Originally posted by PalynkaI'll try to explain better. Theism and deism both believe in a deity.
How is that not a theist?
Your definition of theism seems reductive. Theism, to me, is the belief in at least one 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.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThis is true, but if i were to ask you -
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."
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 KnobI 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.
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.
But now that I've looked, it seems my own taxonomy is not the usual so you are correct.
Originally posted by RJHindsthere is some debate that spirituality doesn't equal religion, look into that
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.
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 KnobI am using a simpler definition of "theism" than you.
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).
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYour 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.
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 FMFInteresting. Do you have a link to a thread where you talk about your beliefs?
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.
Originally posted by PalynkaThread 135840
Interesting. Do you have a link to a thread where you talk about your beliefs?
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThanks. 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.
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.
