Why "insert prefix"-theism?

[TeaDidikai]

TheDisreputableDog

Correct.

Tea pays attention. 3nodding  

[Elizabeth Tarion]

TheDisreputableDog

TeaDidikai

MoreSpareParts

Are you a member of the Kemetic Orthodox? I can't tell very well by your wording sweatdrop

DD is a UU with Kemetic Leanings.

Correct. I just hang out on the KO boards and have made friends with many members, so it is the Kemetic recon path that I have the most familiarity with. I have yet to make any formal overtures towards becoming part of that faith, and it may never happen. Someday I'll get to that bit in my Pathways thread... sweatdrop

Sorry, I didn't see that you had a Pathways thread, I was just going off that post.  

[patch99329]

TeaDidikai

patch99329

TeaDidikai

patch99329

So, I suppose a more accurate label for my beliefs would be 'the hardest soft polytheist you're ever gonna meet'. mad D

Or a hard polytheist with an Emanation mythos.

I haven't the foggiest what that is biggrin Care to elaborate?

All gods are as individualistic as you and I, however- they emanated or defused out from one source.

My UPG states this is the case for all things, gods, spirits, my chair and myself.

Thanks for clearing that up ^_^

That does describe my beliefs in a nutshell smile  

[TeaDidikai]

patch99329

Thanks for clearing that up ^_^

That does describe my beliefs in a nutshell smile

The question then becomes the nature of the source.

Is it something to be worshiped or not? Is it sacred or not?  

[patch99329]

Not worshipped, more....erm, celebrated.

It is sacred. To this extent everything in existence is sacred.  

[Kuroiban]

Polytheistic. Hard or soft...um....plasma? sweatdrop

Here is the trick of it I suppose; I believe we live in an infinite universe. I believe in infinite dimensions with infinite posibilities. I don't know how much access there is between one world and another, but I believe if anything can cross over the void between voids, then it would probably be a divine essence.

So, technically, any divine essence you could imagine is out there somewhere.

If they answer the door is another matter.

Now, this does cause some problems...as this creates also sorts of odd possibilities, many of which cause headaches. Would this mean that, out there somewhere, is Jamoujin, God Of Dougnuts, Liverwurst, and Lightbulb Filament? By definition, yes. It would also create that really silly idea of a "God of Parking Spaces" that I've seen meantioned in some really, really bad books out there.

Of course, this is taking the idea to it's extremes; I'm strongly of the belief that any concept brakes down on the extreme ends of the scales. Still it bares note.  

[TeaDidikai]

patch99329

Not worshipped, more....erm, celebrated.

It is sacred. To this extent everything in existence is sacred.

Since "sacred" is by definition to be "set apart", how can anything be sacred if everything is considered so?  

[Reynai]

I believe your poll is slightly incomplete, as how my beliefs stand isn't actually up there. You have Agnosticism, the belief that you can't know if there are gods, and Atheism, which you define as the belief that there are no gods.. but there is another flavor in there.

I usually, for myself at least, attribute the term Nontheism with the belief in no gods, while I define Atheism for myself merely as the belief in no gods. The wording is important to me -- there's a difference between lack of belief and disbelief to me: one is the belief that gods do not exist, while the other is acknowledging that they do/might exist, while not worshipping them.

Myself, I'd fall under my personal definition of Atheism.  

[TeaDidikai]

reynai

I believe your poll is slightly incomplete, as how my beliefs stand isn't actually up there. You have Agnosticism, the belief that you can't know if there are gods, and Atheism, which you define as the belief that there are no gods.. but there is another flavor in there.

The defintion- not the word use, is flawed.

After all, Buddhism is an atheistic theology.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

Heilsan Allir,

Hard polytheist with emanation theorum based on study of Indo-European belief systems, and their similarities and differences. The point of emanation within the context of the Germanic Folkways, is the Ginnungagap, which simply is, it is neither Wihaz or Hailagaz.

Ver thu heil  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

TeaDidikai

After all, Buddhism is an atheistic theology.

Depends on the branch. As Byaggha has mentioned, some Buddhists are what you might call agnostic deists. The better term I've heard used in relation to the religion itself is "non-theocentric". In other words, the existence of a deity is not relevant to the religion.

To reynai: You've created an arbitrary distinction between "hard" and "soft" (or "strong" and "weak") atheism, and claimed that one is not atheism while the other is. This can be problematic, as semantic differences can lead to great confusion. Furthermore, you've managed to define the term "Nontheism" and Atheism using the exact same sequence of words, which leads to further confusion as to whether you're defining "Nontheism" or Atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deities. As Tea mentioned, the initial definition of Atheism is flawed in the opposite direction of your contest to the lack of "Nontheism" - why no one has mentioned this up until now is beyond me. Perhaps I'm the designated pedant here.

As for myself...agnostic theist with emanation leanings. While I am not myself Hindu, I believe that it is possible that Brahman created more deities than simply those worshipped in the Hindu faith. I have made supplications to Brahman in the form of the Gayatri mantra, and revere Brahman as creator of all things. My relationship with Brahman is on the border of deism; I feel that meditating upon the essence of Brahman is what guides one to the Right Path - not that Brahman directly brings one to the path.  

[TeaDidikai]

Henry Dorsett Case

TeaDidikai

After all, Buddhism is an atheistic theology.

Depends on the branch. As Byaggha has mentioned, some Buddhists are what you might call agnostic deists. The better term I've heard used in relation to the religion itself is "non-theocentric". In other words, the existence of a deity is not relevant to the religion.

More depends on the kind of atheism you're addressing. Hard v. Soft and I believe I was told at one point that there is a Lateralist Atheistic movement. confused  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

TeaDidikai

More depends on the kind of atheism you're addressing. Hard v. Soft and I believe I was told at one point that there is a Lateralist Atheistic movement. confused

See, I'd disagree with you that it's more about the type of atheism. If we're discussing a religion that states "There is no deity", such as LaVeyan Satanism, then yes, it's important to note that the religion takes a hard atheist stance. But soft atheism as a descriptor of doctrine honestly sounds like the religion is teaching "don't believe that there are no deities, but don't believe that there are, either". It's a lot clearer when you're using the concept of theocentricism, since it gives the concept of "deities are/are not relevant to the teachings of this religion". So we wind up with the differences in -theism, -gnosticism, and -theocentricism.

That said, I've known hard-atheist Buddhists...again furthering the need for more clear terminology.  

[TeaDidikai]

Henry Dorsett Case

That said, I've known hard-atheist Buddhists...again furthering the need for more clear terminology.

It makes me wonder though- what attachment and incarnation a non-corporeal deity has within Buddhism.  

[Reynai]

Henry Dorsett Case: You're quite right; looking back at my post I did speak things poorly. And, at the time, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the terms, much less the meaning of, Hard and Soft Atheism. But I like to think that I'm slowly growing less ignorant.