William wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:18 pm
[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]
But agnosticism is not a belief position.
Nor are atheism or theism - beliefs come as knowledge develops, and positions change as the knowledge branches out.
Theism is by definition belief in a god or gods.
Yet one can be a theist without adopting belief in a god or gods.
What the common definition of theism is - "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." is more appropriate to the description of 'religious' which branches out from theism.
As one example which comes to mind, the idea of a deist god does not fall under the common definition of theism, yet it is a theist position nonetheless.
So if we are working with definitions which are not appropriate, confusion can occur...which is why I wrote what I did in post #1.
Atheism is simply non -belief in any god claim,
That is different from saying 'Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."
"non -belief in any god claim" would be the position of non-theists and anti-theists, which branch from out of atheism.
Atheism and theism are by definition, belief - responses to the knowledge position of 'don't know', which agnosticism is. Perhaps you use the terms to mean other things, but then I don't see how they would work, never mind relate to the actualities of the thought -systems.
One cannot be a theist without belief in a god or gods. That is what the term means, one who has a belief in a god or god. The desist god is still a god so that makes one who believes in a deist god a theist. And the definition you gave broadly covers all kinds of gods. That the creator god concept is singled out 'specifically' (but not exclusively) does not alter that. Indeed a Creator - god concept is not be itself 'Religious'i n the sense of relating to a religion. Indeed (following the Dover trial, Creationism has said that the case for a Creator does not depend on it being the god of the Bible. I think the cofusion is of your own making.
Lack of belief in any gods is as near non - belief in any god - claim as makes no difference. (if 'god' is used in the common usage). That the same thing is said in a different way does not make it a different thing said. In fact you pretty much say so: "non -belief in any god claim" would be the position of non-theists and anti-theists, which branch from out of atheism". Non belief is not only the (belief) position of non- theists and anti -theists which branch out of atheism (ok, I get that idea) but non theists and those who have a non - belief in any god -claim are the same persons and 'atheist' is what such a person, by definition, is. And anti -theist might indeed 'branch' out of atheism, but that's just what an atheist may or may not decide to do about not believing in any gods or god -claim.
This is just the same as a theist being by definition one who believes in a god or accepts some god -claim (god being the usual meaning), and Hindu, Creationist, Deist and irreligious theist would all branch out from theism because a theist by definition accepts some kind of god claim.
This is actually very simple but it is the misunderstanding and mis-application of definitions that makes it look confused.
Oh yes, that reminds me. Have you any idea where that flow -chart came from? Just asking as it wasn't wrong exactly and is not to blame for your mis-application of terms.