The definition of theism

[HonestJoe]

The definition is too vague.

The definition is fine, it’s the word that is vague.

 

[BilliardsBall]

'Any belief in the existence of a g-d, a deity.'

Is this the definition
Of theism?

Why are we voting on dictionary-defined terms?

 

[viole]

'Any belief in the existence of a g-d, a deity.'

Is this the definition
Of theism?

Of at least one g-d. Your definition is closer to a subset of theism called monotheism.

Btw, how do you pronounce g-d? Something like gghhdd? Always wanted to ask.

Ciao

- vioe

 

[GoodbyeDave]

My answer is no. Deism is the belief in a deity God, and it is not the same as theism.

Deism is a religion that asserts the existence of a creator and makes certain statements about their interaction, or lack of it, with the creation. That sounds like belief in a god to me.

Deity implies sentient form. There are those theists whose concept of god is formless and without qualities or attributes.

In other words, you are assuming that god must be interpreted as Abrahamics do, but that is not implied in the original definition. I remember when a pope remarked that Buddhists were atheists, and got a complaint from the president and prime minister of Ceylon.

 

[shunyadragon]

Deism is a religion that asserts the existence of a creator and makes certain statements about their interaction, or lack of it, with the creation. That sounds like belief in a god to me.

Deism in and of itself is not a religion. It is a type of religious belief.

Yes it is a belief in God, but a belief in God does not necessarily translate to Theism

In other words, you are assuming that god must be interpreted as Abrahamics do, but that is not implied in the original definition. I remember when a pope remarked that Buddhists were atheists, and got a complaint from the president and prime minister of Ceylon.

No, I do not make that assumption. Deists believe in God, but do not consider themselves theists.

Some Buddhists are atheists, particularly many Zen Buddhists. It is common for believers to assert that if others do not believe in 'my God' so to speak, they do not believe in God.

 

[PureX]

The definition is fine, it’s the word that is vague.

The term "vague" means to lack definition; specificity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In other words, you are assuming that god must be interpreted as Abrahamics do, but that is not implied in the original definition.

No. You are interchanging the terms 'deity' and 'god.' I already made the distinction in my statement.

I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion when I said that...

...there are those theists whose concept of god is formless and without qualities or attributes.

Are you suggesting that Abrahamic interpret God as formless and without qualities or attributes?

 

[shunyadragon]

No. You are interchanging the terms 'deity' and 'god.' I already made the distinction in my statement.

I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion when I said that...

The Abrahamic God is a deity, but not all deities believed in different religions, and belief systems are Gods

Are you suggesting that Abrahamic interpret God as formless and without qualities or attributes?

This would be more in line with Deism, but most Jews, Muslims, and Baha'i believe God is formless and undefinable from the human perspective. The qualities and attributes are reflected in Creation.

 

[savagewind]

I think that theism is the belief that a god or gods are able to affect the life of the one who believes in it or them.

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree with the "specifically..." bit of that definition. Polytheists and other believers in gods that aren't creator-gods are still theists.

Don't blame me....this is a quote from the Oxford dictionary. Personally, I'd call a theist" anybody who believes in a god or gods. I really quarrel with the OP regarding the singular "deity' bit.

 

[LuisDantas]

For some, perhaps. For me, my concept of God is no deity, nor is it a belief.

May you tell me more?

I wonder if what you call "God" could coincide with what I call "The Sacred".

 

[LuisDantas]

'Any belief in the existence of a g-d, a deity.'

Is this the definition
Of theism?

Sorry, I don't think that it works in practice.

For one thing, it is not entirely clear that it covers polytheism, which is very much a form of theism.

But mainly, it falls short because it attempts to derive theism from a deity instead of the other way around.

 

[Twilight Hue]

'Any belief in the existence of a g-d, a deity.'

Is this the definition
Of theism?

Its pretty good.

I can see it as one having God's.

 

[SalixIncendium]

May you tell me more?

I wonder if what you call "God" could coincide with what I call "The Sacred".

My concept of God is nirguna Brahman, which is absolute reality and absolute truth. It is the substrate for all existence. If all existence was a painting, Brahman would be the canvas on which it appears (I credit @sayak83 with that metaphor). It is pure consciousness, unchanging, dispassionate, formless, and without attributes or qualities.

 

[Remté]

It seems to be according to the dictionary. But I don't think the details make a difference. It's all these lies going around that cause confusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

My concept of God is nirguna Brahman, which is absolute reality and absolute truth. It is the substrate for all existence. If all existence was a painting, Brahman would be the canvas on which it appears (I credit @sayak83 with that metaphor). It is pure consciousness, unchanging, dispassionate, formless, and without attributes or qualities.

Have we already considered whether that would be properly described as a deistic stance?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Have we already considered whether that would be properly described as a deistic stance?

I think so. There are indeed parallels to what I understand to be deism.

 

[HonestJoe]

The term "vague" means to lack definition; specificity.

Pretty much. My point is that the word "theism" (like many words, especially in the field of philosophy) has significantly different definitions depending on the context and perception of the speaker. This is a perfectly reasonable definition but it can't be said to be the definition.

 

[Remté]

Pretty much. My point is that the word "theism" (like many words, especially in the field of philosophy) has significantly different definitions depending on the context and perception of the speaker. This is a perfectly reasonable definition but it can't be said to be the definition.

It can if it's in the right context.