I think we all need to get on the same page as far as definitions...

or we will be misunderstanding each other and debating semantics forever.lol

Theology is the discourse or discussion of gods(theos)in philosophical terms. Philosophy prior to christianity dealt with math/logic(practical),nature(physical),theos(metaphysical).

Christian theology in particular is doctrinal and apologetic as well as philosophical. Christian theology attempted to tie the three disciplines of philosophy into one.

Religion is a term used to describe a set of beliefs, traditions and rituals adhered to by a group or gathering. Although most religions today have a distinct theology and set of doctrines to follow including the worship of a supernatural entity or entities, there are some that do not.

Theism is the belief in god or gods and other supernatural entities based on a particular theology.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and all supernatural entities.

Agnosticism is a term attributed to Thomas Huxley. I will let him speak for himself here:

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter..

It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions.."

and in another statement he said:

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds — have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

Huxley's agnosticism was widely held to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to excommunicate scientific discovery because it appeared to clash with the book of Genesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism

Deism rejects theological concepts of god as found in revealed religions and the supernatural. Deism bases its beliefs on reason alone and do not worship a deity but believe in creator who set natural law into motion. Although they believe the universe has an observable design they are not part of the "Intelligent Design" movement we are confronted with today.


Sorry this got so long...

Of course the above are the definitions I use and believe are correct, if they are not I think we need to agree on what the definitions are.

who think it's the height of absurdity that atheists would post in a "Religion/Theology" forum. Hopefully they will read your first two definitions and realize that atheists can have plenty of legitimate opinions on both, and certainly belong in this forum as much as anybody else. But based on past attitudes, I doubt it.

Where I think you'll always have some disagreement is on the others, and in particular atheism/agnosticism, as other threads have explored.

to me.

I will say that the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is particularly tricky to parse.

What do you think of the theory that if we expressed the idea of God correctly cleanly and succinctly that the self contradictions in the concept would manifest themselves so clearly so as to disprove God. Such that it is only our inexact language and muddy thinking that allows us to continue to believe in God (those of us who do).

Bryant

People misuse it, to be sure, but if you think about it logically, it is pretty easy.

atheism means that you don't have a belief in any gods
agnosticism means that you don't have absolute knowledge

You can be an agnostic theist and a gnostic atheist.

outside the "Black and White" thinking of theism. Simple terms like believer vs unbeliever do not work in a society with different religions. Muslims divide people into 3 categories--believers, people of the book, infidels--for example.

As Huxley states, to theists he is an atheist. Those that feel that the "atheists" go too far when they reject all gods(supposedly)without evidence adopt labels like agnostic, deist, etc...

We see the same phenomenon with the term liberal. Because it has been redefined with stereotypes by conservatives, some liberals tend to adopt other labels to distinguish themselves from the derogatory stereotype.

Had to come from someplace.

It is an authority that we agree on?

to find an authority or set of definitions we can all agree on.

But of course we can discuss them.

You said:

Theism is the belief in god or gods and other supernatural entities based on a particular theology.

I would eliminate the last part as many people invent their own concepts of god and follow no particular theology.

As to Huxley coining the word agnostic he did derrive it from a proper etymology and as such we can discern its meaning. It refers to knowledge. Or more specifically a lack of absolute knowledge.

but since he is the first to coin it as an alternative to atheism and theism I think it is important.

Even as he defines it the word relates to whether knowledge of god is possible. This does not answer the question that theism/atheism answer. Namely that of belief.

Example:

Do you actively believe in god?

Yes. (theist)

No. (atheist)

I don't know. (does not understand the question and is likely an atheist as they do not have an active belief in god)

See the thing of it is a person cannot claim "I don't know" regarding a question of whether they believe or not. You know if you believe or not. If you do believe you are a theist. If you don't you are not a theist thus atheist.

In set theory there is no intersection between theist and atheist. And everyone is in one or the other set. Agnostics can exist in both sets as knowledge is a seperate set all together from belief.

But many seem to think agnostic is a belief.

One of the more frequent discussions I find myself in is this topic exactly. Fortunately I realize that just because I have this conversation with one group in one particular time and place does not mean I have had this conversation with everyone in time and space. Thus I will continue to have it repeatedly as more and more people wander into the areas I have such conversations in. I can either blow a gasket everytime the issue comes up or I can accept that it is going to come up repeatedly and deal with it calmly and rationally. Since I claim to play for team reason the rational path seems to be the best fit for me.

The various concepts of god/gods have distinct theologies. That is why there are the multiple sub-labels.lol

monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, panentheist, etc...

I can't imagine any concept of a god outside the above established theologies.

What about the person who says "Yeah i believe in God, sure, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him. I'm not into that." You ask him questions about what church he goes to or what he believes God wants him to do and his answers are that he doesn't go to Church and he doesn't worry about what God want's him to do beyond some banal generalities. Would such a person be a theist without a theology?

I think that the urge to categorize can lead to over simplification, as well.

Bryant

but I see nothing that would lead me to think they were a theist.

It is similar to asking someone if they believe in democracy...and the person saying yes but they are not concerned with politics and don't belong to a party or vote.lol

Theist is a broad label. Any person for whatever reason that actively believes in god or gods is a theist. A deist is a theist. A christian (that believes in god) is a theist. A jew (that believes in god) is a theist.

Similarly anyone that does not actively believe in god is an atheist. A buddhist that does not believe in gods is an atheist. A Taoist that does not believe in gods is an atheist. A Unitarian Universalist that does not believe in god is an atheist.

Atheism and Theism are not fully developed belief systems. They are merely components that may be part of a belief system or a personal set of beliefs.

that deists are theists. I do realize that that has to do with the difference in our definitions of theism though. Since deists have no theology or doctrines as far as religious beliefs I have no idea how to counter the assertation without muddying it up further.lol

All I know is that as an atheist I see deists as our allies against the theocrats.

Where are you pulling this notion that theists derrive their label from adhering to a particular theology? This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. If perhaps you could present your case for such a claim we could see where you are coming from. As I understand the word it has nothing to do with theology other than theology derriving from it. Not the reverse.

Oxford English Dictionary
Theism (1): a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM. c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM. d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
Deism: The distinctive doctrine or belief of a deist; usually, belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity; ‘natural religion’.

Merriam Webster
Theism: 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
Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Chambers
Theism: the belief in the existence of God or a god, especially one revealed supernaturally. Compare deism, agnosticism under agnostic, atheism.
Deism: belief in the existence of God without acceptance of any religion or message revealed by God to man. Compare atheism, theism, agnosticism under agnostic.

The OED has therefore found examples of theism being both the same and different to deism.

Maybe we should just stick to the second definition of theism in the OED:
Theism (2): A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=atheism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

atheism

/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

The full one, backed by usages, is:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

And for "disbelieve":

3. intr. with in: Not to believe in; to have no faith in

Words can have multiple meanings, and both meanings are widely used.

I guess I cannot imagine how someone can be a theist without a theology. As we have discussed before, belief in a concept of a creator outside theology would make one a Deist. Then of course there are those who have a unique take but call themselves agnostic or philosophical.lol

I think the biggest difference between our definitions is that you only use two main labels--theists, atheists as far as belief status and then add sub-labels.(gnostic, agnostic, etc) It is simple to understand and makes sense. My only issue with it would be that it leaves out a lot of people in the grey areas and makes debate and discussion close to impossible without defining the concept they believe in.

It also gives the theist camp a larger following while depleting the freethinking camp as far as statistics.

The human mind is quite capable of coming up with the idea of gods on its own. In fact I would suggest that this is in large part why the belief in gods is so persistant. Its a case of projecting our own sense of self onto the universe around us. We do this to nearly anything that presents patters of behaviour. This is in fact how we come to recognise other humans as beings. We project our sense of self onto them. Time and experience has taught us that fire and weather do not actually have personalities or identities. But something like the universe is a bit more removed from critical examination to the extent that we can readily dismiss the notion of identity from it. So many continue to project a sense of identity onto the universe and this is what becomes known as God. All completely independent of any organized attempt to transmit such a concept.

It's just not a theology shared by others, but that isn't a bar to it being a theology.

Unless they have a split personality they are not having a discourse on the issue. A self contained belief in god is individually developed. A theology is derrived by shared interaction and discussion.

engaging in such discourse or study or evaluation of the concept. It is impossible not to pick up various theological concepts in society. Children do not create gods in their mind, they are told about them.

A two or three yo will ask questions about the nature of things and many parents will give the traditional religious answer...

Think about it...when a small child asks where a loved one or pet goes when it dies, the majority will be told, "to Heaven" which leads to further questions which start to form concepts.

A theology is a specific claim held by a specific group. Even if a person drew from multiple theologies their personal position would not be a theology. Not unless they convinced someone else of it. Then it would start to be a theology.

There are religions without a theology though. Theology is a subdiscipline of philosophy.

Of course Christian theology is different than theology prior to that time. As I stated before, they tied in the 3 disciplines of philo into one.

A person who simply happens to believe in god without much consideration of the matter is simply a theist. They are not part of any theology. And this is the point of this particular issue as I see it.

-the way we label. I don't see people as "part" of a theology. If they are part of a theological system it is usually called a religion.

I do think your way of defining is a lot simpler for generalized and lay discussions.

I know when I use the term "theist" I am not talking about those who simply believe in a creator, I am talking about those who follow theologies(usually irrational and/or absurd)that are trying to dictate how the rest of us should live.

Theology just means study of god,
it can include private thoughts,
someone stranded on a desert isle can still develop their own theology,
they don't have to talk to anyone.

logia is the basis for the second part of the word and it means discourse or exchange of words.

Let the word theist be what it is. A simple belief in God. By trying to adhere theology to it you seem to be trying to front load an argument. There is insufficient cause to accept this addition to the word.

I can even grant that some individual may be able to come up with a complex enough view of what god is on their own that it perhaps shares sufficient qualities with a theology. But that does not mean all such concepts of god meet this criteria. A theist is just someone that believes in god(s). We cannot state more than that without tainting the word.

theos=god logia=discourse, discussion, study. THEOLOGY

bio=life logia=discourse, discussion, study. BIOLOGY

Archaeo=old, ancient, primitive logia=discourse, discussion, study. ARCHAEOLOGY

Keep in mind the greeks studied mostly through discourse.(lectures)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861719551

theology

the·ol·o·gy (plural the·ol·o·gies)

noun

Definition:

1. study of religion: the study of religion, especially the Christian faith and God's relation to the world

2. religious theory: a religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief

3. course of religious training: a course of specialized religious training, especially one intended to lead students to a vocation in the Christian Church

<14th century. Via French and Latin < Greek theologia "study of divine things">


http://biblia.com/theology/theology.htm

Theology is a Greek word, theos, "God", + logos, "rational discourse", "knowledge", "study", "science", so, literally, Theology is the science of God, as Biology is the science of life. Aristotle already spoke about three sciences: Mathematics, Philosophy and Theology.

I don't have a clue what it means, but I have heard it used in reference to quartz crystals, astrology, ghosts, and religion. Would you care to enlighten me on the definition of "spirituality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

----------
Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored. (See scientific method.) The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Ignosticism is often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism.

In the entry under "God" in the Guide to Humanistic Judaism, published by the Society for Humanistic Judaism, ignosticism is defined as "finding the question of God's existence meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences." This use of the term verifiable is consistent with the usage of logical positivism and indicates that the word "God" is meaningless because theism is incoherent. This doesn't have to imply, however, that the idea of God is emotionally or aesthetically meaningless. It is sufficient to say that the idea of God as a being makes no sense.

For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.

So, when the word "God" is spoken, the ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended.

A child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for the weather and other such matters. This anthropomorphic divine conception has been rejected by Spinoza, as well as by Feuerbach in The Essence of Christianity (1841).

A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against.



Historical antecedents

The eighteenth century French philosopher Denis Diderot, when accused of being an atheist, replied that he simply did not care whether God existed or not. In response to Voltaire, he wrote that it is "very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not to believe in God is not important at all."

Later, Karl Marx would dismiss God as irrelevant. For Marx, since there is no meaning, value or purpose outside the historical process, both belief in God and the negation of God (i.e., atheism) were a waste of time.

Both of these thinkers were instrumental in the evolving historical skepticism regarding the concept of God (see Karen Armstrong, A History of God); however, there is no evidence of them having directly influenced Rabbi Wine or contemporary ignosticism.

Building on the above tradition, George Jacob Holyoake, the English Owenite lecturer - who coined the term secularism - held that secularists should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and thus to be distinguished from militant freethinkers.
----------

Thanks for posting.

He is a homosexual atheist Rabbi. And he has an astounding speaking voice. And yes he did coin an excellent word.

Thank you for teaching me something!