A couple have been doing 'missionary' work to, what seems like, promote this new movement called New Theism.

New Theists are not believers; we’re evidentialists. We value scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma, or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God (Reality/Ultimate Wholeness/The Great Mystery).

New Theists are not supernaturalists; we’re naturalists. We are inspired and motivated more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don’t. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural.

http://metanexus.net/blog/new-theism-she...dium=email

Would any of you consider yourselves to fit these descriptions? Anything you disagree with about this whole thing?

Drug addicts... that is all

They're evidentialists? Wtf is an "evidentialist"? Is it even a real word? Anyhow, I'm presuming it means they value evidence - if so, how come they're theists?

(June 18, 2012 at 6:47 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: They're evidentialists? Wtf is an "evidentialist"? Is it even a real word? Anyhow, I'm presuming it means they value evidence - if so, how come they're theists?

Why call ourselves “theists” at all if we’re not supernatural, otherworldly believers? Simply this:

All theological “isms” (e.g., theism, deism, pantheism, atheism) came into being long before we had an evolutionary understanding of emergence. Therefore, all such concepts are outdated, misleading, and unnecessarily divisive if they are not redefined and reinterpreted in an evolutionary context. Other terms that have been offered in addition to “New Theist” include “evolutionary theist,” “evolutionary humanist,” “post-theist,” “mytheist,” and “creatheist” (pronounced variously, and humorously, as “crea-theist” or “cree-atheist”).

Yeah good question. That's a rather shaky explanation they have given in my opinion.

Do they think god is real or not?

(June 18, 2012 at 7:20 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Do they think god is real or not?

Not in the conventional meaning.

By “reality is our God” we mean that honoring and working with what is real, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and creatively imagining what could be in light of this, is our ultimate concern and commitment.

And this taken from, what I gather, their official site:

God is not a person; God is a mythic personification of reality. If we miss this we miss everything.

http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010

I think in a nutshell they are trying to reconcile what theists have always done (which is partly try and describe the world) with modern day science, history and just simply evidence of what is real.

Sorry possum...they are off on their own mind altering drugs...(natural or introduced) Fuck-em!

(June 18, 2012 at 7:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 18, 2012 at 7:20 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Do they think god is real or not?

Not in the conventional meaning.

By “reality is our God” we mean that honoring and working with what is real, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and creatively imagining what could be in light of this, is our ultimate concern and commitment.

And this taken from, what I gather, their official site:

God is not a person; God is a mythic personification of reality. If we miss this we miss everything.

http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010

I think in a nutshell they are trying to reconcile what theists have always done (which is partly try and describe the world) with modern day science, history and just simply evidence of what is real.

And the bits they do not know the answer to, they are filling in with goddidit (only they describe god differently), rather than "I don't know"

Sounds like religion repackaged as new-age nonsense.

It sounds like a counter movement to the "new atheism"(<--- whatever that means)