Theism

[_bcspace]

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

Most Theists are bound by such things as scripture and/or a set of rules or principles.

[_Samantabhadra]

Most Theists are bound by such things as scripture and/or a set of rules or principles.

...except for Joseph Smith Jr. of course, he got to make up all the scriptures and "principles" he wanted!

[_Alfredo]

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

Most Theists are bound by such things as scripture and/or a set of rules or principles.

I'm sorry. The statement was more focused on apologetics, not a theist's tendency to abuse hyper-patternicity, which might cause them to wonder about what God conjured out of spiritual matter today in order to muck with the details of creation.

Ha ha. I'm sorry, bcspace.

I actually mean everything a theist believes is just crap made up about magic. Especially, which beings have the holy privileges to be magicians.

[_Samantabhadra]

I actually mean everything a theist believes is just s*** made up about magic. Especially, which beings have the holy privileges to be magicians.

In most traditions the "holy privilege" to work magic is not made up. It requires some kind of ritual initiation.

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

[_bcspace]

Most Theists are bound by such things as scripture and/or a set of rules or principles.

...except for Joseph Smith Jr. of course, he got to make up all the scriptures and "principles" he wanted!

According to D&C 107, this doesn't seem to be the case.

[_Roger Morrison]

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

Most Theists are bound by such things as scripture and/or a set of rules or principles.

Not sure if I'm working the "Quote" thingie right?? Am i in the right box??
Anyway...I like your choice of the word, "bound". In deed that literally describes the state of obedient theists (believers). Of course it's said, "they have their free agency." More words-to-the-ignorant.
A typical cult-like maneuver and manipulation that nullifies the so-called freedom. Such as, "we the masters take away your reward when you exercise "free agency counter to our edict."

Conditional love, is that Mormon doctrine? Must be. In isn't Jesus doctrine!!

[_Alfredo]

I actually mean everything a theist believes is just s*** made up about magic. Especially, which beings have the holy privileges to be magicians.

In most traditions the "holy privilege" to work magic is not made up. It requires some kind of ritual initiation.

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

And what would you suppose I might call a "ritual initiation"?

[_Samantabhadra]

There are many ways to describe ritual initiations but if you think that all ritual initiations are made up bull**** in the same way that Joseph Smith's inventions are made up bull**** then you are not only completely wrong but demonstrating a rather thorough ignorance.

[_Alfredo]

Ok. Try me.

In what sense is the purpose of a ritual initiation not dependent on some BS proposition concerning magic.

[_subgenius]

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 goes to the theists...regardless.
Theists, throughout history have been more innovative, more adaptable, and more successful on every significant social and individual front.
The atheist, however, has not had the best track record and is more often than not the target of rather dire consequences. Only with the rather tolerant society of our modern times has the atheist been able to infect others with their simple-minded and narrow vies of life to the point where they are a recognizable part of society. For the most part their survival rate (big picture society view) is not that great. An amoral (not immoral, but amoral) structure is of zero success with a society at large.
From a pure survive-ability, in the context of the history of mankind, a theist is by far the smarter position. For example, Christianity has been so durable simply because of its meek position, it is pliable and resilient...able to survive. Yes, there is a risk involved with being involved with any theist society, but all theist society's abhor the atheist.
Atheists, not so much on the survival curve. Atheists are a severe minority and rightly so...its not a question of popularity but rather sensibility. Atheism is far too immature in thought and action to have any significant endurance. They will likely always exist, sell a few books, corrupt a few minds, retarding some actual progressive growth, but they will not influence with any more significant than they are now.