people should accept some responsibility for discernment, instead of blaming the person with an imperfect message. Unless you are going to be fideistic, in which case never mind, but you aren't going to be fideistic, so accept some responsibility for discernment.
If we do that, however, the proposed absolute authority of the theist crumbles. And theists typically don't like that.
Moreover - sure, we can discern, and get selective about which theists we are going to believe for what -
but doing so implies that we are holding to a particular theistic outlook already (namely one that claims at least that God isn't going to condemn us to hell if we don't submit to everyone who claims to be talking on behalf of God).
IOW, being selective, discerning about what theists say already makes us theists!!
This is an implication that seems to come up only in the case of talking about God and no other topic, given that God is defined as the One Being that is the Source of All Others, where not a blade of grass moves without God's will etc.
(I suspect some atheists intuitively know this, this is why they are so adamant on keeping discussion with theists in such simplistic, non-discerning terms).
i am just saying most people are not going to be exceptionally anything. They are going to be normal people, with faults and problems. I think people are changed by their belief, or by some metaphysical power, but a bird isn't going to evolve into a kangaroo. I think it would be better for people to realize they aren't going to have a magic god wand to wave, so they can get used to the idea that doing the right thing is sometimes difficult, especially for people who are fairly selfish, and it is their responsibility to do right. This would take care of Nietzsche's legitimate and primary problem with religion. Also they need to understand that being exceptional is a lot of work, rather than thinking someone is going to convert them into perfect beings, and then crying to god, why don't YOU make me better, which is what I certainly did back in my fundamentalist days.
My point is simply that as long as theists want absolute submission from non-theists, presenting themselves as the only link that non-theists have to God, non-theists can demand nothing less than perfection from theists.
Sure, many theists are all too human, though: they want absolute submission, but they don't want to prove they're worth it. So typical.
The question is whether theists would be willing to accept an un-divination of their status, or whether they would, like some, reply with kicking and pissing.
And again, like I said: By discerning and being selective about which theists we are going to believe for what -
implies that we are holding to a particular theistic outlook already, and so being selective, discerning about what theists say already makes us theists.
I don't know how there is a rejected theist
I said "rejected
aspiring theist."
unless they are just looking for the kind of theism most people either don't get or don't keep. It is like saying, "I want a mystical experience", when you know most of the mystics lived in caves and monasteries, but you don't go to the monastery or cave for the requisite years, and then saying, "I don't believe because I didn't have a mystical experience." I personally don't expect a mystical experience, not because I think those mystics are all liars and lunatics, but because I don't move to a cave. If all I get are flashes of what I believe is clarity, instead of some flood, I don't need to blame anyone but myself.
I'm talking about people who are rejected by theistic organizations. There's plenty of such people.
As long as the theistic organization is to be seen as holding the keys to God's heart, being rejected by said organization amounts to being rejected by God.
(Then there are also those who were directly rejected by God. But I can think only of one Biblical example, namely Lucifer, and a fictional one, Loki.)
by your rationale I suppose I should stop saying my mother loves me too!
?
i don't think someone who makes "no claim", as you have said above, can be called a theist.
But they may be doing a number of other things that are specifically theistic - like chant a particular mantra, pray, express gratitude.
Well, I don't see it. Doesn't mean that you don't have it; maybe you do, but you're not showing it to me. Or maybe I'm just too blind.
In Buddhism, they have the concept of "love for the Dharma." It's about appreciating that one has come in contact with the Buddha's teachings, that one can practice accordingly. And if one sticks around Buddhists long enough, one can see who has love for the Dharma and who doesn't. It's that distinctive heart-quality of appreciation for the path.
I think similar applies about belief in God. Most theists I know are quite cold and cerebral, occasionally angry and bitter about their theism.