Simple Question

[Zinjanthropos]

Is pure theism the belief in one or more gods?

Trying to make a distinction here between Pure theism being one thought…there’s a god vs Diluted or if you prefer Enhanced theism with the same one thought but with various attachments or more beliefs.

Maybe one day two guys born in a cave walked out together to see outside for the first time. One exclaimed ‘there must be a god’ and the other one answered ‘ No way, what makes you think that?

So is it safe to assume a rather innocuous question from an atheist kick started the introduction of a myriad of new beliefs associated with the deity in question? Dilution of an originally pure theistic thought or Enhancement of it, either way adding to it.

What gets me about the Abrahamic religions is not that they are slightly different but that they all stem from one common pure theistic thought, there is a god. How that god became different is entirely the fault of whom, the atheists who question or the theists who can’t agree on an answer?

[Syne]

Theism is not only the belief in one or more gods but also beliefs surrounding the relationship with their creation. In the case of deism, there is no continuing relationship beyond the act of creation.

Atheists had nothing to do with theist beliefs, as atheists largely didn't exist at the inception of most theist beliefs. Aside from revelation, most beliefs, even secular ones, develop as a consequence of experience and thinking about the ramifications of the core principles.

Abrahamic religions don't just share the belief in monotheism. They share a segment of the Bible, considered a common history. This necessarily means they have more beliefs in common that just monotheism. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and Muslims essentially believe that Muhammad was the Messiah.

[Zinjanthropos]

Theism is not only the belief in one or more gods but also beliefs surrounding the relationship with their creation. In the case of deism, there is no continuing relationship beyond the act of creation.

Atheists had nothing to do with theist beliefs, as atheists largely didn't exist at the inception of most theist beliefs. Aside from revelation, most beliefs, even secular ones, develop as a consequence of experience and thinking about the ramifications of the core principles.

Abrahamic religions don't just share the belief in monotheism. They share a segment of the Bible, considered a common history. This necessarily means they have more beliefs in common that just monotheism. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and Muslims essentially believe that Muhammad was the Messiah.

I looked at a few definitions before posting thread and there are more than I thought but the most common appeared to be the belief in the existence of a god. Yes, a couple added the relationship to what it created but I was more inclined to think this was two separate beliefs, one a god and two …a god that creates with a possible third by having a relationship with the creation. You’re saying that is all lumped into one belief?

I don’t really think atheists had anything to do with enhancing theism. I invented that little scenario for the atheists because it would be totally ironic if they actually provide impetus to expand theism. I used it on two Mormon missionaries who knocked on my door once. They’ve never been back.

I realize the three Abrahamic religions have much in common. However the biggest thing may be the one god. That’s where it gets tricky. I feel that God would be thrilled with that consensus but it doesn’t go any farther, other than believers at each other’s throats. Is it possible that differences between theists provide the impetus to manufacture more beliefs?

[Syne]

The belief in the existence of a God is meaningless without it having some relevance to humans. I mean, believing in something that has no traits or description is kind of difficult to do. So you have to define the thing, at a bare minimum. And we define God relative to ourselves, hence the relationship.

It's like someone telling you they believe in flarb. What is flarb, you may ask? Well, it just exists, but we don't know what it is, what it does, or really anything about it. Then why do you believe in flarb? ....See, you have to have some conception in order to believe. That involves God having some traits.

Muslims are the only Abrahamic faith at anyone's throats.

Like I said, the only impetus for elaboration is postulating the implications of the basic principles. No one asks if some kind of adversarial conflict is the impetus for new science. It's just repeatedly applying principles like Occam's razor to our experience.

[Zinjanthropos]

I think there’s a difference between believing there’s a god that is responsible for X and believing there’s a god that might have something to do with X. At least the latter requires a search for evidence so maybe it started that way but it proved too difficult a task. Belief is exempt from evidence. Occam’s Razor fits.

Is that happening again? God belief too hard to validate so why not a computer or universal consciousness, everybody owns something similar to one of those.

[Syne]

That's just the difference between deism (God that just created things) and classical theism (God having an ongoing hand in maintaining its creation). It's only your atheist bias that demands a search for secularly satisfying evidence. Religion is not science and operates under different principles. So maybe you didn't understand my analogy.

Most of the hemming and hawing from believers, of any kind, is from those not intelligent or confident enough to properly defend their beliefs. Part of intellectual honesty is admitting that your own reasons may not be compelling to others.

Validation is a desire of the insecure and weak. If any facet of your identity, beliefs, etc. requires the validation of others, you are not secure in that part of your identity, whether that's your religion, gender expression, pronouns, etc.. People need to relearn how to be okay with others not agreeing with them.

[confused2]

I'm guessing that back in the day the majority of communication would have been oral - no newspapers. Supposition #1- any writing would have tended to follow the oral story rather than lead it. Supposition #2 - stories (reports) went viral much as they do today. Supposition #3 - stories (reports) would concentrate on charismatic figures. Supposition #4 - it would be easier to start a new story than wipe out a story from a culture.
Even so .. I don't understand how a Messiah could get started without P.R. machine working for them.

[Syne]

Prophecies of a Messiah mean people would already be looking for signs of its fulfillment.