I’ve seen all I need to see from you,
Best wishes
As I said, no theism, no faith. The core of all faith always comes from an inner theistic ideology.
Ultimately faith/hope is a response to doubt/fear. Every biological organism with an evolved neural system, a brain or mind, has a basic fear/hope response to stimuli.
Doubt represents fear (negative value judgment). Faith represents hope (positive value judgment).
That says the moderator of the subforum “Religion and Spirituality”. 
Excuse me, Dan, but I can’t believ what you are saying, although or because you are also saying that you were being “sarcastic”.
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Philosophy” an anti-philosopher?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Society, Government, and Economics” an anti-social moron, an egomaniac idiot?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Science, Technology, and Math” an anti-scientist, an anti-technologist, an anti-mathematician?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Psychology and Mind” an anti-psychological moron, an mindless sociopath?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Religion and Spirituality” an anti-religious and anti-spiritual peacock, a foolish godwannabe?
Maybe or even probably.
So maybe or even probably “I love philosophy” really means “I hate philosophy”.
Should my ILP membership be thought over?
How do you know that? Who told you that? The Nietzscheanists? The other nihilists?
I invite you to come to Europe because Europe has almost no real Christians anymore. So according to your statements Europe would have to be a paradisie. Funny, because the reverse is right. Again: Come to Europe! For example and very especially: Come to France which is almost islamic and voodoo-like, just “delicious”.
Do you believe in that, in that expectant new religion? If you really had learned from the history of religion you would have come to a different conclusion. Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion?
Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically, thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (| => # || => #).
Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could try to become a new religion. Newton’s “laws” are as theological as God’s “laws” in the “good old” religious times of Christianity, and as Allah’s “laws” (you don’t believe? then ask the “Christian” French!).
Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation persecuted scientists.
Right. And anti-theism is just another theism. Anti-theism always refers to theism. Interestringly, the history shows us that a-theism has always behaved like an anti-theism, thus also like another theism. Theory and theism belong together. So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.
A muslim knows that theism and theory are related, that they are very similar to each other, probably he even says that they are “the same” because his culture is one of the most religious cultures of all time.
There has never been a culture without any religion and theology. But when cultures decline religion and theology have to decline as well - this seems to be a declining “law”.
Are you sure?
Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?
Sarcastic?
Arminius is too perceptive for you, Dan~
Your filthy lies don’t get past him.
He knows you weren’t being sarcastic!
Golden bullet.
It’s run by these antitheist scum!
How could the humble theist hope for well balanced communication?
[/sarcasm]
====
Wizard,
As James says here,
There’s more types of faith than just “Theological Faith”.
You conflated “Theological Faith” with all other types of faith.
That is your mistake.
You’re unwilling to define the terms, because as soon as you do, your error will become apparent.
I’m willing to define my terms, but for whom? Only for a few, not everybody.
Great excuse, bro.
[/sarcasm]
It’s actually very transparent.
BenJS is right. If you are saying faith requires theism, or always occurs with theism, you are using exceptionally nonstandard definitions of faith, theism, or both. It would be like saying vision only occurs with rectangular solids.
Theism is the belief in “god(s)”. But then a “god” is merely a principle or inherent law, something that controls the outcome of events. Science is entirely about principles and inherent laws (as is mathematics). They just don’t call them “gods”, but rather “theories” (although they used to call them “laws” until they learned that being divine wasn’t as easy as they had thought).
Science IS a Theism. And today goes the full route of having ;
prophets (“Einstein”, “Newton”, “Maxwell”, “Lorentz”,…)
monks (“scientists”),
priests (“professors of science”),
evangelists (“promoters of science to the masses”),
a Vatican (“the scientific community”),
morals (“the scientific method”),
faith (“we have proven it in our deeply hidden scientific experiments, so just believe it”),
indoctrination (“thou shall teach no other theological faith in schools but ours”),
condemnation (“we have no need for your religious nonsense in our world”), and
mysticism, (“quantum physics and relativity”).
…and yes, Dan was being sarcastic.
James is right. Ben is wrong.
Science = Religion, today. It’s newspeak. It’s the gradual or sudden change of label of a concept. Today “science” is the new religion, the new order. But it’s exactly the same as Catholicism was 1000 years ago. Science is today, what Catholicism was 1000 years ago, no difference whatsoever, except the change of names.
Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
… depends on who is sleeping with her. 
… as does the theology. 
Antitheists really irk and rub me the wrong way. Because they want to keep the morals, keep the spirituality, keep the faith, keep the laws, keep the practices and traditions, but exclude god. They don’t like the idea of “god”. So you have this huge anti cultural movement today, that tries to keep all the old institutions, but just remove god from the picture. Nietzscheans use the excuse “god is dead” to justify this desire. Then you have the “scientists” who are really catholics, minus god, again.
Who do you people think created the first “Universities”??? What do you think this term means? What is a “Professor”???
There is a lapse of historical knowledge at work here, a blissful or chosen ignorance. The new generations of eternal children, want to look at the world as if there were no “Authority” greater than themselves. This is the “humanism” movement. Christianity - God = Humanity. These children want to pretend their parents are gone, absent, or dead. But are they? Can you imagine your parents are gone? If they die, do their memories die to? Does the death of your parents, make you forget everything?
Does it erase the past? No, but that’s what these “anti theists” want. They want to erase the past, pretend that gods are dead, or pretend gods don’t exist.
It stems from a child psychology, a phase in their young lives when they wanted to escape from their own parents’ authority, or memories.
It “stems from” much more influential people wanting to change what was by destroying it with semantics and replace it with the new world odor, a bigger version of the old.
And they think their shit doesn’t stink, too.
… that’s because their noses are so far up above the air that everyone else has to breath.
Yeah, that would be an example of an extremely nonstandard definition. But under that definition, faith doesn’t require theism- though I haven’t heard the nonstandard definition of faith yet.
Of course he was. The reason people can’t tell is because folks say what he said in the tone he said it with all sincerity here on a regular basis.
Uncommon certainly. That isn’t what people normally think of when they hear the word “god” (after thousands of years of obfuscation), and yet it is an irrefutable fact.
“…faith doesn’t require theism”??
Faith is the insistence on keeping with the theory/theism, holding to what is believed to be the principle/god/God or “proper course of action” for whatever reason one may think it is “proper”.
=
And you even say:
Thus, you concede real science isn’t theism.
=
Wizard’s claim is that ALL types of faith require theism.
You even made the effort to point out that “Theological faith” is the type that implies theism, yet now you’re conflating.
Faith (1) - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
This does not imply theism.
Faith (2) - belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
This does imply theism.
You can have the prior without theism, you can’t have the latter without theism.
In his examples, the prior form of faith is sufficient to these ends, thus, theism is not required.
=
I haven’t disagreed with the definitions they gave. Did you want to debate what constitutes a “god”?
No. I do not concede that.
I can see why it is confusing for you, but all that I said, despite its appearance to you as being contradictory, is actually coherent.
He is right.
I put that in quotes so as to indicate what is called “Theological Faith” despite that fact that all faith is actually theological.
What you are missing is that “theo-logical” and “theo-retical” are the same concept, merely applied differently in society. Neither the logic nor the observations can be totally ignored and must be sufficiently coherent, else the “theory” doesn’t apply to either party. Science emphasizes the “reticle” (the seen, observations). Religion or metaphysics emphasizes the logic (although after thousands of years, there is a whole lot of non-sense logic laying around that people call “religion” merely because it has some loose association with a religion. Religions tend to accept all adherents regardless of their lack of logical abilities. Today, Science does that too (quantum physics being the prime example).
So you don’t think that a “person or thing” can constitute a “god” or a “doctrine”? 
None of that is relevant.
Any “theism” is a theoretical ontology = “theory” = “a belief in a principle(s) concerning an ontology”. And that is exactly what Science is. Science inherently believes in the THEORY that “if we can see it, it is real. And if we cannot see it, it does not exist”. That is a THEORY (which happens to be false btw). But more deeply, Science is the THEORY that “if some theory is the only option for truth concerning an observation, it is the truth concerning that observation.” That is pretty simple logic (thus theological) and with which, I do not disagree.
The REAL problem is that Science was founded on the concept “Nullius in Verba”, “Take no one’s word”, yet today, does little but insist that everyone take only their word - because “in the dark recesses of some obscure laboratory, our story has been verified by honest, independent people who you will never get to meet. Thus take our word”.
And the REAL problem with that, despite being contrary to their motto, is the fact that I keep finding their “word” to be false. They depend on people not being able to tell the difference and living in such doubt that they will take anyone’s word who appears to be in authority = “religion”.
Pathologically, doubt represents biological fear, faith represents biological hope. Doubt and fear are the antithesis to faith and hope. Most people refer to faith and hope as “positive emotions”, positive moods, positive vibes, positive feelings, positive people, etc. A “positive person” has a certain atmosphere, persona, logic, thought process.
Why do I say faith is derived from theism?
James interpretation of theism to theory is correct.
But there’s something else as well. What is the source of all fear? It is fear of death. Without death, fear is impossible. So faith and hope are the catharsis of fear, specifically, from the fear of death. Faith and hope are intrinsically, biologically, and pathologically all related to the survival instinct. Your body is compelled to survive in the face of insurmountable odds. When confronting death, people can and do miraculous things. But the resistance against death, reflects the hopefulness intrinsic within all animal biology. To survive, is a representation of hope, therefore faith.
Ultimately, every form of faith is connected with a belief in life, as an extension beyond the threat of death.
Why do you believe that you will live tomorrow, or beyond a week from now? Why do you have faith in this belief? Admit to yourselves, right now, that you are convinced you’re going to live for…another month at least. You are operating from this premise. You have no real, true reason for believing it. Because you don’t know the future, do you? But your underlying faith and hope represents your will to life. You live and survive according to principles, laws, and spiritual beliefs.
To completely suppress the fear of death, the idea of immortality is required. Who and what is immortal? Except a god. God is the introduction to the idea of eternal life, or simply, life beyond death.
A life beyond now. A life beyond a week from now, a month, a year. You have faith that you’re going to live through another week.
Therefore, I’m right you’re wrong ha ha ha in yo face.
I have to disagree with the whole “fear of death is the fundamental drive” concept. It actually isn’t.
The guiding “force” for literally all conscious entities is PHT, “Perception of Hope and Threat”. And death is certainly a perceived threat (aka “fear”), but not always and not entirely. The more instinctive perception of threat is merely “Pain” or “serious discomfort”. The mind cannot imagine death and thus only fears it for being an unknown of possible harm and probable pain in getting to it. Most creatures willingly die when they sense that they are close to death because they sense it to be an end of their pain. People are encouraged into suicide by giving them discomfort, no perceived hope from it, and an easy way to either commit to it, or get setup to be suicided (by being isolated).