…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them? — Michael Ossipoff

I didn't speculate on their motives, only reported their actions.

…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined — Michael Ossipoff

Again with this? Show me where I claimed that theist beliefs are all undefined. I claimed that it is a reasonable conclusion (among other equally reasonable conclusions) that to believe in something that is undefined is not sensible. I've made no claims at all about whether each and every theist's belief is or is not undefined.

Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them. — Michael Ossipoff

Show me where I have not admitted that my conclusions are drawn from a limited source.

Yes, and it’s common. It’s called bigotry. — Michael Ossipoff

No, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." it has nothing to do with drawing conclusions based on a person's experience so far. I have not advocated intolerance on the basis that someone's belief is different to mine, not ever.

Drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve heard about.
.
Well, but what other Atheist activity is there? — Michael Ossipoff

Unbelievable. Literally in the same couplet you criticise the conflation of 'all theists' and then immediately make a presumption about 'all atheists' do you even know what hypocrisy means?

It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy. — Michael Ossipoff

It's easy to simply state an analogy is sloppy and irrelevant without actually presenting an argument as to why... apparently.

I was responding to a different argument by you and arguing that alternative causal explanations would count as evidence against gods.
Every time you discovered a parent had taken a tooth from under a pillow that would be evidence that a tooth fairy was not involved there.

However white swans were not evidence against black swans but they were taken to be..... It was a misinterpretation of evidence. It is actually easier to find evidence against a notion of God (ironically?). I think philosophers who invoke science against God are using a smoke screen as if everything counts as evidence for their perspective but without an explicit argument so that it is more liking using white swans as counter evidence..

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable. By causally here I am referring to the deist conception of gods which translates more as a cause, an intelligence, a motive, a reason, law giver and so on.

Personally I don'think the scientific paradigm is adequate to answer every question. It is this rather than the god issue, I am attacking. I also want a world that is more based on uncertainty rather than dogmatism and where uncertainty is acknowledged. — Andrew4Handel

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god. If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind. Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

What would evidence of god look like?

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. — Harry Hindu

I am not making a commitment about the method of science I am attacking the notion that it is the only explanatory framework and that problems will all eventually be solved.I don't agree with your characterisation of science. It may attempt to explain things but it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity or causal closure.

Philosophy is not asking questions about things that have already been solved. Again you seem to be basing your paradigm around the successes of science which is like only focusing on white swans to draw conclusions about black swans.
I feel you are just ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of what I said. I have been explicit that the problems which may invoke gods are explanatory gaps and unsolved problems.

I think something like consciousness should be explained in its own terms and not explained in a way to preserve physicalist or scientific claims. I am attacking people who assuming the nature that an explanation will take before a solution is in sight.

I am not advocating any god based explanations but atheism has gone beyond mere disbelief in gods to favouring fairly rigid metaphysical paradigms.

I think science definitely imposes assumptions on evidence because that is unavoidable. We would not need science if the evidence spoke for it self.

I am not making a commitment about the method of science I am attacking the notion that it is the only explanatory framework and that problems will all eventually be solved.I don't agree with your characterisation of science. It may attempt to explain things but it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity or causal closure. — Andrew4Handel

What would another explanatory framework look like if reason and logic aren't the only one's to get at the truth?

Philosophy is not asking questions about things that have already been solved. Again you seem to be basing your paradigm around the successes of science which is like only focusing on white swans to draw conclusions about black swans.
I feel you are just ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of what I said. I have been explicit that the problems which may invoke gods are explanatory gaps and unsolved problems. — Andrew4Handel

Then you don't know philosophy. Philosophy tends to especially question our deepest held solutions.

I think science definitely imposes assumptions on evidence because that is unavoidable. We would not need science if the evidence spoke for it self. — Andrew4Handel

That is what science does, but you just said that it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity.

Again, what would evidence of god look like? Stop avoiding the questions.

I’d said:
.

…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?

.
You said:
.

I didn't speculate on their motives, only reported their actions.

.
Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.
.
I’d said:
.

…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined

.
You replied:
.

. I claimed that it is a reasonable conclusion (among other equally reasonable conclusions) that to believe in something that is undefined is not sensible.

.
So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable. :D
.
But let me guess: You didn’t mean that either :D
.
Either that, or you have a strong belief in the all-encompassing applicability of language and description to all of Reality.
.
But I agree that anyone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
There are Theists who don’t assert to you, and so it’s unsurprising if they don’t define for you either.
.
The fact that a meaning isn’t defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined.
.
As I said, someone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
That’s what’s missing from the assertions of typical loud pseudoscientists: a consistent definition of what Theism or what Theists they’re referring to.
.
Such pseudoscientists (but not you, of course) typically quote the anthropomorphic allegory of the more dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, and attribute it to all Theists.
.
By the way, those dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, the ones who go door-to-door, amply define their God and their religion. They define it at great length. Speaking for myself, I don’t agree with their denominational doctrine..
.
If you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying, then I don’t know what your point was, in saying those things that none of us disagree on. But, if we don’t disagree, that’s fine too.
.
…but I don’t agree what’s undefinable (and therefore undefined) is somehow “un-sensible”. But there are Theists who don’t assert un-definable things.
.

I've made no claims at all about whether each and every theist's belief is or is not undefined.

.
Then your remark about the sensibleness of what’s undefined has no relevance to or bearing on the discussion that you joined. As for sensibleness and definedness, see above.
.
I’d said:
.

Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

.
You replied:
.

Show me where I have not admitted that my conclusions are drawn from a limited source.

.
But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.
.
Alright, you’ll say you didn’t. The assertive Theists define their beliefs to you at length. The ones who don’t, don’t assert to you either.
.
But now you say you weren’t referring to them, and so it’s anyone’s guess what you were talking about with your comments.
.

No, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." it has nothing to do with drawing conclusions based on a person's experience so far.

.
Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.
.
…drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve actually heard from or about.
.
I’d said:
.

Well, but what other Atheist activity is there?

.
You replied:
.

Unbelievable. Literally in the same couplet you criticise the conflation of 'all theists' and then immediately make a presumption about 'all atheists' do you even know what hypocrisy means?

.
I didn’t say that Atheists don’t do anything else, but not everything that they do is a specifically Atheist activity.
.
Well, what else would constitute a specifically Atheist activity? Alright, there could be discussion and activities dealing with discrimination, if there still is any. There could be weekend potlucks. So yes, there could be non-aggressive specifically Atheist activities. But evidently there must not be enough anti-Atheist discrimination to provide enough activities (admittedly that's speculation), because it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.
.
How often do Theists start forum discussions by evaluating the judgment of, or proclaiming the wrongness of, what Atheists believe or don’t believe?
.
When I was an Atheist (I was raised Atheist), I often argued with Theists (as is usual, they were always people who believed anthropomorphic allegorical Theism, usually outright Biblical-Literalism), usually with me starting the argument. It was always amicable though, and I didn’t express any evaluative criticism of the Theists that I argued with. That rudeness would have been inconceivable for me. That’s the difference between me, when I was Atheist, and the aggressive loud pseudoscientists that I’m referring to, and talking to here.
.
Even when no longer Atheist, I continued talking to door-to-door denominational-promoters for a while, until I got tired of their arrogance and rudeness, and their unwillingness to have an open discussion.
.
I’d said:
.

It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.

.
You replied:
.

It's easy to simply state an analogy is sloppy and irrelevant without actually presenting an argument as to why... apparently.

.
As I said:
.
1. It’s well-established that all tigers are carnivores. Large mammalian carnivores typically eat mammals that are smaller than they are. Humans are smaller (in weight) than tigers, and are sometimes eaten by them. In that regard, tigers are less diverse than Theists, and are better known than non-asserting Theists are to Atheists.
.
2. Though tigers, sharks and alligators don’t always prey on humans, the mere fact that tigers, alligators, and some species of sharks might, necessitates the precaution of avoiding them all. We therefore avoid tigers, alligators and sharks, even without saying that they all always prey on humans.
.
But loud pseudoscientists habitually assert, without qualification or justification, about the beliefs of Theists in general. …without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.
.
Maybe there was a time when Theists were more often the aggressors in the Theist/Atheist criticisms, but now it’s more usual for Theists to mind their own business, and for aggressive Atheists to be the ones who are on the attack.
.
There are notable exceptions, like the rude door-to-door dogmatic denominational-promoters.
.
Sure, in earlier history (and even sometimes currently, but rarely in this country), Atheists have endured physical persecution by dogmatic Theists, and that was wrong. But, even during those persecutory historical periods, the main victims of dogmatic persecutory Theists were other Theists of different denominations.
.
For example, the Inquisition was directed at minority denominations, and falsely-accused alleged witches or Satanists, rather than Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god. — Harry Hindu

No, because genuine science limits itself to the study and description of the physical world, the relations and interactions among the components of the physical world.

To want to apply science to matters of religion or metaphysics shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

...and amounts to practicing pseudoscience.

If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind.

Incorrect. Genuine science says nothing about God, one way or the other. See above.

Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis

No, it isn't. Nor should it be, because the "idea of God" is quite outside the legitimate range of applicability and area of study of science. See above. Science is the study and description of this physical world, and the relations and interactions among its physical components.

God isn't a science issue.

Harry is espousing the religion of Science-Worship.

Science-Worship isn't science. It's pseudoscience.

, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

Science doesn't need evidence regarding issues or questions that aren't in its legitimate range of applicability.

What would evidence of god look like?

That would be an excellent question to ask someone who is asserting God to you. Is anyone here asserting God to Harry?

Maybe Harry would like to ask that question of a promotional Theist who asserts his religion to Harry.

There certainly are such promotional Theists, and it wouldn't be difficult to find one. Harry's could get an answer if he'd take his question to the right people.

Michael Ossipoff

What would another explanatory framework look like if reason and logic aren't the only one's to get at the truth? — Harry Hindu

I don't know how we have gone from discussing science to the topic of reason and logic. Reason and logic do not rely on an external object. Science intends on explaining the nature of existing empirical phenomena.

You claimed

Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. — Harry Hindu

I am not sure if you have changed your mind on this but anyhow reasons and logic are extra assumptions on top of evidence.
The assumption that entities respond to logic and reason is a metaphysical position that science doesn't have to make. If science does make metaphysical assumptions then these can be philosophically challenged. You seem to be diluting and expanding the meaning of science which is a common tactic so that people can claim things are part of science and give science credit for them when that assumption is questionable.

Then you don't know philosophy. Philosophy tends to especially question our deepest held solutions. — Harry Hindu

I don't see any evidence that philosophy disputes the majority of factual type claims made by science. If it does criticise aspects of an established theory it will be attacking conceptual ideas or what may be considered unwarranted assumptions.
But the issues that I have been discussing as attached to the God hypothesis are not areas in which philosophy is competing with science But some philosophers are claiming the ground for science prematurely or for the physicalist/materialist metaphysics.

Again, what would evidence of god look like? Stop avoiding the questions. — Harry Hindu

I have already answered this. I said things like sentience, intelligence, creation and design as found in humans are possible indirect evidence for the god hypothesis.

I have also been saying gods are being ruled out based on a limited paradigm of the physical sciences which are not appropriate means for finding evidence of meaning, design and sentience etc.

I am agnostic because I don't think you can disprove God's existence and as I have said a few times now I think the best evidence against God would be a causally complete picture of everything in reality.
The problem is that it is easy to give the impression that the natural sciences have triumphed and that there are no explanatory or conceptual gaps. But things like consciousness causality, first cause, infinite regress, cognitive features like qualia, semantics and metal representation in general form substantial explanatory gaps.

I am not interested in defending the existence of gods but rather attacking the default atheist materialism assumption.

Science-Worship isn't science. It's pseudoscience. — Michael Ossipoff

I think a pseudo science can get an air of credibility by frequently citing the successes of science per se.

It seems that a dubious scientific idea or weak claim is more easily masked when it is permitted under the aegis of respectable scientific speculation.

Examples might be Multiverse, string theory, personality science, Evolutionary psychology and others.

Genuine science says nothing about God — Michael Ossipoff

I agree with this to an extent. Science does not appear to be asking the question of whether gods exist or not.
This relates to what I have been saying about how finding more and more white swans compounded the belief black swans were implausible. It was a mistaken interpretation of evidence.

Some theists see complex cell structures and intricate chemical reactions as evidence of a god.

Before I heard of blacks swans I never imagined they existed and was surprised to find out about them. It is hard to imagine how you might discover something new like this through reasoning through your current knowledge.

My verdict on dishonest philosophy is this, that to constitute being philosophy in the first place one`s contribution must be genuine. I consider this to be the total answer, and obviously, the more condensed an answer is the more punch it carries, short being functionally clever,or at least it would do in a godless environment, one not locked door institution led..

Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections. — Michael Ossipoff

Show me. Either quote me the passage from my posts that offered an explanation for their actions or stop making convenient straw men because you've nothing else to say on the matter.

So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable — Michael Ossipoff

If you read my sentence with any honesty you will see it clearly states that it is reasonable to argue that believing in something un-defined is not sensible. I have made no claims whatsoever about the set 'all that is sensible'. The set I'm making claims about is 'all that is believed'. You really need to learn how to parse object-subject distinctions in normal sentences.

But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people. — Michael Ossipoff

So when stepping out in front of a moving train, you wouldn't get out of the way because your conclusion about what will happen next is only drawn from a limited source, after all, the proportion of the trains you've seen is tiny compared to the group of 'all trains'?

Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry. — Michael Ossipoff

No it is not. That's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of 'Bigotry', so that you can stop misusing the word.

it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge. — Michael Ossipoff

And again, it's OK for you to make generalisations about atheists based on the ones you've experienced, but not for me to draw conclusions about theists based on exactly the same metric. I can't believe the level of hypocrisy.

without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers. — Michael Ossipoff

No, they think there is a necessity, you just don't agree with them. Most atheists that I have heard the arguments of think Theism is harmful because of the rejection of critical thinking that goes along with it. You may not agree, but it's disingenuous suggest they don't have a reason.

I have no objection to theistic metaphysics, it is an entirely reasonable option. What I do object to is the deception that the possibility of such metaphysics somehow justifies a particular religion, and the suggestion that atheists have no right to act on their sincere feelings that certain theistic beliefs could cause harm.

I don't know how we have gone from discussing science to the topic of reason and logic. Reason and logic do not rely on an external object. Science intends on explaining the nature of existing empirical phenomena. — Andrew4Handel

Nonsense. What form does your reason and logic take? How do you know that you're being reasonable and logical? Science isn't only about being empirical. It is a blend of empiricism and rationalism. I don't understand why there would be two camps of empiricists and rationalists because they both work together and are necessary for the acquisition of knowledge.

You seem to be diluting and expanding the meaning of science which is a common tactic so that people can claim things are part of science and give science credit for them when that assumption is questionable. — Andrew4Handel

No, I'm trying to get at what alternatives there are to science that lead us to truth as well as science has. You seem to think there is a better way, but haven't said what that way was, or explained how it might look.

I have already answered this. I said things like sentience, intelligence, creation and design as found in humans are possible indirect evidence for the god hypothesis. — Andrew4Handel

This is like saying that the design found in the weather or diseases is indirect evidence of god, when we already have better explanations that don't impose more than what the data informs us of. We have the theory of natural selection which is a better explanation than "God did it." It doesn't impose anything more on the data other than assembling it into a logical, consistent manner to produce information about how we came to be. Why would science be just as good an explanation as religion if they both don't seek truth in the same way? Is "god" a scientist? Is "god" an alien? How does god create, and why? By imposing the God answer on everything, you still have to answer how god has a causal effect on the rest of nature, and by doing so, so you'd be providing a scientific explanation.

Science isn't only about being empirical — Harry Hindu

I don't see how you could do science without objects of the senses and I don't see what the point of science would be with no objects to explain.

I don't see how reason and logic lead to science especially when there are no objects concerned.

At the same time I see no reason why logic would lead to the entities science finds.

What is logical about a gene or atom (and its quantum properties) ? And what is logical about unexplained entities like consciousness?

I'm trying to get at what alternatives there are to science that lead us to truth as well as science has. — Harry Hindu

Unfortunately you have unjustifiable claimed reason and logic equal science. Reason and logic maybe applied in the sciences but that does not make them scientific. They are also not clearly physical but conceptual.

Once again we are not focusing on things that science hasn't explained. It is not clear that science can explain mental states ( partly because of their private subjective nature) or morality or political claims etc.

It is dishonest in my opinion to ask me for an alternative paradigm because I can legitimately question a claim without needing to produce a counter claim.

This tactic can be used by theist as well where they say if you can't explain X then that supports their claim.

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer.

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer. — celebritydiscodave

Tell us your perfect answer.

Anyway, with any metaphysical proposal, there are numerous questions and objections, from various people, to be answered. Your 3-line perfect answer won't do.

But you want a 3-line answer?

1. There inevitably are complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-thens about hypotheticals.

2. Inevitably, one of those has the events and relations of your experience.

3. There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.


Michael Ossipoff:

Make your mind up, first you ask me for the answer, easy enough, then you tell me that the answer, so the actual answer, that this is not of value in its own right.. That which is/the actual genuine answer owes no explanation beyond a normal healthy level of intellect to realize when clearly, and I do stress clearly, placed before one, it is a job done in itself. For every argument there exists a counter one, but meanwhile that which actually is, so the correct answer, does quite independently of argument exist. Philosophical affirmations, the correct ones, so let`s call them affirmations in philosophy then, have far more than no value, and once in print acknowledgment tends to run close behind. For philosophy to be of value answers must be clear, so brief. .

There is no duty of lengthy explanation, for that which is has not got built into it any requirement for further explanation, it stands alone.. In any event, the production of the answer, that which actually is, takes some considerable effort, come good instinct, but realizing it as correct when put before one for the first time often takes no more effort than that said same effort concerned of waking up. Most that study philosophy are quickly programmed into this institutionalized misconception that the more long winded an explanation is the better job that it does.. It does on every day practical levels of course, it`s creating jobs, paying mortgages, and providing degrees Like any institution though it can only be influenced from the inside, and never mind even should the answers exist elsewhere.

I’d said:
.

Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.

.
You replied:
.

Show me. Either quote me the passage from my posts that offered an explanation for their actions…

.
Alright. You’d said:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle.

.
That’s your interpretation, explanation, of the objections that you’ve heard from Theists—their objections to the common speculations of Atheists , regarding others’ beliefs.
.
Your “fragile construct” is a construct in your mind. You presume to know what others believe, and that’s what the objection is about
.
“Fly off the handle” translates to “express an objection”.
.
I’d said:
.

So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable

You replied:

If you read my sentence with any honesty you will see it clearly states that it is reasonable to argue that believing in something un-defined is not sensible.

.
What a coincidence. That’s what I thought you said.
.
If it is reasonable to argue that it is not sensible to believe in something that is un-defined, then it must be reasonable to argue that all that is sensible to believe in is definable and defined.
.

I have made no claims whatsoever about the set 'all that is sensible'.

.
See above.
.

The set I'm making claims about is 'all that is believed'. You really need to learn how to parse object-subject distinctions in normal sentences.

.
Only a mind-reader could “parse” or interpret your sloppiness.
.
Two separate things:
.
1. You’re saying it’s reasonable to argue that only what is defined is reasonable to believe in.
.
You’re thereby expressing a belief that it’s reasonable to argue that language, words, description apply to, cover, describe all of Reality.
.
That’s a typical thing to be said by a pseudoscientist of the Science-Worshipper variety.
.
2, You presumptuously believe that whatever hasn’t been defined to you must be undefined.
.
Anyone asserting their religion to you has a responsibility to define it for you. There are many Theists who don’t assert to you, and therefore haven’t defined to you, and have no reason to.
.
You don’t know anything about them or what they “believe”.
.
Because assertions need definitions, I merely point out that the loud pseudoscientists are spouting assertions without definitions (of the Theists or Theisms they're referring to when they make their their blanket assertions).
.

But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.

.
You replied:
.

So when stepping out in front of a moving train, you wouldn't get out of the way because your conclusion about what will happen next is only drawn from a limited source, after all, the proportion of the trains you've seen is tiny compared to the group of 'all trains'?

.
We’ve just been over that. I’ve just answered that fallacy.
.
If even about half of all trains might be dangerous to stand in front of, then it would be prudent to not stand in front of any train.
.
There are well-established physical laws that predict damage from standing in front of a train.
.
Your knowledge of the beliefs of all Theists has nothing approaching the reliability of those physical laws.
.
I’d said:
.

Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.

.

No it is not. That's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of 'Bigotry', so that you can stop misusing the word.

.
Oops! You forgot to share with us the name of the dictionary in which you found your definition :D
.
Here’s Merriam-Webster:
.
Bigot:
.
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices
.
[end of broad-definition-quote]
.
I’d said:
.

it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.

.
You replied:
.

And again, it's OK for you to make generalisations about atheists based on the ones you've experienced

.
Yes, because I’m merely saying that something is common.
.

, but not for me to draw conclusions about theists based on exactly the same metric.

.
No, not exactly the same “metric”.
.
I spoke of what’s common. That doesn’t require or imply a detailed knowledge of all Atheists.
.
On the other hand, when aggressive loud pseudoscientists express their blanket assumption about Theists in general, they’re making an all-inclusive claim.
.
I’d said:
.

without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.

.
You replied:
.

No, they think there is a necessity, you just don't agree with them. Most atheists that I have heard the arguments of think Theism is harmful because of the rejection of critical thinking that goes along with it.

.
(…based on your assumptions about all Theisms, and your belief in the universal applicability of your allegedly critical thinking.)
.
…so you’re saving people from something harmful. Then you aren’t just a pseudoscientist, You’re a fanatical evangelical pseudoscientist.
.
Oh wait, you didn’t say that—You’re just quoting others who say that. …and of course you don’t agree with them. :D
.

You may not agree, but it's disingenuous suggest they don't have a reason.

.
In their mind they might very well have a fanatical “reason”.

I have no objection to theistic metaphysics

.
.
My metaphysics isn’t Theistic.
.
It’s better to explain things verbally when possible. Of course not all of Reality is discussable or describable, but I regard metaphysics as the limit of what is discussable and describable.
.
As I define metaphysics, there are Theists who don’t regard God as an element of metaphysics.
.
Though it probably isn’t usually said, it’s my impression that it’s usually meant that metaphysics is a verbal topic. …about what is that is describable and discussable. It’s my impression that it’s understood that philosophy is discussable, and that metaphysics is philosophy.
.
So then, it seems to me that religion isn’t covered, described or governed by metaphysics (or physics or logic).
.
It seems, to me, to make more sense to not call religion part of metaphysics.
.
But I don’t object if you believe in Theistic metaphysics.
.

…, it is an entirely reasonable option. What I do object to is the deception that the possibility of such metaphysics somehow justifies a particular religion

.
…then you should be telling that to someone who is promoting a particular religion. It isn’t relevant to sweeping-statements about all Theists.
.
(Maybe you don’t make such statements, but many loud pseudoscientists do.)
.

, and the suggestion that atheists have no right to act on their sincere feelings that certain theistic beliefs could cause harm.

.
…their fanatical evangelical need to save others from wrong-belief.
.
Michael Ossipoff

You're consistently repeating the same nonsense over and again;

1. Atheists are not allowed to draw any conclusions about theists because they have not met them all, nor listened to the exposition of every single one of them, whereas you are allowed to draw conclusions about atheists, psuedo-scientists, any group you don't like, based solely on your prejudice. 'Common' is still an unwarranted conclusion, by a long way. There are an estimated 500,000,000 atheists, at a standard 95% confidence, you would have to have experienced 9604 of them just to get a statistically significant sample. You have definitely not met enough atheists do define what is 'common', not even statistically, let alone accurately.

2. You keep insisting that drawing conclusions based on a small sample is unnecessary because there is no harm in holding theistic beliefs of the type that I have encountered (my sample). This is subjective, if you want to argue about the potential harms from the theistic beliefs I have so far encountered, then lay out that argument. Just presuming that your conclusion on that matter must be right and so defeats my right to draw conclusions in unjustified as yet.

3. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using the word 'bigot'. It doesn't matter how you define it it never covers any of my behaviour. I am only obstinate in your opinion, because you think I should be adopting your views, it is only prejudice in your opinion, because I see it as a legitimate and necessary conclusion. Using the word 'bigot' is therefore an unnecessary personal attack, not an objective fact.

I can already tell you have no interest in using this discussion to refine your arguments, but simply to engage in a bit of atheist-bashing. I'm not going to indulge you any further.

Short is best, and infinitely more adequate, so then, dishonest philosophy cannot exist because philosophy embraces only which constitutes the search for that which actually is. This is the full answer.. when one is short changing with the truth one is doing something else, certainly not philosophy. We are all of us already well aware why false information is deployed in our society, or should be, thought control being number one, so no philosophy left to be done here?

Pseudo, yes, prejudice is everywhere over seemingly near everything, and a particular nature/target of prejudice is seldom discovered in isolation. For instance, how many significantly older folk even make interaction with young people unless there is a practical imperative, I`d suggest very few. The arguments parallel with those arguments which were deployed for social segregation from dark skinned persons, those pertaining to them being somehow different. It is no wonder that social prejudice runs high in both directions.. One has only to take a genuine interest in them and to treat them for what they are, equals, to discover that beneath it all, the social conditioning, there is no prejudice.

Pseudo says:
.

You're consistently repeating the same nonsense over and again;

.1. Atheists are not allowed to draw any conclusions about theists

.
Pseudo can draw conclusions about (specified) Theisms that he’s heard stated or asserted,. …but should tell specifically whom or what he’s talking about. That’s hardly too much to ask.
.

…because they have not met them all, nor listened to the exposition of every single one of them

.
See above.
.

…, whereas you are allowed to draw conclusions about atheists, psuedo-scientists, any group you don't like, based solely on your prejudice. 'Common' is still an unwarranted conclusion, by a long way.

.
But I’m not expressing criticisms, assumptions or evaluations of the beliefs of all Atheists. I’m not evaluating Atheism, as a belief, in general. And no, I’m not even evaluating the behavior of all Atheists. …just the loud aggressive no-manners ones who are so common at Internet forums. (Yes, common.)
.
That’s the difference that Pseudo is missing.
.
I’m not saying that all Atheists are loud, aggressive and rude. I wasn’t when I was an Atheist.
.

There are an estimated 500,000,000 atheists, at a standard 95% confidence, you would have to have experienced 9604 of them just to get a statistically significant sample. You have definitely not met enough atheists do define what is 'common', not even statistically, let alone accurately.

.
Well, “common” isn’t really a very precise term :D
.
Loud, aggressive, rude Atheist pseudoscientists pop-up continually at Internet forums. Not common? What else would Pseudo call that?
.
1. Only a small fraction of car-trips result in a car-accident.
.
2. Car-accidents are common.
.
What? How can that be?!!
.
Answer: Car-trips are even more common.
.
I didn’t speculate about what percentage of Atheists are the loud, aggressive, rude ones.
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
Common:
.
Occurring or appearing frequently.
.
[end of quoted definition]
.

2. You keep insisting that drawing conclusions based on a small sample is unnecessary because there is no harm in holding theistic beliefs of the type that I have encountered (my sample). This is subjective, if you want to argue about the potential harms from the theistic beliefs I have so far encountered, then lay out that argument.

.
Harm? Pseudo must go forth and save the multitudes from wrong-belief! :D
.
a) The person claiming the danger of harm is the one who needs to tell people what exactly he’s warning them about, and what is danger is.
.
b) If you’re referring to a particular limited sample, then specify, in particular, who your sample are, what beliefs it is whose danger you’re warning us of. Is that too much to ask of Psuedo? If he isn’t prepared to specify what he’s talking about, then he isn’t ready to warn us about it.
.

Just presuming that your conclusion on that matter must be right and so defeats my right to draw conclusions in [is?] unjustified as yet.

.
Yes, Pseudo’s conclusions are unjustified, because he doesn’t justify them by telling us specifically what he’s talking about.
.

3. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using the word 'bigot'.

.
I used the word “bigotry” once, but then mentioned it again, when quoting a (specified) dictionary-definition of it, when Pseudo said that I’d mis-used that word.

It doesn't matter how you define it it never covers any of my behaviour.

.
…unless Pseudo presumes to speak for others about what they believe, or consistently fails to limit or specify to whom his blanket evaluations are intended to refer.
.

I am only obstinate in your opinion, because you think I should be adopting your views

.
I’ve never said that Pseudo should adopt my views. I’ve merely pointed out that aggressive Atheists need to be a lot more specific about what views they’re criticizing.
.
And I acknowledge that Pseudo renounces and disowns all of the statements, claims and positions that he’s been defending.
.

I'm not going to indulge you any further.

.
I agree that Pseudo has said (at least) enough. He’s had his say.
.
Conclusion:
.
Isn’t the solution obvious?:
.
Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.
.
For example, if Pseudo, or anyone else, wants to criticize Biblical-Literalism, then he needs to express that that’s what he’s referring to. How hard would that be?
.
But, though I don’t agree with the anthropomorphic allegorical literalist beliefs of many Theists, in particular the fully Biblical-Literalist ones, I don’t feel a need to criticize or evaluate them or their beliefs.
.
That’s something about the aggressive, on-the-attack, rude Atheist pseudoscientists, that I don’t understand, and which is entirely alien to me.
.
Nor do I feel a need to evaluate, criticize or attack the personal beliefs of Atheists. Their beliefs are their business, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff\

Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it. — Michael Ossipoff

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." (OED).

Theists must either have no definition for this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are believing in something simply by name, which I find to be ludicrous; or they claim some knowledge about the properties of this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are making knowledge claims. In this second case they have either postulated the existence of an entity which cannot be falsified where no such entity is required to explain the phenomenon we experience; or they have accused atheists of lying and presumed that we all have experiences which require explanations not yet covered by existing observable forces. Either way is an inefficient means of obtaining knowledge.

All three of these exhaustive options require the suspension of efficient critical thinking. The absence of effective critical thinking allows all sorts of false and harmful political messages to gain popularity.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to criticise all theists, be cause all theists share some common features otherwise they would not be classifiable as a group.

You may well disagree with these criticisms, but it's ridiculous to suggest that I should enquire as to the nature of every single theistic belief in order to make any judgements about them with sufficient certainty to post on a philosophy forum. I can reach perfectly logical conclusions, with sufficient certainty to talk confidently about them simply from the fact that all theists believe in a god or gods. If they don't, they're not theists.

I’d said:
.

Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.

.
You posted a definition:
.

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." (OED).

.
Very good. That’s an improvement, because you’re saying that OED’s definition is your definition of Theism.
.
Let’s look at that definition:
.
“Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods…”
.
On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who don’t believe that the word “existence” applies to God.
.
Existence is for beings and things. On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who refer to God, but don’t consider God to be a being or a thing.
.
Some, but not all, Theists, and evidently all loud, aggressive Atheists, share the anthropomorphic belief that God is a being, and an element of metaphysics, subject to the distinction of “existence” vs “nonexistence”.
.
Martin Buber, for example, is a well-known writer who said that God isn’t described by that distinction.
.
I sometimes say that, for humans to debate whether God exists, is like for mice to debate whether humans gnaw hardwood or softwood.
.
Well, the God who is a being, and is described by that distinction, that’s your God.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…, specifically of a creator…”
.
“Creation” is an anthropomorphic notion—a notion belonging to the more dogmatic, doctrinaire literalist Theists, and to Atheists.
.
Your God, the God that you believe in disbelieving in, is the God of the Biblical Literalists.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…who intervenes in the universe."
.
Ah yes, the distinction between “Theist” and “Deist”.
.
That distinction is meaningless unless you believe that God is within time.
.
I take it, then, that your God is a being who exists within time.
.
Well, thank you, Pseudo, for clarifying about your God.
.
I don’t believe in your anthropomorphic God.
.
Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.
.
By your definition of “Theist”, I’m not a Theist, and neither are a number of self-declared Theists.
.
But it’s a definite step, your defining your God and your Theism.
.

Theists must either have no definition for this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are believing in something simply by name, which I find to be ludicrous

.
…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.
.
Of course all Theists who speak of God will also speak of what they mean.
.
But, as for a “definition”, if that’s what you want, then I’ll just refer you to the Biblical-Literalists (…whose God and whose Theism seem to be your God and your Theism).
.
I don’t speak of God, unless I’m talking to people who do, but I sometimes, at some threads of this forum, have discussed what I mean by Theism.
.

; or they claim some knowledge about the properties of this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are making knowledge claims. In this second case they have either postulated the existence of an entity which cannot be falsified where no such entity is required to explain the phenomenon we experience;

.
…and they’re the Theists whose God is your God.
.
or they have accused atheists of lying and presumed that we all have experiences which require explanations not yet covered by existing observable forces.
[/quote]
.
Only you know your experiences.
.

All three of these exhaustive options require the suspension of efficient critical thinking.

.
You believe too much in your “critical thinking”. I’ve been reminding you of some uncriticalness of some of your thinking.
.

The absence of [what Pseudo calls] effective critical thinking allows all sorts of false and harmful political messages to gain popularity.

.
Undeniably, willingness to uncritically believe what we’re told or taught, whether it be Biblical-Literalism, Atheism, Materialism, or Science-Worship, tends to also be found with uncritical belief in what we’re told or taught politically.
.
But there’s no justification for saying that religion, of whatever kind, causes political gullibility. Belief in dogmatic religion, and belief in dogmatic politics have a common reason, but that doesn’t mean that one causes the other.
.
Are you referring to the political conservatism promoted by some religious evangelists? Sure, religion is commonly used for that purpose. That’s been well-discussed ever since 1847 or 1848.

.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to criticise all theists, be cause all theists share some common features

.
…certain common features by your definition that you got from OED.
.

otherwise they would not be classifiable as a group.

.
…and now you’ve better-specified what group you’re referring to.
.
But, even within your OED definition, there are plenty of progressive Theists and progressive churches, and a rejection of gullible politics.
.
So even your criticism of your Theists, on political grounds, lacks validity.

.

You may well disagree with these criticisms, but it's ridiculous to suggest that I should enquire as to the nature of every single theistic belief in order to make any judgements about them

.
We definitely disagree about what it takes to justify sweeping claims. :D
.

with sufficient certainty to post on a philosophy forum. I can reach perfectly logical conclusions, with sufficient certainty to talk confidently about them simply from the fact that all theists believe in a god or gods. If they don't, they're not theists.

.
…and you will confidently do so, without knowing what they mean when they speak of God.
.
But, as you clarified (Thank you for clarifying it), you’re referring to a specific group defined by OED.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists. — Michael Ossipoff

People can't just declare themselves something and insist that the world changes its definitions to suit them. If you do not believe God 'exists' in the normal sense of the word, you are an atheist. That may be because you are a materialist and have no room for 'god', or because you are a strong dualist and so believe in a realm outside of material existence. Either way, you do not believe 'god' exists. That is the definition of an atheist. You can't just change it because you'd prefer to be called a theist.

…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable. — Michael Ossipoff

No, it's because I consider it a logical nonsense to say you believe in something but be unable to define what it is. It simply doesn't make sense. If you cannot define what it is, what you have is a feeling or a sensation, not a belief. I suggest you look up belief in the SEP, you will find that pretty much every definition requires some form of proposition, either verbal or in action, to be defined as a belief.

You are misusing the words 'theist' and 'belief' simply to dodge having to admit that you don't really believe in God. A 'theist' is someone who believes in the existence of god, a 'belief' is a propositional statement or functional attitude. If we can't stick to normal English how do you expect to maintain a discussion?

By your definition of 'Theism', I'm a theist too because I definitely don't think we've discovered every form of existence (there are probably at least seven more dimensions for a start), and so other things are bound to 'exist' in ways we can't perceive. But so is just about every scientist and atheist I know, the word becomes pointless.

By your definition of 'belief', I have beliefs that I can't define because I definitely have feelings and sensations that are not the result of logical thought, but again I don't know a single person who claims not to have. The word becomes pointless.

If you're just going to make up definitions to suit your argument, then it's going to be impossible to discuss anything with you.

I’d said:
.

Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.

.
You replied:
.

People can't just declare themselves something and insist that the world changes its definitions to suit them.

.
Dictionaries report common usage. No one believes dictionaries to be the ultimate authority on right and wrong usage.
.
In fact, I’ll remind you that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define all of its words. …or any of them, for that matter.
.
I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.
.
…though, as I said, I don’t use the name God unless I’m talking to, quoting, or referring to someone who does, and though I agree with those Theists who say that “exist” applies only to things and contingent beings, elements of metaphysics.
.
OED is useful as a general guide that reports the most common usage.
.

If you do not believe God 'exists' in the normal sense of the word, you are an atheist

.
“Exist” doesn’t even have a definite, consensus, metaphysical definition.
.

Either way, you do not believe 'god' exists. That is the definition of an atheist. You can't just change it because you'd prefer to be called a theist.

.
According to OED, I’m not a Theist. I’m glad that you’ve clarified your definition, because it means that your criticism isn’t about all whom I consider Theists. And I assume that many Atheists probably agree with you.
.
I don’t contend that one definition is more valid than another. It’s just a matter of clarifying definitions for communication purposes.
.
I’d said:
.

…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.

.
You replied:
.

No, it's because I consider it a logical nonsense to say you believe in something but be unable to define what it is. It simply doesn't make sense.

.
I agree that it doesn’t make any sense to try to apply logic and definitions to all of Reality. I and a lot of people at these forums believe that logic doesn’t describe, cover, or govern all of Reality, and that not all of Reality is knowable or definable.
.
That’s a belief about a Reality that isn’t definable.
.
If you believe otherwise, then you take a minority position at these philosophy forums.
.
But I pointed out that all Theists discuss what they mean by Theism, and all Theists who refer to God discuss what they mean by God.
.
I don’t know where you get the notion that Theists are unable to say what they’re talking about.
.
As for “define”, see above.
.

If you cannot define what it is

.
I’ve stated my Theism at other discussion-threads at these forums. I haven’t been secretive. I’ve told what I mean by Theism, as do all Theists.
.
What I said at those threads was very brief, because, as I’ve said, I believe that it’s not a knowable, describable or discussable topic.
.
But I’m not at this thread to advocate or present a religious position, or to convince anyone about Theism vs Atheism. To take this thread in that direction would be inappropriate and un-aesthetic.
.
But, to give you a better idea of what I’m talking about, without departing from the scope of this thread, I’ll just refer you to a thread of a few months ago. It was called something like “Hegel’s religious writings”, and it was at the Metaphyisics & Epistemology subforum, or at the General Philosophy subforum.
.
It won’t be difficult to find it. You’ll have to look at just a few back pages of those two subforums.
.
Additionally, that thread has links to web articles that will tell you more.
.

, what you have is a feeling or a sensation, not a belief.

.
I agree that feelings aren’t as easy to discuss as science, or Literalist religion.
.
I admit that not all of Reality lends itself to words.
.
I don’t have beliefs that oppose or contradict the feelings and impressions.
.
We’re talking about a region of Reality where it isn’t so easy to specify belief with logical precision, or sometimes even a clear-cut distinction between belief and impression or feeling.
.
I’d be glad to go into it more, to clarify my Theism (…as I have at other discussion-threads), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. This thread isn’t the place for such discussion. Check out the Hegel’s religious writings thread, and its links.
.

You are misusing the words 'theist' and 'belief' simply to dodge having to admit that you don't really believe in God. A 'theist' is someone who believes in the existence of god, a 'belief' is a propositional statement or functional attitude. If we can't stick to normal English how do you expect to maintain a discussion?

.
Certainly definitions need to be well-specified.
.
Now that you’ve specified the OED definition, I know what religions you’re referring to. Most likely other Atheists mean similarly by what they say.

I, too, don’t agree with all the details of those Theisms that OED refers to, though I find kinship with the sentiment behind them, which, to me, seems more relevant than those people’s allegorical beliefs--hence my self-designation as Theist.
.
(But I also realize that religion is sometimes just a social matter, often used (maybe subconsciously) as an “us-vs-them” way of achieving social cohesion by villainizing or excluding others. And of course religion has long been used as a cynical, dishonest social-control device. …as was pointed out by a famous Atheist in 1848. I don’t criticize Atheists for being Atheists, though I don’t agree with their Atheism.)
.

By your definition of 'Theism', I'm a theist too because I definitely don't think we've discovered every form of existence (there are probably at least seven more dimensions for a start)

.
No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.
.

By your definition of 'belief', I have beliefs that I can't define because I definitely have feelings and sensations that are not the result of logical thought

.
But if you say they aren’t beliefs, then they probably aren’t. Not if you have beliefs that supersede them.
.
Anyway, as I suspected, the Atheism/Theism disagreement is largely just definitional, meaning there’s a lot less disagreement between Atheists and non-literalist Theists than there might seem to be.
..
I think that we should, to the extent possible, find discussable, describable (physical or metaphysical) explanations.

Regarding Theism, I consider that to be meta-metaphysical rather than metaphysical. …because it seems to me that metaphysics is meant as the limit of what is explainable, discussable, describable, arguable, provable.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do. — Michael Ossipoff

So what do you have in common then? You've talked a lot about definitions, and I've read with interest your exposition of your theism on the thread you indicated, but whilst it has given me a clearer understanding of your beliefs, it has not explained why you think they're closer to biblical-literalists than atheists. It seems a bizarre, and incredibly arbitrary use of the word 'theist' to say that the common feature is that you all use the word 'God' to define the non-material force/entity/experience of widely differing properties. Scientists could just as easily have decided that the Higgs-Boson was what they call 'God' (in fact I think it was even called the god particle for a while), making all scientists theists as well.

I'm unaware of any other proper noun where normal use is for the speaker to simply apply it to whatever they wish to fall into that definition, rather than have it define some collection of things already found in human discourse. We don't decide whatever we think falls into the category 'tree' and get to talk with others expecting that definition to mean something to them. 'God' is already a word that defines certain propositions, it's quite a wide definition, and certainly takes in some non-material aspects, as well as the very anthropomorphic version, but that doesn't mean we can just apply the word to any metaphysical proposition and expect to be understood. You said "No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.". So how come you're able to apply the word 'god' to whatever metaphysical (or meta-metaphysical, if you like) position you see fit, but say with absolute certainty that I can't apply it to unknown forces in physics? What aspect of the definition of 'god' are you invoking to make such claims?

This whole thread is about dishonest philosophy and I find this kind of language game to be an example of this. As you said, quite rightly, it's all too easy for disagreements to arise simply out of poor definition of terms - 'god', 'belief', 'theist', but the way to avoid that is not only to define your terms first, it is to make some attempt to stick to previously agreed definitions, to not deliberately stray too far from the fuzzy boundaries that previous language use has defined for a word.

Sorry about the delay, but I wanted to be more specific this time.
.
I’d said:
.

I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.

.
You replied:
.

So what do you have in common then?

.
The feeling that’s behind the allegory.
.
(…a feeling felt by some, but not all Theists)
.
But of course I don’t deny that there are plenty of Theists, of the door-to-door aggressive, abusive, arrogant variety, whose only feeling is their feeling of dogmatic superiority. We’re all familiar with them, and have encountered their rudeness. I have nothing in common with them.
.
Call it “cherry-picking”, but it’s some, but not all, Theists that I have something in common with.
.
Many or most, but not all, Atheists are Materialists, and believe that science covers, describes, and applies to, all of Reality. In contrast, I claim that the workings of the physical world isn’t all of what’s discussable, describable and arguable, much less all of Reality. Metaphysics is about what else is discussable and arguable, regarding what is.
.
I know I’ve already said this, but I don’t think that physics and metaphysics cover all of Reality, because not all of Reality is explainable, describable, discussable, definable, arguable or provable.
.
As I mean that word, Theism is a type of felt conclusion, attitude, feeling, impression or belief about that non-describable aspect of Reality. But, regarding what isn’t arguable or provable, “belief “ can be a misleading word.
.
It isn’t possible to be clearer about what I mean without more detail. Somewhere in this posting, I’ll be more specific. I’ve looked for that Hegel thread that I spoke of, but haven’t re-found it yet, so I don’t know exactly how much I said there, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.

…but whilst it has given me a clearer understanding of your beliefs, it has not explained why you think they're closer to biblical-literalists than atheists.

.
Not all Biblical-Literalists. It depends on their attitude. But, regarding some of them, their anthropomorphic allegorical beliefs don’t seem so important, compared to their feeling about indescribable Reality.
.

It seems a bizarre, and incredibly arbitrary use of the word 'theist' to say that the common feature is that you all use the word 'God' to define the non-material force/entity/experience of widely differing properties.

.
It isn’t the use of the word “God” that gives them something in common with me. The aggressive Theists that I mentioned above use that word too, as do many scientists and science-writers discussing things in physics (as you mentioned).
.
It’s just that what’s said by some Theists, even allegory-believing ones, about their impressions, sounds familiar, rings true.
.

Scientists could just as easily have decided that the Higgs-Boson was what they call 'God' (in fact I think it was even called the god particle for a while), making all scientists theists as well.

.
Sure, now I agree that we should call them that when they say that. Should the word “Theist” be interpreted broadly enough to include the scientists and science-writers who want to apply the word “God” to something in physics? Why not? If the rude, abusive and arrogant door-to-door Biblical-Literalist promoters are called Theists, when why not the science-writers too? I’d be agreeable to that.
.
…though neither are what I really consider Theists.
.
Definitions are a MF.
.

I'm unaware of any other proper noun where normal use is for the speaker to simply apply it to whatever they wish to fall into that definition, rather than have it define some collection of things already found in human discourse.

.
A widely used and misused word. To me, the valid use of the word God, is its use by what might be called Philosophical (or non-allegorical/non-anthropmorphic)Theists (…though the word “God” is much used by Atheist philosophers too.). …even though I don’t usually use that word, because it seems to still have some anthropomorphic implication.
.

We don't decide whatever we think falls into the category 'tree' and get to talk with others expecting that definition to mean something to them. 'God' is already a word that defines certain propositions, it's quite a wide definition, and certainly takes in some non-material aspects, as well as the very anthropomorphic version, but that doesn't mean we can just apply the word to any metaphysical proposition and expect to be understood.

.
Of course, which is why I don’t use that word, except when replying to, referring to, or quoting people who use it.
.

You said
.
"No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.".

So how come you're able to apply the word 'god' to whatever metaphysical (or meta-metaphysical, if you like) position you see fit

.
I don’t. Though I call myself a Theist, I don’t usually use the word God.
.
…though I realize that “Theist” is derived from a word for God. I feel that there’s validly something behind what some people mean when they refer to God.
.
It’s true that I’m using “Theist” in a way different from how it’s usually meant. But I’m using it for what I feel is what’s valid behind what’s usually called “Theism”. To me, Theism isn’t the dogmas and allegories.
.
I and others like me don’t promote or proselytize, and so the only “Theism” that is well-known is that of the preachy allegory-promoters. …and so they get to define the words.
.

, but say with absolute certainty that I can't apply it to unknown forces in physics?

.
I shouldn’t say that.
.
Well, it would have a different meaning, but sure, why not? It already has overbroad meaning. As I mentioned, I wouldn’t object to scientists and science-writers being called “Theists”, when they use the word “God” to refer to something in physics—as they sometimes do. Maybe then they’d be more careful about their language. The word “Theist” is already used so broadly as to lose its meaning, so why not broaden it further, in co-operation with people whose language calls for it?
.
So yes, the usage and definitions of “Theist” are mutually contradictory and not very useful, no doubt about it. I use “Theist” to refer to someone who expresses certain impressions or feelings about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. But that’s just my usage.
.

What aspect of the definition of 'god' are you invoking to make such claims?

.
I don’t usually use that word, and I don’t have an exact definition, but, to me, a valid meaning for God would refer to the subject of a certain kind of impression or feeling that some people express about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. …an impression of gratitude for the Good-ness of what-is. … an impression of Good as the basis of what-is.
.
(As regards the latter, someone here quoted a well-known Greek philosopher, maybe Aristotle or Plato, as expressing that. I’ve heard that from a modern philosopher too, but I don’t remember his name.)
.
…though, as I said, I don’t usually use the word God, because I feel that it has some anthropomorphic implication.

.

This whole thread is about dishonest philosophy and I find this kind of language game to be an example of this. As you said, quite rightly, it's all too easy for disagreements to arise simply out of poor definition of terms - 'god', 'belief', 'theist', but the way to avoid that is not only to define your terms first, it is to make some attempt to stick to previously agreed definitions, to not deliberately stray too far from the fuzzy boundaries that previous language use has defined for a word.

.
I don’t intend any dishonesty. Admittedly I use “Theist” with a definition of my own, but only because I feel that it better expresses Theism’s valid element. It’s as if people were calling walnut-shells “walnut”, and dictionaries had begun to define “walnut” as walnut-shells, and all the discussion about walnuts were about the merits of eating walnut-shells.
.
There are times when we disagree with the dictionary and standard usage.
.
Anyway, “God” and “Theism” are already used super-broadly.
.
Well, when I describe my Theism, I try to avoid controversial or contradictorily-used terms.
.
(…other than the word “Theism” itself—It’s just that sometimes it’s necessary to choose between named categories, so you try to choose the closest one.)
------------------
As I was saying, I don’t know how much I said at the “Hegel’s religious writings” thread, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.
I’ve posted about my metaphysics in many thread-discussions, where metaphysical questions came up. Let me paste here my reply to someone’s objection to my metaphysics, in which I spoke of (my impression about) its meta-metaphysical implications.
.
I’m not saying that metaphysics is necessarily the only thing that leads to the good conclusion. And maybe the conclusion that I describe is already known to you.
.
Anyway, this pasted post is from the currently-active “What is Nothing?” thread:
.
Here’s the post with the objections and reply:
.
I’d said:
.

that end [the sleep at the end of lives] is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.

.
You replied:
.

But how can it be more "natural" for us when we are not, or are no longer? I mean, death is when we cease being the entities that we are. We cease being an entity altogether. We are no longer.

.
No, I haven’t been talking about that time. The time when you’ve completely shut-down won’t be experienced by you. For you, there’s no such time. The time when you’re gone will be experienced only by your survivors.
.
You’ll never experience a time without experience.
.
I was referring to the sleep at the end of lives (or at the end of this life if you don’t believe in reincarnation).
.
What makes the sleep at the end of lives more natural and normal, is the fact that it’s your final outcome, your final state of affairs, and is timeless.

.
You continued:
.

And "Natural" surely only applies to living entities that are. Entities that are not, are no longer part of the natural world. Therefore death cannot be "more natural" for us since in death we are not entities.

.
See above.
.

Moreover, sleep is only ever something we do, or something that happens to us, when we are.

.
…and I was talking about sleep, when we still are.
.
Of course, it’s a time when we’re approaching Nothing. But we won’t know that, because, as I said, by then we won’t know that there ever were, or could be, such things as worldly life, body, identity, time or events. The impending gradual end will be quite meaningless and irrelevant, because we won’t know or care about it.
.

So I think it is misleading to use it as a metaphor for death. It could lead to unclarity.

.
I hope that, above in this post, I’ve clarified what I meant.
.
I’d said:
.

But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?

.
You replied:
.

Sorry I think you have the burden of proof here, not me.

.
I think not. I’ve told why.
.
If, as I’ve discussed, our experience is consistent with a hypothetical system of if-thens, and if you could interpret it either way, then which interpretation requires the assumption of a brute-fact?
.
Here’s what I said about that:
.
“Among the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
“There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
“You’re in a life because you’re the hypothetical protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. …complex systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals.
.
“I can’t prove that the concretely, objectively, fundamentally existent physical world of Materialism doesn’t superfluously exist, as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that system of inter-referring if-thens referred to above.”

.
It’s customarily agreed that brute-facts, unnecessary assumptions, and unverifiable unfalsifiable propositions are suspect."
.
You said:

.

The reason is that it is highly implausible that we experience life hypothetically and/or factually. Myself, and the people within my shared culture, experience the world in terms of familiarity and significance.

.
Of course. I didn’t mean to denigrate or deny suchness, presence, direct experience, etc.
.
You find out about the logical, factual matters when you check for them. …and, when you do, you’ll find that your experience is self-consistent. But I’m not implying that you spend all your time with logic, facts, etc.

.
I often emphasize that metaphysics is to experience and Reality, as a book on how a car-engine works is to actually taking a ride in the countryside.

.
Logic, and statements, descriptions or evaluations about facts, aren’t, and don’t describe, experience and Reality.

.
Logic, physics and metaphysics don’t cover, describe, or govern Reality.

.
But, though it isn’t all of Reality, and isn’t all of your experience, metaphysics is my topic here.

.
The fact that metaphysics isn’t everything doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t talk about it. I find it of interest.
.
Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed and described.
.
You said:

.

When I'm running for the train, for example, I do not think of a hypothetical or a fact. To do so I would first need to abstract from and reflect on the situation. There is never an experience like this. Instead I am completely caught up in the situation and this is grounded in my familiarity with catching trains. I know how to catch trains and know how to catch a train that I'm running late for. I am fully involved. I am the situation. In a sense there is no I, there is only the situation, when I am so fully involved.

.
Of course. No argument there. See above.

.
I’d said:
.
Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, then you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
You reply:
.

.
Again, this is not how we experience our world. Why? because the way you have expressed this, the roundabout is meaningless and abstracted from everyday experience. It has no significance. For example, someone who is lost and following directions does not go to 34th & Vine to encounter a roundabout, they go there only in order to get onto the road they need to get on to. It is significant to them for that reason. Or, someone who is familiar with the roundabout probably more readily experiences the frustrations of driving in traffic with idiots, or thinking about the discussion they had that morning with their partner, than their surroundings (including the roundabout) as such. Perhaps they are so utterly familiar with the roundabout and their drive to work that they don't even consciously notice it. This happens all the time for me in the flow of life. Notice that in this latter example the person went to 34th & Vine but didn't encounter a roundabout. At least not in a consciously aware factual manner (present-at-hand in Heidegger speak), which is what I take you to mean here by "encounter".

.
I have no disagreement with that. Sometimes you don’t experience the facts unless you’re looking for them. But, when you do, you’ll find facts that aren’t inconsistent with the other facts of your experience. That’s why your life is a possibility-story instead of an impossibility-story.

.
Philosophy, the topic of these forums, is about matters that are verbal, discussable, describable.
.
But I emphatically agree that Reality isn’t about logic, metaphysics or physics.
.
But explanations of the logical underpinnings and background of our lives are still of interest. …without any implication that they’re the complete explanation or background for Reality.
.
Whether or not any of us like it, we still deal with facts, states of affairs, situations. Their verbal explanation and logical factual background can be of interest. As humans, we deal with logical factual matters whether we like it or not. It’s only a matter of how we deal with it.
.
We can worry unnecessarily or excessively, when we take the facts too literally, believing in the “concrete” fundamental objective existence of the physical world. Obviously we must deal with the physical world, and take care of ourselves in that world, but we also tend to worry too much, unproductively, unnecessarily.
.
By the way, this protagonist that we are, of a life-experience possibility-story, is an animal, a purposely-responsive device designed by the events of natural-selection. Things can happen to us, and we all know that eventually something will happen to each of us. But we aren’t here for things to happen to. We’re merely designed to respond to our surroundings optimally for the goals set by natural-selection. So, if we’re doing our best, then that’s all that matters. So a Chinese writer once pointed out that anything is nullified if we do what we can to deal with it.
.
Subjectively, we do what we want, like or prefer. But, our choices and decisions aren’t really ours, or our problem, because (as one would expect for a purposefully-responsive device) those choices are determined for us by our wants, likes and preferences (inborn and acquired), and our surroundings,
.
I suggest that what I said in the two above paragraphs is relevant when events, choices or decisions erroneously seem a problem.
.
I’ve said this before, but let me say it again.

.
By the metaphysics that I propose, what is discussable and describable is insubstantial and ethereal. Of course we do our best, and, whether we admit it or not, we enjoy our lives. But this temporary life is insubstantial, so of course we just enjoy it while it lasts, while doing our best. Hence the Hindu emphasis on life as primarily “Lila”, play.
.

I suggest that this metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness. …in contrast to Materialism’s grim “objective” accounting.
.
So no, I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good.
.
Metaphysics is a verbal discussion about what logically, factually is. What factually is, is pretty good.
.
[end of pasted reply from other thread]
.
So it’s the impression, of me, and some others, that what-is, is pretty good, and inspires gratitude.
.
An impression that the whole overall metaphysical what-is, is very good—Is that different from an impression that Good is the character or basis of what-is?
.
These are impressions, or the same impression. But if your subjective impression is that something is good, then isn’t there a real sense in which it is good, as far as you’re concerned? So the distinction between impression and belief isn’t really so distinct.
.
…because none of this has anything to do with convincing anyone else.
.
And, if there’s an impression is that Good is the basis of what-is, then isn’t that really just another way of saying an impression that there’s good intent behind what-is?
.
Michael Ossipoff