Why are atheist on a spirituality Forum?

Originally posted by Palynka
How is that not a theist?

Your definition of theism seems reductive. Theism, to me, is the belief in at least one deity.

I'll try to explain better. Theism and deism both believe in a deity.

The distinction is that deists reject the supernatural element. They believe God set the rules of the universe and doesn't intervene. Theists believe God is still active in the universe, carries out miracles, revelations, inspires texts etc, all of which deists reject.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes I think one could use the word "deist". But "theist" is OK too: here's a definition: "One who believes in the existence of a god or gods."

This is true, but if i were to ask you -

Do you believe God intervenes in the Universe to carry out miracles and deliver instructions to people via inspired texts?

Unless i'm completely barking up the wrong tree, you would say no. Here's a definition of deism -

belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll try to explain better. Theism and deism both believe in a deity.

The distinction is that deists reject the supernatural element. They believe God set the rules of the universe and doesn't intervene. Theists believe God is still active in the universe, carries out miracles, revelations, inspires texts etc, all of which deists reject.

I understand the difference, given your definition of theism. I just think the taxonomy makes more sense with having theism as an umbrella term for any belief in a deity and then deism as a branch of theism.

But now that I've looked, it seems my own taxonomy is not the usual so you are correct.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do atheist consider Atheism a religion?
I did not think they considered it a religion
or were concerned about spirituality. So
why are they on here? Does anyone know?
If there are any atheist reading this, please
get off of this forum and stop harassing us.

there is some debate that spirituality doesn't equal religion, look into that


also if you want yes-men that would agree with everything you say i am sure you can find a fundie forum somewhere.


i personally am glad the atheists are here, even if i don't agree with some of their issues. they certainly debate better than you

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is true, but if i were to ask you -

Do you believe God intervenes in the Universe to carry out miracles and deliver instructions to people via inspired texts?

Unless i'm completely barking up the wrong tree, you would say no. Here's a definition of deism -

belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).

I am using a simpler definition of "theism" than you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The distinction is that deists reject the supernatural element. They believe God set the rules of the universe and doesn't intervene. Theists believe God is still active in the universe, carries out miracles, revelations, inspires texts etc, all of which deists reject.

Your definition of "theism" sounds like a definition of something like "religionist theism". I do not so much "reject" the supernatural element as reject religionists' assertions about the supernatural element based on their own certitude and conjecture. Because I have no reason to believe (or nothing to act upon or gain from telling myself) that God has "set the rules of the universe", do not speculate about his "interventions", and do not base my sense that there is a God on "reason", I don't see any particular reason to call myself a "deist" and also don't see why I should surrender the word "theist" to religionist people who have conjured up a more complicated alternative definition of it to suit their interests.

Originally posted by FMF
Your definition of "theism" sounds like a definition of something like "religionist theism". I do not so much "reject" the supernatural element as reject religionists' assertions about the supernatural element based on their own certitude and conjecture. Because I have no reason to believe (or nothing to act upon or gain from telling myself) that God has "set th ...[text shortened]... d up a more complicated alternative definition of it to suit their interests.

Interesting. Do you have a link to a thread where you talk about your beliefs?

Originally posted by Palynka
Interesting. Do you have a link to a thread where you talk about your beliefs?

Thread 135840

There is some tangential bickering with robbie in about the 2nd seventh of the thread, after which twitehead and others subject my stance to some interesting scrutiny.

Originally posted by FMF
Thread 135840

There is some tangential bickering with robbie in about the 2nd seventh of the thread, after which twitehead and others subject my stance to some interesting scrutiny.

Thanks. I also find that your position would find it hard to argue against the ignostic argument that such a concept of God would be meaningless. But this is probably not the thread for that discussion.

Struth.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It's people like yourself that makes fundamentalism dangerous.

Good riddance.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There's your problem, you've been using Time for Chess when Red Hot pawn is clearly superior

Originally posted by Doward
There's your problem, you've been using Time for Chess when Red Hot pawn is clearly superior

time for chess is the greener way to go!