'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds.
I'm really not sure what you mean. I assume you mean that treating "theists" as a cohesive category requires abstracting to the point where you lose "specific content." That "specific content," I assume, somehow relates to some element(s) of theistic belief that somehow render the abstraction of "theists" a useless idea, in some or all situations, for some unspecified reason. I think you probably understand why I'm confused here...
(I doubt you mean to say it's not a "coherent category," because "theist" is obviously a coherent category. The fact that a descriptor is applied to some relevant abstract element of otherwise unalike items doesn't make that descriptor "incoherent.")'Coherent category', no, that's not what I meant; '
cogent category', maybe. I suspect I may be biased because I find the existence of God a less interesting question than the definition of God (which I think
precedes the former question in a way that makes it difficult to establish a really workable argument about His existence without first spending more time hashing out definitions than most people on either 'side' of this 'debate' seem interested in spending. Which I guess is the main point I was trying to make).
Are you pointing out that theists believe different things theologically and philosophically? I feel like anyone who would understand your allusion to Charles Sanders Peirce (not me!) probably already know that concept
[/quote]
That's what I'm pointing out, but not
only that--my point is that these beliefs are different enough to in many (not all!) cases make the
nature of their/our belief
in God functionally, materially different. Although I'm willing to accept that differences that seem major 'from the inside' might seem uninteresting or irrelevant 'from the outside'.
In this context I think it's not very useful to use it as a blanket term because somewhere from about half (assuming 'theist' means 'monotheist') to probably at least three-quarters (assuming it's some sort of term of abuse for anybody who follows a religion) of the people in the world are 'theists' and generalizations about such broad groups
never strike me as useful. The only religions that OP, or people in the anti-religion 'movement' in general, often seem to really have much grasp on or interest in are Christianity and Islam, and even then, unacceptably (imo) reified versions of them. I'm remembering here especially my argument with WillipsBrighton a while back on whether or not it's appropriate to make judgments about a religion solely with reference to the letter of its holy texts.
I feel like I felt half the time I heard the word "problematic" in college. If it's italicized-very obvious, summarize your basic point in a couple of sentences, and I'm sure I'll understand it.[/quote]
'Theists' manifestly don't behave in interchangeable or even necessarily comparable ways--practically, politically, sociologically. There are obviously commonalities that can be drawn, but these are commonalities that come with following some religious teaching or other in general, not with believing in God specifically (which isn't remotely the same thing).
I guess it is.[/quote]
ayy lmao
Yes, it's ironic and I should have used a different word.
