DiscussMormonism.com

What advantage, or disadvantage, does one have in being a Theist? OR, in being a non-Theist?

I don't like using the word "atheist". It tends to suggest negative connotations in the minds of many traditionalists. . .

When pondering the question, I thought "Theist" to be a quite simple term. A little research made me aware of the many prefixes that can attach to "theist", changing meanings completely. So, lets try to keep things within our Judaic-Christian box. . .

Thanks for your thoughts.

Roger Morrison wrote:What advantage, or disadvantage, does one have in being a Theist? OR, in being a non-Theist?

I don't like using the word "atheist". It tends to suggest negative connotations in the minds of many traditionalists. . .

When pondering the question, I thought "Theist" to be a quite simple term. A little research made me aware of the many prefixes that can attach to "theist", changing meanings completely. So, lets try to keep things within our Judaic-Christian box. . .

Thanks for your thoughts.

The advantage is most definitely in the theist's favor, because they get to make up whatever crap they want about magic.

The recipe for mental security is unconditional trust mixed with powerful, self-serving paradigms. Oh, and the necessary and excessive helping of raw emotion.

Alfredo wrote:The advantage is most definitely in the theist's favor, because they get to make up whatever s*** they want about magic.

I think most practicing Western sorcerors do not believe in God or at least are not "theists" in the sense of "monotheists." Hinduism is essentially monotheistic, but I would not say that Hindu tantrikas "make up whatever they want" about their magic. Likewise, Buddhism is nominally a-theistic, but tantric Buddhism is absolutely not an ad hoc system of magic, and absolutely requires the invocation of transcendent enlightened "deities" (deva in Sanskrit, lha in Tibetan).

As for what advantage theism confers on theists, I would say it confers the advantage of being right. As well as the advantage of being able to work magic.

You mean the perceived advantage in having unconditional trust that any inconsistency within the theist model of reality is explained by God's ineffability or supernatural ability to conjure?

You mean the emotional and mental security unconditional trust provides when you place all of your trust in this remarkably functional, yet mysterious omni-model of God which will only offer conclusions about itself that serve itself?

No, I mean the fact that post-"Enlightenment" atheists are wrong about metaphysical materialism.

Samantabhadra wrote:No, I mean the fact that post-"Enlightenment" atheists are wrong about metaphysical materialism.

You mean that subset of atheism which accepts we can know what is beyond or independent of our subjective experience. Because that sounds an awful lot like theism.

Roger Morrison wrote:What advantage, or disadvantage, does one have in being a Theist? OR, in being a non-Theist?

I think the biggest advantage of being a theist is that it provides a way to cope with mortality. Frankly as an atheist my morality at times causes me a good deal of anxiety. At times I even find myself envious of those who have the comfort of believing that they are going to live forever.

Stormy Waters wrote:

Roger Morrison wrote:What advantage, or disadvantage, does one have in being a Theist? OR, in being a non-Theist?

I think the biggest advantage of being a theist is that it provides a way to cope with mortality. Frankly as an atheist my morality at times causes me a good deal of anxiety. At times I even find myself envious of those who have the comfort of believing that they are going to live forever.

No damned kiddin.

Stormy Waters wrote:I think the biggest advantage of being a theist is that it provides a way to cope with mortality. Frankly as an atheist my morality at times causes me a good deal of anxiety. At times I even find myself envious of those who have the comfort of believing that they are going to live forever.

Buddhism and Vedantic religions initially developed from a growing sense that "living forever" (more precisely, continual birth, death, and rebirth) was a bad thing. The idea was that this cycle formed a closed loop of suffering, and so the goal was liberation or moksha from the cycle of rebirth. That's why I always find it a little bit funny when an atheist explains how belief in eternal life is supposed to be some kind of comfort or palliative way of dealing with mortality by dodging the problem of dealing with death. That kind of perspective only makes sense from one particular view at one particular moment in the history of one particular culture. From a Buddhist or Hindu view it is kind of incomprehensible.

Thanks All for your thoughts.
It seems to me that whatever one sees themselves as is self or culturally imposed. Not born believing anything. Being a believer or non believer in a deity is a learned process. The only feeling attached to either state is learned from the nurturers one is subject to...

While we in our culture generally think "believing" is THE thing to do, as it gives some comfort to the inevitable fact of death (which we are conditioned to fear), in that Heaven awaits us -- IF??? BUT, it as well discomforts with the stick from which the carrot hangs...

Since what is supposed to be believed has no substance beyond the literature from which it is taken, it appears to me that avoiding the consternation of betting on imaginary entities, and the guilt and anxiety of not meeting arbitrary standards set by social sorcerers, a person lives more contented and happier as a non-believer in any deity or under any authoritative deism.
(Personal case in point: Recent conversation with a LDS whose Bishop admonished they catch up on their tithing, or else...) YIKES!!!

The Ethical non-theistical Society is yet to be attained. Will happen when Armageddon doesn't...
Point of interest: The word "Theism" was first use by Ralph Cudsworth (1617-88) Cambridge Scholar.
Enjoy life!