I had to laugh when I read this...my experience with theists is they do not do "more precisely" at all well.
Whatever they mean presumably will vary from individual to individual given none of them can employ objectivity.
I think it is sufficient to accept theists are thinking creator and that this creator did create the universe.
I would be very surprised if one found a theist who said they believed in a god but they don't believe that he created the universe.
Sentence for sentence:
1) Similarly, I sighed when I read your post ... you missed the point.
2) A truism with open bigotry welded onto the end of it.
3) Do try making sense, next time.
4) The statistical reality is whatever it is, but that's still your problem.
†
The thing is, the topic post can't get any more specific than, "theists", because it's author isn't capable of being any more specific.
Toward that end, and perhaps your point four, look around for Sproul's
Primal Myths. You needn't read it through, or anything; just look at what it is and maybe peruse a couple creation tales to understand how they are recorded and compiled. Normally, I find myself pointing out that creation stories tend to deal with the people who tell them; it's actually surprising how often people haven't stopped to think about that point.
More to our context in the moment, though, something else you might notice in creation tales is that often, the Creator spirit, while broad in function, is not a monotheistic godhead. And as you read through other various scriptures and lores from around the world, you will find much seemingly implicit sentiment that the ultimate reality is what it is, and the stories deal with mundane questions of daily life. It seems worth reminding that, in history, philosophy has, at times, been something of a luxury; the underlying philosophies of religion are, generally, even more esoteric than those of politics, economics, or history. Among the Salish tibes, for instance, not much has changed about the old religion. And where Shaker Christianity found inroads, it's much more experiential than philosophical.
To wit: Compared to daily life, it seems worth noting that if Francis Barrett was apparently born to a humble family, he was of sufficient means to fail repeatedly at attempted balloon flight, in addition to translating and speculating on Qabalistic and Christianist-metaphysical manuscripts. Moreover, if Éliphas Lévi was born to a shoemaker, he also abandoned Seminary and became a political philosopher of the sort who earned repeated prison terms for offending the Catholic Church. Say what we will of luxury and political philosophers°, but it only took the priesthood washout turned Christian socialist, and the 1st Baron Lytton°°, to bring the failed balloonist's book to more influential notice among the sort of folk who did, indeed have the luxury of education and opportunities of association, being a Freemason, sitting around royal libraries translating and speculating on old manuscripts, marrying into prominent literary and political circles, and, well, y'know, running the Golden Dawn. Because, really, if the Salish people don't happen to have finely resolved and metaphysically determined tables describing which angel has what authority over which day of the week, and, furthermore, the daily schedules of diverse angels given which authority over what hours on any given day of the week, there might be a reason. I'm pretty certain they also never invented an invisible college, either; and if there was ever a 1st Earl Nisqually, it wasn't a Squalliabsch appointment. If there is no Nisqually angel of three o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, it does not seem so much to hope the reasons why are apparent.
†
Okay, work with me, here:
• See those people over there? They're wrong. And you and I both know it. Still, though, why does it matter? Oh, they're causing harm? To others? And themselves? And, y'know, we care, right? And go ahead and dissent at this point; harm to self and others, and caring about people, is a pretense offered me by this guy I know, in justification of his own behavior toward those people over there, because he, like us, knows they're wrong. But if they're wrong, and it matters substantially that they are wrong, the part I don't get is why you or that other guy I know, or anyone else asserting a stake in resolving the questions about which those people over there are wrong, would go about it in a manner intended to encourage entrenchment in their wrongness.
When those people over there see you, or that other guy I know, asserting they are wrong, but just sort of phoning it in as cluelessly and offensively as it reads, what are they supposed to think? When you go out of your way to disqualify them from the discussion you pretend to want to have, how do you expect they will respond?
That those people over there are wrong does not automatically make anyone else right, and so, if I consider that guy I know, what we can say is that his excuse is to blame the people he mocks, and holds in such contempt that he would rather invent gods and worshipers to complain about than address anything real. Any pretense that he cares about those people over there requires fine scrutiny.
But what about you, or anyone else? There's the part where your beliefs are your beliefs, and other such platitudes, but when you declare that, "none of them can employ objectivity", what, aside from the ephemeral thrill of judgment and contempt, does that statement intend to accomplish?
You can be as right as right, and they can be as wrong as wrong, but if the only thing you show them is fallacy and contempt, they have no reason to trust you.
And insofar as any of us might pretend to care about the harms those people over there deliver to others and themselves, that outcome is problematic. Sure, that other guy I know can't speak for you, per se, but he does provide an example. And by his own pretense of caring about people, his behavior in such matters is ridiculous; he only makes things worse.
And to a certain degree, your reasons are your own, as much a platitude or not as the part about your beliefs. Independent of that question, for it remains true, he cannot speak for you, the fact remains that the results your behavior brings are problematic toward any pretense of of caring about the harms they bring unto others or even themselves. That is, whether you participate in that pretense or not, your address of the subject and those people over there is problematic nonetheless.
To be clear: My side, or factions, in politics recently won a tenuous legalistic victory over dangerous American Christianism, and there are many other groups of people who need this much relief at least. What makes our victory tenuous is that the opposition is powerful, enraged, and entrenched. And, to be certain, there are influential organizations, and individuals with such luxury as spend their days in high office or invented colleges to reinterpret and speculate about philosophy and the historical record. Away from those, on the proverbial front lines of the culture wars, where people struggle through questions affecting mundane life, say what anyone will about the flock needing to think for itself, but going out of one's way to present the all too easy examples of the opposition they are told to be wary of for having nothing to offer save uneducated, self-gratifying mockery is only going to reinforce Christianists' fears about the dangers of those other ways of looking at things. What this tenuousness means is consequential backlash; and if right now, the only thing we can do to assuage those Christianists over there is destroy ourselves in order to give them everything they want, that just isn't going to happen, and if there is ever a way to get beyond that impasse, it is possible for people like you, or that guy I know, to become a problematic circumstance I must in some way account for.
It would be surprising if I ever had to answer for you, or that guy I know, so particularly outside Sciforums, but those Christianists over there are just as anxious to hide behind excuses of the unworthiness of their opponents as that guy I know seems to be, so it's easy to encounter melodramatic, even pathetically hilarious examples of what's wrong with atheism and atheists, as such. And complain about those examples all you want, the simple point is these are among the obstacles to breaking an old cycle. There are reasons I would prefer those histrionic examples remain silly hyperbole.
Flouride, vaccines, condoms, sex ed, LGBTQ, needle exchanges and addiction treatment, now societal prophylaxis. Research toward potential cures. Censorship of books and music and movies. Supremacist favor and exclusion at the grocery store or lunch counter, or hospital or courthouse. In questions mundane on through mortal, there are certainly reasons to attend what certain theistic believers actually believe and say and do.
And in that context, some outcomes really are problematic. This isn't mysterious. An atheist's reasons for wanting cheap, dysfunctional religious iterations to entrench, endure, and even synthesize, however, are as human as they come. Some mysteries are answerable, except we're human.
____________________
Notes:
° There's a Marx joke, there, and I do mean Karl.
°° Who also had such opportunity as to turn down a foreign kingship, appoint the founder of British Columbia, sire the future 1st Earl Lytton (who would, in turn, serve a term as Viceroy and Governor-General of India), and write novels, including one of the most infamous sentences in English-language literature.
