If theism stands and falls with theists ...

okay.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If "belief in God" is in any way a matter of my choice, then, yes, my choice will effect the belief in God that I will have.

Your objection would hold if belief in God would be completely beyond choice.

Both theists and atheists have a long history of trying to circumnavigate this problem of whether belief in God is a matter of personal choice or not.
Both sometimes go into the extremes of either fideism or solipsism.

But I do believe that belief in God has some element of personal choice to it.
If it wouldn't, we'd simply all either believe or disbelieve, and would be as concerned about belief in God as we are over the fact that our body has 206 bones (namely, usually, we're not concerned over the number of bones in our body at all, we just take it for granted).

I don't think that the two can be so neatly separated.

The way I see, part of the problem is that you unilaterally seek to determine why communicating with me is frustrating.
You know, I take part in this too, so how about discussing with me first, before making accusations and declarations of how you are more open-minded than me and before giving me advice on what would help me?

Because it's not my goal here to explore other worldviews per se.

Other worldviews are interesting to me only inasmuch as with their help, I can poke holes into mine and see where mine may be flawed, and see whether I can fix that flaw.
I am sort of playing devil's advocate against my own view.


You know, you could have simply asked me, before going on a lecture on how I am not open-minded enough etc. etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Therefore, worship of Jimi Hendrix is theism.

QED.

 

Yes. Well, worship would technically be religion. Belief that Jimi Hendrix is god would be theism.

Why do you keep saying that as if it proves your point? How does this invalidate the "theism = belief in god" argument?

 

That is precisely what needs to be done, otherwise, we are in the absurd realm of the FSM.

 

It is perfectly within your capability to explore the possibility that the actual nature of something is different from what you presently think it must be, and it is critical to do so if you are seeking the truth rather than just a way to try to elevate what may merely be a preferred (but incorrect) conception to the status of an actual truth.

That, all by itself, is perfectly reasonable. I think the same could be said of many people here, to a greater or lesser degree. But you are somewhat unique in the sense that you claim to be searching for the truth about God, but at the same time you've:

1) narrowed the possible truths down so much that there doesn't seem to be a single religion in the world that you haven't and/or wouldn't reject
2) rejected the notion that it's reasonable to be a religious pluralist
3) rejected conceptions of God that do not place God as the author of religion

So tell me, what else is there? This is precisely why I am challenging you to consider the idea that some of the possibilities you have already ruled out might be worth looking at in greater detail, especially when you know so little about many of them.

 

This argument fails because neither of your examples entail an actual belief in a deity.

Some Jimi Hendrix fans might call him a guitar god, and might "worship" him in the following sense of the word:

but if you seriously ask them if they think Jimi Hendrix is an actual deity, you'll find that they don't. Therefore, it is not theism.

In the case of the FSM, it is merely a parody of religion. It is also not theism unless it entails a belief that the FSM is an actual deity.

 

Which is why I have been saying over and over again that "A theist believes in a god or gods" is not a sufficient definition of theism!!

Clearly, something quite specific is meant by that "god," "God" or "gods" if belief therein is to count as theism.
When pressed, even obvious atheists acknowledge this.

Precisely, one must restrict theism to a particular conception of God, or it's not theism.

We can see this implicitly at work when we dismiss "belief in Jimi Hendrix" or "belief in the FSM" and maintain that they are not forms of theism.

 

Yes, because I've been at this for a while. I haven't begun my quest yesterday, you know.

Over time, some notions fall away; some resurface, some in somewhat different forms; some are forgotten; some new ones come in.

I already know that if one tries hard enough, one can make sense, and possibly enjoy, pretty much anything.

The crux is in "trying hard enough."
Sometimes, even the most ideal expected outcome does not justify the effort that one would have to invest to achieve it.

I don't want to sound presumptuous and pretend that with my milleage, I have pretty much "seen it all."
But I have seen quite a bit.

 

Again, it's theism when there is belief in the existence of a deity. No-one was ever talking about anything else.

 

Because it is unlikely a higher consciousness evolved as FSM. Who cooked him? Oh wait, Christian God? NVM. FSM>Christian God. If their is a God he would be recognized as a "spirit" as he would speak, but not take shape of anything.

 

And not just anyone or anything passes for a deity.

Jimi Hendrix doesn't.
Who else doesn't?

 

James R,

It is a form of theism, hence the term ''poly''.
I doubt you're interested in the difference between God and god, as it was prior to ancient greece, so I'll accept your definition, for which still remains distinctions.

I don't mind!

I'll use the watered-down secular version, because the distinction is there for anyone who is genuinely interested.


jan.

 

Obviously! But this does nothing to demonstrate that there is a problem with the existing terminology. If we're talking about a belief in, as Wikipedia puts it, a "preternatural or supernatural immortal being" (aka a deity), then we're talking about theism. If we're not, then we're not.

 

Okay, so now we only need to figure out who fits the idea of a "preternatural or supernatural immortal being."

My vote is that Zeus and Thor don't. (Nor Jimi Hendrix.)

Who would fit?

 

Of course they do. What makes you think they don't?

Having your own definitions again?

 

Is this going anywhere?

But as long as Hendrix was mentioned, don't forget Zappa. The world began with a sofa and some floor covering. In German. I can't post links yet so I won't give the lyrics.

 

So lets say I'm a telepath... I'm a deity?

One example of something preternatural, and then an example of something supernatural...