[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> If you could just manage to say that as "considers theism as the belief in a
> god or gods" we'd be all set. ;-)  It really is that simple. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> But I've already said this. What you neglect is "god or gods" is only face we
> paint on the mural, "god or gods" is one possible metaphor for the Void.
MP: You keep *saying* I neglect it in spite of my acceptance of this. I get it, 
already!  All I'm saying is "god or gods" does NOT mean "God." Theism is not 
Deism. Deism presumes the face you describe, Theism is just the word to 
describe the generic form before the face. It is still a specific form, not argument 
there; its still one specific "metaphor for the Void." But there is a linguistic 
distinction between Theism and Deism for a reason, yes?

> [Arlo]
> Theism derives from human experience, it derives from Zen (direct, experiential
> realization).
> [Arlo]
> Theism is a subset of Zen, and the MOQ understands it, and places
> it, correctly. 

MP: Wholehearted disagreement with you on this. Zen is a cleaner expression, 
more intellectual, I'll give you that, but it is NOT the progenitor of theism; they 
are two cousins from the same, even cleaner human need to explain "the Void." 
If you are going to claim it is, you'll need to defend it historically.


> [Arlo]
> You accuse ME of redefining theism (funny), but I am fully happy to use the
> Wikipedia description (much better than a one line dictionary blurb). It says,
> "Theism, in its most inclusive usage, is the belief in at least one deity."
> (Pretty much what we've already agreed to). But then what you seem
> to want to gloss is that a "god or gods" (deity) is "a postulated preternatural
> or supernatural immortal being" (Wikipedia).
MP: Wikipedia is a site with no true editors, just opinionators who fight over the 
definitions, and the nastiest one or the most persistent deleter wins. I am not of 
a mind to think it is unbiased and neutral in how it comes up with "definitions" 
I've seen it work from the inside, on an issue on which I am globally known to 
be an expert, and its useless. Its good for general information, but if you want 
good guarantee of unbiased presentation of neutral information, you're in the 
wrong place.

The very fact that they use "deity" presupposes a face on the God. Theism 
does NOT have to have that face to remain a valid word. If it does, then there 
needs to be *another* word, because you *cannot* argue that one *must* put a 
face to their g*d to be able to simply believe. 

And btw... LOL... check the footnote on the use of "deity" in Wikipedia. They use 
the word "deity" but link to a Mirriam Webster definition which DOES NOT USE 
IT:

"*belief in the existence of a god or gods* ; specifically : belief in the existence 
of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who 
transcends yet is immanent in the world"

There you have it, straight out of your own revered wikipedia for you; they 
change the definition. The first definition is that which I have been using, and 
the subsequent "specific" one is that which goes the next step and defines the 
"god or gods" and which I insist is detrimental to an understanding of theism 
which can work with MoQ. And wikipedia goes and modifies it with no 
justification other than some editor's bias, error or both.

I don't know how much more black and white I can make it.



And btw, you continue to avoid my question; 

If atheism can use the most inclusive definition of "god or gods" (the one I insist 
is legitimate) when defining itself in opposition to theism, why do you insist 
theism cannot? Atheism exists only by theism, so if atheism can do it, theism 
*MUST* do it by default.