Theists in severe decline.

[Capracus]

We need that explicit: do you think gnomes, fairies, or leprechauns are gods, yes or no.

They were originally conceived as part of a supernatural landscape associated with various traditional theistic beliefs. Fairies were considered to be minor deities, but you can apply that term to almost any entity of a supernatural nature. Remember, theism applies to all deities, not just gods.

So? Neither Taoism or Buddhism necessarily involves any deity at all, and in both categories of religion sects and schools exist in which belief in gods is explicitly labeled illusion, delusion, error, obstacle, and so forth.

Theism isn’t just about deities, it’s also about all of the supernatural trappings that are associated with them.

In Taoism you have a supernatural process that essentially orders the universe and allows for the existence of deities and the attainment of various states of immortality. The Tao may not be perceived as a god, but it certainly functions as one.

A similar argument can be made in the case of Buddhism, where a universal process exists that allows for the existence of, and recycling of souls. It also incorporates a methodical practice that can mystically condition those souls to a transcendent state of eternal bliss. Reaching this state is considered a sign of deification in Buddhism. Just as in Taoism, there is a supernatural process that is believed to exists that functions as an ordering principle that is in some respects analogous to God in other religions.

The Wiki authors's struggles with this are interesting ("Taoism can be defined as pantheistic, given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao and the primacy of the "Way" rather than anthropomorphic concepts of God. " - wtf? Is that guy really assuming the Way of the Tao Te Ching is a deity? Please: at least acknowledge that that sentence is not Taoist theology, no Taoist theologians are identified or quoted, and "philosophical emphasis" does not describe a deity.)

Pantheism assumes the universe as a whole to be God. So the Tao which is considered to be a universal guiding principle would be similar to an impersonal variety of pantheism.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_pantheism.html

But there's no ordering god involved, in many cases (such as the chindi).
You have choices:
a godless "divine" order,
a menagerie of divinity that includes everything from Icelandic gnomes to the ghost of someone's evil to the concept of reincarnation,
or finding another adjective.

All of these characters and processes are a part of some greater divine landscape. They weren’t conceived independently of various traditional theistic conceptions, but in concert with them. Somewhere in those landscapes exists deities of one kind or another pulling off some sort of supernatural nonsense.

 

[sideshowbob]

Have we reached a stage where I need to remind you of the point you were making?

I'd be happy if you knew what point YOU were trying to make.

In message #141 you were complaining about "caricatures of religion", using Jehovah's Witnesses as an example. I pointed out that both you and Jan Ardena are excellent examples of caricatures of religionists.

Continuing your cartoonish performance is not the best refutation.

 

[iceaura]

Theism isn’t just about deities, it’s also about all of the supernatural trappings that are associated with them.

No deity, no theism.

They were originally conceived as part of a supernatural landscape associated with various traditional theistic beliefs.

I'm sure the history of various beliefs is fascinating. About the question asked - can we expect an answer?

In Taoism you have a supernatural process that essentially orders the universe and allows for the existence of deities and the attainment of various states of immortality. The Tao may not be perceived as a god, but it certainly functions as one.

It isn't a god. It doesn't function as a god. It does not "order the universe", for example - it is itself the order, if you really need that language. Not only is it not perceived as a god, but anything that is perceived as a god is explicitly and rigorously not it.

A similar argument can be made in the case of Buddhism, where a universal process exists that allows for the existence of, and recycling of souls. It also incorporates a methodical practice that can mystically condition those souls to a transcendent state of eternal bliss. Reaching this state is considered a sign of deification in Buddhism. Just as in Taoism, there is a supernatural process that is believed to exists that functions as an ordering principle that is in some respects analogous to God in other religions.

There is no god involved in this "analogous ordering principle".
Confusing spiritual with supernatural is going to muddle things, as well.

Remember, theism applies to all deities, not just gods.

Oh good lord, just give up already.

If theism applies to every superstition ever held by some theistic people somewhere, then theism is not on any kind of severe decline.

 

[Hapsburg]

Theism is essentially a belief in deities. And broadly speaking deities are supernatural entities or conceptions.

And that's where you are stretching definitions. A deity isn't just any kind of spirit. There is a qualitative difference between a ghost and a god.

 

[Capracus]

No deity, no theism.

No framework of supernatural agency, no supernatural agents.

I'm sure the history of various beliefs is fascinating. About the question asked - can we expect an answer?

You questioned whether specific supernatural characters were theistic elements, and by way of their traditional origins, I concluded that they were.

It isn't a god. It doesn't function as a god. It does not "order the universe", for example - it is itself the order, if you really need that language. Not only is it not perceived as a god, but anything that is perceived as a god is explicitly and rigorously not it.

Kind of a contradiction in terms, it doesn’t order, but it is the order. Regardless of how you choose to rationalize it, it still amounts to an imagined process of universal order that incorporates supernatural qualities, which is essentially a god by another name.

There is no god involved in this "analogous ordering principle".
Confusing spiritual with supernatural is going to muddle things, as well.

A universal ordering principle must be assumed in order for supernatural processes such as reincarnation and spiritual transcendence to be realized. It’s essentially the physics of these imagined realities.

Oh good lord, just give up already.

If theism applies to every superstition ever held by some theistic people somewhere, then theism is not on any kind of severe decline.

What’s the difference in believing in supernatural agency locally as in spirits verses universally as in gods? It’s the same system of belief, just on different scales.

Theism will always be with us as long as self proclaimed atheists go into the closet and practice it themselves.

And that's where you are stretching definitions. A deity isn't just any kind of spirit. There is a qualitative difference between a ghost and a god.

But there’s not a qualitative difference in the reasoning that originated the existence of such entities. Theism assumes an ordered realty by way of supernatural agency. It also allows for arbitrary designation regarding the nature of the agents and the scope of the reality. If gods can be given influence locally, and spirits can be given influence universally, where is the actual difference in potential quality?

 

[iceaura]

No framework of supernatural agency, no supernatural agents.

Agreed.

Kind of a contradiction in terms, it doesn’t order, but it is the order.

There's no contradiction. That's a fundamental insight, according to the adherents.

an imagined process of universal order that incorporates supernatural qualities, which is essentially a god by another name.

It's not a god, it's a process - you said so yourself. (The actual concept referred to is more profound than mere "process").
And the muddling of spiritual and supernatural is now causing you difficulties.

What’s the difference in believing in supernatural agency locally as in spirits verses universally as in gods?

Well, most animists, for example, tend to regard the spiritual aspects of beings and things as perfectly natural. And I'm not sure what you mean by "local" and "universal".

You questioned whether specific supernatural characters were theistic elements, and by way of their traditional origins, I concluded that they were.

No, I didn't. I asked this: "We need that explicit: do you think gnomes, fairies, or leprechauns are gods, yes or no."

A universal ordering principle must be assumed in order for supernatural processes such as reincarnation and spiritual transcendence to be realized. It’s essentially the physics of these imagined realities.

So? No deity, no theism. The physics of an imagined reality is not a god.

But there’s not a qualitative difference in the reasoning that originated the existence of such entities.

That's quite an assumption. Are you sure these entities even originated in reasoning in the first place?
Meanwhile, there seems to be a qualitative difference in the entities themselves - such as unlucky number 13 or the spirit of a well made tool vs Shiva the Destroyer.

If gods can be given influence locally, and spirits can be given influence universally, where is the actual difference in potential quality?

I'm sure the potential for deification lies all around us and in many entities. The Tao may someday have been transmogrified into a deity - or the domestic cat, again. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]