If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[Jan Ardena]

You need to tune in your radar for irony and sarcasm.

If you'd actually appreciate my intelligence, you'd know where the Jimi Hendrix example was headed. Namely, to point out the insufficience of the idea that "theism is belief in a god/God or gods."

okay.

jan.

[James R]

The reality is a theist is a person who believes in God, period.

What is it with you and wynn?

She wants to redefine "deist" and you want to redefine "theists", both to suit yourselves.

A theist believes in a god or gods. A deist believes in a non-interventionist god.

You can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

[wynn]

I don't see how this abstraction has anything to do with what we're talking about. It's pretty simple. If the deist conception of God is accurate, and you dismiss it simply because you don't like it, you've let your personal requirements lead you away from the truth of existence.

This is the sort of predicament you get yourself into when you believe that God exists, but that the nature of God has to be compatible with your own preexisting views. You are, in effect, claiming that your own conception of God supersedes the reality of God.

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).

You're confusing the critical examination one's arguments and philosophical positions with the critical examination of one's worth as a person.

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

I do however make snap judgments quite often (as we all do), since I generally find it somewhat frustrating to communicate with you.

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?

It's a whole lot simpler than all that. I mean really, do you think I permanently abandoned my own world view to explore the deist one? Of course I didn't. I just put it aside for a little while.

If I can do it, you can do it. It just seems that you're simply not willing to even try.

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.

[wynn]

A theist believes in a god or gods.
/.../
You can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

Therefore, worship of Jimi Hendrix is theism.

QED.

[Balerion]

Therefore, worship of Jimi Henrix is theism.

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?

[wynn]

You can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

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

[Rav]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[James R]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[Rav]

Originally Posted by James R
A theist believes in a god or gods.
/.../
You can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

Therefore, worship of Jimi Hendrix is theism.

QED.

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

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:

3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

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.

[wynn]

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.

Originally Posted by James R
You can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

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.

[wynn]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Rav]

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.

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

[kx000]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

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.

[wynn]

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

And not just anyone or anything passes for a deity.

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

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

A theist believes in a god or gods. A deist believes in a non-interventionist god.

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.

can't restrict "theist" to believe in your preferred conception of "God" with a capital "G".

I don't mind!

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


jan.

[Rav]

And not just anyone or anything passes for a deity.

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

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.

[wynn]

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?

[Balerion]

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?

[Tero]

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.

[kx000]

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?

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

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