Talk:Post-theism

[Untitled]
It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest merging this page without providing an explanation. Here is why I'm opposed:

The term postchristianity assumes the chauvinistic western perspective that post-theistic means post-christian as if there were no other theistic religion besides christianity and is thus an inappropriate term for what is in fact post-theism.

It might make sense to rename the postchristianity article and merge the two pages, but the reverse is an unacceptable in accordance with WP:NPOV. Mmyotis (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * yes. you may note that I haven't merely "suggested a merge", I have created this article in the first place. If and which way we should merge here will depend entirely on what sources we can come up with. Merging shouldn't be based on logical hierarchy but on notabilitly. "Post-christian" gets 360,000 google hits while "post-theistic" gets a mere 1,000 google hits, so I suppose if anything is merged, it will be this article here. Your reference to "chauvinism" and NPOV is completely misplaced. The idea of "post-theism" happens to have emerged in "post-Christian" (not "post-Islamic" or "post-Hindu") society, and observing this fact has nothing chauvinistic about it. dab (𒁳) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

God is dead movement
Should there be some mention here of the God is Dead movement? That seems to be post-theism in a nutshell (see God_is_dead) Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

False or Unauthored Assertion
The assertion 'Post-theism thus recognizes the point made by criticism of atheism that atheism may lead to moral defect' is preposterous and does not follow from the text before, invalidating the consequence exposed here after the word 'thus'. Moreover, it is not clear who claims this to be the case; so I put a 'Citation needed' mark, but I'd be in favor of removing this part if does not represent a particular opinion, since it is clearly not a general consensus. Enric 13:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Hugh Foster
The article on Frank Hugh Foster makes no mention of him inventing the term "Post theism. Vernon White  . . . Talk 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
The article doesn't make clear whether or not Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead" really relates to post-theism. Does any reliable source assert so? So far, that part is not sourced. The part about a school of hinduism also lacks sources. And no response or criticism of the position is mentioned. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you bother to read the God is dead page, including the context of the phrase in Nietzsche's text, you will see that this is exactly what Nietzsche was discussing. Saying that this is a "related idea" is an extremely weak claim, and hardly justifies the addition of an "original research" warning template. Of course the idea can be built on by importing material from the linked article, but that's just a matter of editorial effort, not of controversy. --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Samkhya
I think the mention of Samkhya is undue, because no RS was shown to support a connection between post-theism and Samkhya. So it's basically OR. Not that the paragraph is wrong, but connecting it to the subject of the article, unless supported by a RS, seems like OR. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"post-theism" is just a useful modern term to describe the idea. To cite Samkhya under "history" as an early example of the same line of thought is completely unproblematic imho. But perhaps "post-theism" isn't the best title for this topic anyway, as it seems to be rather rarely used. The content we have so far could be easily incorporated in a section in either "theism" or "nontheism", addressing the "God is dead" idea of "the notion of God is subject to historical development of societies entertaining it, and in some societies, it may end up being rendered obsolete".

Perhaps it is wrong to even cast this in terms of "atheism vs. theism, nontheism and what have you", because these terms are troll magnets and attract ingroup-outgroup behaviour among editors, while "post-theism" is exactly about viewing this entire "controversy" as a phenomenon in itself. As such it is probably more closely related to topics such as Neurotheology, God gene and Evolutionary origin of religions than to "atheism" as suggested by the (territorial behavoir of) slapping of an "atheism" template on it.

People who operate on "tribal ingroup-outgroup" autopilot when contributing to the "theism debate" should really ask themselves why they embrace operating in one irrational mode of human behaviour but reject another. Somehow I have never seen any atheist attacking sexuality or the feeling of being in love with the same arsenal they use to attack theism, although the arguments used would have exactly the same merit. Selective use of arguments, even if they are in themselves completely consistent, is of course irrational behaviour, and it is self-defeating to act irrationally in a debate where one chooses to champion the side of "rationality". --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I fear the article needs work
Luis Dantas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In its current form it has a mention of pessimism with no support, rhyme or reason. It just comes out of the left field with no justification whatsoever.
 * A contrast to anti-theism is mentioned but not justified nor developed at all.
 * Some mention of James A. Lindsay's "Everybody Is Wrong About God" book is probably necessary.
 * Neitzche was, undoubtedly, pessimistic in his take on the proposition. So what needs to beclarifies there is who was a pessimist!! Pandeist (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-theism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814012349/http://cpxbrex.livejournal.com/167943.html to http://cpxbrex.livejournal.com/167943.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)