Okay, but I don't see why they would need to justify their usage. They can use it how they damn well please in my view.

Because pantheists don't really believe in a god. They believe in Nature, or a Divine Force, or Cosmic Unity, etc. and call it "god."

Traditional Buddhist cosmology posited the existence of "Devas" which were divine godlike beings. However, the real point is that by saying that Buddhism is nontheist, the idea is that while Buddhism is not necessarily opposed to the existence of gods, as a religious system it doesn't rely on or particularly engage with them. It is nontheistic in a similar way to how e.g. Confucianism or cognitive behavioral therapy is nontheistic. God is just sort of irrelevant.

Also, it's deism that rejects a personal God, not non-theism.

Sure, some people who are lazy use "atheist" to refer to those who lack a belief in a deity. Other people are more specific or use it differently. Showing me a dictionary that acknowledges one definition obviously doesn't mean there are no other usages or definitions.

This is pretty disturbing. It sounds like you currently want to be a murderous drug-dealer but are only being held back by fear of God's wrath. Is this a fair assessment, or was this post hyperbole?

I would rather their usage be in line with the dictionary and the etymology of the term in question.

Seems like no true Scotsman, and I already addressed this point.

So you're using non-theist to mean apathetic?

It always impresses me how common it is for Christians to suppose that everyone are naturally sociopaths and so would just act without any concern for other people if they were not told to act otherwise by God or frightened of hell.

Umm ... is that the full definition?

belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...heism?q=theism

That is a personal god right? I believe so ...

I am not assuming others are sociopaths. I can't speak for other people. My answer was based on what I personally would do in that hypothetical situation.

So now that there is discussion on semantics going on, the semantics discussion should be cross-threaded as a Fabric with The Semantics Debate.

The semantics thread would start like this: The actually meaning of the word doesn't matter in a given conversation. What matter is each side understands the other sides definition and vice versa so each side knows what each side means.

What we 'meant' to say is important, not what we mistakenly said.

Then we can keep the semantics debates out of all threads.

No, not necessarily. It depends on how nuanced your definition of theism is. It can be used both broadly and specifically (broadly to denote simply belief in a God and used specifically to differentiate it from deism).

Theism
Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

So? What does that have to do with what I said?

First, change your own damn text, not mine. Second, apparently you either don't understand what pantheism is, or you don't understand the no true Scotsman fallacy. Or, assuming that you believe in nature, you are now a theist.

No, to mean that it is irrelevant, just like I said. Traditional Buddhist cosmology accepted the existence of godlike beings. Many modern (and ancient) Buddhists reject the existence of these godlike beings. However, either way you go doesn't really matter because those godlike beings aren't really relevant to the practice of Buddhism.

The problem is that you are focusing on Buddhism as a set of beliefs rather than as a way of achieving enlightenment. Believing in god(s) or not is only a little more relevant to being a Buddhist than believing in general relativity.

To get in on the other discussion here:

Original Position is correct that Buddhism is not really concerned with god (s) AFAIK. There may technically be gods in their belief system but it is more or less irelevant.

I have never considered pantheism as theism, but I can see how it is possible to see it like that. Pantheists believe everything is god including all parts of nature. So it is kind of like seeing one snow flake and saying it is snow, but you could also look out over a snow covered field and call it snow. Both are correct.

I believe in mountains but that doesn't make me an animist.

This is disingenuous. You said that you think a "true atheist would want to toss out all those ideas...including morality." When asked why you indicated it was because if you rejected Christianity you would kill, steal, and otherwise ruin the lives of others without compunction. I said that if this is accurate description of your desires (which I actually doubt, but whatever), it is because you are a sociopath. But you also were generalizing from how you would act as an atheist to how others would act as an atheist by saying that you thought this was how a "true atheist" would act--thus implicitly assuming that all these other true atheists are sociopathic like you.

Right, and believing in nature doesn't make you a theist. Neither does calling nature "god."

I think that calling nature "god" does count as a form of theism, in the broadest sense. Do you see animism as a form of theism? I know animism can include non-deistic entities, but surely there isn't that much difference between saying "the Sun is God" and "nature is God" - neither can count as atheism.

Then I replied:

From the Oxford Dictionary:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe
So the dictionary is no good now? I mean when the whole definition is posted - once again it would seem that the person who corrected me was entirely right.

And I guess, since we moved from the dictionary to wikipedia, according to Pema Chodron:

So, I guess in the end, what I am getting is that you agree now? There is a difference between non-theism an atheism, whether wiki or dictionary - and that Buddhism is non-theist, not atheist.

I think I was being sincere. And I don't think atheists are sociopaths. I just wonder what moral compass exists. It would seem to me that morality would be wholly relative. If you are an atheist maybe you could speak to this.

I don't want to belabor the point, but you haven't demonstrated that theism offers an objective morality. Even if you could, you'd still need to demonstrate that moral nihilism necessarily follows from moral relativism.

Another question to illustrate my point; I assume you don't think it's right to execute people for adultery? If not, why not when Leviticus 20:10 commands it and Matthew 5:18 explicitly states that Old Testament law still applies.

What is empathy, in your opinion?


re: pantheism, I think it's confusing because it can span from a theistic view to an atheistic one; from something very spiritual, wiccan, nature/universe == god, to the non-supernatural nature/universe being all there is, but still of vital importance.

Why not act in respect to humanity? Sure, there is no one to tell you if you actions are right or wrong, but you have to take responsibility - its not easy.

That's fine, but that is not how I use the terms "theist" or "god." Thus, my definitionsusages of "theism" and "atheism" would not apply to your definitions as you are using a different concept. For instance, I don't really have a problem with counting some forms of animism as atheistic.

I'm a bit confused. Would you please lay out whatever definition you wish for 'non-theist'? The following seems quite counter-intuitive (from Wiki): "Sometimes used synonymously with the term atheism, it can also include positions of belief in a non-personal deity, such as deism and pantheism." Are you using it to mean non-belief in a personal God? If so, what do you mean by 'personal'? If Buddhists believe that their gods can/do intervene, does this change things?

(I was originally arguing from the position that there were (only) two broad categories: theist and atheist. This was probably why we were arguing past each other. Of course, I'm fine with delineating the categories further/differently).

Non-theist as the opposite of theist - a creator god who intervenes.

Thus, as Pema says - no personal god in Buddhism. I defined personal god already, the Oxford Dictionary defined it. Its the part you left out in the definition of "theism."

Again, as Pema says, "there is no babysitter." So, even if the god(s) (if we can call them that) intervene it wouldn't change things, because there is no belief in a creator god - thus not meeting the definition of theism.

I'm not really questioning your sincerity so much as that I think you have an incorrect view of human psychology. As a matter of fact, there have existed millions of people who do not believe in god and live highly moral or regularly moral lives (and of course others who are deeply immoral). So when you say that if you were yourself an atheist, you would be deeply immoral, and you don't see why other atheists wouldn't do otherwise, I am saying that you are missing out on the real psychological causes of moral actions. There are many reasons people act morally--some of them religious, some of them not. Supposing that there are only religious reasons just seems to be ignoring most of these reasons, e.g. love for our friends and family, a desire to be virtuous, because we think it is the rational action to take, etc. We should think these reasons exist because as a matter of fact non-religious people still do act morally.

As for the foundation for morality--take your pick. As for an example of a nontheistic moral compass, here is one: do the action which leads to the greatest amount of aggregate happiness.