What do people think "theist" means?

[Quintessence]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means. Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms, yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea. While I don't find this surprising, I do find it rather odd. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means. So what are you waiting for? And if I don't see a lot of senseless arguing all going in circles and treading nowhere, I will be extremely disappointed in all of you! If you all can manage years of this with "atheism" you can do it for "theism" dag gummit!




(Quintessence may or may not be doing much participating in this thread, which is mostly a joke)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It means someone who subscribes to theism. In other words, someone who is theistic.

 

[Augustus]

Obviously it just means 'not an atheist'.

(Imagine the sound of a slide whistle just after you read this)

 

[Quintessence]

It means someone who subscribes to theism. In other words, someone who is theistic.

Pfft. Cop-out answer. That's like defining biologists as someone who studies biology. Doesn't tell us what biology is. Come on, now!

Obviously it just means 'not an atheist'.

(Imagine the sound of a slide whistle just after you read this)

Wait... wouldn't that be aatheist? Non-atheist? Still kind of leads us to a circular definition, though, doesn't it? I'm confused.

 

[Quintessence]

I may actually post some halfway serious posts in here. Maybe. Because I do actually disagree with how many commonly seem to define theism. Namely, that they seem to conflate theism with classical monotheism, or theism as requiring particular god-attributes common to classical monotheism (i.e., conflating theism with supernaturalism), or that theism is necessarily a matter of belief (a similar problem of which plagues atheism, I hear), among other oddities. I think my other favorite has to be conflating theism with religion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Pfft. Cop-out answer. That's like defining biologists as someone who studies biology. Doesn't tell us what biology is. Come on, now!

Ah, good point. Theism, then, is what theists subscribe to. To be theistic, is to be a person who is a theist.

Does that clear it up?

 

[Augustus]

Wait... wouldn't that be aatheist?

Now you're just being facetious. That's a kind of anteater.

 

[Iti oj]

some one who believes in or worships one or more gods. defining god is much harder.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Now you're just being facetious. That's a kind of anteater.

does that make everything that doesn't eat ants an aaanteater?

 

[Yerda]

does that make everything that doesn't eat ants an aaanteater?

No, you're thinking of aaardvarks.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Theology is the study, theory, or science of deity/gods; a theist is one who studies, has a theory, or conducts science (research) of deity/gods.

[this is based in the OED definitions of the terms]

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, you're thinking of aaardvarks.

Oh. But I thought aaaardvarks ate aants--old cartoon "Ant and the Aardvark," used to be on with "The Pink Panther" cartoons on saturday mornings....lo these many aeons aago.

 

[leibowde84]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means. Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms, yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea. While I don't find this surprising, I do find it rather odd. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means. So what are you waiting for? And if I don't see a lot of senseless arguing all going in circles and treading nowhere, I will be extremely disappointed in all of you! If you all can manage years of this with "atheism" you can do it for "theism" dag gummit!




(Quintessence may or may not be doing much participating in this thread, which is mostly a joke)

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of God or gods. A "god" is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may actually post some halfway serious posts in here. Maybe. Because I do actually disagree with how many commonly seem to define theism. Namely, that they seem to conflate theism with classical monotheism, or theism as requiring particular god-attributes common to classical monotheism (i.e., conflating theism with supernaturalism), or that theism is necessarily a matter of belief (a similar problem of which plagues atheism, I hear), among other oddities. I think my other favorite has to be conflating theism with religion.

My definition doesn't have that problem:

A theist is someone who believes that at least one god, as he understands "god", exists in actuality.

 

[Quintessence]

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of God or gods.

What about the theists who lack belief in their gods, much like a person lacks belief in gravity, but rather it is taken as a matter-of-fact? Why do we define theism as if it has to be about "believing in" something? What if that isn't accurate?

I'm not going to touch that second part. I don't agree with how you are defining gods, but that's an issue for a different thread.

 

[leibowde84]

My definition doesn't have that problem:

A theist is someone who believes that at least one god, as he understands "god", exists in actuality.

Simple and accurate.

 

[Quintessence]

My definition doesn't have that problem:

A theist is someone who believes that at least one god, as he understands "god", exists in actuality.

I'd agree if that word "believes" wasn't in there. Why not a word like "knows?" Or "accepts?" Or "feels?" What if it isn't particularly a "belief" to them?

 

[leibowde84]

What about the theists who lack belief in their gods, much like a person lacks belief in gravity, but rather it is taken as a matter-of-fact? Why do we define theism as if it has to be about "believing in" something? What if that isn't accurate?

I'm not going to touch that second part. I don't agree with how you are defining gods, but that's an issue for a different thread.

No matter what they claim to "know" about their gods, they are still strongly held beliefs.

And I agree. It's not a very good definition of deities. Tough to define. How would you define the term?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd agree if that word "believes" wasn't in there. Why not a word like "knows?" Or "accepts?" Or "feels?" What if it isn't particularly a "belief" to them?

"Knows" implies a justified true belief (or, colloquially, a belief held with a high degree of certainty), so "believe" covers both.

To the extent that "accept" or "feel" reflect my intended meaning, "believe" is a synonym.

I'm not sure what it would mean for someone to "feel God" in a way that doesn't entail them believing in God, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that he or she is a theist until I found out more.

 

[leibowde84]

"Knows" implies a justified true belief (or, colloquially, a belief held with a high degree of certainty), so "believe" covers both.

To the extent that "accept" or "feel" reflect my intended meaning, "believe" is a synonym.

I'm not sure what it would mean for someone to "feel God" in a way that doesn't entail them believing in God, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that he or she is a theist until I found out more.

Well-put.