What is theism: A compilation of reasons and arguments opposing theistic views

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Theism is to me - disregarding the above -, [and as my first definition (1)], the idea of a subject/mind voluntarily believing in a fictional non-physical entity, that only appears to or is existent to a 'believer' = aka. psychosis.

[Xraider]

Truly a superb refutation of theism. Those guys don't even know what hit em

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

Truly a superb refutation of theism. Those guys don't even know what hit em

= good definition of sarcasm!

[GeorgeLawlor]

Thiesm is just a primitive mind set to help one get to sleep at night.

[Himster]

Belief is rarely voluntarily: usually it is the inevitable result of experience.

[Xraider]

Belief is a result of human nature and simple indoctrination. You are indoctrinated that your religion is the only true one, the rest are false believers,you acquire the mindset that every good theist of his faith has. And as a human, you are weak. You require some sort of external authority to let you sleep at night - the weak will be protected, the wicked and the evil shall be punished, you will meet up with granny and everybody else who died, in Heaven. A religious person simply requires that external authority, otherwise he feels alone and weak, without purpose or meaning.

Thats my take on it. And seriously, the OP could use some serious improvement. It doesn't even fit the thread topic.

[Valden]

Belief is a result of human nature and simple indoctrination.

I think you are being vague in your use of 'belief, and follow on to make a radical assertion. To believe in something is to accept that it is true, I believe in the reality of the physical world, therefore I accept the physical world exists. Am I warranted to do so? Of course I am, that however does not mean I can prove the physical world exists, I have only the reports of my fallible senses whose perception I cannot escape to go on. So, from the outset I want to make clear that you are wrong; it is perfectly rational to hold a properly basic belief, indeed, you hold several without even realizing it. Just as it is rational to hold a properly basic belief in the existence of the physical world, of the past and of other minds, so too is it rational to hold belief in God as a properly basic belief if an individual feels intuitive evidence has presented itself. Is he deluded, are you deluded? Since we are discussing axiomatic beliefs the issue is not as clear cut as you present it; to cast doubt on the validity of belief is to cast doubt on human knowledge in general.

You are indoctrinated that your religion is the only true one, the rest are false believers,you acquire the mindset that every good theist of his faith has.

You are committing the fallacy that the majority of atheists I have encountered on EMM have made at some point; you consider the presence of contrary religions as evidence against the truth of supernatural claims. Does the presence of competing truth claims regarding object X render object X non existent? Of course not: whether or not God exists is a separate issue to doctrinal disagreements between the monotheistic faiths. Doctrinally, there can be elements of truth in all religions, but the question of God's existence is a separate one entirely.

And as a human, you are weak. You require some sort of external authority to let you sleep at night - the weak will be protected, the wicked and the evil shall be punished, you will meet up with granny and everybody else who died, in Heaven. A religious person simply requires that external authority, otherwise he feels alone and weak, without purpose or meaning.

This is a very naive view of religious faith; if you were to devote some study to the issue you would fine theism a rich and rewarding worldview. The bulk of your argument seems to be dismissing 'belief' (I've already explained how problematic that term is) as 'human nature'. By your own logic you should be religious then!

Thats my take on it. And seriously, the OP could use some serious improvement. It doesn't even fit the thread topic.

Right, I agree here. The OP has claimed to present a 'compilation of reasons and arguments' against theism, then in fact all he has done is falsely redefine the word 'theism'. I was actually getting hopeful that the mythical case for atheism was about to appear!

[Xraider]

I think you are being vague in your use of 'belief, and follow on to make a radical assertion. To believe in something is to accept that it is true, I believe in the reality of the physical world, therefore I accept the physical world exists. Am I warranted to do so? Of course I am, that however does not mean I can prove the physical world exists, I have only the reports of my fallible senses whose perception I cannot escape to go on. So, from the outset I want to make clear that you are wrong; it is perfectly rational to hold a properly basic belief, indeed, you hold several without even realizing it. Just as it is rational to hold a properly basic belief in the existence of the physical world, of the past and of other minds, so too is it rational to hold belief in God as a properly basic belief if an individual feels intuitive evidence has presented itself. Is he deluded, are you deluded? Since we are discussing axiomatic beliefs the issue is not as clear cut as you present it; to cast doubt on the validity of belief is to cast doubt on human knowledge in general.

You're right, i was rather vague and shifted to a radical position without explaining myself. By belief i meant religious belief in general. We do need to hold some sort of basic axioms, otherwise our life doesnt make sense. But IMO, belief in God is not one of them. Its not something self-evident. We can assume he exists to start creating arguments and such. And of course, its rational for you to hold a belief in God if you feel there is something greater in the Universe or something like that. I see no such evidence and thus its rational for me not to have any belief. Different experiences, different perspectives, different conclusions.

You are committing the fallacy that the majority of atheists I have encountered on EMM have made at some point; you consider the presence of contrary religions as evidence against the truth of supernatural claims. Does the presence of competing truth claims regarding object X render object X non existent? Of course not: whether or not God exists is a separate issue to doctrinal disagreements between the monotheistic faiths. Doctrinally, there can be elements of truth in all religions, but the question of God's existence is a separate one entirely.

I'm not sure how my words that you acquire the mindset of that specific religion after undergoing a long intensive period of indoctrination from childhood somehow turned to a claim that the multitude of religions is evidence against the existance of God but ok,whatever. And yes, its a completely seperate issue. Judaism doesn't even bother with it,Christians and Muslims hold great emphasis on it cause salvation is a big deal, the Eastern religions don't even have the concept of a God like we in the west do so the whole topic is irrelevent for them as well. And you must admit that the multitude of religions kinda casts doubt on them all, doesnt it ? Not saying they are incorrect per se, but it sure seems fishy

This is a very naive view of religious faith; if you were to devote some study to the issue you would fine theism a rich and rewarding worldview. The bulk of your argument seems to be dismissing 'belief' (I've already explained how problematic that term is) as 'human nature'. By your own logic you should be religious then!

I'm sure it is quite rich and rewarding, but I simply cannot lie to myself that somewhere out there, exists an all powerful deity for which there is no evidence beyond claims and books written and made millenia ago. I simply don't see God anywhere around me.



IMO, arguing about the existance or inexistance of God, or the rationality of belief/disbelief in him is a complete waste of time. No side will convince the other of the validity of their statements, and different upbringing and experience will make the concept of "rational" different for each side. For me, holding a belief in a super natural deity which we cannot see,prove or disprove isn't rational. For you, perhaps it is. Therefore , i suggest we drop this topic and have a cup of tea

[Valden]

You're right, i was rather vague and shifted to a radical position without explaining myself. By belief i meant religious belief in general. We do need to hold some sort of basic axioms, otherwise our life doesnt make sense. But IMO, belief in God is not one of them. Its not something self-evident. We can assume he exists to start creating arguments and such. And of course, its rational for you to hold a belief in God if you feel there is something greater in the Universe or something like that. I see no such evidence and thus its rational for me not to have any belief. Different experiences, different perspectives, different conclusions.

To hold a belief in God is to hold a theistic worldview. This means that belief in God is axiomatic to other beliefs and positions held. It is rational to deduce a Designer through intuitive and moral experience, thus rendering belief in God properly basic, just as we place faith in our sensory faculties in order to affirm the reality of the external, physical world. Just as belief in the physical world is foundational (axiomatic) to gaining knowledge of it, so too is belief in God foundational in a theistic worldview.

I'm not sure how my words that you acquire the mindset of that specific religion after undergoing a long intensive period of indoctrination from childhood somehow turned to a claim that the multitude of religions is evidence against the existance of God but ok,whatever. And yes, its a completely seperate issue. Judaism doesn't even bother with it,Christians and Muslims hold great emphasis on it cause salvation is a big deal, the Eastern religions don't even have the concept of a God like we in the west do so the whole topic is irrelevent for them as well. And you must admit that the multitude of religions kinda casts doubt on them all, doesnt it ? Not saying they are incorrect per se, but it sure seems fishy

The issue of indoctrination you raise is an interesting one; belief in God may not be intuitively self evidence to you (although you may just have easily been 'indoctrinated' to hold this position, as you argue theists are indoctrinated to hold their position) but it certainly is a self-evident fact to some people. The question is, who is deluded, the theist or the atheist? The psychological definition of a delusion is unhelpful here; psychologists shy away from an objective standard of normality and instead base their definition of a delusion on what is and isn't normal in a given society. So hearing voices would not be considered an aspect of delusion in a society where the hearing of voices is valued and encouraged, for example. Psychology renders you unable to accuse religious people of holding delusions for this reason.

I'm sure it is quite rich and rewarding, but I simply cannot lie to myself that somewhere out there, exists an all powerful deity for which there is no evidence beyond claims and books written and made millenia ago. I simply don't see God anywhere around me.

Well you ultimately have to find the truth for yourself, it cannot be forced on you. I hope you find what you are looking for in the end, and if you would like to PM me about any aspect regarding monotheism that concerns you, I welcome it and look forward to the debate!

IMO, arguing about the existance or inexistance of God, or the rationality of belief/disbelief in him is a complete waste of time. No side will convince the other of the validity of their statements, and different upbringing and experience will make the concept of "rational" different for each side. For me, holding a belief in a super natural deity which we cannot see,prove or disprove isn't rational. For you, perhaps it is. Therefore , i suggest we drop this topic and have a cup of tea

I am reminded how important it is to defend the rationality of belief every time I receive a PM from a believer thanking me for my posts, or an atheist saying I have improved his/her perception of religion. It's humbling and sometimes shameful (I am not worthy of such kindness!) but at the same time so fantastic to see people reaching God partly thanks to something I have said. So the debate certainly has a higher purpose for me! I consider sharing the knowledge I have gained a moral obligation, and do so as often as I can.

[XIII]

I am reminded how important it is to defend the rationality of belief every time I receive a PM from a believer thanking me for my posts, or an atheist saying I have improved his/her perception of religion. It's humbling and sometimes shameful (I am not worthy of such kindness!) but at the same time so fantastic to see people reaching God partly thanks to something I have said. So the debate certainly has a higher purpose for me! I consider sharing the knowledge I have gained a moral obligation, and do so as often as I can.

Kinda off-topic but I just have to say that you cannot underestimate the sort of impact even the smallest efforts might have.

I myself was an apatheist (as you might call it) before I somehow stumbled upon one of the posts here in the EMM. It was just a normal post on a normal day in a normal debate here in the EMM and yet it was what inspired and moved me to defending theism and the rationality of my beliefs. I know for a fact that the poster had no idea that such a mundane post changed someone's life and yet here I am, two years (and countless books and articles) later, doing my own bit of work defending the faith such as I can.

So yeah, I echo your sentiments and more power to you.

Cheers.

[MaximiIian]

Belief is a result of human nature and simple indoctrination.

But what of people that believe due to personal experiences? Ones who were not indoctrinated at all? Ones who are not weak-willed, as you claim humans to be.

You are indoctrinated that your religion is the only true one, the rest are false believers,you acquire the mindset that every good theist of his faith has.

That's absurd. Plenty of religions don't think of themselves as the only true one. Quite a few actively go with the idea of there being many paths, all equally valid.

[Menelik_I]

Theism is to me - disregarding the above -, [and as my first definition (1)], the idea of a subject/mind voluntarily believing in a fictional non-physical entity, that only appears to or is existent to a 'believer' = aka. psychosis.

The use itself of the word theism or calling people theist is a display of idiocy. A refusal of acknowledging any religious experience out of end and thus being blind to their difference, it is condescending.Plus it gives the illusion that on the opposite side the cool atheist moved by Reason and Modernity, completely forgetting that not believing is it as old as believing and is the point of conversion.

Anti-religious thread #2323826382632836236286663 on TWC, at this rhythm you might outdo the Israel-Palestinian threads, keep it up.

[Xraider]

Can't we all just get along ? not like anybody will convince the other side of the truth of their arguments

[Menelik_I]

Can't we all just get along ? not like anybody will convince the other side of the truth of their arguments

It ain't about convincing , the Dawkins boys want to look good and act like Jerks because they feel superior.

Death shall answer all your questions and shall give no about your arguments, so this ain't really a discussion to have. Wanna talk about Jesus and need some help I am in, want to "prove" then I refer you to the Grim Reaper.

[Biggieboy]

It ain't about convincing , the Dawkins boys want to look good and act like Jerks because they feel superior.

Death shall answer all your questions and shall give no about your arguments, so this ain't really a discussion to have. Wanna talk about Jesus and need some help I am in, want to "prove" then I refer you to the Grim Reaper.

The "Dawkins boys"? Wow, way to stereotype atheists.

[Lazarus]

Theism is about a belief in God. That doesn't necessarily mean psychosis (though it does not exclude it either). There are a few lines of rational reasoning that can lead one to theism - how to pick which God is a little more complicated and beyond me, but none the less, the potential is there.

By your choice of words what I feel you're describing is more a delusion - a belief held despite strong contrary evidence (holding the belief in the face of evidence is what I draw from the word "voluntary" - willingly lying to ones self. Correct?)

If that's what you want to personally define Theism as, then more power to you. If you do use the word here in the EMM though, know that everyone else will be using the wider more accepted definition, and will take that to be your meaning, and while you find the idea of God to be an invention, that doesn't necessarily make it so. (It doesn't make it not so either, but it's unknown one way or the other, innit?)

[Biggieboy]

Valden, I see you're awake don't forget me! ^^

And like I said, I posted some reasons why I don't believe in God in a thread somewhere around here.

[Valden]

Valden, I see you're awake don't forget me! ^^

And like I said, I posted some reasons why I don't believe in God in a thread somewhere around here.

I'll be on to it in a bit, don't panic!

[Himster]

Nah, this must be a troll thread, the OP has absconded, like a drive by shooter who missed the mark and in fact doesn't even seem to have been aiming at all.

[Hakkapeliitta]

First you have to believe in the small lies, then you can believe in the big ones. It's the same with jokes, really; tell the bad ones first, then the ones you actually know are at least mildly amusing.