![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm trying to put together an illustration explaining the relationships between the various positions regarding religion and theism, but I've hit a stumbling block.
Is all theism explicit, or can it also be implicit?
Can it be present without a conscious decision to hold a theistic belief? Or is that possible, but not the same as the belief being implicit? - FrostyBytes 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the definition of atheism is incorrect. It is not the belief that there isn't a god, but rather the lack of belief. While it may seem like semantics, I think it is an important distinction. Atheism, when used pejoratively, is frequently described as the denial of god...this definition like that, suggest athesim is a belief system, when it is infact the rejection of belief. -- 74.112.142.90 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a start-class top-importance article, and compared to the atheism article it isn't doing very well. I'm going to be editing this article, I have read and archived the discussion; but I'm hoping I will have people here to discuss things with. The first plan is to just add sources for the current material. -- Merzul 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Here is a question. Why does the Theism article refer to "the belief in the existence of one or more Gods or deities" -- as I understanding, theism refers to belief in God, pantheism is that the Universe == God, and polytheism is that there are many gods. Ergo, there should be a distinction between theism and polytheism, and theism should simply say "the belief in the existance of God". I recognize that the existing definition is quoted on the web, but it isn't really correct -- that is why the term polytheism exists.
Now it can be argued I am sure that monotheism is the word opposed to polytheism but from the Greek, "theo" refers to god or divine -- singular; and "ism" originally referred to the action of forming nouns from verbs; now it refers to a doctrine or theory. So theism means a "doctrine of God" (singular). This leads to the modern usage of "belief in God". (As adding the "a" prefix leads to no belief in God or "without God".) SunSw0rd 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm brand new at this, so forgive any beginners' mistakes.
Common usage equates "theism" with "God-belief," just as it equates "theory" with "idea." However, just as scientific discussion gives "theory" a much more specific definition, the specific theological meaning of "theism" is "deity-belief."
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
While accurate, this sentence fails to distinguish between simple belief that there is a God ( the common usage of "theism") and the belief that God is a deity (the specific).
My major complaint, however, is with the classifications.
As the article points out, pantheism and panentheism are radically different stances from deity-belief. They disagree on the most fundamental definition of God, holding God to be not the Creator or ruler of the cosmos, but rather the universe itself (pantheism) or an entity which encompasses it (panentheism).
Deism is in fact a form of theism, believing in a non-personal Creator, and yet is catagorized separately with atheism and agnosticism. Meanwhile, pan/entheism, whose differences from theism are much more fundamental, are labeled as its subcategories, along with maltheism, which is simply theism with a malevolent Creator. Pantheism and panentheism should be listed in the other "categories of belief," and deism in the subcategories with differing characteristics.
It all comes down to the question of a Creator. In theism (and deism and maltheism), there is a God who created the cosmos. In pan/entheism, there is not. God either is or includes the cosmos, but is no more its creator than a man is the creator of his own skeleton. -- KaleriaStorm 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Deism is NOT a branch of theism; anymore than Agnosticism is a branch of Atheism. Deism is it's own unique umbrella category of beleif{with offshoots, such as PanDeism and PanenDeism}; theism includes{at least in common understanding in todays world} that the god{s} is{are} "personal"- and furthermore personal towards humans, they are either anthropomorphic AND/OR Anthropocentric. The Deist conception is neither of those, it is undefined in nature or form. "Classic deists"{or "Monodeists"} as they are also known, held by the majority of the Deists of the enlightenment era, was indeed "borderline" liberal theism, but Deism has built into it the means for rational evolution of thought, and many Deists otday are far and away from the "borderline" liberal theism of some of those thinkers. The Deism of the enlightenment was;nt irrational for it's time, butit can be argued validly that it lacks substance and rationale today, and some Deists today are monodeists/classic deists, but most evolve past this, and it is often just a means to confortbaly grow out and apart from theism in general. Many Deists today are essentially closer to Agnosticism and Atheism, some even going as far as to be Anti-Theistic and live like and think like in most terms and are essentially kin with the other two main brances of nontheism{atheism and agnosticism}- and are loosely Deistic only in their intellectual leanings{lacking most or all subtle worship of the deistic first cause that the classic deists protrayed and portray}; myself for example, I am Agnostic-Deist in my intellectual leanings, but am functionally and even rhetorically not really any different from Atheists and am myself Anti-Theistic. But even the classic monodeism of the enlightenment was and is NOT a branch of theism; as I said it was/is "borderline" liberal theism, but was and is a category all it's own none the less{though it can be mixed with other categories or subcategories depending on individual intellectual or practical applications of it}; and certainly Deis itself, when seperated from even the clasic monodeism, is far and away from beeisn a subcategory of Theism;it is different from even liberal theism, and libeal theism is the end of the line for theism. Deism is essentially the mixture of some of the best characteristics of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism combined; but is itself a seperate category. As for Pantheism beeing a form of atheism with reverance for the universe; this is blatantly false as well. Yes, there are groups passing themselves off as Pantheist today{well respected groups}- which are as Dawkins puts it "sexed up atheists/atheism", but this is NOT "Pantheism", without the 'theistic" qualities of beeing "personal" and intelligent/sentient/etc, it is NOT "theism". Pantheism is truly held by some Pagans/neo-pagans and troibalist groups and new agers,etc, to whom nature/universe is a sentient and self-aware force or vast force/beeing which is also human-centered{or centered on sentienjt creature sin the cosmos} and through them. Same goes for Panentheism. There is a category of deism called Pandeism and panendeism, which posit their own theories, but none imply a anthropocentric/morphic or personal godforce in the panTHEISTIC/panenTHEISTIC sense. The "sesed up atheist" pantheists are NOT Pantheists at all, and should probably just call themselves "atheists whom love nature"{and their sites things such as atheists whom love nature.org}. PanDeists on the other ahnd may borderline "sexed up atheism" however. Hope that clarifies some things.-- Iconoclastithon 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer is the first sentence of the deity article: A deity or god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
We don't believe that God is supernatural, we believe that nature is God/ part of God. (I'm a panentheist.)-- KaleriaStorm 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki page referenced under this topic heading, "International Creed for Peace", has been nominated for deletion. I concur with deletion because I believe the content of the article violates Wikipedia policy as "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia." The content of the article is better disseminated as a standalone advocacy web page. The sentiments advocated have not yet developed a significant cultural impact worthy of reference in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I suggest that this paragraph likewise be deleted from the Theism article. 204.58.248.33 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's slightly misleading to see either as atheistic. Both allow atheism, so I suppose that could make them weak atheism religions, but I think it could mislead readers. Confucianism itself was unconcerned with gods, but I don't think it made any statement on the matter and many to most Confucians believed in the gods. See God in Buddhism for that.-- T. Anthony 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is ostensibly about Theism, but it spends most of it's time moving back and forth comparing/contrasting/describing theism,atheism,deism etc. (and I thought deism was included in the definition of theism!) -- 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I find there is always an implicit assumption, when talking about theism, that the god(s) being contemplated cares about humans. Is there a term for a god that does not give humans special status in the universe? Or is that just non-theism? Should we add this assumption to the definition in the page? Sorry if this is a silly question - I'm not much of a philosopher - or religious person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.174.103 ( talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My dictionary gives "belief in the existence of a god or gods" as one definition of theism, and my philosophical dictionary has a similar definition, so I see no reason to change the first sentence of the article. Some people have their own personal definition of theism, often as a way to make "theism" fit into a classification scheme that includes pantheism and deism and other forms of belief. I see no reason to go along with that. Using theism in the widely accepted sense creates less confusion.
The article contains this sentence: "Some non-theistic religions are: Confucianism and Buddhism." However, the articles "God in Buddhism" and "Mahayana" both describe god-like Buddhas and bodhisattvas, which people petition for help or rely on to provide some function that humans can't perform. So I'm wondering what the justification is for calling Buddhism non-theistic. If there is no justification, then Buddhism should be removed from that sentence. RenGalskap 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I waited a couple of weeks, got no response, and so removed the reference to Confusianalism and Buddhism as non-theistic religions. According to the Wikipedia article on Confusianism, it is a philosophical system, not a religion. The Wikipedia article on Buddhism describes god-like beings that have superhuman powers and provide help for humans; hardly non-theistic. RenGalskap 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.186.138 ( talk)
In this revert to unencyclopedic and specious content, an editor suggests that I need to get "consensus" since I "have faced resistance."
Unfortunately, the editor's notions of "consensus" and "resistance" were not checked against article history or talk space:
While the edit of (19:21, 5 May 2008) is a vast improvement over the cruft of the preceding year (which did not change significantly), it remains screwed up:
The notion that flakiness needs to be maintained despite violating cardinal policies ( WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) is just gaming the system. The assumption that I need to seek consensus when other policies are blithely being violated simply does not wash.
I don't really have any particular interest in this article, and only took the time to fix it because its damaging to the credibility of an encyclopedia when an article not only contradicts every dictionary (not just of philosophy), but also contradicts itself. The rot needs to stop. And the directories need to go somewhere else. And the "consensus" and "resistance" is a nice try, but no cigar. -- Fullstop ( talk) 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent | ” |
This article would greatly benefit from some improvement, and I think both of you are making some valid points. I would like to try to sort it out an get a version taking some aspects of both of your ideas. And personally, I would disagree that the sentence about theism implying the immanence of God is irrelevant. It is perhaps the most significant part of theism, which distinguish it from deism. In any case, let's discuss one thing at a time.
First step would be to list definitions of theism from main reference works. I can start with the Oxford reference works; and I think I have REP somewhere, so let's do this properly. Merzul ( talk) 13:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to modify and add to the above list. Merzul ( talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you have to love Simon Blackburn. :D But I think what he refers to is usually written theaism, or theinism. Merzul ( talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The existing intro said that theism is "a philosophical system which interprets man's worthiness in terms of one God". This is true but so does deism hence such a definition is inadequate. Secondly, the intro said that theism is "the belief that at least one divinity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it". That is incorrect. That belief referred to is a specific form of theism called panentheism. The main point about theism as a theological doctrine is the belief that God is active in the universe - particularly the world - and has not 'taken a back seat' or withdrawn completely as deism suggests. Langdell ( talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And to add to this why when referring to God is the gender specific "He" used. No one can prove/disprove God's gender so I believe either we change it to He/She or just keep using the word God (or even its, their, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone has added, without source:
Capitalization is not "done as an honour", but to distinguish a proper name from a common name. We capitalize Senators for the name of the baseball team, but not when referring to the "pantheon" of 100 senators in the US. We capitalize Beowulf, because, though fictional, it is a proper name. Style guides (such as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/) have more impact than loose practice. Notably, however, the pantheistic god is seldom capitalized by anyone. -- JimWae ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those that say deism and pantheism are misclassified.Theism is the belief in deity(s).A deity is a god that is personal and has human characteristics.Both pantheism and deism do not believe in such a thing. While pantheism includes the word theism it is far from the common understanding of the word theism.
The definition used is far to inclusive and most experts do not use that definition.Deism and pantheism both should be classified under something else,I suggest under non-theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJM17 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody left a request for verification for note three in the introduction. The following definition of theism comes from the current edition (2006) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (OUP) edited by E.A. Livingstone:
Following the assumption that Oxford University Press is authoritative on these matters, here is the current definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Ed. John Bowker, 2000:
Polytheism, Pantheism and Deism, although they involve the belief in Deity/Deities do not belong as part of the point of view known as 'Theism'. Theism, as the above references show (if you are not satisfied with those I can paste some material from the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica which will add further support) is a monotheistic doctrine contrasting with the aforementioned theological points of view especially Deism. The main body of the article as it stands does not adequately reflect the standard usage of the term 'theism' as it is used these days. It is not the case that people do not agree what theism means. The dictionary references above do in fact reflect common standard usage of 'theism'.
John Orr qualifies the assertion that the more specific use of the word theism arose in the 17th century to contrast with deism (as opposed to atheism which was unthinkable in those days). Deism began its slow ascendance in the seventeenth century alongside the ideas of the scientific revolution. In the Deist worldview God does not really feature after creating the universe in the beginning. The universe is wound up like a clock then left to run along a more or less pre determined course. Deists do not really believe that you can call on God for help because He cannot intervene and override His own Laws of Nature. He is not available as it were. That's when Theism began to be used to refer to people who did believe that God could intervene because He did not withdraw after the Creation but remained as a living force organizing the affairs of the universe.
I've just noticed that a user (Merzul?) has already added some of the same material above which answers the previous request for verification. Please will somebody develop the article to reflect the standard contemporary use of the term theism. 81.109.10.218 ( talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be written from the objective linguistic Philosophical viewpoint encyclopedia writers need to take.
It has 2 sections for no reason: etymology and then some too specific 'divisions' section. These are irrelevant because: the etymology section does not actually get into etymology, and the 'divisions' section was made because of someone's preference or limited linguistic knowledge.
The divisions section does a poor job of focusing on pan(en)theism. Pantheism implies a first cause and panentheism additionally implies a causeless cause. Either of these may be personified, and they may even be personified in deism, though (due to etymology) as discussion above points out, deism needs a separate article. Pantheisms do not conflict with henotheisms even if they uses personification, though in discussion above someone was arguing pantheism conflicts with abstraction about deities due to science. Well, as I have added, religion also has abstraction about deities, and it is not the place of a linguistic & objective-Philosophy-focused encyclopedia to debate conflicts between science/religion rather than explain viewpoints that each can take and leave it at that.
I do not know who started this article, but I suggest change the name of section 1 (etymology) to 'Types of Theism' or 'Theisms' and incorporate all the part about theism from section 2 (divisions) into section 1. Section 2 really does not have the linguistic & Philosophical notability needing a 2nd section unless you want to incorrectly leave deism there.
If no one discusses how to change this or does so, one day perhaps I will get back and just arbitrarily make these changes.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone else finding the reply above and the changes to the article inconsistent, vague, original research, &/or barely intelligible? Furthermore, complete removal of deism section does not improve the article -- JimWae ( talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's examine the new entry for the 2nd sentence of the article:
-- JimWae ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The article should include discussions of both atheism & deism - but atheism cannot be (as it was) included as a kind of theism. Whether deism is a kind of theism depends on how strongly one thinks the specific meaning of theism is THE best meaning. Perhaps not so for all Xns, but for atheists & agnostics & deists, deism is a kind of theism -- JimWae ( talk) 00:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
However, if polytheism and even pantheism can be included as types of theism, there seems to be little justification for removing deism from being a subspecies -- JimWae ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Autotheism, a *theism in the dictionary, has been tagged as vague.
A good example of authotheist belief that is no more verified than monotheism, etc., is personality cults in which someone is said to be God or a god. Most major religions have such beliefs and their founders do both Prophecy (etc.) and proscribing ethics, so in that sense most believers would not contradict those who say the founders are spiritual/divine. When someone says it of herself/himself in a violent cult, that is problematic autotheism, but autotheism does exist in many cases.
In summary, autotheism is a type of (lesser-known) theism, so if it is vague ask me why or research it. On the topic of vagueness, such as 'beliefs rather than viewpoints,' which this article may still prefer to use, perhaps, for example, much of the rest could be called vague to the most scientific young person growing up in the most scientific family or town in the most scientific nation, whoever that may be. Such people may have little/no knowledge of any definition of theism-belief and will likely ignore it all outright as being vague.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In asking for the citation it was said '[Advaita Vedanta strives to realize the self.]' Well, what do you think that 'selflessness' (a term I prefer) is? It is Brahman or Parabrahm, i.e. Parashiva, i.e. (IIRC) Maha-Vishnu. The idea is exactly the same as Aton. It is beyond Ahura Mazda and YHVH but beyond the latter is (euphemistically) said to be Ain Soph: equivalent to Aton and the The Absolute in Hinduism.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, two Trimurtis predate the Vedas: Agni & Vayu & Surya is one. The Brahmans, or at least other Philosophers were around, and they had the idea of The Absolute ( causeless cause.) Even Vedic mythology has a story that someone came to the campfire of the modern Trimurti and did things the Trimurti could not, and then the visitor disappeared. That is a story about Brahman or Parabrahm. Maybe it does not really matter if it says pre-Vedic or Vedic, but Advaita Vedanta is Vedic, and the idea precedes Advaita Vedanta. The Vedas were also an oral tradition that some Indians and esoterists say is much older than Western historians say. However old it is, the idea was around before the writing of Vedas, though it may have been in the (oral) Vedic age. I am not a great expert on the topic, I just know the idea is old. It may be as easy to argue against it as it is to argue against Atenism.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, many people pray as if God/gods are deist, and if theism is personal, then personal pan(en)theism exists. Actually none of the viewpoints on the page necessarily fully support 'personal' or 'impersonal:' it is also a completely different abstract topic that has no definitive terms yet. One would have to make a definition opposite 'autotheism,' i.e. that God/gods is/are external. Then one would have to state in the definition whether that 'external' (which may be panentheistically internal) is personal or not, sort of like the opposite of 'sui' (on suitheism--autotheism.)
Perhaps pantheism and henotheism are most often given as examples defining Hinduism, but Abrahamic religion mystics are also often pantheist as well as monotheist. However, if the article makes statements about henotheism as if causeless cause and first cause are non-existent, then people will be thinking henotheism is only some kind of polytheism (and is not that where it is in the article again?) My example of the Elohim and beni-Elohim is one that shows that is not correct--at least not fully correct, though the implication is both viewpoints explain reality somehow. I guess it is okay for now that henotheism is under polytheism, but it omits the word 'many' so puts the focus more on ideas such as the first cause.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought I moved monolatrism, but it looks like my change was put back into polytheism without returning possible earlier material: I fixed it for where it is, but you may want to check for older material.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask why the opening sentence of this article defines theism as "irrational." Such a conclusion seems under considerable debate and unwarranted in a truly neutral article. I suggest that the introduction of the article be revised to remove the terms "rational" and "irrational" from it, or mention that such a label is the topic of debate. 134.174.140.40 ( talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The main body of this article is misleading. The notion that Theism encompasses polytheism, pantheism, autotheism etc is a marginal rather than a mainstream point of view. By 'mainstream' is meant the view that is held by religious studies departments in universities throughout the western world. Some extremely well qualified contributors have tried to recast this article in line with conventional scholarship. However there are people who clearly have no professional knowledge of the subject with an axe to grind preventing this article from being improved and casting the article instead according to their POV. Instead of adding what may seem to these people as simply another subjective point of view I thought it might be more persuasive to post a few hundred words from the first part of the entry in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
So the main point to glean from this section is that Theism is a kind of monotheism. Here is the entry from the current edition of The
Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.
Now, whether or not one believes this to be true is beside the point. This is what Theism is and the main body of the article doesn't mention it.
As regards Polytheism which is the first topic in the main body of the Wikipeida article note the following from the entry in the Encyclopedia Brittannica:
Naturally, by Semitic religions is meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Which is to say that these are Theistic religions. Polytheism - as the article states - may be Theistic but not necessarily so.
I hope that this may be of some help to anyone wishing to improve the main body of the article. Please don't simply copy and paste the above passage from the Encyclopedia Brittannica unless you are going to provide a citation! Best wishes.
81.106.115.153 (
talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In concurrence with the above author I would like to add that this is one of the worst, most shamefully poor articles in the whole of wikipedia. Put simply it does not discuss what it purports to. Polytheism, pantheism etc are the province of other articles and should be moved to those articles. Theism as you will encounter it in authoritative reference books is the view that there is one God on which everything is dependent for its existence. The most disgraceful thing as i see it is that there is noone who has encountered this article who is knowledgeable about the subject who can be bothered to put it right. The existing material may constitute a dessert or the cheese and biscuits but where is the main course? Two sentences in the lead section describe theism as a doctrine but nowhere in the main body of the article is the bones or the flesh of the topic. 81.107.150.246 ( talk) 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the Administrator who at WP:AN3 suggested that these IPs appear to be the same person. Dougweller ( talk) 05:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of help. Every sub-section starts with "While a specific definition of theism may exclude ______, it is included by the most general definition." Not only is this poor writing, the point of encyclopedic article is to cover facts about the topic. Writing this way conveys heavy bias towards the narrow, and not exclusively used, monotheistic connotation as though that is the only acceptable definition. The actual fact is, theism most literally describes belief in at least one god, NOT belief in only one god. These lines should be removed and they need nothing to replace them, as the monotheistic connotation is thoroughly described in the first paragraph. PrincessPimpernel ( talk) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this edit to the lead, which was made by an anonymous ip with no edit summary. I can only guess why he feels the change is necessary, but in contrast, I think the sources are quite clear. AFAICT, agnosticism is about "knowledge", not about "justification for belief". Our article on agnosticism covers this in some detail as well. If I've missed anything, or there's some reason this change is necessary, I'd be happy to discuss it! Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If you change this back again, then you are doing Original Research. No where in the citation does it imply what you want it to imply. IIXVXII ( talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism...agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god... Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic." (See page 10-11 for the full quote). Another is by Dan Barker, page 96 here. "
The two words [Atheism and agnosticism] serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.". These are sources we're using in wikipedia already on this set of articles. I could find others if necessary, but I think what we have already should be sufficient. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If a theism is not pantheist or panentheist then what is it?
(pandeism and panendeism does not count)-- 85.104.94.52 ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In this edit User:TheCorduroyEffect changes the lede sentence in a manner that simplifies the sentence a little bit, but it changes the meaning from what used to be accurate to what is now inaccurate.
"the belief that at least one deity exists" is not the same meaning as "the belief in the existence of deities." And, of course, the difference is that the current version excludes the singular and only includes the plural. That is both a misrepresentation of the vast majority of theists (who are monotheistic), it is also just inaccurate.
I will change it to "the belief in the existence of a [[deity] or deities." Perhaps it should just be reverted, but I don't want to have a revert struggle, so I will try to take this edit and make it better rather than revert it. 173.48.60.68 ( talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We need sources here for reducing theism to belief in gods who intervene in the world. Cudworth's definition, in drawing a line between atheists and theists, plainly puts deists in the latter camp, and he is a contemporary of the originators of the idea, in the place of its origin. It would be fair to record deistic objection to being categorized with other believers in gods, but (a) if this distinction is more or less universally observed, we need a source for that, and (b) in any case we need a source for the deist perspective; you cannot just say it on your own authority. Mangoe ( talk) 17:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
IP Editor 142.160.131.202 wiped out all the see also links on this page. When I reverted he reverted it back pointing to WP:EMBED. I looked at WP:EMBED and I see no justification for wiping out all the links as he/she is doing it. We can discuss specific links that may not deserve to be on the page, but the wiping out of all links does not seem right to me? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel pretty sure that I once read somewhere that as theism is belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent, it would be taken to exclude both pantheism (which rejects the transcendence of God) and deism (which rejects the immanence of God). This could be more clearly formulated in the article. Vorbee ( talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This sentence from the article is problematic: "There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history." Even though the word "postulated" makes the sentence technically true, a careless reader could easily take the sentence to imply that there were many valid proofs of monotheism. This sentence should be removed or replaced with something with a neutral point of view linking to /info/en/?search=Existence_of_God for example. 76.21.18.251 ( talk) 19:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm trying to put together an illustration explaining the relationships between the various positions regarding religion and theism, but I've hit a stumbling block.
Is all theism explicit, or can it also be implicit?
Can it be present without a conscious decision to hold a theistic belief? Or is that possible, but not the same as the belief being implicit? - FrostyBytes 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the definition of atheism is incorrect. It is not the belief that there isn't a god, but rather the lack of belief. While it may seem like semantics, I think it is an important distinction. Atheism, when used pejoratively, is frequently described as the denial of god...this definition like that, suggest athesim is a belief system, when it is infact the rejection of belief. -- 74.112.142.90 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a start-class top-importance article, and compared to the atheism article it isn't doing very well. I'm going to be editing this article, I have read and archived the discussion; but I'm hoping I will have people here to discuss things with. The first plan is to just add sources for the current material. -- Merzul 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Here is a question. Why does the Theism article refer to "the belief in the existence of one or more Gods or deities" -- as I understanding, theism refers to belief in God, pantheism is that the Universe == God, and polytheism is that there are many gods. Ergo, there should be a distinction between theism and polytheism, and theism should simply say "the belief in the existance of God". I recognize that the existing definition is quoted on the web, but it isn't really correct -- that is why the term polytheism exists.
Now it can be argued I am sure that monotheism is the word opposed to polytheism but from the Greek, "theo" refers to god or divine -- singular; and "ism" originally referred to the action of forming nouns from verbs; now it refers to a doctrine or theory. So theism means a "doctrine of God" (singular). This leads to the modern usage of "belief in God". (As adding the "a" prefix leads to no belief in God or "without God".) SunSw0rd 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm brand new at this, so forgive any beginners' mistakes.
Common usage equates "theism" with "God-belief," just as it equates "theory" with "idea." However, just as scientific discussion gives "theory" a much more specific definition, the specific theological meaning of "theism" is "deity-belief."
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
While accurate, this sentence fails to distinguish between simple belief that there is a God ( the common usage of "theism") and the belief that God is a deity (the specific).
My major complaint, however, is with the classifications.
As the article points out, pantheism and panentheism are radically different stances from deity-belief. They disagree on the most fundamental definition of God, holding God to be not the Creator or ruler of the cosmos, but rather the universe itself (pantheism) or an entity which encompasses it (panentheism).
Deism is in fact a form of theism, believing in a non-personal Creator, and yet is catagorized separately with atheism and agnosticism. Meanwhile, pan/entheism, whose differences from theism are much more fundamental, are labeled as its subcategories, along with maltheism, which is simply theism with a malevolent Creator. Pantheism and panentheism should be listed in the other "categories of belief," and deism in the subcategories with differing characteristics.
It all comes down to the question of a Creator. In theism (and deism and maltheism), there is a God who created the cosmos. In pan/entheism, there is not. God either is or includes the cosmos, but is no more its creator than a man is the creator of his own skeleton. -- KaleriaStorm 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Deism is NOT a branch of theism; anymore than Agnosticism is a branch of Atheism. Deism is it's own unique umbrella category of beleif{with offshoots, such as PanDeism and PanenDeism}; theism includes{at least in common understanding in todays world} that the god{s} is{are} "personal"- and furthermore personal towards humans, they are either anthropomorphic AND/OR Anthropocentric. The Deist conception is neither of those, it is undefined in nature or form. "Classic deists"{or "Monodeists"} as they are also known, held by the majority of the Deists of the enlightenment era, was indeed "borderline" liberal theism, but Deism has built into it the means for rational evolution of thought, and many Deists otday are far and away from the "borderline" liberal theism of some of those thinkers. The Deism of the enlightenment was;nt irrational for it's time, butit can be argued validly that it lacks substance and rationale today, and some Deists today are monodeists/classic deists, but most evolve past this, and it is often just a means to confortbaly grow out and apart from theism in general. Many Deists today are essentially closer to Agnosticism and Atheism, some even going as far as to be Anti-Theistic and live like and think like in most terms and are essentially kin with the other two main brances of nontheism{atheism and agnosticism}- and are loosely Deistic only in their intellectual leanings{lacking most or all subtle worship of the deistic first cause that the classic deists protrayed and portray}; myself for example, I am Agnostic-Deist in my intellectual leanings, but am functionally and even rhetorically not really any different from Atheists and am myself Anti-Theistic. But even the classic monodeism of the enlightenment was and is NOT a branch of theism; as I said it was/is "borderline" liberal theism, but was and is a category all it's own none the less{though it can be mixed with other categories or subcategories depending on individual intellectual or practical applications of it}; and certainly Deis itself, when seperated from even the clasic monodeism, is far and away from beeisn a subcategory of Theism;it is different from even liberal theism, and libeal theism is the end of the line for theism. Deism is essentially the mixture of some of the best characteristics of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism combined; but is itself a seperate category. As for Pantheism beeing a form of atheism with reverance for the universe; this is blatantly false as well. Yes, there are groups passing themselves off as Pantheist today{well respected groups}- which are as Dawkins puts it "sexed up atheists/atheism", but this is NOT "Pantheism", without the 'theistic" qualities of beeing "personal" and intelligent/sentient/etc, it is NOT "theism". Pantheism is truly held by some Pagans/neo-pagans and troibalist groups and new agers,etc, to whom nature/universe is a sentient and self-aware force or vast force/beeing which is also human-centered{or centered on sentienjt creature sin the cosmos} and through them. Same goes for Panentheism. There is a category of deism called Pandeism and panendeism, which posit their own theories, but none imply a anthropocentric/morphic or personal godforce in the panTHEISTIC/panenTHEISTIC sense. The "sesed up atheist" pantheists are NOT Pantheists at all, and should probably just call themselves "atheists whom love nature"{and their sites things such as atheists whom love nature.org}. PanDeists on the other ahnd may borderline "sexed up atheism" however. Hope that clarifies some things.-- Iconoclastithon 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer is the first sentence of the deity article: A deity or god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
We don't believe that God is supernatural, we believe that nature is God/ part of God. (I'm a panentheist.)-- KaleriaStorm 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki page referenced under this topic heading, "International Creed for Peace", has been nominated for deletion. I concur with deletion because I believe the content of the article violates Wikipedia policy as "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia." The content of the article is better disseminated as a standalone advocacy web page. The sentiments advocated have not yet developed a significant cultural impact worthy of reference in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I suggest that this paragraph likewise be deleted from the Theism article. 204.58.248.33 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's slightly misleading to see either as atheistic. Both allow atheism, so I suppose that could make them weak atheism religions, but I think it could mislead readers. Confucianism itself was unconcerned with gods, but I don't think it made any statement on the matter and many to most Confucians believed in the gods. See God in Buddhism for that.-- T. Anthony 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is ostensibly about Theism, but it spends most of it's time moving back and forth comparing/contrasting/describing theism,atheism,deism etc. (and I thought deism was included in the definition of theism!) -- 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I find there is always an implicit assumption, when talking about theism, that the god(s) being contemplated cares about humans. Is there a term for a god that does not give humans special status in the universe? Or is that just non-theism? Should we add this assumption to the definition in the page? Sorry if this is a silly question - I'm not much of a philosopher - or religious person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.174.103 ( talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My dictionary gives "belief in the existence of a god or gods" as one definition of theism, and my philosophical dictionary has a similar definition, so I see no reason to change the first sentence of the article. Some people have their own personal definition of theism, often as a way to make "theism" fit into a classification scheme that includes pantheism and deism and other forms of belief. I see no reason to go along with that. Using theism in the widely accepted sense creates less confusion.
The article contains this sentence: "Some non-theistic religions are: Confucianism and Buddhism." However, the articles "God in Buddhism" and "Mahayana" both describe god-like Buddhas and bodhisattvas, which people petition for help or rely on to provide some function that humans can't perform. So I'm wondering what the justification is for calling Buddhism non-theistic. If there is no justification, then Buddhism should be removed from that sentence. RenGalskap 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I waited a couple of weeks, got no response, and so removed the reference to Confusianalism and Buddhism as non-theistic religions. According to the Wikipedia article on Confusianism, it is a philosophical system, not a religion. The Wikipedia article on Buddhism describes god-like beings that have superhuman powers and provide help for humans; hardly non-theistic. RenGalskap 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.186.138 ( talk)
In this revert to unencyclopedic and specious content, an editor suggests that I need to get "consensus" since I "have faced resistance."
Unfortunately, the editor's notions of "consensus" and "resistance" were not checked against article history or talk space:
While the edit of (19:21, 5 May 2008) is a vast improvement over the cruft of the preceding year (which did not change significantly), it remains screwed up:
The notion that flakiness needs to be maintained despite violating cardinal policies ( WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) is just gaming the system. The assumption that I need to seek consensus when other policies are blithely being violated simply does not wash.
I don't really have any particular interest in this article, and only took the time to fix it because its damaging to the credibility of an encyclopedia when an article not only contradicts every dictionary (not just of philosophy), but also contradicts itself. The rot needs to stop. And the directories need to go somewhere else. And the "consensus" and "resistance" is a nice try, but no cigar. -- Fullstop ( talk) 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent | ” |
This article would greatly benefit from some improvement, and I think both of you are making some valid points. I would like to try to sort it out an get a version taking some aspects of both of your ideas. And personally, I would disagree that the sentence about theism implying the immanence of God is irrelevant. It is perhaps the most significant part of theism, which distinguish it from deism. In any case, let's discuss one thing at a time.
First step would be to list definitions of theism from main reference works. I can start with the Oxford reference works; and I think I have REP somewhere, so let's do this properly. Merzul ( talk) 13:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to modify and add to the above list. Merzul ( talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you have to love Simon Blackburn. :D But I think what he refers to is usually written theaism, or theinism. Merzul ( talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The existing intro said that theism is "a philosophical system which interprets man's worthiness in terms of one God". This is true but so does deism hence such a definition is inadequate. Secondly, the intro said that theism is "the belief that at least one divinity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it". That is incorrect. That belief referred to is a specific form of theism called panentheism. The main point about theism as a theological doctrine is the belief that God is active in the universe - particularly the world - and has not 'taken a back seat' or withdrawn completely as deism suggests. Langdell ( talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And to add to this why when referring to God is the gender specific "He" used. No one can prove/disprove God's gender so I believe either we change it to He/She or just keep using the word God (or even its, their, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone has added, without source:
Capitalization is not "done as an honour", but to distinguish a proper name from a common name. We capitalize Senators for the name of the baseball team, but not when referring to the "pantheon" of 100 senators in the US. We capitalize Beowulf, because, though fictional, it is a proper name. Style guides (such as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/) have more impact than loose practice. Notably, however, the pantheistic god is seldom capitalized by anyone. -- JimWae ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those that say deism and pantheism are misclassified.Theism is the belief in deity(s).A deity is a god that is personal and has human characteristics.Both pantheism and deism do not believe in such a thing. While pantheism includes the word theism it is far from the common understanding of the word theism.
The definition used is far to inclusive and most experts do not use that definition.Deism and pantheism both should be classified under something else,I suggest under non-theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJM17 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody left a request for verification for note three in the introduction. The following definition of theism comes from the current edition (2006) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (OUP) edited by E.A. Livingstone:
Following the assumption that Oxford University Press is authoritative on these matters, here is the current definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Ed. John Bowker, 2000:
Polytheism, Pantheism and Deism, although they involve the belief in Deity/Deities do not belong as part of the point of view known as 'Theism'. Theism, as the above references show (if you are not satisfied with those I can paste some material from the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica which will add further support) is a monotheistic doctrine contrasting with the aforementioned theological points of view especially Deism. The main body of the article as it stands does not adequately reflect the standard usage of the term 'theism' as it is used these days. It is not the case that people do not agree what theism means. The dictionary references above do in fact reflect common standard usage of 'theism'.
John Orr qualifies the assertion that the more specific use of the word theism arose in the 17th century to contrast with deism (as opposed to atheism which was unthinkable in those days). Deism began its slow ascendance in the seventeenth century alongside the ideas of the scientific revolution. In the Deist worldview God does not really feature after creating the universe in the beginning. The universe is wound up like a clock then left to run along a more or less pre determined course. Deists do not really believe that you can call on God for help because He cannot intervene and override His own Laws of Nature. He is not available as it were. That's when Theism began to be used to refer to people who did believe that God could intervene because He did not withdraw after the Creation but remained as a living force organizing the affairs of the universe.
I've just noticed that a user (Merzul?) has already added some of the same material above which answers the previous request for verification. Please will somebody develop the article to reflect the standard contemporary use of the term theism. 81.109.10.218 ( talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be written from the objective linguistic Philosophical viewpoint encyclopedia writers need to take.
It has 2 sections for no reason: etymology and then some too specific 'divisions' section. These are irrelevant because: the etymology section does not actually get into etymology, and the 'divisions' section was made because of someone's preference or limited linguistic knowledge.
The divisions section does a poor job of focusing on pan(en)theism. Pantheism implies a first cause and panentheism additionally implies a causeless cause. Either of these may be personified, and they may even be personified in deism, though (due to etymology) as discussion above points out, deism needs a separate article. Pantheisms do not conflict with henotheisms even if they uses personification, though in discussion above someone was arguing pantheism conflicts with abstraction about deities due to science. Well, as I have added, religion also has abstraction about deities, and it is not the place of a linguistic & objective-Philosophy-focused encyclopedia to debate conflicts between science/religion rather than explain viewpoints that each can take and leave it at that.
I do not know who started this article, but I suggest change the name of section 1 (etymology) to 'Types of Theism' or 'Theisms' and incorporate all the part about theism from section 2 (divisions) into section 1. Section 2 really does not have the linguistic & Philosophical notability needing a 2nd section unless you want to incorrectly leave deism there.
If no one discusses how to change this or does so, one day perhaps I will get back and just arbitrarily make these changes.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone else finding the reply above and the changes to the article inconsistent, vague, original research, &/or barely intelligible? Furthermore, complete removal of deism section does not improve the article -- JimWae ( talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's examine the new entry for the 2nd sentence of the article:
-- JimWae ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The article should include discussions of both atheism & deism - but atheism cannot be (as it was) included as a kind of theism. Whether deism is a kind of theism depends on how strongly one thinks the specific meaning of theism is THE best meaning. Perhaps not so for all Xns, but for atheists & agnostics & deists, deism is a kind of theism -- JimWae ( talk) 00:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
However, if polytheism and even pantheism can be included as types of theism, there seems to be little justification for removing deism from being a subspecies -- JimWae ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Autotheism, a *theism in the dictionary, has been tagged as vague.
A good example of authotheist belief that is no more verified than monotheism, etc., is personality cults in which someone is said to be God or a god. Most major religions have such beliefs and their founders do both Prophecy (etc.) and proscribing ethics, so in that sense most believers would not contradict those who say the founders are spiritual/divine. When someone says it of herself/himself in a violent cult, that is problematic autotheism, but autotheism does exist in many cases.
In summary, autotheism is a type of (lesser-known) theism, so if it is vague ask me why or research it. On the topic of vagueness, such as 'beliefs rather than viewpoints,' which this article may still prefer to use, perhaps, for example, much of the rest could be called vague to the most scientific young person growing up in the most scientific family or town in the most scientific nation, whoever that may be. Such people may have little/no knowledge of any definition of theism-belief and will likely ignore it all outright as being vague.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In asking for the citation it was said '[Advaita Vedanta strives to realize the self.]' Well, what do you think that 'selflessness' (a term I prefer) is? It is Brahman or Parabrahm, i.e. Parashiva, i.e. (IIRC) Maha-Vishnu. The idea is exactly the same as Aton. It is beyond Ahura Mazda and YHVH but beyond the latter is (euphemistically) said to be Ain Soph: equivalent to Aton and the The Absolute in Hinduism.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, two Trimurtis predate the Vedas: Agni & Vayu & Surya is one. The Brahmans, or at least other Philosophers were around, and they had the idea of The Absolute ( causeless cause.) Even Vedic mythology has a story that someone came to the campfire of the modern Trimurti and did things the Trimurti could not, and then the visitor disappeared. That is a story about Brahman or Parabrahm. Maybe it does not really matter if it says pre-Vedic or Vedic, but Advaita Vedanta is Vedic, and the idea precedes Advaita Vedanta. The Vedas were also an oral tradition that some Indians and esoterists say is much older than Western historians say. However old it is, the idea was around before the writing of Vedas, though it may have been in the (oral) Vedic age. I am not a great expert on the topic, I just know the idea is old. It may be as easy to argue against it as it is to argue against Atenism.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, many people pray as if God/gods are deist, and if theism is personal, then personal pan(en)theism exists. Actually none of the viewpoints on the page necessarily fully support 'personal' or 'impersonal:' it is also a completely different abstract topic that has no definitive terms yet. One would have to make a definition opposite 'autotheism,' i.e. that God/gods is/are external. Then one would have to state in the definition whether that 'external' (which may be panentheistically internal) is personal or not, sort of like the opposite of 'sui' (on suitheism--autotheism.)
Perhaps pantheism and henotheism are most often given as examples defining Hinduism, but Abrahamic religion mystics are also often pantheist as well as monotheist. However, if the article makes statements about henotheism as if causeless cause and first cause are non-existent, then people will be thinking henotheism is only some kind of polytheism (and is not that where it is in the article again?) My example of the Elohim and beni-Elohim is one that shows that is not correct--at least not fully correct, though the implication is both viewpoints explain reality somehow. I guess it is okay for now that henotheism is under polytheism, but it omits the word 'many' so puts the focus more on ideas such as the first cause.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought I moved monolatrism, but it looks like my change was put back into polytheism without returning possible earlier material: I fixed it for where it is, but you may want to check for older material.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask why the opening sentence of this article defines theism as "irrational." Such a conclusion seems under considerable debate and unwarranted in a truly neutral article. I suggest that the introduction of the article be revised to remove the terms "rational" and "irrational" from it, or mention that such a label is the topic of debate. 134.174.140.40 ( talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The main body of this article is misleading. The notion that Theism encompasses polytheism, pantheism, autotheism etc is a marginal rather than a mainstream point of view. By 'mainstream' is meant the view that is held by religious studies departments in universities throughout the western world. Some extremely well qualified contributors have tried to recast this article in line with conventional scholarship. However there are people who clearly have no professional knowledge of the subject with an axe to grind preventing this article from being improved and casting the article instead according to their POV. Instead of adding what may seem to these people as simply another subjective point of view I thought it might be more persuasive to post a few hundred words from the first part of the entry in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
So the main point to glean from this section is that Theism is a kind of monotheism. Here is the entry from the current edition of The
Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.
Now, whether or not one believes this to be true is beside the point. This is what Theism is and the main body of the article doesn't mention it.
As regards Polytheism which is the first topic in the main body of the Wikipeida article note the following from the entry in the Encyclopedia Brittannica:
Naturally, by Semitic religions is meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Which is to say that these are Theistic religions. Polytheism - as the article states - may be Theistic but not necessarily so.
I hope that this may be of some help to anyone wishing to improve the main body of the article. Please don't simply copy and paste the above passage from the Encyclopedia Brittannica unless you are going to provide a citation! Best wishes.
81.106.115.153 (
talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In concurrence with the above author I would like to add that this is one of the worst, most shamefully poor articles in the whole of wikipedia. Put simply it does not discuss what it purports to. Polytheism, pantheism etc are the province of other articles and should be moved to those articles. Theism as you will encounter it in authoritative reference books is the view that there is one God on which everything is dependent for its existence. The most disgraceful thing as i see it is that there is noone who has encountered this article who is knowledgeable about the subject who can be bothered to put it right. The existing material may constitute a dessert or the cheese and biscuits but where is the main course? Two sentences in the lead section describe theism as a doctrine but nowhere in the main body of the article is the bones or the flesh of the topic. 81.107.150.246 ( talk) 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the Administrator who at WP:AN3 suggested that these IPs appear to be the same person. Dougweller ( talk) 05:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of help. Every sub-section starts with "While a specific definition of theism may exclude ______, it is included by the most general definition." Not only is this poor writing, the point of encyclopedic article is to cover facts about the topic. Writing this way conveys heavy bias towards the narrow, and not exclusively used, monotheistic connotation as though that is the only acceptable definition. The actual fact is, theism most literally describes belief in at least one god, NOT belief in only one god. These lines should be removed and they need nothing to replace them, as the monotheistic connotation is thoroughly described in the first paragraph. PrincessPimpernel ( talk) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this edit to the lead, which was made by an anonymous ip with no edit summary. I can only guess why he feels the change is necessary, but in contrast, I think the sources are quite clear. AFAICT, agnosticism is about "knowledge", not about "justification for belief". Our article on agnosticism covers this in some detail as well. If I've missed anything, or there's some reason this change is necessary, I'd be happy to discuss it! Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If you change this back again, then you are doing Original Research. No where in the citation does it imply what you want it to imply. IIXVXII ( talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism...agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god... Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic." (See page 10-11 for the full quote). Another is by Dan Barker, page 96 here. "
The two words [Atheism and agnosticism] serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.". These are sources we're using in wikipedia already on this set of articles. I could find others if necessary, but I think what we have already should be sufficient. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If a theism is not pantheist or panentheist then what is it?
(pandeism and panendeism does not count)-- 85.104.94.52 ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In this edit User:TheCorduroyEffect changes the lede sentence in a manner that simplifies the sentence a little bit, but it changes the meaning from what used to be accurate to what is now inaccurate.
"the belief that at least one deity exists" is not the same meaning as "the belief in the existence of deities." And, of course, the difference is that the current version excludes the singular and only includes the plural. That is both a misrepresentation of the vast majority of theists (who are monotheistic), it is also just inaccurate.
I will change it to "the belief in the existence of a [[deity] or deities." Perhaps it should just be reverted, but I don't want to have a revert struggle, so I will try to take this edit and make it better rather than revert it. 173.48.60.68 ( talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We need sources here for reducing theism to belief in gods who intervene in the world. Cudworth's definition, in drawing a line between atheists and theists, plainly puts deists in the latter camp, and he is a contemporary of the originators of the idea, in the place of its origin. It would be fair to record deistic objection to being categorized with other believers in gods, but (a) if this distinction is more or less universally observed, we need a source for that, and (b) in any case we need a source for the deist perspective; you cannot just say it on your own authority. Mangoe ( talk) 17:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
IP Editor 142.160.131.202 wiped out all the see also links on this page. When I reverted he reverted it back pointing to WP:EMBED. I looked at WP:EMBED and I see no justification for wiping out all the links as he/she is doing it. We can discuss specific links that may not deserve to be on the page, but the wiping out of all links does not seem right to me? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel pretty sure that I once read somewhere that as theism is belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent, it would be taken to exclude both pantheism (which rejects the transcendence of God) and deism (which rejects the immanence of God). This could be more clearly formulated in the article. Vorbee ( talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This sentence from the article is problematic: "There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history." Even though the word "postulated" makes the sentence technically true, a careless reader could easily take the sentence to imply that there were many valid proofs of monotheism. This sentence should be removed or replaced with something with a neutral point of view linking to /info/en/?search=Existence_of_God for example. 76.21.18.251 ( talk) 19:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett