rationalskepticism.org

Teuton wrote:

DefineGod wrote:I think that in this particular case, one can be an atheist or a theist and have quite similar metaphysics/ontogeny. Using Tillich's definition of faith, the subject/choice of what to put faith into will be where atheists and theists will differ. Choosing the type of religious practice or non-practice, is up to the individual. What do you think?

I think that, first and foremost, theists and antitheists (positive atheists) differ with regard to what kinds of beings there are: divine beings, divine spiritual beings, nondivine spiritual beings (angels, demons, human souls).

Hmm, I don't know about other theists. I think of angels, demigods, nymphs, greek gods or what have you as manifestations of God using specific anthropomorphic attributes. For instance an angel of destruction like Abaddon would be a metaphoric representation of its ascribed charicteristics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon Similar to how Apollo, "God of music, poetry, plague, oracles, sun, medicine, light and knowledge" would be portrayed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo
Is there disagreement here. yes. I would have to agree that there is disagreement. I can't imagine one claiming that all theists believe that their are/have been supernatural physical persons who embodied superhuman characteristics without evidence, like muscles or very very pretty hair. lol What do you think?