I am a theist

A lot of thought has flowed along since my posts yesterday—but some of it reminds me of the difference between “strong” and “weak” atheism. I may be a “strong” atheist regarding certain conceptions of “god” that seem to me, for example, to be logically contradictory—or that use what Swiss Gambit calls “bizarro-speech”. On other conceptions, I may remain a “weak” atheist. I don’t feel the need to hold to a strong form of atheism across-the-board to call myself an atheist. It strikes me that there can also be an analog for theists.

Originally posted by vistesd
Sure, but I don’t see that John W. has made the kind of epistemic claim to which Ockham’s razor applies. I’ve added my own “gestaltic” thoughts to his (see lat post on the preceding page), and I don’t see how his “sense” is any less valid, or less efficient, that one’s sense of the implicate ground that frames any of our explicate perceptions, indeed our a ...[text shortened]... ible” (pun intended), as it stands. And I don’t see that he’s arguing anything more than that.

Originally posted by vistesd
In your example, I don’t think you can call it “unjustified”: in this case, absence of evidence (of the stalker) cannot be taken as evidence of absence (of the stalker). One day I am walking in the woods, and my senses sense something that leads me to stop—before any conscious reflection; I may not even be sure upon reflection after the fact which senses ...[text shortened]... reflection. As you say, he remains in a kind of “superposition”.

Namaste, old friend! 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg

Originally posted by jaywill
I am curious. Is there anything you do which strengthens this "sense" ?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Meditation (although its main purpose is to sift through the events of the day, and linger over things I want to remember or rethink); Hiking to the top of mountains and surveying the valleys below; interacting with my children. A few examples. But it is just a 'sense' though.

[b]If you, for example, read aloud the first chapter of say, the Gospel of ...[text shortened]... aurie Lee's Cider With Rosie than I am by the first chapter of the Gospel of John.[/b]

Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by John W Booth
In other aspects of his life however, should he feel so motivated to declare his 'belief' to others this would likely induce the same line of questions, and the same defence of his position. To rebut this you may say that my atheism also requires that I answer questions should I declare it to anyone; my response however is that my atheism is a reacti
My posts here are a reactionary position with respect to the religiosity surrounding theism.

Originally posted by Agerg
Am I correct in saying though, that your belief is not reactionary - i.e inspite of beliefs held by fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims/Scientologists/etc... you'd still believe in the 'god' you put forward?

Originally posted by Agerg

Originally posted by John W Booth
What does "put forward" mean? Clearly fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims/Scientologists etc. describe the specific nature of God, his actions, its wishes and instructions, they itemize what forbidden, they prescribe procedures and ceremonies, publish texts, organize into groups, decide upon and propogate a creed etc. That is putting forward ' se are the terms of reference for putting forward a God, then I clearly do not do it.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I should say first however that the motivation for my questioning lies in the fact that JW Booth's belief in some god doesn't seem so passive given he feels so compelled to make a thread about this position of belief. I can't help but suspect that there is some underlying discrepancy he perceives with a purely materialistic universe(s) and this god m y belief?

Or are you suggesting that I am doing something along these lines unconsciously?

Originally posted by Agerg
...having some sort of sense about a god suggests at some level it answers a discrepancy (from the 'believer's' perspective) that would be manifest in the absense of said belief.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I would argue that the inefficiency I mention extends further than the requirements of ockhams razor (I'll justify this shortly). I should say first however that the motivation for my questioning lies in the fact that JW Booth's belief in some god doesn't seem so passive given he feels so compelled to make a thread about this position of belief. I can't h no such belief (the strength of this belief compelling him to declare it to people)).

Well I would hope I've done enough to convince you that I don't put you in the same camp as say jaywill or other fundies...when I say put forward your god; I merely mean for want of a better way of putting it, making this entity (undefined as it is) an object of discussion. I say you have done this because the assertion you believe in a god, puts the focus on this god (even if you don't define it).

It has been an interesting discussion for me but I cannot see anything I have left to wrangle with given that you cannot readily bring to mind the things I was hoping to elicit from you. I'm happy to call it a day here :]

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for the clarification on inefficiency. However, you interpret JWB's intent differently from me.

I see his intent as specifically to articulate the difference between having a "sense that bubbles up from time to time" and claiming a belief with some reflective content that would require epistemic justification. (That is, he is arti superposition".) I see that as his particular--and interesting--contribution to this forum.