Theism: debating the dictionary (Creator, beliefs, atheist, agnostic, paranormal)

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

I don’t think this is true. There is obviously a great deal of wriggle room in defining what is “God” or “a God”. You can define it as supreme power, or you can define it as higher power. An atheist can either believe in the existence of higher powers and not define them as “Gods”, or can define them as “Gods” and not believe they exist. Either way an atheist does not believe in God (or Gods), however they define the term.

A god or gods that is/are merely beings within this universe with some limited amount of power does not constitute theism since everyone has some amount of power in the universe. If you believe in Santa Clause, does that make you as theist? I would think not. Therefore a theist must be defined as belief in a God or Gods that constitute the Supreme Absolute Truth. The definition of theism should be accompanied with a philosophical understanding, otherwise the definition has no value in contrast with the definition of atheism.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

This is the type I mention. People who believe in beings who are have power within this universe but are not the supreme absolute truth.

But god who is ideal has any quality in abundance: "supreme", "absolute", "truth", every bit as much as "unlimited power".

EDIT: I think I misunderstand what you're saying, though. Is there a word missing?

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

A god or gods that is/are merely beings within this universe with some limited amount of power does not constitute theism since everyone has some amount of power in the universe. If you believe in Santa Clause, does that make you as theist? I would think not. Therefore a theist must be defined as belief in a God or Gods that constitute the Supreme Absolute Truth. The definition of theism should be accompanied with a philosophical understanding, otherwise the definition has no value in contrast with the definition of atheism.

But this is your definition of what makes “a God”, and it is hardly a widely accepted one. I am a being in the universe, and I have some (extremely limited) power. By your definition that makes me “a God”. So you are right, an atheist who accepts your definition of “a God”, cannot accept my existence (or the existence of anyone else for that matter) and still be an atheist.

So now all you have to do is show me an atheist who accepts your definition of “a God”.

If you believe in Thor, and you believe that Thor is “a God”, then you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in Thor and you believe that Thor is some kind of powerful spirit (not "a God"), then you can be an atheist.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

But this is your definition of what makes “a God”, and it is hardly a widely accepted one. I am a being in the universe, and I have some (extremely limited) power. By your definition that makes me “a God”. So you are right, an atheist who accepts your definition of “a God”, cannot accept my existence (or the existence of anyone else for that matter) and still be an atheist.

So now all you have to do is show me an atheist who accepts your definition of “a God”.

If you believe in Thor, and you believe that Thor is “a God”, then you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in Thor and you believe that Thor is some kind of powerful spirit (not "a God"), then you can be an atheist.

If I understand Paraprakrti correctly, he is saying that a "theist" should be defined as the person who believes in the ideal of god, whether or not there is an actual being. The ideal is the being with no limitations. I could be wrong, but I think that is the belief of the majority of believers.

He is saying that anyone who believes something in this universe (something actualized) is god is automatically incorrect, as it has limited power. This is the "god" most atheists align themselves against.

[JerryL]

Then there are no atheists because everyone to some degree is a "powerful critter".

I honestly fail to believe that anyone here is so dense as to misunderstand my intent.

Then again, I don't think anyone would honestly may the equivocation you did in your original post.

As such, I don't believe that there is any intent for an honest discussion nor debate. I am therefore wandering off to greener pastures. Have fun.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Dictionary.com defines the term 'theism' as: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Yet, the fact is that an atheist can also believe in a god or gods and not compromise his/her atheism.

Not true, by the very definition you have quoted.

Theism is distinguished from atheism by the belief in a God(s) that constitutes the Supreme Absolute Truth. Otherwise, belief in a "god" or "gods" is merely the belief in beings with some amount of power in this universe.

Where did you get that definition?

In this case, I can believe in bob smith down the street who has some amount of power in this universe and, abracadabra, I am a theist.

Yes, you would be. The name you give your "god," and your concept of his/her powers, are irrelevant.

Since this is absurd in that it would make everyone a theist, ...

No. Since I don't believe in Bob Smith, or any other god or godess, I am not a theist.

...it must logically be concluded that a theist be defined as someone who believes in a supreme God.

I don't consider that to be a logical conclusion.