<< Well, if we're going to fight dirty and use dictionary definitions... My COED defines deist rather differently from this, as per the meaning Peter supplied, and by which pretty much all Malkioni are deists, never mind the Brithini... (Not that I doubt the word's been authentically used in that sense: terminology, schmerminology...) >>
My definition came from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (as did the definition of atheism which Peter disagreed with), who one would have thought would know what they were on about. But I'm quite willing to concede that the authors may be taking a narrow 20th C view of things in this particular instance, and that the terms may well have been used differently in the past (it being rather difficult to conceive of a 20th C-style atheist in medieval Europe, for instance). Terminology schmerminology, indeed :-)
<< > Admittedly, it rather depends
> what they think the Creator *is* - is He an uncaring, distant God (deist)
or
> just a mechanistic process with no identity or self-awareness (atheist)?
That's a somewhat fine distinction to slice as a means of deciding if someone merits the appellation 'atheist' or not, so I'm not at all sure Greg's on such thin ground as you seem to think. Given the proffered definitions, we might conclude that three consecutive Hindus were variously 'theist', 'deist', and 'atheist', while different perhaps not at all in their religious practice, on the basis of a cosmogenic nuance...>>
True enough, it makes bugger all difference to their religious practices, but it does seem to lead to unfortunate misconceptions as to what most sorcerers are like in 20th C readers (or 21st C readers, if you prefer).
<< > And they obviously must think prayer serves some purpose (although
> obviously not one with a direct feedback, as in a Heortling religious
> service) or they wouldn't do it.
Well, there's the small matter of getting into Solace, for a start.>>
Quite.
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail