How do I classify my beliefs?

[Subduction Zone]

I'm aware of the definitions, but surely you can see the logic in what I'm saying.

Theism just happens to be the most dominant form of god belief ever suggested. It was our first, and being our first it was destined to be our worst. And the atheist was born...

Look, the one thing all of these philosophies have in common is belief in gods. After that, the differences are noticable.

Theism (mono and poly) just happens to be the first out of the gate in our history. So whilst deism is a late to the game philosophy regarding the god hypothesis, meaning that deistic philosophy wasn't allowed to flourish prior to the 1700's due to the theistic oppression of opposing philosophies, it is my contention that they are all on the same level philosophically speaking.

You're free to disagree, but nothing else makes sense to me.
View attachment 21074 View attachment 21075

I think that your objection is due to monotheists trying to define "theism" to match their beliefs and excluding as many others as possible. We agree in basic principle, but merely disagree in terminology.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I hate to refer to dictionaries, but just for kicks let's look at a definition:

"noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, withoutrejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism )."

Looking at both definitions it is clear that theism would fit in your "God hypothesis".

And Wiki is useful:

Theism - Wikipedia

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism. [3][4]

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods.[5] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[6][7]

Think of it this way, you are either a theist or an atheist. That should be rather obvious. Both are huge groups. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not an absolute statement that they do not exist. Theists believe in a god or gods.

An interesting article to read, no reply needed, or you can add it into your other reply...

It's Atheism, Not Adeism

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I think that your objection is due to monotheists trying to define "theism" to match their beliefs and excluding as many others as possible. We agree in basic principle, but merely disagree in terminology.

That's the error I'm trying to correct.

Theism may have had it's beginnings as just belief in gods, but it's evolved way past that state.

Kind of goes to something else I've contended in the past.

Since modern deism is a more pure form of god belief in that it doesn't believe in a personal, revelatory god (as my screenshot definitions showed), I contend that one has to first believe in the idea of a generic creator god (deism) before one can believe in a revelatory god and become a theist.

Think about how a street hustling proselytizer goes about his day. One of his first questions is, "Do you believe in a god?" You could answer yes or no or not sure...

If your answer is no or not sure, he would try to sell you on the idea of god first, and then move the argument towards the god he's selling.
If your answer is yes, he would start drilling down into what you believe about god specifically, "Do you believe in a personal god?" and then wiggle the argument towards the god he's selling

 

[Cary Cook]

I disagree.

Pardon my freethinking, but see the attached slide before proceeding so you have a visual of what I am saying.

You have the god hypothesis on top, and then below that you've got the various ways in which the god hypothesis has been expressed by humanity, ie deism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, et al. Theism breaks down further into mono and polytheism.

They all have specific claims to them that differentiate them from one another.

1. We have deists who think a god exists who created the universe and leave it at that.
2. We have theists who think a god or gods exists who rule the universe as a king rules it's kingdom issuing edicts and decrees to his creations (his subjects), employing certain individuals to act as his prophets, etc.
...2a. monotheists - people who believe in one god that rules...
...2b. polytheists - people who believe in many gods that rule...
3. We have pantheists who believe that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god., a la the gaia hypothesis
4. We have panentheists who believe yadda yadda yadda...

All that being said, let me address the deism is a subset of theism argument. I am aware that history reports these alternate philosophies as coming from theism, and to an extent they did, but they aren't coming from theism really, they come from the god hypothesis. I contend that pantheism, panentheism and deism are philosophies on the same level as theism itself (as my slide shows), they aren't subsets of it, they are subsets of the god hypothesis.

Theism is God hypothesis.
The fault of your categorical system will become obvious when each of the terms in it is defined minimally.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Theism is God hypothesis.
The fault of your categorical system will become obvious when each of the terms in it is defined minimally.

No, theism is much more than just saying a god exists, as my previous comment showed

 

[Quintessence]

@ConradDaniel - you've told us a bit about what you believe, but a religion is more than just beliefs (and in some cases, isn't really about beliefs at all). What do you do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, theism is much more than just saying a god exists, as my previous comment showed

I still prefer Matt Dillahunty's version:

 

[QuestioningMind]

Feelings are ALWAYS true. They dont stur you wrong. Your interpretations of your feelings are true or false. The interpretation influences how you feel and your perception of how you feel. When you interpret your feelings as wrong, thats your mind thinking that NOT your feelings.

Feelings are always true. Its our interpretations of them we call them true or false.

Feelings are always true

Interpretation/mind says whether our feelings are true or not

Some people say "my feelings made me sin"

Other say, "my mind was stur me astray from my feelings/of god."

Doesnt matter either way. The message gets across the same.

Geez, make up your mind. Earlier you wrote that feelings are neither true or false, now you're claiming that they're always true again. Your feelings influence your mind and your mind influences your feelings because they both come from the SAME PLACE!

"Some people say "my feelings made me sin"

Other say, "my mind was stur me astray from my feelings/of god.""

Who are these people who say that? Who are these people who pretend as if they are a separate entity from their feelings? Who claims that they are a separate entity from their mind? It sounds as if your talking about some mental disorder.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For example

True:

Feelings one. (Edit)

Your feelings tell you its cold: it is right. It is cold.
Your feelings tell you its cold outside. You go outside its hot. Your interpretation misguided you not your feelings.

Feelings 2.

Your gut feeling tells you its cold outside; its true because that is how your body functions. It doesnt lie. It does what its built to do.

Your interpretation Based On your gut feeling says its cold outside; you go out, its hot. Your gut didnt stear you wrong. It does what it does. Your intepretation of your gut feelings were false.

Feelings 3.

You get mad because you your mind/emotions tell you someone is plotting against you. Your feelings are right in itself. Its surival.

You get mad because you Think someone is plotting against you. You find out your thoughts/interpretations are false Not your feelings.

Feelings 4.

God told me I am loved; what I feel is true because thats how the brain functions. Its like meditation or excercise. You can control your feelings to make you actually experience a religious feeling. It is not wrong.

God loves be because the bible says so.

I experience love because I am going off my interpretation of what god wants me to feel. The feeling is true. The criteria for true and false is by scripture. So it cant be false unless its a bad feeling they interpret it from sin or satan

You gotta tell me what do you mean by feeling @QuestioningMind . I asked before because it sounds like you are talking about gut feeling




I dont know which feeling you are refering to.

"
Feelings one. (Edit)

Your feelings tell you its cold: it is right. It is cold.
Your feelings tell you its cold outside. You go outside its hot. Your interpretation misguided you not your feelings."

Okay, you can stop right there. You are misrepresenting the scenario.

1. You step outside to determine if it's hot or cold and based on how you feel you conclude that it's cold. This feeling is accurate because it's completely subjective. Someone else may feel that it's warm, but to you it's cold.

2. You step outside to determine what the exact temperature is and based on how you feel you conclude that it's below 32 degrees. This feeling may or may not be accurate, because the actual temperature is not subjective.

What we learn is that in general terms feelings can always be true, but when it comes to specifics, feelings can be very inaccurate or untrue.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Geez, make up your mind. Earlier you wrote that feelings are neither true or false, now you're claiming that they're always true again. Your feelings influence your mind and your mind influences your feelings because they both come from the SAME PLACE!

"Some people say "my feelings made me sin"

Other say, "my mind was stur me astray from my feelings/of god.""

Who are these people who say that? Who are these people who pretend as if they are a separate entity from their feelings? Who claims that they are a separate entity from their mind? It sounds as if your talking about some mental disorder.

Feelings (psyology) are neigher true or not true

Feelings are only "said" to be true (english) when we interpret information based on our feelings.

I.e. your body feeling cold (the cold feeling) just is. Its neigher true or not true

"It is cold" you interpret from your physicology reaction that its cold and you go outside, it is true. You project that in your language: my feelings are true, it is cold outside

What feelings are you talking about?

Emotions
Phsyology
Gut feeling
Spiritual

Which?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thats the closest and brief I can describe it. Anything more @QuestioningMind youre talking about definitions and how people use metaphoric (rather idom phrases) in the english language.

Edit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@QuestioningMind You are experience a type of stress to your bodys nerves and agitated mind (even refutation is evidence of this). Thats a feeling. It is not right in and of itself.

You tell yourself I am not getting it ans maybe Im ignorant (who knows) thats an interpretation based on how you feel and how you percieve what I say.

If someone asked you: is your feelings true based on the information you get from the conversation.

You answer: yes, my feelings are correct (im not misguided. I know what I believe and feel)

Actually, your feelings are not correct (nor incorrect); it just is.

How you interpet the conversation (and refutation of this post ) is true or not true. If its true, your feelings will react one way. If it is not, your feelings will act the opposite.

Since your interpetation is true (what you believe) you express that in english: my feelings are true or correct based on the info I put together.

Feelings themselves are not true or not. Its an idiom phrase.

Your feelings are true only because it is based on your interpretation as such.

You can remedy your interpretation (thus your feelings) by maybe asking for clarification. Maybe you can use "I-statements" to put the attention to yourself and what you want to get across rather than for me for my ignorance via refutation.

If you think you are more concerned with your feelings (headaches) because of what your thoughts concluded, take an advil.

There are many ways to debate that is productive. Take care of yourself. Not everything needs to be refuted.

 

[Deidre]

One thing I've learned from my own journey away from Catholicism to atheism to deism to Buddhism to spirituality, is that faith is never stagnant, and it can't really be captured with one ''classification.'' How you see your beliefs, OP, is all that it needs to be...for you. Only the culture ''requires'' labels and such because it makes it convenient to fit everyone into a neat, little box. But, we can't be fit into a neat little box, and that's okay.

 

[Cary Cook]

No, theism is much more than just saying a god exists, as my previous comment showed

You can say anything is more than a basic definition of it. But basic definitions are all that is necessary to determine the categorical relationships between any two concepts. This is not difficult. Anyone can figure it out if they want to.

I'm done. You're welcome to the last word.

 

[GreenpeaceRECo-operative]

Well, well, well, looks like what we have here is a failuretocummunicate ambush-troll. If'n ya gonna argue your socialist viewpoint, it'd be better if'n ya took it to the politics forum, and especially, be clear up front what you really want to talk about. I don't know where any of that came from but B certainly didn't follow A.

Unfortunately for you, "Free Will" advocate, Al Gore and Bill McKibben are modern Christians with high degrees of integrity. Leave it to the Metaphysical frolickers to act like Religion has no real world relevance. Sorry to disappoint you. Sounds like you need to spend the time at Politics. I know the deal. Troll yourself, "Free Will". And like I said, Jesus´ teachings about social justice and responsibility, as led into modernity by Quakers and dissident Anglicans in their anti-slavery movement in the UK beginning in 1787 is the real deal. Try fitting that into your "Free Will."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Unfortunately for you, "Free Will" advocate, Al Gore and Bill McKibben are modern Christians with high degrees of integrity. Leave it to the Metaphysical frolickers to act like Religion has no real world relevance. Sorry to disappoint you. Sounds like you need to spend the time at Politics. I know the deal. Troll yourself, "Free Will". And like I said, Jesus´ teachings about social justice and responsibility, as led into modernity by Quakers and dissident Anglicans in their anti-slavery movement in the UK beginning in 1787 is the real deal. Try fitting that into your "Free Will."

Ah, I thought you were going to actually respond to what I wrote, but all I got was more off topic (and incoherent) SJW propaganda. Why'nt'ya google "syntax" for starters.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Feelings (psyology) are neigher true or not true

Feelings are only "said" to be true (english) when we interpret information based on our feelings.

I.e. your body feeling cold (the cold feeling) just is. Its neigher true or not true

"It is cold" you interpret from your physicology reaction that its cold and you go outside, it is true. You project that in your language: my feelings are true, it is cold outside

What feelings are you talking about?

Emotions
Phsyology
Gut feeling
Spiritual

Which?

Feelings are neither true or not true..... feelings are always true.... feelings are neither true or not true.... feelings are always true....

It's like watching a tennis match and it's starting to give me whiplash. Not sure why your so desperate to pretend that our feelings can't lead us astray. I suspect that the central evidence you have for God is a feeling and you can't accept the idea that maybe your feelings aren't always accurate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Shoot. Reread it with a fresh eye not bias.

Psyiology: not true nor untrue
Gut feeling: true via IF you attribute your interpretation to your feelings (english idiom)

Emotions: can reflect reality (im sad because he told me im talking like playing tennis)

Is it true? No.
Is it not true: no.

Therapist, for example, teach you to disattach yourself from interpreting feelings as true or not true. We tend to identify who we are by how we feel and respond as if feelings are true without looking at facts.

Thats why you have to reas and get the facts of what I say not feelings make you think what I say is false to you but never asked if your feelings are justified by fact.

Dont be sacarstic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Feelings are neither true or not true..... feelings are always true.... feelings are neither true or not true.... feelings are always true....

It's like watching a tennis match and it's starting to give me whiplash. Not sure why your so desperate to pretend that our feelings can't lead us astray. I suspect that the central evidence you have for God is a feeling and you can't accept the idea that maybe your feelings aren't always accurate.

Here we go,

Psyiology: not true nor true

Gut/emotions/spirituality

True or not based on your interpretation.

i.e. If your feelings dictate the motive of my message, thats whats throwing you off. Therapist try to help with that if it causes problems like fustrated etc. They try to teach to look at how we interpet our inner and outer environment

So, if I say X, you ask for clarification and base your answer on facts not how you feel based on what I say

Sarcasim doesnt come from conversing about facts. Headches arent curing interpretations. Be aware of your feelings and interactions and get back to me when you read what I say, think about it, and post with clarity of thought rather than refutation of feelings.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello, I have recently joined these forums to try and classify my beliefs, as the title suggests.

This is how I’ve always felt about where I stand religiously and I want to know if and what term is for this.

I believe in a higher power. I believe at some point some thing or moment or event of extreme importance and greatness happened such that the possibility for something and nothing was possible. I don’t, however, believe in a “God”— atleast not one I’m aware of.

I believe the “answers” to “who?”, “what?”, “where? , and “when?” Are so abstract and far beyond our understanding that we’ll never understand the true mechanisms of our universe. All we have is each other, and there’s something amazing about that.

Is there a term for this? Does this make me agnostic? Anyone else feel this way?

Thank you for taking you for reading.

Without a god you are an atheist. Don't panic. It's okay.