Duh. If "theism" is 'a belief in God or god(s)', and "Elvis is god", then belief in Elvis is theism.
Ask Jayleew. He's the one who believes that "Theism is subjecting and approving of murderous gods."
Why I became atheist & related thots/questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Duh. If "theism" is 'a belief in God or god(s)', and "Elvis is god", then belief in Elvis is theism.
Ask Jayleew. He's the one who believes that "Theism is subjecting and approving of murderous gods."
Are you telling me you think when someone says "Elvis is God," they mean it literally?
I'm sorry, I don't believe you for a second. I don't think that you actually believe anyone really thinks Elvis is God, or a god, or a divine being of any sort. No way you're that naive.
He never said Elvis was God, you did.
Balerion,
Are you telling me you can tell the difference?
jan.
Are you telling me you can tell the difference?
jan.
Oh Christ.
We've been over this a million times.
Moreover, even you here suggest that you don't actually believe that "theism is a belief in God or god(s)" or that such a definition of "theism" is absurd.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the idea that "theism is a belief in God or god(s)".
In that case, belief in Elvis is theism. Surely you don't believe that belief in Elvis counts for theism, do you?
Fully acknowledging the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
You mistake metaphorical comparisons with claims of reality.
Noone believes Elvis is God, or even a god, other than in the metaphorical sense - or unless one believes that everyone is god.
But if you wish to consider definitions absurd by reference to the metaphorical usage of the various terms then that is your prerogative.
Just seems rather silly to me.
Similar to saying that sunshine is not the light produced by the sun (despite the definition) merely because some people consider others to be the "sunshine of their life".
Theism is, by definition, the belief in god(s). Not belief in metaphorical gods, but in actual god(s).
If one does consider Elvis to be the God of the Old and/or New Testament, for example, or some other god in the real sense rather than metaphorical, then belief in Elvis as god would indeed make one a theist.
Tell that to those atheists who claim that belief in, say, the FSM or the Goddess of Teeth is theism.
Actual gods, huh? So you know that gods exist, and actual ones at that?
If they genuinely believed in such gods then they would not be atheists and they would genuinely be theists.
Not at all - but my position does not alter the definition of a word - it merely establishes whether the word is applicable to me.
Theists believe in actual gods (as opposed to metaphorical gods) - whether or not such gods exist in reality.
I am not a theist - I do not hold to the belief that actual gods exist.
I am not really sure of the purpose behind your efforts to deliberately misconstrue what is said. Perhaps you can enlighten?
For one, read again:
Tell that to those atheists who claim that belief in, say, the FSM or the Goddess of Teeth is theism.
For two, unfortunately, atheists like James R who propose such an understanding of "theism" generally refuse to discuss these things ...
An actual god - as the word "actual" says - is a god that actually exists.
If you think you can distinguish between metaphorical gods and atual gods - that, IMO, means you know for sure that gods actually exist.
Then you can't operate with terms like "actual god" and "metaphorical god."
Screw you. I'm not "deliberately misconstruing" anything. If anything, you - and a few others - are the ones who are trying really hard to present me as having said something I didn't say.
As I already said earlier:
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the idea that "theism is a belief in God or god(s)".
This definition of theism is simply too broad, because it includes Elvis and the Tooth Fairy into the category "god" and thus any kind of nonsense gets to count as "theism." Even hardcore atheists don't buy that, even though it logically follows from their definition.
If someone genuinely believed in the FSM or the Goddess of Teeth, and they genuinely considered them to be gods (not merely metaphorically) - they would be theists. What do you not accept about this?
Not necessarily exist as anything other than a concept, though.
And since it has been explained to you the reason for using the term "actual" - i.e. to distinguish from "metaphorical", I again fail to see what you are aiming for.
No it doesn't. It means that I know there are conceptions of "god" that people do believe to exist, and then there are uses of that term "god" that are purely figurative / metaphorical.
Yes I can.
If I had never seen an elephant, and thus did not hold a belief that they exist, but those that did believe in them considered elephants to be huge grey mammals with long noses, then if someone comments in a meeting that "noone is going to mention the elephant in the room" - then clearly it is metaphorical (unless they are genuinely talking about a large grey mammal that does happen to be in the room with them). One does not need to consider elephants to actually exist to be able to talk in this way, only be aware of what people believe an actual elephant to be. But being aware of such in no way implies that one holds belief in the existence of elephants (other than as a concept) and nor does it imply that elephants actually exist.
To talk about "actual" and "metaphorical" one merely needs to have an understanding of the concept at hand, and a reasonable grasp of language.
It is ridiculous to think otherwise.
Yet you imply that calling something "actual" as opposed to "metaphorical" means you consider it to exist. How is that not misconstruing? Maybe it is not deliberate, and if not then I apologise.
It does NOT include Elvis nor the Tooth Fairy unless you alter what it means to be considered a god (i.e. an actual god rather than merely metaphorical). Is your issue that you think the term "god" or "God" has become too broad?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
His issue appears to be that he does not understand English, but does understand testosterone.
Then your argument is with the dictionary. The word means what it means.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theism
From the beginning on here, I've been talking about an atheistic understanding of theism. With examples like this in mind:
According to atheists like James R, given his above reasoning, if you believe in Elvis, this means you're a theist.
And for a while now, including several other threads, I've been pointing out how absurd such an understanding of theism is.
The conflict between science and religion can be resolved by knowing how the brain works. Science is more left brain, with the left brain more differential and rational. Religion is more right brained, which is more spatial and integral. This is why God is a omni-concept =3-D. We can only be conscious of one side of the brain at a time, which means left brainers and right brainers will have a communication problem since the data is processed differently in each side.
The main reason for the communication problem is spoken and written language is processed in the left brain. The right brain does not process spoken or written languages, but uses a different type of language, detached from left brain spoken language. Language on the right side of the brain is internally experienced at an intuitive level, which is not easy to transfer. Faith is based on this right brain language having generated data and analysis, but which can't always be translated into left brain language.
If you read esoteric text, this is often a right brainer attempting to translate into left brain. It is not easy to express 3-D concepts using only 2-D language. You need to figure out how to explain the z-axis of 3-D, with only x and y-axis.
As an approximation, one can orally draw a 3-D illusion, using emotional shadowing and highlights, but this image of 3-D is still flat if touched with the finger. A 3-D drawing of a ball, is not really 3-D, but is only an illusion of 3-D drawn on 2-D. Something is still missing for the left brainers. The right brainers who use the z-axis will see it, anyway. Below is a 3-D illusion on the 2-D computer screen. It looks 3-D to the eyes but lacks the z-axis if you touch it with your finger. This lack of 3-D is why left brainers honestly can't see the z-axis that is behind faith.
The main reason for the communication problem is spoken and written language is processed in the left brain. The right brain does not process spoken or written languages, but uses a different type of language, detached from left brain spoken language. Language on the right side of the brain is internally experienced at an intuitive level, which is not easy to transfer. Faith is based on this right brain language having generated data and analysis, but which can't always be translated into left brain language.
If you read esoteric text, this is often a right brainer attempting to translate into left brain. It is not easy to express 3-D concepts using only 2-D language. You need to figure out how to explain the z-axis of 3-D, with only x and y-axis.
As an approximation, one can orally draw a 3-D illusion, using emotional shadowing and highlights, but this image of 3-D is still flat if touched with the finger. A 3-D drawing of a ball, is not really 3-D, but is only an illusion of 3-D drawn on 2-D. Something is still missing for the left brainers. The right brainers who use the z-axis will see it, anyway. Below is a 3-D illusion on the 2-D computer screen. It looks 3-D to the eyes but lacks the z-axis if you touch it with your finger. This lack of 3-D is why left brainers honestly can't see the z-axis that is behind faith.
Balerion,
Already given the context in my reply to Ophiolite.
What if someone believes He is a ''god''? Wouldn't that make them a theist by your definiton?
What are your reasons, if any, that prevent someone believing Elvis is a 'god', or even, 'God Himself' in the flesh'?
Whoever you (or jaylew) think God murdered?
jan.
Already given the context in my reply to Ophiolite.
What if someone believes He is a ''god''? Wouldn't that make them a theist by your definiton?
What are your reasons, if any, that prevent someone believing Elvis is a 'god', or even, 'God Himself' in the flesh'?
Whoever you (or jaylew) think God murdered?
jan.
Last edited:
The only purpose it would seem for atheism is as a position from which to oppose theism. And that seems a somewhat narrow emphasis. One need not take an opposing position to disagree.
In recent years when I am asked my religion I simply say I am not religious. That quite often ends the conversation, they become unsure how to respond. Occasionally the response is the question, so does that mean you are an atheist? My response to this is - no, it simply means I have yet to find any religious arguments that are credible or convincing. And I find I do need to add that I view everything from a naturalistic perspective. That of course covers skepticism of the whole spectrum of theistic, spiritual, and supernatural concepts. At best atheism is a subset.
There seems to be no easy answer to how I reached this point. Perhaps just a lifetime of observing and analyzing.
In recent years when I am asked my religion I simply say I am not religious. That quite often ends the conversation, they become unsure how to respond. Occasionally the response is the question, so does that mean you are an atheist? My response to this is - no, it simply means I have yet to find any religious arguments that are credible or convincing. And I find I do need to add that I view everything from a naturalistic perspective. That of course covers skepticism of the whole spectrum of theistic, spiritual, and supernatural concepts. At best atheism is a subset.
There seems to be no easy answer to how I reached this point. Perhaps just a lifetime of observing and analyzing.
So those who lack faith do so because they lack some ability to think properly between the left and right sides of the brain?
And this is backed up by what, exactly?
You also start from the apparent assumption that faith is the "better" or preferred or even default position.
And not having it is a result of a lack of something.
Another position might be that those who have faith suffer from a lack of ability to adequately override their right-side.
And let it wander off into unregulated flights of fancy.
My point is that anyone can dress up a difference as one side "lacking" something that the other has or does.
But you'll need to do a lot more before you can claim that one side is either the "norm", or better, or preferable.
Good point. Clarification: I do not believe for many reasons. I do not WANT to consider the possibility of something when its surface appearance is evil. One could argue if I am being ignorant with an attitude like that. Let me clarify by saying that just because I do not want to consider the possibility, doesn't mean I don't. That is why I am upset about the whole thing, because I am considering the possibility. If I weren't, then I'd have nothing to be upset about. God's actions make me angry if I consider that it could be real. This is why I have a stake in choosing to not believe. It is reinforcement of my beliefs.