Threads about Theism and what it is

[Trailblazer]

If I had to guess, it is because most people who are interested in theism do not often want to question the validity of their conceptions of the word.

That's basically what I just said.

 

[Willamena]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

To me, theism is a recognition and study of divinity. And divinity is a foundation of all existence, hence it neither exists nor fails to exist.

Kinda hard to make a thread about that (unless Doppleganger were still here).

 

[Jumi]

Theisms are a group of ideas about divine, psychology, nature of reality that are quite hard to put in neat boxes with labels on.

 

[danieldemol]

Yay a theism thread at last

 

[Apologes]

Looks like you lost the bet.

 

[Windwalker]

Whilst the myriad of nuances of what 'atheist' means get beat around like a dead horse at least every few months, this doesn't ever happen for theism. I often ask myself why that is.

Because from what I've seen most theists aren't uncomfortable using the terms belief and faith to describe their views. When you try to say atheism is not a belief, then all manner of semantical hijinks ensue. Theists tend to be immune from that because they don't try to deny calling faith faith. "No, I can't be just like them, because they believe something opposite of what I believe, I mean, not believe, which is not a belief, by the way, but a mere denial of their belief, I believe, I mean don't believe, I believe".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's no real wrong with theism is there? Theism can pretty much be whatever you what it to be. Who's going to prove you wrong?

Isn't that just what atheists are doing ?

@Shushersbedamned beat me to the punch on this one.
Some non-theists seem to make it one of their life missions to take down what they call "theism" (which is usually some narrow subset of theism).

I found this particular string of posts and replies very interesting. It seems as though there are fundamental differences in which theists and atheists take from particular word choices. I saw @Nakosis' post as being made to get theists to think of what he posted from the theist perspective, but both @Quintessence and @Shushersbedamned seem to be taking it as if Nakosis himself were stating that there was "nothing wrong with theism" from an atheist perspective.

I mean, we all have to admit that atheists don't (or very very rarely) attack atheism, right? So, we establish that theists are the attackers of atheism. They are the ones who have a vested interest in trying to wrangle the meaning of "atheism" into something that meets their need to be able to refute, or at the very least, to dismiss it. So, this plethora of threads on what the term atheism means are usually either theists attacking the term with a bunch of assumptions, incorrect assertions and blatantly self-serving inferences, or it is an atheist attempting to correct misconceptions brought about by that former type of thread. So all of those threads are created by, or in response to THEISTS. If the term "atheist" were genuinely understood, then ATHEISTS WOULDN'T MAKE THREADS ABOUT WHAT THE TERM MEANS. Nor would 90% of the threads that theists create about atheism even exist.

So, I believe what @Nakosis was trying to point out was that theists have much less reason to call out other theists as being "wrong" or trying to poke holes in the meaning of "Hindu" or "Christian" or "Muslim." Theists have to worry about a form of "mutually assured destruction" if they start going that route with another theist... because if you are attacking someone else's religion as stories and as a brand of belief-only make-believe, then YOU KNOW they have EVERY RIGHT to turn around and do the exact same thing to your beliefs. The HUGE difference between that an atheism is that theists believe that atheists DO NOT HAVE SUCH A RIGHT.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I found this particular string of posts and replies very interesting. It seems as though there are fundamental differences in which theists and atheists take from particular word choices. I saw @Nakosis' post as being made to get theists to think of what he posted from the theist perspective, but both @Quintessence and @Shushersbedamned seem to be taking it as if Nakosis himself were stating that there was "nothing wrong with theism" from an atheist perspective.

что ты? I merely meant what I said....... ....... .......

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

...Why is the above insufficient? And why do skeptics make things complicated, when Paul warns us to "avoid straying from the simplicity found in Christ, and so destroy yourselves?"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

что ты? I merely meant what I said....... ....... .......

But you replied saying "isn't that what atheists are doing?" As in, atheists are trying to "prove theists wrong." They very well might be at times. But I don't believe Nakosis' post had anything to do with that atheist perspective. It had to do with theists not starting threads about the meaning of other theists labels because what is the other theist going to do? Prove you wrong? No. They know they can't... because they also know they can't prove a damn thing they are saying either!

 

[Shushersbedamned]

But you replied saying "isn't that what atheists are doing?" As in, atheists are trying to "prove theists wrong." They very well might be at times. But I don't believe Nakosis' post had anything to do with that atheist perspective. It had to do with theists not starting threads about the meaning of other theists labels because what is the other theist going to do? Prove you wrong? No. They know they can't... because they also know they can't prove a damn thing they are saying either!

My point may have passed that point but that isn't what I meant. In any case I wasn' really answering to Nakosis - I merely referred to the coincidental part of his reference.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My point may have passed that point but that isn't what I meant. In any case I wasn' really answering to Nakosis - I merely referred to the coincidental part of his reference.

Then what did you mean? What is it you think atheists are trying to do in your response to Nakosis?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Then what did you mean? What is it you think atheists are trying to do in your response to Nakosis?

I have noticed their writing in here is similar to what Nakosis said.

1. There is nothing wrong with atheism.
2. It's pretty much whatever I want it to be.
3. No one can prove me wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Whilst the myriad of nuances of what 'atheist' means get beat around like a dead horse at least every few months, this doesn't ever happen for theism. I often ask myself why that is.

Because nobody really identifies themselves by the label 'theist' so they aren't particularly touchy about it to the point they consider it a grave insult to even suggest the word potentially has more than 1 legitimate usage

I mostly agree (with the exception of deism as it was and still is to some theologians and philosophers is entirely seperate from theism. Etymologically deism is the opposite of theism, not atheism, because theism was about what gods did as much as what they were. Religions with a-personal gods were deists, personal gods were theists. So by that argument deism is not a subset of theism.)

To make things even more fun, theism actually used to mean deism.

I do agree with you that theism, deism, pantheism, etc are probably best kept separate if we want the terms to be informative. I see little value in trying to mash an Abrahamic God and a pantheistic god into the same category out of 'convenience'.

Some people don't like that though as it means you can't say atheism is 'an absence of theism'

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have noticed their writing in here is similar to what Nakosis said.

1. There is nothing wrong with atheism.
2. It's pretty much whatever I want it to be.
3. No one can prove me wrong.

And here we have a perfect example of a misconception with you saying "It's pretty much whatever I want it to be.". Atheism is not "whatever [ I ] want it to be" at all. It has a specific meaning - a person that doesn't believe in gods. Done. That's all. If you want to say that the rest of an atheist's worldview is "whatever [they] want it to be" then I agree with you. Atheists are all different, and can hold night-and-day beliefs on any number of subjects. The only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is that they do not believe in gods.

And with the "No one can prove me wrong" - this is completely misconstruing the issue. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you make any claims about anything. It is literally only the idea that a person doesn't believe in gods. It is not, necessarily, a statement or claim that "no gods exist." Some of us take it there... but again, that is not a belief that is automatically part of "atheism." So NO ONE - literally not a single person or idea - can "prove atheism wrong." It makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is "right." Absolutely nothing. Not even one positive claim or assertion about anything at all.

And THIS is exactly why there are "so many" threads about atheism. The fact that no one except atheists seems capable of understanding what the word means.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

And here we have a perfect example of a misconception with you saying "It's pretty much whatever I want it to be.". Atheism is not "whatever [ I ] want it to be" at all. It has a specific meaning - a person that doesn't believe in gods. Done. That's all. If you want to say that the rest of an atheist's worldview is "whatever [they] want it to be" then I agree with you. Atheists are all different, and can hold night-and-day beliefs on any number of subjects. The only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is that they do not believe in gods.

And with the "No one can prove me wrong" - this is completely misconstruing the issue. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you make any claims about anything. It is literally only the idea that a person doesn't believe in gods. It is not, necessarily, a statement or claim that "no gods exist." Some of us take it there... but again, that is not a belief that is automatically part of "atheism." So NO ONE - literally not a single person or idea - can "prove atheism wrong." It makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is "right." Absolutely nothing. Not even one positive claim or assertion about anything at all.

And THIS is exactly why there are "so many" threads about atheism. The fact that no one except atheists seems capable of understanding what the word means.

I have no idea why you are taking my simple innocent good humored side comment so seriously.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have no idea why you are taking my simple innocent good humored side comment so seriously.

I have no choice but to assert that if you don't understand what I've been saying or why I have been saying it, then you are in serious need of furthered education.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I have no choice but to assert that if you don't understand what I've been saying or why I have been saying it, then you are in serious need of furthered education.

Most people would say where i come from that I have no education at all, but consider for a moment that perhaps you have not understood.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Most people would say where i come from that I have no education at all, but consider for a moment that perhaps you have not understood.

I have considered it, and I see exactly what you wrote (and clarified for me):

I have noticed their writing in here is similar to what Nakosis said.

1. There is nothing wrong with atheism.
2. It's pretty much whatever I want it to be.
3. No one can prove me wrong.

You're saying that atheists' writing imparts that they think "there is nothing wrong with atheism", and that atheists treat atheism as if it "is pretty much whatever [ I ] want it to be" and that atheists are saying "no one can prove me wrong." Right? RIGHT?!?! What do you feel I am not understanding about those sentiments?

You said them, they stand on their own merit, and in the case of the last two I am saying that the merit is precisely ZERO, for the reasons I previously cited. So I am calling out your statements and your ideas as unworthy of time and attention, and not at all accurate. The only thing you are correct about is that atheists think that there is nothing wrong with atheism. That one's obvious. If there was something atheists thought was "wrong" with atheism, then they probably wouldn't be atheists.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I have considered it, and I see exactly what you wrote (and clarified for me):



You're saying that atheists' writing imparts that they think "there is nothing wrong with atheism", and that atheists treat atheism as if it "is pretty much whatever [ I ] want it to be" and that atheists are saying "no one can prove me wrong." Right? RIGHT?!?! What do you feel I am not understanding about those sentiments?

You said them, they stand on their own merit, and in the case of the last two I am saying that the merit is precisely ZERO, for the reasons I previously cited. So I am calling out your statements and your ideas as unworthy of time and attention, and not at all accurate. The only thing you are correct about is that atheists think that there is nothing wrong with atheism. That one's obvious. If there was something atheists thought was "wrong" with atheism, then they probably wouldn't be atheists.

You sound like it d do good to go someplace alone and scream. That's okay. Happens to me all the time. But this time, I'm not with you.