure enough that you don't believe nor disbelieve and are simply waiting for the truth to reveal itself,if it ever does. it should also be noted that there is a big difference between believing something exists and worshiping it so again,athiesm can't restricted to gods.

besides,everything is aliens anyway.
 

QueenSekhmet

A Nightmare Dressed Like A Daydream
OK so i just asked my atheist friend on discord about what is and isn't atheist and this is how the conversation went:

"
  1. SekhmetToday at 9:35 AM​

    yo,maybe you can settle something for me: can you be atheist and believe in things like ghosts and the ability be a animal in a human body?



  2. gandaron1225Today at 9:44 AM​

    by definition yes



  3. [9:45 AM]
    being atheist means that you don´t believe there is a god



  4. [9:45 AM]
    not more, not less



  5. [9:46 AM]
    it is very common that atheists don´t believe in anything supernatural but you can believe in some supernatural stuff while being convinced that there is no god



  6. [9:48 AM]
    and you don´t technically have to be convinced there is no god either not believing that there is a god is sufficient to fit the definition of atheist



  7. [9:49 AM]
    there is a subtle but important difference between not being convinced a god exists and being convinced no god exists



  8. SekhmetToday at 9:51 AM​

    but gods,by definition are spiritual beings (just spiritual beings that control the universe) so it seems like a oxymoron to think you can be a wolf in a human body (or anything other than human) while still claiming to be atheist.



  9. gandaron1225Today at 9:51 AM​

    but not every spirtual being is a god



  10. [9:52 AM]
    you know just like every cat is an animal but not every animal is a cat



  11. SekhmetToday at 9:53 AM​

    but why is it only restricted to gods? there is a difference between believing in a god and worshiping them.



  12. gandaron1225Today at 9:53 AM​

    because thats what the word means



  13. [9:54 AM]
    atheist literally means "without god"



  14. [9:55 AM]
    is it weird to be a superstitious idiot that draws the line at "there is no God ... yes is it possible ... also yes



  15. SekhmetToday at 9:56 AM​

    fair enough i guess.



  16. NEW


  17. gandaron1225Today at 9:57 AM​

    thats why i put the "by definition" at the beginning"
    fuck,this thing is hard to figure out. anyway,so that's what we come down to.










 

ConorHyena

From out of the rain.
Can't wait to meet the world's first tick, horse hair worm, and head lice otherkin. :}
if I get in your hair does that make me a head licekin?

on topic:
There are many things in this world that on the face of it make no sense. More often than not this is down to a very narrow viewpoint of the person trying to make sense of them (more along the line of 'I don't need/want it, why should anyone else). Everyone has different motivations that make them tick. Judging them publicly is maybe not the politest way of dealing with this.
 

ben909

vaporeon character != mushroom characters
other point, i think i have seen people here who called themselves theriain(did i get the spelling right), and they were fine the time they were here, although i cannot be as sure about "otherkin"

i also don't feel many here have major problems with it, however, many have at least some problems being told how to think or refer to someone in a complex way, differing from trans stuff were its really asking for a few words to be used instead, outside of that, its pretty fine, although some may slip and still treat comments as if you were playing a character,


i could be off, and also could be using info from old places i have been as reference even if its old, different, or outdates


before comming here, i did know a few people that were otherwise accepting of things execpt otherkin, as in their words they were people insisting they were not part of society or even human to talk negatively about humanity and its actions as a whole, but eclude themselves from any blame or responivbty , a "you are bad, i am different and thus can be good" type of thing,if this statement seems to apply, then i can see the dislike

however, i find its rarely the case, and it becomes the same basic rule of thumb here, just about anything is fine as long as you are not pushing an idea/interest/fetish/belief too hard
 

justenoughlight

Active Member
other point, i think i have seen people here who called themselves theriain(did i get the spelling right), and they were fine the time they were here, although i cannot be as sure about "otherkin"

i also don't feel many here have major problems with it, however, many have at least some problems being told how to think or refer to someone in a complex way, differing from trans stuff were its really asking for a few words to be used instead, outside of that, its pretty fine, although some may slip and still treat comments as if you were playing a character,


i could be off, and also could be using info from old places i have been as reference even if its old, different, or outdates


before comming here, i did know a few people that were otherwise accepting of things execpt otherkin, as in their words they were people insisting they were not part of society or even human to talk negatively about humanity and its actions as a whole, but eclude themselves from any blame or responivbty , a "you are bad, i am different and thus can be good" type of thing,if this statement seems to apply, then i can see the dislike

however, i find its rarely the case, and it becomes the same basic rule of thumb here, just about anything is fine as long as you are not pushing an idea/interest/fetish/belief too hard
You were close! It’s spelled therian but honestly you got a lot closer than most people lol
Also, therians are basically just a subcategory under the otherkin umbrella :)
Therian describes otherkin who identify spiritually and/or psychologically as nonhuman, specifically as an organism that has been proven to exist or have once existed on earth. So, dinosaurs, worms, wolves, etc.
Otherkin includes all of that but also includes fantasy creatures such as elves or dragons.
Hope that makes sense! :)
 

QueenSekhmet

A Nightmare Dressed Like A Daydream
You were close! It’s spelled therian but honestly you got a lot closer than most people lol
Also, therians are basically just a subcategory under the otherkin umbrella :)
Therian describes otherkin who identify spiritually and/or psychologically as nonhuman, specifically as an organism that has been proven to exist or have once existed on earth. So, dinosaurs, worms, wolves, etc.
Otherkin includes all of that but also includes fantasy creatures such as elves or dragons.
Hope that makes sense! :)
so then what would my dracosaur (dragon/dinosaur hybrid) be classified as?>:.P
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
Personally, I think the only valid response to Otherkin shit, if any has to be made, is ridicule and being laughed at.
Nothing more than that, but certainly nothing less.

Funny, some people feel the same about gender-fluidity as well. Yet one is accepted and the other rejected for almost identical reasons. In both cases the person is just being who they are. Ah well, feel free to laugh and ridicule all you want, I'm comfortable with my feline soul and that's all that matters. <purrs softly>

Besides, opinions born out of ignorance mean absolutely squat anyway...nothing more and nothing less. <giggle-wink>
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
So educate me, Simba.

<shrugs> Why not? I don't mind answering any questions on it, even if they're just being asked for amusement. Others might actually be curious on the answer and I'm an open book. Wouldn't want to bore you though, so maybe let's start with what you think they are and I can correct you from there.

Seem fair, since I don't know what you don't know, y'know? <giggles and bats his eyes bashfully> Otherwise, whatcha wanna know, sunshine?
 

ben909

vaporeon character != mushroom characters
You were close! It’s spelled therian but honestly you got a lot closer than most people lol
Also, therians are basically just a subcategory under the otherkin umbrella :)
Therian describes otherkin who identify spiritually and/or psychologically as nonhuman, specifically as an organism that has been proven to exist or have once existed on earth. So, dinosaurs, worms, wolves, etc.
Otherkin includes all of that but also includes fantasy creatures such as elves or dragons.
Hope that makes sense! :)
ok, my personal place to draw the line has 3 groups vs the 2, and an other just before group

from my view(past observation)therian was someone who wanted to identify as a feral animal that did not have adjustments, or did not have many adjustments to fit a human form and role, meaning they would have their character live as an animal (also, don't be offended by my words want or character, to me, unless we change body parts its a want(but one to be accepted in most all cases ) an i view everything here as a character, even those who are human here, minor thing i thinl)
my extra line seperates how i view metatherat and my semianthro character(although vaporeon is fictional), both of them are feral or almost feral forms, but talk and interact as human, this is my personal line between the design and what is furry and what gets a different label

in this, i note i may need another group as i don't make tons of distinctions between what once existed on earth and fictional creature (exception, things that went extinct during human existence), so a feral dragon or vaporeon would still be a therian to me, although both the dragon and the pokemon border on being furries due to intelligence and seeming reactions to complex human speech

in some ways our imperfect understanding of dinosaurs means any Dino character is fictional unless the maker has a time machine to observe it


sense i tend to lean towards test question "pick most specific group" things, what i would call otherkin myself in this context more means what is other kin and not other mentioned group,

someone that says they are an elf, darf, hobbit <others in list> are a bit different to me, as just like 'sifi alien' they are just human redesigns, and i admit i have minor issues with people that identify as that, identify meaning insist they are not controling a character, as this borders on the "i am different and in a different responsibility group" however, i am fine with those that view it in a minor way of saying they are like that race, or view elfs and alike as humans themselves (i kind of do)

an odd thing is were i draw the lines for mermaids(other the the wider fish people net), centaurs, and saultars (spelling, sorry, tired) as those half humans may or may not be different, but i often say they are furries

-------
from your pov as someone who considers themselves (i think) a therian, were would you put a character like metatherat who is a full rat, but still does human like things like makeing potions(although this is fictional) or a semi anthro who is intended as being as close to the animal form as possible while allowing human funtion

(also, nothing i said is intended to be negtive or not accepting , if it sounds that way, i am sorry and did not intend it to be that wY)
 

Shyy

slightly confused, mostly fun loving Protogen
So, if one was to share behavioral traits with an existing animal, as in, a willingness to "encourage" unwanted types to go away, be territorial, protective of kin and kith, generally not give a damn about what is going on, unless pulled into said goings on, and even have strangers name you as said animal, would that be considered thearin or otherkin?
 

Foxridley

A fox named Ridley
doesn't being atheist,by default mean that you're forced to just accept that you're human,though? like,you don't believe if spirits as a whole much less that you can have the spirit of a wolf in a human body and science has yet to prove that aliens can take human hosts and everything else is just religions and myths so doesn't that mean that you have no choice but to accept your own humanity?
I mean, strictly speaking you can have a person believe in something spiritual, but no gods. Though I don’t expect many atheists to hold such a position. I don’t believe in spirits. My question was more about whether a person can be therian or otherkin without believing in spirits.
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
I mean, strictly speaking you can have a person believe in something spiritual, but no gods. Though I don’t expect many atheists to hold such a position. I don’t believe in spirits. My question was more about whether a person can be therian or otherkin without believing in spirits.

Hmmm, that is a good question! Never considered that before...as most people who identify as such would usually think of an animal spirit or an animal soul inside them. I suppose an atheist would kind of have to have a self-image of "human". They'd believe in literal definitions, and that is as literal as it gets...once you remove any spiritual aspect from your self-image and see yourself as literally your brain's contents, "human" is all you have left as an species identity.

BUT at the same time...I suppose a true atheist could also think along the lines of "I was born the wrong species", sort of like how someone would think "I was born the wrong gender" if transitioning, but if they did think that way, I'd assume that their own belief as "atheist" would force them to self-rationalize themselves as human eventually, because to do otherwise would be to admit that "spirit" exists, and theirs is wrong. Gender differences are easier to reconcile when you still see yourself as the same species in the end and thus the same "person".

So while not impossible, I'd think it'd be trickier for them to be comfortable with themselves and their atheistic beliefs at the same time.

(BTW, what you were describing as "spiritual but no gods" is not atheist but either "agnostic" or some other term like "new-age" or just "spiritual")
 

Foxridley

A fox named Ridley
Hmmm, that is a good question! Never considered that before...as most people who identify as such would usually think of an animal spirit or an animal soul inside them. I suppose an atheist would kind of have to have a self-image of "human". They'd believe in literal definitions, and that is as literal as it gets...once you remove any spiritual aspect from your self-image and see yourself as literally your brain's contents, "human" is all you have left as an species identity.

BUT at the same time...I suppose a true atheist could also think along the lines of "I was born the wrong species", sort of like how someone would think "I was born the wrong gender" if transitioning, but if they did think that way, I'd assume that their own belief as "atheist" would force them to self-rationalize themselves as human eventually, because to do otherwise would be to admit that "spirit" exists, and theirs is wrong. Gender differences are easier to reconcile when you still see yourself as the same species in the end and thus the same "person".

So while not impossible, I'd think it'd be trickier for them to be comfortable with themselves and their atheistic beliefs at the same time.

(BTW, what you were describing as "spiritual but no gods" is not atheist but either "agnostic" or some other term like "new-age" or just "spiritual")
I’ve heard Buddhism described as an “atheistic religion,” as oxymoronic as that might be. I’ve heard of therians gravitating toward Buddhism because of the belief in reincarnation.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Belief, by definition, defies logic.
I believe that the earth is round (as in I trust people who have proved it despite not having verified it empirically myself). How does that defy logic?
 
Top