Just back from summer school and one thing that struck me from a fellow physics student who also was a thiest(yes there was one!), is that he didnt actually believe that there is a metophysical but rather he was so programmed for comfort by religion that he just made himself think he believes in god.

....Just thought I would share this thought.

well it goes either way...believe in God or do not believe...there is no proof, and it can go either way.

well it goes either way...believe in God or do not believe...there is no proof, and it can go either way.

Did you read what I said?:shrug:

Did you read what I said?:shrug:

yeah you said that he is a theist but really does not really believe in God. Well than he is an atheist who behaves like a theist. And that is all. Those people who believe in God...believe in God and thus are theists.

Comfort of religion comes in two flavors: first is comfort from belief in that religion and second is comfort from associations with believers of that religion.

yeah you said that he is a theist but really does not really believe in God. Well than he is an atheist who behaves like a theist. And that is all. Those people who believe in God...believe in God and thus are theists.

Comfort of religion comes in two flavors: first is comfort from belief in that religion and second is comfort from associations with believers of that religion.

So you dont understand the point?

So you dont understand the point?

huh? I see it as, whatever makes you happy just stick to it. Whatever makes peace within you.

Whats your education in? what subject?

I think his point is that that physics student isn't really a theist to begin with. There are plenty of others like him, but I would bet that a good amount of the people claiming to be theists truly do believe in a god.

I actually have suspected this to an extent; I believe it is the theists insecurities in his/her own belief that makes religion a taboo thing to criticize in the first place. Some perhaps know all too well what they say they believe is absurd.

[Deleted]

Biggest problem with your claim is that it's directed towards all theists. It would have been better to say "I think some theists don't even believe there is a god."

But even then the statement seems very strange. If a theist doesn't believe in god, then he/she/it is not a theist. So it's a moot point. :shrug:

Biggest problem with your claim is that it's directed towards all theists. It would have been better to say "I think some theists don't even believe there is a god.":



Yes I could have wordedt better but I've just came back from a week of hard drinking.

Is anyone besides Seti actually going to contribe something constructive as apposed to destructive on this one?


But even then the statement seems very strange. If a theist doesn't believe in god, then he/she/it is not a theist. So it's a moot point. :shrug:

That is proven where?when? That was exactly what I was trying to test here!

That is proven where?when? That was exactly what I was trying to test here!

In the dictionary?

the·ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

In the dictionary?

the·ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Where in this dictionary is has been proven that this is a belief and not just a delusion of belief?

Maybe look up @proven@ and @delusion@ before answering that.

I believe it is the theists insecurities in his/her own belief that makes religion a taboo thing to criticize in the first place. Some perhaps know all too well what they say they believe is absurd.

Yes it would explain a lot.

Where in this dictionary is has been proven that this is a belief and not just a delusion of belief?

Maybe look up @proven@ and @delusion@ before answering that.

You're really grasping at straws here. The term used in the definition of a theist is belief, not delusion of belief. Delusion of belief is such a ridiculous phrase anyway. A false belief of belief?

Now that I reread it, the entire thing seems so bogus. How does a person claim that he does not believe in god, while at the same time claim that he makes himself think he believes in god. It doesn't make any sense.

ashura you are not alone in this reasoning...I am just keeping quiet here.

Me too.

You're really grasping at straws here. .:rolleyes: No its actually called testing a convention to see if it still remains standing(an example of this would be Comptons challenge against particls having a pure particle nature.


The term used in the definition of a theist is belief, not delusion of belief. Delusion of belief is such a ridiculous phrase anyway. A false belief of belief?
Defining something is not proof that the thing you defined is as you defined it.:rolleyes:

Now that I reread it, the entire thing seems so bogus. How does a person claim that he does not believe in god, while at the same time claim that he makes himself think he believes in god. It doesn't make any sense
Thats probably because you havent understood what you read.

Defining something is not proof that the thing you defined is as you defined it.:rolleyes:

That's because there is no proof needed in this instance. The definition of a theist is someone who believes in a god. This is a fact. If there is no belief in god, then that person is not a theist. This is also a fact.

Thats probably because you haven't understood what you read.

Remarkable.

Just back from summer school and one thing that struck me from a fellow physics student who also was a thiest(yes there was one!), is that he didnt actually believe that there is a metophysical but rather he was so programmed for comfort by religion that he just made himself think he believes in god.

A person who says he did not believe in god but also says he made himself believe in god. Please show me where I interpreted this wrong.

That's because there is no proof needed in this instance. The definition of a theist is someone who believes in a god. This is a fact. If there is no belief in god, then that person is not a theist. This is also a fact. .
No, as I said ,defining something doesnt take away the real possibility that your definition wasnt wrong or incomplete at the the time. Theres no facts in a definition what-so-ever.



Remarkable.

Just back from summer school and one thing that struck me from a fellow physics student who also was a thiest(yes there was one!), is that he didnt actually believe that there is a metophysical but rather he was so programmed for comfort by religion that he just made himself think he believes in god.

A person who says he did not believe in god but also says he made himself believe in god. Please show me where I interpreted this wrong.

He didnt say:"he didnt believe in god". He said :"he did believe in the metophysical" In a conversation steming from quantum mechanics

....Do you follow so far?

No, as I said ,defining something doesnt take away the real possibility that your definition wasnt wrong or incomplete at the the time. Theres no facys in a definition what-so-ever.

In this instance, categorizing something doesn't take away the real possibility that you're using the category incorrectly. The actual definition of the category however remains correct. You're just trying to add stuff to it, just like atheists who try to glorify the definition of the word atheist.

He didnt say:"he didnt believe in god". He said :"he did believe in the metophysical" In a conversation steming from quantum mechanics

....Do you follow so far?

First he didn't believe in the metaphysical. Now you say he did believe in the metaphysical. Which is it?

In this instance, defining something doesn't take away the real possibility that you're using the definition incorrectly. The actual definition however is correct. You're just trying to add stuff to it, just like atheists who try to glorify the definition of the word atheist.



First he didn't believe in the metaphysical. Now you say he did believe in the metaphysical. Which is it?

OMG! How slow are you? WE MAKE UP A DEFINITION BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW AT THE TIME, BUT WITH TIME AND FURTHER KNOWLEDGE A DEFINITION CAN CHANGE.

1, He says he is a theist.
2, I postulate that his claim of belief in god is in fact a delusion, due to his desire for the comforts of religion overriding his admittance(to himself and the world) to this state-of-affairs.

OMG! How slow are you? WE MAKE UP A DEFINITION BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW AT THE TIME, BUT WITH TIME AND FURTHER KNOWLEDGE A DEFINITION CAN CHANGE.

Speed is relative, to me you seem as slow as a 5 year old (as temperamental as one too). At the time of this conversation, the definition of a theist has not changed. And I'm not gonna consider it changed just because you have this ridiculous notion of "delusion of belief".

1, He says he is a theist.
2, I postulate that his claim of belief in god is in fact a delusion, due to his desire for the comforts of religion overriding his admittance(to himself and the world) to this state-of-affairs.

I'll ask you again. First you said he did not believe in the metaphysical. Then you said he did. Which is it? In case you haven't realized, that's a pretty fucking important distinction seeing as how God falls under the metaphysical.