InesQor:

viaro and Deep Sight:

I think the fundamental difference between Deism and Theism is that Theism believes God plays a very active role in the scheme of things, while Deism believes God's direct role is very passive. Since Deism denies an active role, all supernatural matters are summarily dismissed, while Theism itself hangs upon the supernatural with every breath. can we then say Deism is a form of Theism? I don't think so.

I believe some people group them together because they are both in opposition of atheism (belief that God does not exist) and various forms of pantheism (belief that God is not a discrete singular being).

Thanks for the input but you are decidedly wrong I think.

The definition of THEISM is NOT and has never been “God plays an active role in the scheme of things.” That is the further belief of specific sets of theists – mostly religious ones.

Theism is defined as belief in God or gods.

As far as that is concerned., then Deism is a sub set of theism.

I think you are trying to narrow theism to only those theists who have personal and religious ideas of God; - that is not a compound definition of theism.

The compound definition is and remains “a belief in God or gods.”

How can a Deist who believes in God be then said to not to belong to the large family of theism?

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Read the foregoing again?

Where does the difference arise - yes - it arises with respect to believing in God's personal intervention.

The definition states that "Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe" . . . . .and it is preposterous to argue that this is not a theistic viewpoint.

This is in fact the prime theistic thought.

Besides note that not all deists even reject the idea of the personal God!

See the words above -

Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs

Given this alone the argument that they are not theists is just a joke.

There are all sorts of Deists. United by the belief in God the Creator. Specific beliefs may vary. There are even so-called Christian-Deists. What would you call those - non-theists? ? ?

Please.

InesQor:

viaro and Deep Sight:

I think the fundamental difference between Deism and Theism is that Theism believes God plays a very active role in the scheme of things, while Deism believes God's direct role is very passive. Since Deism denies an active role, all supernatural matters are summarily dismissed, while Theism itself hangs upon the supernatural with every breath. can we then say Deism is a form of Theism? I don't think so.

I believe some people group them together because they are both in opposition of atheism (belief that God does not exist) and various forms of pantheism (belief that God is not a discrete singular being).

I would vote that piece an absolute 100% - not because I'm looking to score points here; but because even as simple as it is in practical terms, I don't expect DeepSight to get it. And no, he didn't disappoint on that - afterall, his reply shows he has problems with what you have just highlighted. I should thank you again.

Deep Sight:

None of the foregoing is worth my time -

Translation: viaro's piece is too much for DeepSight to handle.

Theism has to do with a belief in God or gods.

Yes, but it does not have anything to do with your own deism running between OOI and singularities collapsing into blackoles.

Deism has to do with a belief in the existence of at least one God who created all things.

I'm particular about your own deism - I said so before, and you should stop waving other people's deism in our face. Please narrow your drama and read your scripts . . . or hurry up to your "driver".

I suppose it missed you that i have pointed out TWICE the fact that both words are actually sourced from the same word - "god"

Sorry, that is a braod appellation. God in theism is not your OOI. Your deism and Christianity did not spring from the same pool! Whatever you want to spew (be it "Source", or "it", or OOI), just be articulate and stop all this mega-drama of appealling to other worldviews on just 'god' as if it is today we know your deism has been stealing from all religions of the world!

One is sourced from the latin for "god" and the other from the greek for "god."

And which one is the "basis" for the other - like you claimed earlier? Dude, please. . . give me your deism - that's all.

What is theism if not a belief in God or gods?

Theism is NOT your deism of OOI.

And what is deism if not a belief in God who created and nothing more?

Which 'God'? Just answer that one - which 'God'? Try rushing to the Bible. . . you don't have a clue what I will do to you summarily. Trust me.

Deism is therefore a subset of Theism - and no amount of grammar in the world can change that fact.

Lie. Informed authors know that deism (especially DeepSight's deism) is NOT a subset of Theism, unless they want to help you confirm that your religion is a rogue philosophy.

unless of course you are willing to claim that Deists do not believe in the existence of God.

Oh, impress yourself! Have you ever stood as a THEIST on this forum? Not that I make any claims thereto - I just want you to please show me, and then I shall wake you up on that. Just please show me.

I hope that such a leap would be beyond even you.

What leap? Did I come here to steal any concept from you on your OOI? Have you ever asked yourself why I could not advance the thread I started about 'singularities' and 'infinities' for your sake? I did it to impress my inlaw, got stuck, and bailed out - because i quickly learnt that there are far too many inconsistencies in that rogue religion that I would be the talk of my village if I dared proceed. Now you're busy talking about 'god' as cosmetics to cover up for your :::::: - you know.

And note that you claimed that Deism does not have even a shadow of THEISM!

I answered that point well. What did you say? I could almost hear your whooping cough in your "None of the foregoing is worth my time" - like you even had anything worthy of consideration in the first place.

Don't write that in your thesis o: you go fail big-time.

Huh?? Hahahaha!!

;d

Deep Sight:

Read the foregoing again?

Where does the difference arise - yes - it arises with respect to believing in God's personal intervention.

No, not only that. What about what InesQor pointed out - it went over your head, no?

The definition states that "Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe" . . . . .and it is preposterous to argue that this is not a theistic viewpoint.

Is the 'god' of deism impersonal or . . .? In whatever philosophical language or religious dressing/camouflage, who is that 'god' of deism. . . your deism?

This is in fact the prime theistic thought.

Thank you - we know what is ours. Focus on yours and let's skin it.

Besides note that not all deists even reject the idea of the personal God!

Did I not say you should talk of your own deism? When in the other thread that brought us here, you mooted the idea of the "essentials of deism", I left you a small note that you can only talk about 'your own' deism, no? Whether other deists are not rejecting a personal God is not your or our worry here: you have had trouble with other believers whose convictions do not dovetail with yours - so speak for yourself and let's hear you.

See the words above -

Given this alone the argument that they are not theists is just a joke.

Have you ever referred to yourself on Nairaland as a theist? I know you were here on NL before me, but please let me know why you have not been maintaining referring to yourself as a THEIST.

There are all sorts of Deists. United by the belief in God the Creator. Specific beliefs may vary. There are even so-called Christian-Deists. What would you call those - non-theists? ? ?

'Christian-deists' - what makes them qualify as "Christian"? Again, an affirmation of the rogue-religion that deism is. What about 'Pantheistic Deism', huh? Again, the 'roguest' of all rogue religions!

Please stop this drama and enjoy your faceless OOI in this thread. You're just a piece of amusement!  When the time comes, viaro will open a thread to skin your deism - this shitty business you have up here is appetizer.

Viaro and Deep Sight are at it again. By my observation, the usual bone of contention is that viaro's viewpoints are absolute and distinctive, while for Deep Sight any un-ignorable nagging aspect throws enough validity on its own claims of relevance. Viaro will not accept the claims of orphan ideas, i.e. not absolutely defined in the parent-idea's terms, but it's like an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight. And so, IMHO, the "wars" continue.

Krayola, thanks for that chart above! I guess it portrays more details on what I was trying to say. I was really at a loss on how to reply Deep Sight.

here we go again. 
deepsight vs . . . . round 120987

davidylan:

here we go again. 
deepsight vs . . . . round 120987

LOL. So you also noticed it across various threads!?

InesQor:

but it's like an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight.[/i].

haha. tbh I think almost any semblance whatsoever will do.

@VIARO: My guy, wetin dey happen?

In defence of Deep Sight, he has truly claimed to be a theist in the past, when communicating with mazaje.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-370932.0.html#msg5183906

I take very serious exception to the above.
What is meant by this?

Are you suggesting to me that Theism necessarily comes together with –

1. Believing in answers given by other people? (I am a theist and very few people can make make this claim about me. . . I grind out my own ideas everyday. . .).

But he also claimed to be a Deist when discussing with Pastor AIO et al
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.160.html#msg5043194

I believe that it is possible to logically infer the existence of God, and some of the attributes of God, but absolutely impossible to grasp the nature of God. I have once described myself as an empirical and intuitive deist.

I do not subscribe to any religion: l believe that conscience is all the religion that a man needs - if his conscience be alive, that is.

Philosophically, i would call myself a Deist. But Deism as a world-View is no creed, and thus much is left to the individual to define for himself.

I have great trouble acceding to claims to the divinity of any human being. This includes Jesus of Nazareth. I regard him as a man only. I believe that Divinity, in its intangible purity: in it's ineffability, cannot be approached or apprehended at all.

So at least I can say he is probably not guilty of deliberate mis-representation. He is only saying things exactly as he sees them.

BUT, I must say that it appears like Deep Sight is still unsure about many of the things he wants us to think he really believes in. He is still a "seeker", if I may use the term, and I don't see what's wrong with accepting that. It would come across better than portraying mixed worldviews.

@Traugott,

Traugott:

@VIARO: My guy, wetin dey happen?

In defence of Deep Sight, he has truly claimed to be a theist in the past, when communicating with mazaje.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-370932.0.html#msg5183906

But he also claimed to be a Deist when discussing with Pastor AIO et al
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.160.html#msg5043194

So at least I can say he is probably not guilty of deliberate mis-representation. He is only saying things exactly as he sees them.

>viaro grumbles< Oooohhhhh nooo!! You should have left DeepSight to answer that question himself! Now you've put me in a tight corner!

Hehehe . . . I was planning to skin this lawyer bro once and for all, and then wrap him up in his pyjamas! Actually, it was a trick-question. . a trap I wanted him to bury himself with! It appears InesQor was prophetic and saw my intention a mile off, and so summarised where I was going.

Indeed, I registered sometime in October of last year; and the links you offered of DeepSight's posts were in December - I saw them; but all through that time I'd been indicating that the time would come when I would examine DeepSight's deism (meaning, those threads were part of what I was saving up for him). Well, the dashed me into the open, so I would give a little as well.

DeepSight may be a seeker, and I have no problem with that. His fundamentalism many times beclouds his judgement, and that causes him a whole lot of problems especially where Christian beliefs are discussed. Reason why I was pushing him to show me where he might've claimed to be a theist was that it would help me bring him round to see why he was just being mischievous with such a claim. As InesQor noted, "an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight", and indeed I absolutely reject that - because if we're not clear here, then we would have to include Shamanism in the same coterie and be satisfied to say that DeepSight's deism also "resembles" shamanism (and I could then call him a shaman).

This dude DeepSight does not know the implication of what he's been arguing - 'resemblance' may well suit him, but his deism is a rogue religion (claiming to be a "theist" at such convenient times when he could scry). I was hoping to skin him on his epistemic logic and show him that his deism is nothing more than a rogue of hylotheism.

Ohhh well. . you just unveiled part of what I planned for him - I guess he has more friends and sympathisers than I'd realised. hehehe

BUT, I must say that it appears like Deep Sight is still unsure about many of the things he wants us to think he really believes in. He is still a "seeker", if I may use the term, and I don't see what's wrong with accepting that. It would come across better than portraying mixed worldviews.

What has he been 'seeking'? Seeking more elements to steal from other religions? I don't have a problem with his intentions to seek out as many things as his philosophical religion allows him to steal (not even borrow) points from other religions. What he should be mindful of is that a 'roguing religionist' ought not to expose his fundamentalism. You don't bite the fingers from which you feed - he's been licking fingers all over the place, and his licking is is beginning to turn to something else! Oooohhh . . . I can't laugh enough!

InesQor:

Viaro and Deep Sight are at it again. By my observation, the usual bone of contention is that viaro's viewpoints are absolute and distinctive, while for Deep Sight any un-ignorable nagging aspect throws enough validity on its own claims of relevance. Viaro will not accept the claims of orphan ideas, i.e. not absolutely defined in the parent-idea's terms, but it's like an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight. And so, IMHO, the "wars" continue.

Krayola, thanks for that chart above! I guess it portrays more details on what I was trying to say. I was really at a loss on how to reply Deep Sight.

You captured it beautifully. When I said in my reply to Traugott that I absolutely reject the idea that "an adequate resemblance of features is enough", I don't mean that I was rejecting what you had stated; rather, I reject DeepSight's ideology that such 'resemblance' was sufficient for his argument.

On the whole, you gave it a good cap - and Krayola's diagram was also invaluable. Thanks to you both.

I nor fit laugh abeg ROTFL

_{speaking in a fake ijesha accent}. mo mi gbadun gbogbo yin
enjoying the thread. thank goodness, he named it "Essentials of My Deism". dont think it's a platform to agree with him or not.
if it's about debating deepsight, nairaland has a sizeable amount of those e.g. deepsight-mavenbox, deepsight-nuclearboy, deepsight-noetic.
let's view this as a peek into the lawyer's diary.
abi?

Viaro/ Inesqor/ Krayola –

I am not impressed by the view you set up regarding a “resemblance” between Diesm and Theism – and you both mischievously proceed to claim that “any resemblance” seems enough for me to hang on to.

This is eminently false and a compound misrepresentation of reality the like of which I have never seen in my life before.

The falsity emerges with your disingenuous attempt to reduce the relationship between the deistic and theistic worldviews to a mere “resemblance” and then “any resemblance. . . ”

This cannot hold: for the simple reason that we do not speak of “any resemblance” but rather of THE CORE resemblance – nay; the core spirit – the founding thought of each of these worldviews.

And as far as that goes, the founding or initial thought; the basis of ALL theism, is that there exists a supreme being who created all things – GOD or that there exist “gods.”

I am still profoundly dumbstruck that ANYBODY, much less your eminent selves, could muster a way to divorce this from Deism – which shares THE SAME founding thought – or basic plank – to wit: that there exists a supreme being who created all things – GOD.

Do I have to repeat for the umpteenth time the fact that both words are in reality THE SAME WORD – as sourced from different languages ? ? ? ?


Language: Greek Latin


Word: Theos (θεός) Deus



English Translation: god god


It thus emerges that the very words “Theist” and “Deist” are virtually the SAME WORD in different languages. And I am astonished that your excellencies could be so contrary as to dare suggest that the one has nothing to do with the other. Especially Viaro, who comically states that Deism does not have “even a shadow” of “Theism.” This is a laughable statement which Viaro should retract if he is an honest person.

Any toddler can see that that is an eminent falsehood.

Deism is thus simply representative of the core idea of theism: namely that there exists God and that God created all that exists.

You can only deny the above rationally if you contend that:

1. The belief in God who created all things is not the core and foundation of theism AND ALSO CONTEND THAT

2. The belief in God who created all things is not the core and foundation of Deism – indeed virtually the only belief of the Deist!

And I positively challenge any of you to dare make either statement above.

The grim truth thus emerges that in accord with mankind’s primitive instincts towards divisiveness, (the “us” vs “them” mentality), you have all comically attempted to distance Theism from Deism simply on account of your fundamentalism, which compels you to wish to dissociate yourselves from others who do not share every iota of your views.

The Deist belief in a creator God who made all things represents the core and most important aspect of theism: indeed it captures the very meaning of the word “theist” primarily as one who believes in God.

So how anyone can say it has “not even a shadow” of Theism – and receive support for that statement, simply shows me that the world is lost.

haha. @ deepsight. My comment had nothing to do with this thread, but other debates we have had in the past.

I would find examples, but digging through threads looking for a few posts seems like mission impossible right now. But reading this thread over shows that I took InesQor's post out of context, and my post may have been misunderstood because I didn't mean it in the same sense that he did.

Krayola:

;d

I must point out two things regarding the chart posted by Krayola.

1 - I do not know FROM WHERE the authours got the details of Deist belief posted there because beyond the existence of God and the fact that he created all things and such can be observed within nature - all the rest written there are assumptions because each deist may have different views on such. This is the exact same way that all the many different theists in the world have different views on all those issues posted in the chart. It is FALSE to suggest as the chart does that all theists or all deists believe the same things.

2 - At all events looking at the 11 beliefs set out, between the Deist and Theist Columns EIGHT are SIMILAR whilst ONLY THREE are materially different. And of course the eight simlar includes the core belief in God.

So how Viaro could have looked at that chart so superficially and reached the conclusion that it supports his comical view that "there is not even a shadow" of similarity between Theism and Deism is beyond me.

Deep Sight:

Viaro/ Inesqor/ Krayola –

I am not impressed by the view you set up regarding a “resemblance” between Diesm and Theism – and you both mischievously proceed to claim that “any resemblance” seems enough for me to hang on to.

DeepSight pal, I'm still giggling without any undertones of mischief. I'd rather leave you for now to carry on and enjoy yourself in your thread. Even though I could smart you up for your inconsistencies, I'd rather that friends should not be known only for screeches here and there - there are times when the neighbourhood should enjoy a reprieve from our noise pollution, dig?

So pal, nothing for now - just enjoy (my e-jailor is in town!).

I fetched this quote from another thread - Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!

viaro:

@thehomer,

I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Now this hammers home my point in absolute terms.

You have been exposed, Viaro for you explicitly stated:Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

So why have you been trying to draw lines between Deism and Theism? What is the core claim of Deism if not that God exists?

After this can you continue to claim that Deism "is not even a shadow" of Theism? ? ?

Now this quote has made it clear who has been arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I wonder how you get away with this and nuclearboy will crucify me for lesser crimes?

@DeepSight,

You should heed my advice - this Board needs to rest from our noise pollution. You're not making any sense, and you should not push your luck. I just want to clear something up for you (if there's anything I detest, it is someone misrepresenting people by misquoting them - and that's what I see here).

Deep Sight:

I fetched this quote from another thread - Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!

viaro link=topic=402069.msg5591090#msg5591090 date=1267202032:

@thehomer,

I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Now this hammers home my point in absolute terms.

You have been exposed, Viaro for you explicitly stated:Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

So why have you been trying to draw lines between Deism and Theism? What is the core claim of Deism if not that God exists?

Please look again and don't put words in my mouth: I was careful in my reply to thehomer in the other thread, as you quoted above showing two things:

     _  Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God

     _  Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Notice that in that particular reply which you quoted, I did not claim that theism is a worldview with a CORE claim that God exists. That is to say, in that reply I did not place "God exists" as the core claim of theism. Central to the theistic worldview is not the issue of whether or not 'God exists' - for any number of belief systems makes that claim as well without necessarily implying theism.

Please next time, smash your head against a wall for all I care - but whatever you do, don't try to misrepresent me in my quotes. I would be grateful if you played the gentleman and not suffer yourself any further to be at the receiving end of my whip.

After this can you continue to claim that Deism "is not even a shadow" of Theism? ? ?

Yes - if you are thirsty again for my expatiation, let me know: and then be willing to discussing the epistemic logic of your deism and let's see what remains of it by the time we've gone just a quarter of the way.

Now this quote has made it clear who has been arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Isn't it obvious it's you? Must you push yourself to misrepresent your discussants' quotes?

I wonder how you get away with this and nuclearboy will crucify me for lesser crimes?

Please leave my e-jailor out of this! I might apply again to tear you up and leave you more miserable than previously. He sees what he sees, and I'm content with that. Cheers.

LOL You guys should let it rest joo

The chart posted by Krayola has Voltaire as a good representative of deists.  Does Deep Sight share the same view with him, and do they serve the same god?

^^ hehehe. . . he's more concerned with the "core" of deism - so any 'resemblance' is quite sufficient for him.

The chart is just a general description. There are grey areas when dealing with most cultural phenomena. Like deepsight mentioned people generally believe different things, so rigid categories are usually, at least to some extent, distorting the reality of the matter.

For example some can argue, with very good reason, that buddhism and hinduism are not polytheistic, or that buddhists don't even have any idea of God at all. SO please that chart is just like a quick reference. These types of things are almost always debatable.

@Krayola,

Seriously speaking, are you telling me that Voltaire was truly a Deist, and if so does Deep Sight share any of his views?

viaro:


Notice that in that particular reply which you quoted, I did not claim that theism is a worldview with a CORE claim that God exists.

Viaro - would you like to tell me what the core claim of Theism is?

Or even what the very word - "Theism" signifies?

Please!

Deep Sight:

Viaro - would you like to tell me what the core claim of Theism is?

Or even what the very word - "Theism" signifies?

Please!

1. I did not assert "God exists" as the 'core claim' of theism - it is one of the claims of theism; but it is not the core of theistic claims that defines its place among worldviews in the grand scheme of things. Hence, trying to put words in my mouth as you did initially was quite a silly drama on your part.

2. One reason why mere mention of 'God exists' does not serve as the core of the claims of any worldview is because that is simply arbitrary. 'Spinoza's God', for instance, assumes a position of 'God exists', but we all know that Spinozism is not Theism in just the same way as that Deism is not Theism.

3. For me, the core feature of any worldview is what it is predicated upon. An example appears in that chart proffered by Krayola, and it is rather the "basis of ethics" that is at the heart of a worldview. Hence, the basis of ethics in Theism is that it is "grounded in God", while that of Deism is "grounded in nature" - big difference.

So, please stop waving your mascara arguments for your deism - they are quite an entertaining farce and plastic deep shit.

I wish deists could learn from the experience of Voltaire before they embark on the same journey he made.  The article below teaches us that we cannot wish the Word of God away.

Daily Manna

God's Word forever Endures
Saturday, February 27, 2010

TEXT: JEREMIAH 36:20-32

"Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned" (Jeremiah 36:28).

Men of exalted position and of low estate alike are wont to be ignorant, sometimes.  This ignorance often leads them to assume rather wrongly that only what their minds can conceive are the realities.  They become disinclined to the truths they don’t want to hear, especially those that expose their shortcomings.  They also erroneously think what they hate must be bad and what they like must be good.  And they sometimes go extra mile to keep the truth from being told.  How wrong they are!

A man who was reputed to have wished, and even predicted that the Bible was going to be out of circulation sometimes, would have been shocked, had he lived much longer, to see that the same Bible was being printed in the house he built!  King Jehoiakim was so intolerant of God’s word as to instruct the burning of God’s message, oblivious of the fact that the Author of the message can reproduce it verbatim, even adding more that would (more specifically) speak to him as an individual.  He thought that, as king, his own opinion must be supreme, and was clearly unaware that "holy men of God spake (or wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1: 20, 21).                         

Those who despise the word of God, will soon discover that they cannot successfully fight Him. Heaven and earth may pass away, God’s Word will forever remain.  Our profit today lies in believing and obeying the Word.
Thought for today: It is futile to wish God’s word out of existence.

viaro:

1. I did not assert "God exists" as the 'core claim' of theism - it is one of the claims of theism; but it is not the core of theistic claims that defines its place among worldviews in the grand scheme of things.

It is quite amazing the extent to which you will go to defend a statement that at best can be considered incongruous and at worst something else entirely!

Now you are SO BOLD as to confidently assert in public that the claim that God exists is not the core claim of the theist.

Amazing.

Laughable in the extreme, son.

Did you miss the meaning of the word “Theist?”

Greek: Theos – meaning “God”

That is thus unquestionably the core and basis of what it means to be “Theist.”

Viaro, is it so hard to admit that you have got it wrong? You are only human you know.

Oxford’s Advanced Learners Dictionary : “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: belief in the existence of God or gods.

Perhaps if you were on the Oxford Team compiling that dictionary you would have insisted that what should be there as the definition of Theism is: “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics”

What a laugh.

YOU KNOW that that is definitely wrong in grammatical, theological and scholarly terms. You cannot insist any further that the existence of God is not the core claim of Theism – otherwise in the quote I dusted out from the other thread why did YOU not define Theism in terms of what YOU now claim its core claim is – why did you not define it as “the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics” ? ? ? ? ?

Instead you dovetailed with Oxford in stating the obvious: namely that the claim of the Theist is that God exists.

The truth is that if we are to begin to use Ethics as the core basis of theism: then theism will not exist AT ALL: because every theist has his own different perception of Ethics in terms of God!

Indeed we will shortly arrive at the time when you will on this very ground claim that a Muslim is not a theist: given that he has a different idea of God than you do; and a different idea of Ethics!

Answer me this:

What makes a Muslim a theist? –

1. The fact that he believes in God the Creator OR –

2. The fact that his ethics are based on God?

It is impossible for you to claim No 2- because the ethics of the Muslim are different to yours – just as the ethics of each person and group differ – based on their ideas of God.

At all events all this explanation is sorely unnecessary: only YOU would so bizarre as to require it: for the very etymology of the word “Theism” is more than sufficient to prove that the core of Theism is belief in the existence of God or gods.

I can scarcely believe that I am entertaining this at all. Especially this from a person who calls ME illiterate at the drop of a hat! I am sorely tempted to describe you; but I will keep to my commitment not to descend to the puerile insults that you fling my way everyday.

P.S: I notice you have shied away from repeating that Deism is “not even a shadow” of Theism. Embarrassed? Or do you stick to that? Say it again? Did you see the chart? EIGHT SIMILARITIES OUT OF ELEVEN.

And in the differences we can only pick out things like perceptions about evil and the end-time!

Do you realize that even amongst Christian denominations such, and even greater differences of views exist? ? ? Would you therefore conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance are not Theists? ? ?

You talk about the Diest’s ethics being based on nature. How many times did Jesus himself use parables and analogies from nature to expound ethics? Does this perhaps mean that Jesus was not a Theist? ? ?

Joker.

Deep Sight:

It is quite amazing the extent to which you will go to defend a statement that at best can be considered incongruous and at worst something else entirely!

Now you are SO BOLD as to confidently assert in public that the claim that God exists is not the core claim of the theist.

I did not make any such assertions. Please quote me precisely for what I stated, rather than what you might have thought you saw in my quote which yet is not there! How you stand to keep lying in public is quite beyond me.

This was what you said:
"Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!"

This was what I had said which you also quoted:
"Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists"

I'm sure you already know there is a difference between "a claim" and "the core claim" in something? In no place did I make 'God exists' the CORE of all claims in theism; and to maintain that I did so and yet not show one line where I have done so in that quote is tantamount to . . . oh well, you lie as easily as you breathe anyways.

Amazing.

Yes, let's celebrate how easily you maintain your amazing lying career. Toast.

Laughable in the extreme, son.

Yes padre, you're right - that duplicityof yours is the halmark of your deep shit in this thread!

Did you miss the meaning of the word “Theist?”

Greek: Theos – meaning “God”

That is thus unquestionably the core and basis of what it means to be “Theist.”

So just mention the word 'God' and viola! you have the "core" claim of THEISM, yes? Get off your pipes, man. . . you've been smoking what's not in the books!

School up: it is not just "theos" or "theist" we're talking about now, is it? FYI, my focus has been the worldview itself, thus the '-ism' of either worldviews. For me, THEISM has several claims; but central to the worldview known as THE[b]ISM[/b] is that its basis of ethics is "grounded in God". On the other hand, what makes the '-ism' in de[b]ism[/b] is just about the same thing: its basis of ethics is "grounded in nature" - big difference, dude.

It is not just the mention of the word 'God' that settles everything. This is why you make yourself such a laugh in this thread because any resemblance is sufficient for your rogue religion.

Viaro, is it so hard to admit that you have got it wrong? You are only human you know.

My humanity will not admit to your {:::::::} of asserting something on my behalf that I never did.

Oxford’s Advanced Learners Dictionary : “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: belief in the existence of God or gods.

Perhaps if you were on the Oxford Team compiling that dictionary you would have insisted that what should be there as the definition of Theism is: “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics”

Haha, amico. . . viaro is not that gullible. You pick up just one definition that suits you, and I have no problem with that. However, that simplistic definition is not all that other resources tell is in their definition. Let me give you a few:

[list]from Philosophical Dictionary online:

theism
Belief in the existence of god as a perfect being deserving of worship.

deism
Belief in god based entirely on reason, without any reference to faith, revelation, or institutional religion.[/list]

[list]_____________[/list]

[list]Online Merriam-Webster[/list]

[list]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[/list]

[list]_____________[/list]

[list]from the [url=http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,theism]American Dictionary of the English Language[/url]:

THE'ISM, n. [from Gr. God.]
The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism. Theism differs from deism, for although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet it signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation, which theism does not.[/list]

Does the last cited equate theism to deism? BTW, viaro was not on the committe of the American Dictionary of the English Language, you know?

YOU KNOW that that is definitely wrong in grammatical, theological and scholarly terms. You cannot insist any further that the existence of God is not the core claim of Theism – otherwise in the quote I dusted out from the other thread why did YOU not define Theism in terms of what YOU now claim its core claim is – why did you not define it as “the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics” ? ? ? ? ?

I did not do so because it would be absurd for you to try t twist my precise quote. Informed sources will tell you Theism differs from Deism - and they give the reason why that is so. You're just floundering here and polluting your thread with noise.

Instead you dovetailed with Oxford in stating the obvious: namely that the claim of the Theist is that God exists.

Please kindly keep your hilarity to yourself. Did you read Oxford saying that the core claim of Theism is 'God exist'? Where did you read the word "core" in that Oxford citation you gave? Your drama of putting words into other people's mouth is why your defence for your deism never takes off from the ground. I warned you to just forget that viaro is here, so you can further enjoy fooling yourself in this deep shit you're waving here - but since you're fed up stinking alone in your cesspool, I might as well clean you up a little.

The truth is that if we are to begin to use Ethics as the core basis of theism: then theism will not exist AT ALL: because every theist has his own different perception of Ethics in terms of God!

You wish!

Dude, just go out in the street and keep hooting 'God exist' and claim that the the "core" of your rogue religion. That is how hollow you can be - because one way or the other, such acclamations have no bearing in your life and it is all sounding brass and empty gong, no?

@DeepSight,

Indeed we will shortly arrive at the time when you will on this very ground claim that a Muslim is not a theist: given that he has a different idea of God than you do; and a different idea of Ethics!

A Muslim is a theist who basis his/her ethics on GOD (whom they call 'Allah') rather than on nature as in the case of deism.

Answer me this:

What makes a Muslim a theist? –

1. The fact that he believes in God the Creator OR –

2. The fact that his ethics are based on God?

I just answered above. If you want to become the first Muslim-Deist, you can write your own koran in the blue sky and whistle on the backs of Thomas Paine and Voltaire, wait for OOI to throw an infinity of minarets from the blackhole - and viola! your faceless OOI will reward you with an infinity of virgins!

It is impossible for you to claim No 2- because the ethics of the Muslim are different to yours – just as the ethics of each person and group differ – based on their ideas of God.

It is possible to see that the difference is in what either of these wolrdviews are basis their ethics - one (Theism) has its ethics grounded on GOD; while the other (Deism) has its ethics grounded on nature. Instead of sobbing like a deistic town-crier, please show me how you can controvert that plain fact already pointed to. If I were the one who posted that chart by Krayola, you would have destroyed your entire street, no?

At all events all this explanation is sorely unnecessary: only YOU would so bizarre as to require it: for the very etymology of the word “Theism” is more than sufficient to prove that the core of Theism is belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, that is not the core of theism - one might then as well be saying that Spinozism is also deism, no?

I can scarcely believe that I am entertaining this at all. Especially this from a person who calls ME illiterate at the drop of a hat! I am sorely tempted to describe you; but I will keep to my commitment not to descend to the puerile insults that you fling my way everyday.

Yawwn!! Did you have any hats to drop??   Dude, a 'name' is not the same thing as an '-ism', nor does etymology defines a worldview.

P.S: I notice you have shied away from repeating that Deism is “not even a shadow” of Theism. Embarrassed? Or do you stick to that? Say it again? Did you see the chart? EIGHT SIMILARITIES OUT OF ELEVEN.

I didn't shy away from saying that, since I do not like to repeat myself. I noticed when I first stated it so and defended it, you almost called an ambulance - so my dear friend, I care that much for you and don't want to see your end at Nairaland so soon!

And in the differences we can only pick out things like perceptions about evil and the end-time!

I cautioned that you speak only in terms of your deism - that way, you can dribble conveniently between any pre-processed OOI, singularities, mathematical suicidal procedures, or whatever roguish adventures you have up your sleeves. The moment you try to pull the prabk of being such a :::::::, viaro will be here to smart you up.

Do you realize that even amongst Christian denominations such, and even greater differences of views exist? ? ? Would you therefore conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance are not Theists? ? ?

Please dream up better fallacies to appeal to. At least the Jehovah Witnesses are not worshipping nature. We also know that there are as many systems in deism that you guys are no longer sure where to steal from again - so you head off to "Satanic Deism". Lucifer must be proud of you guys!

You talk about the Diest’s ethics being based on nature. How many times did Jesus himself use parables and analogies from nature to expound ethics? Does this perhaps mean that Jesus was not a Theist? ? ?

Hahahaha!! Dude, if ever Jesus was a deist by any stretch, where did He ever base His teachings on any semblance of the desitic rejected of REVELATION? or of MIRACLES? Are you advertising your rogue religion to steal that one and add to your dead OOI?