Nontheist

[PureX]

What's notable in your criticism about atheists not getting the word theism correct IS the correct definition, according to you. As an atheist I can inform you that we atheists don't get much help understanding what "theism" means from theists, and you illustrate my point.

It is a complex and subjective idea (theism). For those who have adopted the philosophy that reality is fundamentally material (objective and physical in nature) it can be difficult to comprehend a meta-concept based on ideation, first, and physicality as a result. But this is not the fault of the theist ideal. Nor is it a "failure" of it. Theism is a meta-ideal that works for the vast majority of people that employ it, and they do not have the difficulty with it that the relatively small number of philosophical materialist have with it. And attacking it or dismissing it because you find it difficult to grasp is not the mark of honest inquiry. It's the mark of petty egotism. And yet this is the response, often, from many materialists.

In my experience many theists are more and more vague and use this murkiness to their advantage. The "you just don't get it" line gets used quite a bit, but it is ironic that the believer seems to be the one who doesn't get what they believe to a degree that they can articulate it.

You insist they explain an idea that does not comport with your philosophical materialism in terms that comport with your philosophical materialism. And then you blame them when you don't get the response you demand. Can you imagine how annoying and frustrating that is for them to hear over and over and over?

Also, a lot of people are not very articulate about a lot of things. This should not be especially surprising to you. Just as a lot of people are unwilling to understand some things no matter how well articulated their idea may be.

If theism has a clear definition then state it.

The problem, here is that YOU want to be in charge of what is a "clear definition", and you want to use entirely your own criteria for it. Which your pre-conceived bias will ensure is not going to be met. This is a VERY common "trick" being used and over-used by those who set out to reject theism.

You seem to be doing what some others try to do, and that is make non-theism, or non-belief, into a belief system or dogma.

Non-theism is just non-theism. Atheism is the antithetical philosophical position to theism. And belief, as I have stated MANY, MANY times, has nothing to do with anything. It's just a personal choice.

I don;t get this claim because it attacks belief itself as likely faulty and should demand more scrutiny. This of course doesn't help believers who, as we know, struggle to justify their religious belief.

Belief has nothing to do with anything. It's just a personal choice.

Then what is it? Notice you again reject a clear understanding of theism but offer no correction. It's as if you just want to cause chaos. Or manufacture the mystery that you so love.

The mystery exists. And it effects all our lives to a significant extent. Theism is a proposed ideation of that mystery that people can use to help them deal with it, and with the unsettling reality of it.

 

[timothy1027]

What is the difference between non-theist and agnostic?

 

[PureX]

According to my usual dictionaries, 'theism' means ─

A.

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

2. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism.​

3. Belief in the existence of God with denial of revelation; deism.​

4. Belief in one God as creator and ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation.​

B

1. The form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation.​

2. the belief in the existence of a god or gods; compare atheism.​

Which one of those definitions do you use?

If you use another definition, what is it?

As I have stated many time before, dictionaries record the way people both use and MISUSE words. If you have to turn to the dictionary to justify your useage, it's probably because your misusing the word, like a lot of other people are.

 

[blü 2]

As I have stated many time before, dictionaries record the way people both use and MISUSE words. If you have to turn to the dictionary to justify your useage, it's probably because your misusing the word, like a lot of other people are.

For goodness' sake! All I'm asking you is to state clearly what you mean by "theism"! ─ a word you've accused people here of failing to understand,

If you yourself don't have a plain and coherent definition, then it appears there's nothing in particular to understand. Is that the point you're making?

If not, what do you mean by "theism"?

(By golly, we seem to be in the middle of a tide of posters here on the "believer" side who'd rather go swimming with crocodiles than give a clear definition of the terms they're using! It would be an agreeable thing if you weren't one of them.)

 

[PureX]

For goodness' sake! All I'm asking you is to state clearly what you mean by "theism"! ─ a word you've accused people here of failing to understand,

Theism is a category of philosophical investigation relayed to the great mystery of existence (origins, meaning, and purpose). It's not a "thing". It's not a belief. It's not a religion. It involves a number of varied concepts and ideologies.

If you yourself don't have a plain and coherent definition, then it appears there's nothing in particular to understand. Is that the point you're making?

If not, what do you mean by "theism"?

(By golly, we seem to be in the middle of a tide of posters here on the "believer" side who'd rather go swimming with crocodiles than give a clear definition of the terms they're using! It would be an agreeable thing if you weren't one of them.)

 

[PureX]

What is the difference between non-theist and agnostic?

You're asking about people, here, rather than ideas. That will only result in confusion and argument.

 

[blü 2]

Theism is a category of philosophical investigation relayed to the great mystery of existence (origins, meaning, and purpose). It's not a "thing". It's not a belief. It's not a religion. It involves a number of varied concepts and ideologies.

The word "theism", as you likely know, is from the Greek word which transliterates as 'theos' and means both 'god' and 'God'.

It appears from our conversation that your actual topic is 'the great mystery of existence' as you say above. The branch of philosophy concerned with that is ontology (from Greek on, the present participle 'being', of einai, 'to be'). It might make things clearer in standard discourse if you worked out which of those, or what instead of those, you want, since 'theism' will always automatically prompt the hearer to think of God and gods.

 

[PureX]

The word "theism", as you likely know, is from the Greek word which transliterates as 'theos' and means both 'god' and 'God'.

It appears from our conversation that your actual topic is 'the great mystery of existence' as you say above. The branch of philosophy concerned with that is ontology (from Greek on, the present participle 'being', of einai, 'to be'). It might make things clearer in standard discourse if you worked out which of those, or what instead of those, you want, since 'theism' will always automatically prompt the hearer to think of God and gods.

It's about "God/gods". But as anyone should know, that term refers to a whole array of concepts that people apply to the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. Everything from a vague fundamental force to a superhuman-like being with a name and a personality. Theism includes all those conceptions, and more. And as with any philosophical endeavor they are all open to discussion and debate. But they are concepts, not objects, so demanding objective evidence is just foolish, and is often intended to disparage rather than illuminate or debate.

 

[blü 2]

It's about "God/gods". But as anyone should know, that term refers to a whole array of concepts that people apply to the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. Everything from a vague fundamental force to a superhuman-like being with a name and a personality. Theism includes all those conceptions, and more. And as with any philosophical endeavor they are all open to discussion and debate. But they are concepts, not objects, so demanding objective evidence is just foolish, and is often intended to disparage rather than illuminate or debate.

Okay, I agree those things are all concepts. But could you please clarify whether you're talking about anything that is not purely a concept but has objective existence; and if you are, what that real entity or thing is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You insist they explain an idea that does not comport with your philosophical materialism in terms that comport with your philosophical materialism. And then you blame them when you don't get the response you demand.

Nope. I doubt that any skeptic expects any theist to produce good evidence for a god any more. I've explained before that, "Where's your evidence" in this context means "I know you have none, and I need it before believing." And who is blaming theists for anything except their incursion into government? And yes, you'll need to comport with the critical thinker's empiricism if you want to convince him that theism isn't just a security blanket of sorts for those that are comforted by such beliefs.

Theism is a meta-ideal that works for the vast majority of people that employ it, and they do not have the difficulty with it that the relatively small number of philosophical materialist have with it.

Difficulty? Atheists are people comfortable without a god belief. The one with the problem is the one who benefits by being a theist, which I've also explained to you countless times. This was written to you in April:

"And I'd refer you back to my metaphor of corrective lenses. This god idea meets a need that you and many others have the way eyeglasses do for people with blurry vision, but that there are also a significant number of people don't have that need. Glasses only corrupt the vision of somebody with perfect sight. You think that everybody should try on your new way of seeing, but many don't want glasses. They find less than no value there. And so you demean them for placing too much trust in their eyes, which you attempt to denigrate by calling it 'uncorrected visionism' rather than scientism, and say that they worship their native vision because they aren't interested in glasses."

You've never tried to rebut that. The usual reason for that is that one can't. That is assumed here as well. It is also assumed that you will continue to make this error, and that I will cutting-and-pasting this reply when you do. My purpose is not to engage in discussion over this with you, which will never happen.

attacking it or dismissing it because you find it difficult to grasp is not the mark of honest inquiry.

This is a common trope among apologists - if you reject them, you didn't understand them, as if their ideas are so compelling that nobody who understands them could reject them. Nothing you post is difficult to grasp. Speaking of honest inquiry, how about addressing the argument that one is better off being comfortable without a god belief.

The problem, here is that YOU want to be in charge of what is a "clear definition", and you want to use entirely your own criteria for it.

Problem? I don't see a problem there, at least not for him.

 

[PureX]

Okay, I agree those things are all concepts. But could you please clarify whether you're talking about anything that is not purely a concept but has objective existence; and if you are, what that real entity or thing is.

The mystery is not purely a concept. It is as real as anything we think we 'know', as it is what we don't know. To a human, not knowing presents is with vulnerability, and danger. Because as a species we survive and thrive by knowing how to anticipate and manipulate our environment, and ourselves in relation to it, to our advantage.

Mysteries are a very real and important matter to us. And it's why so many of us seek help in dealing with our unknowing. Especially on such a profound level as our source, sustenance, and purpose. Theism is the way many of us choose to do that, philosophically. And religion, then, practically.

 

[Quintessence]

As I have stated many time before, dictionaries record the way people both use and MISUSE words. If you have to turn to the dictionary to justify your useage, it's probably because your misusing the word, like a lot of other people are.

I see it as less about misuse of terms and more about failure of research skills and information literacy. Dictionaries are wholly improper to reference as if they're some authoritative be-all and end-all about a subject. At minimum, you reference an encyclopedia for an overview of a subject. At maximum, you examine the reams and reams of literature and other forms of media composed by scholars and laypersons alike on the subject. For a complicated subject like theology, expecting simplistic dictionary definitions to cut it (especially from a non-specialized dictionary) is... well, it makes little sense.

 

[F1fan]

It is a complex and subjective idea (theism). For those who have adopted the philosophy that reality is fundamentally material (objective and physical in nature) it can be difficult to comprehend a meta-concept based on ideation, first, and physicality as a result.

I suggest the non-material (whatever that means) ideas are comprehensible as ideas, but are incoherent as part of what describes reality. Why? Because they lack evidence and credibility.

But this is not the fault of the theist ideal. Nor is it a "failure" of it. Theism is a meta-ideal that works for the vast majority of people that employ it, and they do not have the difficulty with it that the relatively small number of philosophical materialist have with it.

Of course they don't, these are ideas they have adopted without critical analysis, nor for whether they are based in fact and data. Let's note that there isn't one form of these religious frameworks like there is materialist explanations (science), so how can science accomodate all the diverse religious ideas of immaterial whatever? They bring ideas, no facts, no data, no methodology, but want to be recognized. Sorry, get your evidence of an immaterial and get back to us.

And attacking it or dismissing it because you find it difficult to grasp is not the mark of honest inquiry. It's the mark of petty egotism. And yet this is the response, often, from many materialists.

The ideas are criticized because they are whimsical and non-evidenced. The believers are also criticized due to bad habits like attacking the critical thinker as you do here in the bolded. Your immaterial ideas are not hard to understand, they just aren't credible, and you get upset and lash out passive aggressively.

You insist they explain an idea that does not comport with your philosophical materialism in terms that comport with your philosophical materialism.

It's not mine as if it is a subjective opinion, materialism is the basis of science, reasoning, law, logic, etc. Every way of thinking that recognizes the ower of fact and data as a means to sound conclusions is in this same category. I defer to what is demonstrable and what works. You do this to some degree, but you want religious ideas to be exempt from the same scrutiny as evidence in court, or evidence in science. You certainly fail to explain why religious ideas should be given a pass. That the majority of humans assign meaning to some sort of superstition is irrelevant. They go about their behavior and belief without evidence, and that's fine so long as they keep religion within limits of personal meaning.

Your approach seems to dedicated to pishing religious belief beyond the subjective and personal belief to imposed onto what is understand about how things are in the universe.

And then you blame them when you don't get the response you demand. Can you imagine how annoying and frustrating that is for them to hear over and over and over?

If anyone makes a claim that lacks evidence then they are to blame for making a false and invalid claim. It's not personal, it is a flaw of thinking. If they are frustrated that they keep making errors in a community that follows the rules of logic then they are the one's causing their own distress. You and others often accuse atheists of "not getting it" but you then fail to explain what it is that we don't get. It seems to be fervent and uncompromising religious belief. No we don;t get that behavior, and we go into detail why religious behavior is not something we find useful or appealing. The believers don't relate to non-belief. I've been asked "How can you not believe?" Easy, I think about the ideas without social pressure and realize they lack the evidence to be believed. Religious believers don't come to rational decisions via evidence, they adopt the religious ideas from those around them and then apply them to their own framework of identity and belief.

Also, a lot of people are not very articulate about a lot of things. This should not be especially surprising to you. Just as a lot of people are unwilling to understand some things no matter how well articulated their idea may be.

This is correct. This isn't taken as an excuse for believers and what they believe, the broad range of diverse believers offer their personal views and the only consistent part is a lack of evidence. This is the important part: the lack of evidence. It's the lack of evidence that allows such broad and diverse religious claims and frameworks, and this diversity only hurts your advocacy for them to be acknowledged and valued by materialists, or realists.

The problem, here is that YOU want to be in charge of what is a "clear definition", and you want to use entirely your own criteria for it. Which your pre-conceived bias will ensure is not going to be met. This is a VERY common "trick" being used and over-used by those who set out to reject theism.

I invite you to offer a clear definition of theism and you only whine about an imagined boogeyman. Can you not see how your evasion hurts you and your views? I invite you to contribute and you refuse, and then you accuse atheists of not getting it.

Non-theism is just non-theism. Atheism is the antithetical philosophical position to theism.

Non-theism is just atheism. Atheism is a very broad category that had subsets. Atheism has very valid arguments against theism, namely the LACK OF EVIDENCE that is its Achilie's Heel. You continue to word your comments in a way that wants unwarranted credibity assigned to religious views without them having to earn credibility with evidence and a coherent explanation.

And belief, as I have stated MANY, MANY times, has nothing to do with anything. It's just a personal choice.

Belief has nothing to do with anything. It's just a personal choice.

Religious belief is what you you want accepted by materialists.

The mystery exists. And it effects all our lives to a significant extent. Theism is a proposed ideation of that mystery that people can use to help them deal with it, and with the unsettling reality of it.

You create your own mysteries by assuming non-evidence religious ideas. Science didn't make discoveries about the universe by making bad assumptions. There are many mysteries, but they don't get solved by assuming magic and gods at work pulling strings behind a green curtain that you should ignore.

 

[F1fan]

For goodness' sake! All I'm asking you is to state clearly what you mean by "theism"! ─ a word you've accused people here of failing to understand,

If you yourself don't have a plain and coherent definition, then it appears there's nothing in particular to understand. Is that the point you're making?

If not, what do you mean by "theism"?

(By golly, we seem to be in the middle of a tide of posters here on the "believer" side who'd rather go swimming with crocodiles than give a clear definition of the terms they're using! It would be an agreeable thing if you weren't one of them.)

He was equally evasive with my invitation. To my mind if a person can't define a term then they can't be critical of those who do.

It's like the definition is divine and a hidden mystery, and we can't cast our eyes upon it without bursting into flames and cast into hell.

 

[PureX]

I see it as less about misuse of terms and more about failure of research skills and information literacy. Dictionaries are wholly improper to reference as if they're some authoritative be-all and end-all about a subject. At minimum, you reference an encyclopedia for an overview of a subject. At maximum, you examine the reams and reams of literature and other forms of media composed by scholars and laypersons alike on the subject. For a complicated subject like theology, expecting simplistic dictionary definitions to cut it (especially from a non-specialized dictionary) is... well, it makes little sense.

A person should be able to logically explain how they are employing a term if they understand what they are saying. When someone turns to the dictionary as opposed to simply explaining the logic of their usage, I have to assume it's because they can't explain their own logic, or they don't care that it's illogical and/or misleading.

 

[lukethethird]

I see it as less about misuse of terms and more about failure of research skills and information literacy. Dictionaries are wholly improper to reference as if they're some authoritative be-all and end-all about a subject. At minimum, you reference an encyclopedia for an overview of a subject. At maximum, you examine the reams and reams of literature and other forms of media composed by scholars and laypersons alike on the subject. For a complicated subject like theology, expecting simplistic dictionary definitions to cut it (especially from a non-specialized dictionary) is... well, it makes little sense.

A mutual understanding cannot be achieved if the meaning of a word or term is not agreed upon. If a dictionary's explanation needs tweaking in some way then so be it, but otherwise dictionaries are indispensable for a quick reference. They provide common usages as well as originally intended usages of definitions so yes, the common usages provided can cause difficulty sometimes and of itself can be a cause for discussion.

 

[lukethethird]

A person should be able to logically explain how they are employing a term if they understand what they are saying. When someone turns to the dictionary as opposed to simply explaining the logic of their usage, I have to assume it's because they can't explain their own logic, or they don't care that it's illogical and/or misleading.

Your explanations are ambiguous which is why a dictionary's concise explanation is more efficient for achieving common ground.

 

[lukethethird]

The mystery is not purely a concept. It is as real as anything we think we 'know', as it is what we don't know. To a human, not knowing presents is with vulnerability, and danger. Because as a species we survive and thrive by knowing how to anticipate and manipulate our environment, and ourselves in relation to it, to our advantage.

Mysteries are a very real and important matter to us. And it's why so many of us seek help in dealing with our unknowing. Especially on such a profound level as our source, sustenance, and purpose. Theism is the way many of us choose to do that, philosophically. And religion, then, practically.

of the following, which definition, if any, applies to your ideas about mystery?


mystery

noun​

1. Occupation; trade; office; profession; calling; art; craft.
2. Plural In ancient religions, rites known to and practised by certain initiated persons only, consisting of purifications, sacrificial offerings, processions, songs, dances, dramatic performances, and the like: as, the Eleusinian mysteries.
3. In the Christian Church, especially in the early church and in the Greek Church, a sacrament.

 

[PureX]

Okay, I agree those things are all concepts. But could you please clarify whether you're talking about anything that is not purely a concept but has objective existence; and if you are, what that real entity or thing is.

"Objective existence" is a concept, not a "thing". And the inability to grasp this is the failure of philosophical materialism. The materialist keeps demanding something that, as a limited human, he cannot have. And when he doesn't get it, he claims it must not really exist.

But what exists is the great mystery of being. And we cannot unravel it. Yet we have to live with it, and within it. And to do that we need to understand it well enough to control it, or at least to control ourselves in relation to it. The materialists have chosen to believe that existence is just a big elaborate physical mechanism. And that we can use science to figure out all the mechanical intricacies, which will then give us the knowledge/control that we seek.

But the rest of the world's people see existence as being more than just a big physical mechanism. In various ways and to various degrees they see existence as a singular whole, like an entity of some kind. An expression of being unto itself and within which everything that is, both resides and is being given form, and independence, and even in some cases, conscious self-awareness.

And with that awareness comes the ability to ask 'why?' (not just how) ... a question that we cannot answer, but that determines every other answer we think we possess. It's "meta-question". The one that theism (philosophy) tries to address.

Because science cannot.

 

[osgart]

Theism is going to always be a conviction held on philosophical grounds as an interpretation of evidences that satisfy intuitions about purpose in nature. IOW philosophical arguments are a way of knowing if done correctly.

I don't see how naturalism is anything else but a philosophical intuition as well.

So it would be best to establish those common facts about theism and naturalism.

What is the evidence that naturalism is true so that intuition about it can be avoided for obvious fact? There is no such evidence without an intuition from interpretation of evidence.