RATIONAL THEISM

A Rough Sketch to RRS Forums

Written by

Darcoija Zatgrian Xirkthia

Registered Copyright © 2007 by Me (the above)

Except for definitions cited

Theism does not necessarily imply, nor is it defined as faith or irrationality per se, or as something that cannot be scientifically proven, and/or obvious to be true. But rather, such implications and "definitions" should be viewed as simply a modus operandi of the status quo, or at least the satus quo as realized. Though dictionaries may differ in defining theism, the following should be universally permitted to an extent, and ab origine of the dictionary to be considered due to possible bias or illogicality:

1. [Source: WordNet by Princeton University]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

the - ism

noun

the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

2. [Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

the - ism

n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as Creator and ruler of the world.

In the case of my argument here for the time being I'll be using the first source aforementioned with an emphasis on the words "the doctrine . . . in the existence . . . a god . . . gods," and will also cite the definition of the following:

[Source American Heritage® Dictionary]

doc·trine

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
Now, in accordance and regardless ad fontes I will give my ratio decidendi. Exploring dictionaries is redundant and ad infinitum (and there's too many words to list, and even etymology won't help in this case). So, using Occam's Razor to support my argumentum get ready to hear what I have to say. Which is thus:

I can say that I'm a God and that this is my theistic principle, and that nobody has a monopoly on what my definition of a god is allowed to be. I am a God because I exist, and my existence does not have to be proven, because it is an indisputable fact. And that is my definition of a God. To be a God I require one must exist, be of a certain IQ, be of a likewise or higher sentient being, have a certain capacity of free will, and possess certain economic realities, et al.

But now I digress from going further because the point has been made. So, in a quick and dirty nutshell I will say the aforementioned is what I know as god, the aforementioned attributes of that god are what I deem as the sacraments and tenets of that religion, and that -- in a nutshell all of it is on scientific, objective, and real basis. And that these are dressed in symbolic, allegorical, polemic, and ritual religionism, and that the fact that it is not of faith and that it is extant by obervable means, reason, and that it is scientifically rational is why it is seen as holy and divine.

Therefore, isn't calling onself an atheist illogical? If you presume to think there are some gods and not others then doesn't that make you a Suitheist or whatever word that you'd like to choose? Or do you presume to be an atheist sometimes and not others -- then doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Or do you presume to deny that person such theism simply because it's inconvenient for you? Thus making you intolerant at best, a reversed theist at worst, and/or an agnostic which then becomes theistic as well?

In conclusion, without eating up more time I'd like to end this. My purpose here was simply to make people examine things a little deeper. Hopefully cause a debate. Though that was pretty much a rough and dirty sketch of my rational position -- I hope the general idea is hinted at.