Sure they differ in practical term,s but not in actical terms, because we are individuals and our experiences idiffer, the difference can only be fully explained by the individual.
Actical?
The actual word ''theism'' merely states the position of the individual regarding belief or not, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I know. So why are you trying to assign more to it than that?
It entails nothing more than this. Yet you seem to want it to.
Yes, and ''spiritual'' has different meanings according to the individual, society, or culture. Atheists have their idea of spirituality which is conducive to their mindset...
...
It wouldn't surprise me if you accepted the bolded section as ''spiritual'', but I'm not going to assume. Nevertheless this is an acceptable idea of spiritulity to atheists in general.
I'd accept that many atheists would use that bolded part as an acceptable idea of spirituality - but I tend not to use the word - as it is oft taken to imply things that aren't meant.
You can build a religion around anything, it doesn't have to include God, or even God consciousness. It only requires some kind of code to living.
I disagree that religion is synonymous with "code of living" as you seem to imply. While religion may certainly be, or include, a code to live by, not all codes are religious. They are merely perhaps philosophies, but philosophy is not synonymous with religion either.
Religion involves practical rituals. Philosophies don't necessarily involve such.
They either do it or they don't. What's this ''don't necessarily do this''?
I mean that there is no necessity to do it while still being, for example, an empiricist. While some may and some may not, there is no necessity. Thus it (empiricism) is not itself a religion.
And what do you mean by ''no cultrural system behind them''?
They are not borne from a cultural system. They may affect how their culture develops, but religions are borne from the culture.
I haven't assigned any labels, I'm merely stating that ''religion'' is ultimately a way of life, whether you worship God, or money, it makes no difference, if you live your life to pursue success, then you become religous.
And I disagree. I think you are being unnecessarily vague and woolly about the term in order to include everything you want within it. While religion is a way of life, not all ways of life are religions.
Religion can only be associated with the human being. You seem to give it an existence of it's own here.
Also, the point of becoming religious IS because there are maps to the desired destinatiion.
Well, at least they think that the maps are to be believed - possibly the lure of an afterlife, and relegation of their moral compass etc persuades them - but that is another matter.
What else is there outside of these parameters?
My point is, you have no reason to accept that God doesn't exist other than you choose not to, you say ''evidence'' is lacking, but you have no idea of what the evidence would be.
I don't accept that God doesn't exist. Nor do I accept that God does exist.
Perhaps you have confused my position here?
1. What do you mean by ''accept''?
I mean to consider it true from a practical point of view, regardless of whether it ultimately is or is not. As soon as I know something to be true then there is no mere acceptance but there is knowing.
2. Why should you accept anything as truth without experience? That was the point of my question.
One shouldn't accept anything as true without experience, other than on a practical point of view - as practice is either a case of doing or not doing - there is no equivalent of "not believing".
Oh come on! You're just going round in circles.
Are you that afraid to venture out?
No, Jan, I'm not going round in cirlces.
If you think I am it is merely due to your preconceived notions, and not through an understanding of my position as I have explained it.
God is the original person, from whom everything comes. The Supreme Being. The Cause of all causes.
God is pure spirit, etc......
What discipline do you think is going to evidence that for you? And if that definition isn't attributable to God, then what is?
If we take that as the definition of God then, simply put, there is zero evidence that can ever be attributable to God that can not also be attributable to the "Godless" universe, where there is no initial cause.
The notion of God has to compete with the other possibility - that God does not exist.
For there to be evidence of one over the other then something needs to happen, observed, evidence that could not have happened under the other option.
So, what is that something. I am not aware of anything that fits the bill.
I don't care whether you believe those defs or not, and it doesn't matter whether I believe them or not, but that is the God who people say they worship in their temple, church's, synagogues, homes, hearts, etc....
And that is what you expressly lack belief in.
I do lack belief, yes. Because, as explained, there is zero evidence that could not equally be explained satisfactorily in the absence of the "God theory".
''God does not exist'' a concotion. If there is an effect, there must be a cause, that is our experience. So there must be a point where there is a cause which is not caused, but is the cause of all causes, otherwise it just goes on and on, and on... which is basically stupid.
So you're appealing to personal incredulity, to absurdity?
And yet you're okay for God to be the cause of all, yet for God not to have a cause?
I'm satisfied in saying/admitting "I don't know" the answer to such questions.
And even if God is the "ultimate cause" (not that there is meaning to such in an environment without "time" - which at best we know is a property of our universe) - what else can you say about it other than there was an initial cause?
What other properties of this God are you going to try to establish, and where is the evidence.
The idea that a thing comes from no thing is nonsense, but a necessary explanation for the concoction of ''God does not exist''. So something exists, from which all over things come from. That's called God, or whatever word you want to use.
Again arguing from personal incredulity, perhaps it is out of ignorance that you choose what is comfortable rather than being content with "I don't know". No matter.
The evidence is simply everything, which we have to work backwards from. The materialists work forward.
...
The universe itself, our perceptiveness, our ability to enquire who and what we are, where we came from, what happens when we die, just for starters.
No, the evidence is not simply everything. In a universe that starts without God you still have the universe operating in exactly the same way. There is nothing that must be evidence only for the "God theory" and not the "no-God theory" unless you start with the a priori assumption of God's existence.
As stated earlier - evidence for a proposition has to be something that can only be attributable to that proposition, and not to both. "Simply everything" is attributable to both.
You're assuming that this is a ''godless'' universe. Why?
What is the 'evidence that would at least allow you not to make such assumptions, as you are unable to cite any evidence that God does not exist, or what it would take for God to exist in your mind??
I'm assuming from a practical point of view - because it is the more rational position for me to take.
If there are two competing theories that are equally supported (or in this case equally unsupported) then opt, from a practical point of view, the one that posits the least redundancies. This is how I view what is rational or not. God is a redundancy if there is an equally unsupported theory that does not require God.
That is why I accept (from a practical point of view) the Godless universe.
I do not believe it. I do not believe either proposition. There is no evidence for either. I am, after all, an agnostic atheist.
Believing God exists does not make you a theist. To be a theist means you believe IN God. That God exists, is a given.
Now you're equivocating. Look up any dictionary and it will give theism as belief in the existence of God - not in the belief IN God. One can technically be a theist yet reject everything God wants, however absurd that may sound, especially if you believe God to be omniscient, all powerful etc.
That doesn't make any sense.
It does, although perhaps not to you.
How can I say what evidence of "X" I will accept when all the evidence I can think of can equally support "not-X".
If you say that "X" exists then you tell me what evidence you accept - and I will tell you why I don't.
Otherwise there is nothing else I can say other than it has to be evidence that can only be attributable to God, and not equally to not-God.
How are you ever going to come across God, if every fibre of your intellect shuts Him out with insubstantial reasoning?
How am I ever going to come across the Celestial Teapot if every fibre of my intellect shuts it out with similarly insubstantial reasoning?
You consider it insubstantial because you are, presumably, swayed by something or other that I am not.
Maybe you should be less interested in why I am not swayed and more interested in why you are?
