If God is evil...

[Penumbra]

It's a case where one word can have multiple meanings. Theist has both a general meaning and a more specific one.

 

[Storm]

It's a case where one word can have multiple meanings. Theist has both a general meaning and a more specific one.

You're right. I just resent the general meaning for the reasons stated above.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's not a false dichotomy given the definitions of "theist" as one who believes in at least one god and "atheist" as one who doesn't believe in any god(s).

This in fact creates a true dichotomy, not a false one. Of course people are free to form different semantics but I'm using these semantics, so it's a true statement that all people are either theists or atheists.

This is sort of like saying "All people are either blondes or non-blondes." That is also a true dichotomy given a sufficient definition of what constitutes a blonde.

As for there being a "race" of Roman Catholics, I really doubt it. I'm already hesitant to accept there is a "race" of Jews; though admittedly there are distinct genetics to groups of Jews such as the Ashkenazi Jews that have high rates of things like Tay-Sachs compared to other people -- but I don't really believe in the term "race" anyway, hence the quotations.

We were talking about the problem of evil and Roman Catholics being theists. Not atheists and theists.

 

[Gloone]

If god was evil then god would have never allowed people to be innovative. God would have never allowed us to be social beings. God would have never allowed us to drink on Friday. God would have never allowed us to have the interwebs. God would have never allowed us to do w/e you think god is evil for allowing.

 

[Madhuri]

You're quite wrong about that. Wiki: Classical theism.

In my book, theism implies supernaturalism and a personal God, at minimum. I am not a theist, anymore than an atheist.

So classical theism, defined by westerners, relates only to Abrahamic concepts?
I don't think that this is a very good definition. Ie/ it relates to traditional 'Western' ideas.

Theism does not imply a personal God. An impersonalist is also a theist.

 

[Gloone]

So classical theism, defined by westerners, relates only to Abrahamic concepts?
I don't think that this is a very good definition. Ie/ it relates to traditional 'Western' ideas.

Theism does not imply a personal God. An impersonalist is also a theist.

Theism just indicates that you believe in something rather than nothing from the way I understand it.

 

[Storm]

So classical theism, defined by westerners, relates only to Abrahamic concepts?
I don't think that this is a very good definition. Ie/ it relates to traditional 'Western' ideas.

No, it isn't, but it was handy. It also excludes polytheistic traditions like paganism. Those are theistic, as well.

Theism does not imply a personal God. An impersonalist is also a theist.

It does, actually. An impersonalist is a deist.

 

[Meow Mix]

You're quite wrong about that. Wiki: Classical theism.

In my book, theism implies supernaturalism and a personal God, at minimum. I am not a theist, anymore than an atheist.

The way I see it you're not a classical theist.

I was more going off of this definition: "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists." (Theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Objecting to classical theism as if it constitutes all of what theism (generally) is seems as absurd to me as if I were to object to all of atheism under the assumption that "atheism" equates to "strong atheism."

Theism, like atheism, is a broad umbrella term whereas classical theism and strong atheism are specific variants.

I'm an atheist, but I'm not a strong atheist. In the same respect it seems to me that you are a theist, but not a classical theist. At least insofar as the terms are defined in my semantics; I understand that you don't have to subscribe to my semantics but that's what I mean when I say the terms.

 

[Meow Mix]

We were talking about the problem of evil and Roman Catholics being theists. Not atheists and theists.

It follows at if theism and atheism are dichotomous and Roman Catholics are not atheists then they are theists.

 

[Gloone]

It follows at if theism and atheism are dichotomous and Roman Catholics are not atheists then they are theists.

Catholics are just Catholics they belong in a category all on their own. They will spit on the notion of someone claiming to be a christian and laugh at someone who thinks they are an atheist.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It follows at if theism and atheism are dichotomous and Roman Catholics are not atheists then they are theists.

To be a Roman Catholic in my opinion, means that you are neither atheist, nor theist. If this is true, then your dichotomous terms are not dichotomous and are in fact a false dichotomy.

 

[Gloone]

To be a Roman Catholic in my opinion, means that you are neither atheist, nor theist. If this is true, then your dichotomous terms are not dichotomous and are in fact a false dichotomy.

They are false brother. There is no way they could be real. They came from wiki.

 

[Storm]

The way I see it you're not a classical theist.

I was more going off of this definition: "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists." (Theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

See my response to Penumbra.

 

[Meow Mix]

To be a Roman Catholic in my opinion, means that you are neither atheist, nor theist. If this is true, then your dichotomous terms are not dichotomous and are in fact a false dichotomy.

If theism is to have a belief that at least one deity exists and atheism is to lack a belief in any gods, then they are truly dichotomous.

If you are defining theism differently then of course it could possibly be a false dichotomy, but the way I have defined the terms it is a true dichotomy.

This is why it's important for you to define your terms if you're using them differently. Are you?

If you agree with my terms for theism and atheism, then the statement "Roman Catholics aren't theists or atheists" is irrational.

 

[Meow Mix]

See my response to Penumbra.

I saw it after I responded. I get what you're saying; and no one forces you to use any given semantics... just understand what I mean when I say "theism." I say "theism" when I mean "theism" and I'll say "classical theism" when I mean that specific type of theism.

I used to also try to avoid the term atheism because of associations with strong atheism, but not anymore... so I sort of understand where you're coming from. *shrug*

 

[Gloone]

If theism is to have a belief that at least one deity exists and atheism is to lack a belief in any gods, then they are truly dichotomous.

If you are defining theism differently then of course it could possibly be a false dichotomy, but the way I have defined the terms it is a true dichotomy.

This is why it's important for you to define your terms if you're using them differently. Are you?

If you agree with my terms for theism and atheism, then the statement "Roman Catholics aren't theists or atheists" is irrational.

I'm sorry but you don't know what it is like to lose your religion and faith until you are a catholic. Go to church on Sunday, drink the blood of Christ and eat his flesh then see if you walk the same person.

 

[waitasec]

Because salvation is always consensual, and not everyone will consent to being saved. There is always the choice to be made. The problem is choice.

i wouldn't call it consensual....it's more like a threat.

"It's not bad for a person to take the punishment for your debts. But it's ridiculous to suggest that they can take away your culpability. It's scapegoating. It's an old, primitive practice from the middle east that doesn't deserve the consideration of modern people. This sacrifice is not being offered - you refuse on pain of death. Is that a threat? 'Well, that means an eternity of torture, you know. You better take that into account.' This is North Korea. This is a celestial dictatorship. This is the sort of worship that it takes a slave to accept."

- c. hitches

 

[aindiachai]

I saw it after I responded. I get what you're saying; and no one forces you to use any given semantics... just understand what I mean when I say "theism." I say "theism" when I mean "theism" and I'll say "classical theism" when I mean that specific type of theism.

I used to also try to avoid the term atheism because of associations with strong atheism, but not anymore... so I sort of understand where you're coming from. *shrug*

It's not just what you mean by it. It is how it is defined in the English language.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.

As well as Princeton Online:

Noun

S: (n) theism (the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods)

 

[Gloone]

i wouldn't call it consensual....it's more like a threat.

"It's not bad for a person to take the punishment for your debts. But it's ridiculous to suggest that they can take away your culpability. It's scapegoating. It's an old, primitive practice from the middle east that doesn't deserve the consideration of modern people. This sacrifice is not being offered - you refuse on pain of death. Is that a threat? 'Well, that means an eternity of torture, you know. You better take that into account.' This is North Korea. This is a celestial dictatorship. This is the sort of worship that it takes a slave to accept."

- c. hitches

Jesus is not a dam whipping boy. He is just a sacrificial lamb.

 

[waitasec]

Jesus is not a dam whipping boy. He is just a sacrificial lamb.

god and jesus are one and the same...
i am still responsible for my actions and for myself ultimately.


this is nonsensical.
god
adam and eve
fallen man
the flood
sodom and gomorrah
exodus
10 commadments
wandering in the wilderness (all during which...slavery, rape, genocide where condoned)
wars
roman rule
jesus
mohammed
joseph smith
waiting
waiting
still waiting
check watch...waiting...waiting
taps feet, plays beat on thighs
waiting...