Talk:Theism/Archive 2

message: Changed "The Abrahamic religions" to "Most Abrahamic religions" on the grounds that the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion which is (to my understanding) inclusive monotheistic. Heartofgoldfish 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic religions 

message: There seems to be something wrong with the deity-belief classification scheme.  As it stands now, it does not recognize the belief that a deity created nature and also interacts with it.  Mainstream Christianity, for instance, does not seem to satisfy any of the four category definitions.  A more natural approach seems to replace the deism category with monotheism and polytheism, and to mention deism outside of the classification scheme. Dshin 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it - this was an edit someone made recently. Mdwh 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding inclusive and exclusive monotheism:  I found definitions for these terms, consistent with our definition of monotheism, and so I placed them inside the classification scheme.  I removed mention of monistic/dualistic/pluralistic subdivisions of exclusive monotheism until we have some satisfactory definitions for them.  Dshin 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theism Classification 

message: At least according to the definitions here at Wikipedia, Sikhism should qualify more as a pantheistic religion. - 81.15.146.91 15:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic Sikhism? 

message: Deity is no longer neutral, Bryan. Have a look at the deity article. Were finially starting to make some progress w the religious articles, and distinctions are being made. Deity has decided to exclude monotheism. If you don't agree, hash it out on talk:deity. Until then, we need to be consistant. Sam [Spade] 01:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be unilateral at all, BTW. I held off on this until the concensus came along. See my talk page, talk:God and Talk:Deity. Sam [Spade] 01:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, aside from the disambig notice at the top the deity article still encompasses the monotheistic god. I'll bring it up over there. Regardless of the status of "deity" at the moment, however, I still object to the capital G. That's the name of a specific god, and "theism" is about as non-specific as you can get. Bryan 01:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good recent edits Bryan. They don't seem to want the chart at atheism, maybe it can go to one of the spin-offs of atheism, weak atheism or whatever? Maybe all of them, since they havn't much content and are hard to understand? Sam [Spade] 20:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deity 

message: I just changed the entry a little bit 
Added Nontheism and Confucianism / Zen buddhism / Taoism/ Also slightly modified the ordered/unordered to better reflect the amount of acceptance of [g|G]od(s)
I also have some questions / suggestions:
*What are the difference between
**Soft polytheism and Monism?
**Transtheism and Deism?
**Antitheism and Nontheism?
*Instead of the clumsy “God or gods”, what about using the divine?
Reply to David Latapie 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Im just asking, because if it should, i'll try to do it.... Homestarmy 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should all that outline stuff go into paragraph format?

message: I know I'm not the only one to think this, but I may be the only one who actually cares enough to request a change.  Rather than making it myself, I thought I'd get some opinions, if anyone else cares.  Here goes:  I postulate that agnosticism doesn't belong under the "non-theism" category any more than it belongs in any of the others.  Being agnostic does not automatically make one a non-theist; I've met people who claim to be agnostic theists as well as people who claim to be agnostic atheists.  I imagine there may be agnostic deists, agnostic pantheists, and so forth.  (Some people consider deism a sub-category of theism, but that's not the subject of my post here.)  Anyway, I suggest that it be removed from the "non-theism" category.
I'm sure lots of people would disagree with my suggestion, so I'd like to hear others' thoughts before making a change that might incite controversy.  -- Othersider 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that it's classified that way under the grounds of "Their not sure of being compleatly theistic", but im not entirely certain. Homestarmy 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most, but not all, people who identify as agnostics are nontheists. If agnosticism is listed under non-theism, there should be a caveat pointing out that the two are not necessarily linked. -Sean Curtin 05:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with what Othersider and Sean have said.  Although the page does say "commonly divided into these categories:" I think there must be some way of pointing out that Agnosticism can be clarified as something other uniquely non-theist.  Are there any ideas on how to make this a less black/white definition, while keeping some type of helpful categorization structure (that currently exists). --Ncosmob 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agnosticism part of theism/non-theism classification?

message: I've made a series of pretty dramatic reorganizations of this page. I'm done now. I hope everyone thinks they're an inprovement and a good basis for going forward. StephenFerg 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page reorganization [[User:StephenFerg|StephenFerg]] 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Any objection to changing "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities" to "Atheism is a belief that god(s) and deities do not exist"? My reasoning is that "lack of belief" is a negative representation of Atheism.Vamptoo 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, because, dubious argument about "negativity" aside, atheism is not accurately defined as a belief that gods do not exist.  Some atheists would take that view, but many would not. And certainly any definition here should chime with that found at the atheism wikipedia entry. --Dannyno 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like comments from others as well, though I do agree that the Atheism page needs to be changed as well.Vamptoo 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is because many Atheists like to emphasize varying, yet often, subtle differences in what precisely they believe Atheism is, so easily generalizing it can be difficult unless you write some sort of essay arguing that it is one thing or the other. (Which, of course, Wikipedia shouldn't do.) Homestarmy 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing could be said about the varying, yet often, subtle differences in what precisely Theists believe.  But that avoids the point that "lack of belief" is defining Atheism from a negative position.  The argument isn't the meaning it is how it is portrayed.Vamptoo 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're conflating grammatical and 'moral' negativity. Please don't. "Lack of belief" is one of the only ways to define atheism so as to include what many atheists have actually thought.   It simply isn't true that atheism is "the belief that god does not exist". And that's the test,not that the more accurate alternative is somehow "negative", which it isn't. --Dannyno 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any references?  Atheism is quite simply the knowledge that there are no supernatural events or beings.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't have such knowledge - yet I don't believe in God, so what does that make me, if not an atheist? Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that for many Atheists it isn't, but for other atheists it probably is true that they have a "belief that God does not exist". And hence, the dilemna. Homestarmy 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There really is no dilemma, if someone believes there are any supernatural beings, they are not Atheists.  Atheists are secure in the knowledge that no God, god, gods, or deities exist or have ever existed.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with a "negative" definition, if that's what the definition is. Are you saying you think that your two definitions are equal, and you prefer the positive phrasing? Or are you saying that you think the current definition is simply wrong (in which case, whether it is "negative" or not is beside the point)? Mdwh 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defining Theism as "the lack of belief in Atheism" would probably be more correct, but I don't suppose a Theist would like that either.  There is no need to define Atheism in negative terms.  I can define Theism negatively too, but that doesn't make the negative definition the preferred definition.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wouldn't, because "atheism" is not an entity which people do/don't believe in. If you have a way to define atheism is a "positive" manner without changing the meaning, then sure, go ahead. However, your proposal does not do that. Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we exactly understand each other, the problem is that Atheists often like to define themselves as people who "lack believe in God", (I presume because they dislike the notion that people may think they have faith about something) but there are also undoubtably atheists who have a belief that there is not a god of any sort. Having the belief that there is no God does not necessarily make one a believer in the supernatural. Homestarmy 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed yes. Both should be covered, but note that the latter sort ("strong" atheism) is a subset of the former: If someone believes there are no gods, then clearly they also lack belief in any god. Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vamptoo said: "Atheism is quite simply the knowledge that there are no supernatural events or beings."  This is untrue, and it is not at all as simple as that.  Your idiosyncratic definition would mean that Richard Dawkins, for example, does not count as an atheist, because he doesn't claim to know that there is no God.  I can supply any number of references, but you can find most of them in the bibliography appended to the wikipedia atheism article.  Most of the atheists cited there did not claim to know that there is no God. --Dannyno 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was agreeing with Homestarmy, not Vamptoo ... I agree with what you say about Vamptoo's comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "my idiosyncratic definition". Mdwh 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was responding to Vamptoo, not at all to you. Confusion all round. --Dannyno 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, so we can all agree that the correct definition of atheism is 'lack of belief in any gods.'  Changing.  Retsudo 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, no, that's merely one definition..... Homestarmy 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism change