Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 6:28 AM
209 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 205 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,783 Year: 18,606/29,783 Month: 551/2,043 Week: 103/386 Day: 6/47 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 270 (416360)
08-15-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
08-15-2007 10:49 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
Thus a god is "2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes," -- or rather than any being of supernatural powers is a god, by definition.

This is the definition used for all the vast and numerous pantheons of gods, such as Greek, Roman, Norse, etcetera.

According to the strict interpretation of the bible all angels and demons have supernatural powers: thus they are all gods by definition, and literalist Christianity is faaaaar from being a "monotheistic" religion ...

By this rationale Islam is not a monotheistic religion either. It was an angel (Gabriel) that communicated the Qur'an to Muhammed. It is my understanding that Muslims are pretty hard-core about being strictly monotheistic.

According to Wikipedia, angels are a big deal in Islam:

quote:
Belief in angels is crucial to the faith of Islam. The Arabic word for Angels (malak) means "messenger", like its counterparts in Hebrew (malakh) and Greek (angelos). According to the Qur'an, angels do not possess free will, and worship God in perfect obedience.[28] Angels' duties include communicating revelations from God, glorifying God, recording every person's actions, and taking a person's soul at the time of death. They are also thought to intercede on man's behalf. The Qur'an describes angels as "messengers with wings—two, or three, or four (pairs): He [God] adds to Creation as He pleases…"[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Angels


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 10:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2007 2:16 PM Clark has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 197 of 270 (416363)
08-15-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
08-15-2007 10:49 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
Thus a god is "2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes," -- or rather than any being of supernatural powers is a god, by definition.

That is a bit sloppy, you might as well have said 'All fast cars are red therefore all red cars are fast'. All gods are beings of supernatural powers/attributes, but not all beings of supernatural powers are gods.

This is the definition used for all the vast and numerous pantheons of gods, such as Greek, Roman, Norse, etcetera.

That clearly isn't true otherwise there wouldn't be half-gods, fantastical monsters, heroes, satyrs, spirits of the dead...or rather they'd exist but they'd also be under the umbrella of 'gods'. Which would make half-gods a bit confusing.

All in the definition, you see, and with the definition of god used in other pantheistic religions to unmask the pantheism in Christianity we now see belief in thousands of gods --- or are they all one?

And a quick correction of nomenclature: you mean something closer to pantheonic here - pantheistic means something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 10:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 12:57 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 5:00 PM Modulous has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 198 of 270 (416369)
08-15-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Modulous
08-15-2007 11:51 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
Not to mention that it is only when using the second definition, which was rather general, that we can get this comparison. Clearly definition one was meant to reflect the Christian monotheistic version, and clearly, with a word like 'God', one definition will not suffice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 08-15-2007 11:51 AM Modulous has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 199 of 270 (416375)
08-15-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rob
08-14-2007 9:50 PM


There's something lacking in the analysis, but I can't visualize it yet....

I'll keep praying and thinking about it.

Fair enough.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rob, posted 08-14-2007 9:50 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 200 of 270 (416385)
08-15-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rob
08-14-2007 10:21 PM


Rob writes:

Of course I know reality... I exist in Him.

If your God is another word for "reality", why do you need two words for the same thing? And why do you need to pray to reality? Why should reality care whether you pray to it or not?

Rob writes:

So if there is no God, then how could you know that I don't know Him? How could you know that I don't know Him, since you would have to know God in order to know that?

Was that meant to be funny?

If there is no God, how can you know that the person you're addressing doesn't know that there is no God to know, and therefore know, logically, that you cannot know a non-existent entity? You cannot know that he does not know that you do not know God. He could've had real special information from the seven magic wizards and witches who really created the universe, and you could just be suffering from a common cultural delusion that the universe was created by a fairly ridiculous mythological God invented by a primitive middle-eastern tribe, for all you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rob, posted 08-14-2007 10:21 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:39 PM bluegenes has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 201 of 270 (416386)
08-15-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rob
08-15-2007 10:16 AM


Rob writes:

Can we know the truth or not?

We can know little bits of truth. We can not know The Truth™.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 10:16 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:42 PM ringo has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 202 of 270 (416393)
08-15-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by bluegenes
08-15-2007 2:29 PM


bluegenes:
If there is no God, how can you know that the person you're addressing doesn't know that there is no God to know, and therefore know, logically, that you cannot know a non-existent entity? You cannot know that he does not know that you do not know God. He could've had real special information from the seven magic wizards and witches who really created the universe, and you could just be suffering from a common cultural delusion that the universe was created by a fairly ridiculous mythological God invented by a primitive middle-eastern tribe, for all you know.

But that is akin to what I am telling Him. And I noticed you used the word 'really' (ie. real / reality)...

bluegenes:

If your God is another word for "reality", why do you need two words for the same thing? And why do you need to pray to reality? Why should reality care whether you pray to it or not?

Have you not heard of synonyms?

One of the definitions of God, is reality.

You are also confusing the pantheistic concept of reality with the Judeo-Christian. God (reality) is living in the Christian sense, not some impersonal absolute. We can have a personal relationship with Him. This is a relational (relative) universe in terms of physicality you know? But we can make that statement absolutely, because it is a statement of the totality of things (ie. the ultimate reality / God).

So, by praying we are communicating with God. I guess it is akin to simply accepting reality and therefore knowing it. But if you didn't believe in reality, you wouldn't draw any references to it's nature. Same with God since they are synonymous. If you don't believe in Him, then you will not talk to Him. And He cannot talk to you because you will not let Him.

You have to believe in something. One man told me he doesn't believe in anything. And I asked him if he really believed that? But not all beliefs are reality as is plain. The difference is that the 'real thing' can communicate back to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 2:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 6:55 PM Rob has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 203 of 270 (416395)
08-15-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
08-15-2007 2:30 PM


Ringo:
We can know little bits of truth. We can not know The Truth™.

:laugh: I gotta hand it to you Ringo...

Ok, so we know that logic is valid, because of the emprical evidence of order and elegant mathematical struture?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 2:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 4:06 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 204 of 270 (416401)
08-15-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Rob
08-15-2007 3:42 PM


Rob writes:

Ok, so we know that logic is valid, because of the emprical evidence of order and elegant mathematical struture?

That's not the topic.

I'm saying that deism makes more sense, in a way, than your brand of kindergarten theism because it doesn't claim "special knowledge" or divine revelation like you do.

But as I said before, theism has little or nothing to do with this topic anyway. The OP concerns a move from atheism to deism. The only issue for theists is:

quote:
Aren’t all those difficult theological questions about pain, death, suffering and evil much better answered by an uncaring and indifferent creator?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:42 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 5:04 PM ringo has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 205 of 270 (416407)
08-15-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Modulous
08-15-2007 11:51 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
That is a bit sloppy, you might as well have said 'All fast cars are red therefore all red cars are fast'. All gods are beings of supernatural powers/attributes, but not all beings of supernatural powers are gods.

Shorthand. The full definition can be used if you wish ... the result is the same.

quote:
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Although certainly the specification for maleness does not apply within other pantheons, so we don't need to specify that, so

... angels in particular are also believed in and worshiped by those of a literalist bent, and the belief is clearly that they can control nature .... etc etc ... so we still end up with the same result.

When applied to the abilities and powers of angels, demons and devils, the characteristics fit the requirements of the definition for gods that is applied to all other pantheons, particularly when compared to the lesser gods of those pantheons.

And a quick correction of nomenclature: you mean something closer to pantheonic here - pantheistic means something else.

Corrected.

That clearly isn't true otherwise there wouldn't be half-gods, fantastical monsters, heroes, satyrs, spirits of the dead...or rather they'd exist but they'd also be under the umbrella of 'gods'. Which would make half-gods a bit confusing.

Clearly as well these categories do not represent the angels, demons and devils of literal christian belief, nor necessarily beings of supernatural ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigods

quote:
The term "demigod", meaning "half-god," is a modern distinction, often misapplied in Greek mythology. "Demigod" is meant to identify a person whose one parent was a god and whose other parent was human, such as the heroes of Greek mythology. The biblical Nephilim, descendants of fallen angels and mortal women, could be considered demigods. ...

Color mine for empHASis. Could you explain how you can get a demi-god offspring of angels without them being gods?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 08-15-2007 11:51 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Modulous, posted 08-15-2007 5:39 PM RAZD has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 206 of 270 (416410)
08-15-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
08-13-2007 9:00 AM


Re: "inadequacies"
I have said what is sufficient, I have also said that beyond that it is personal.

Then why have you responded, with venom no less, if it were personal? I was asking a generalized question. You said that you couldn't really explain it, I said fine, you then continued with your tirade, which has now grown even more hostile.

Alternatively you could actually look for other possibilities yourself. It's not like I have exclusive rights to them.

There are no other alternatives logically speaking. If by chance I have failed to consider another possibility, feel free to clue me in.

If that's what you need to believe to feel safe in your faith and your limited myopic world view then go for it. Of course it could just be another of the numerous examples of your amazingly limited ability to see other possibilities.

The belief you currently ascribe to is not synonymous with deism by any definitional standard. I merely pointed that out to you, to which you still are incapable of resolving.

Obviously you have a sever (need I say neurotic?) need to feel superior to others on the matter of faith and belief, and this is just one way to feed that kind of neurosis.

Matters of faith cannot be superior, so long as they make no rational sense. If I point out an inconsistency, that is my way of testing the veracity of the truth claim-- something every one does here. No need to feel martyred.

quote:
this is all wayyy off topic

It's on topic about your inability to ground-check facts and to look into the truth of what you are posting

THIS is OT too. Deal with issue RAZD, which is deism, and stop trying to childishly derail the thread because its not going well for you. If you would like to continue our conversation about immigration we could go back in that thread and discuss it there. Here is not the place.

quote:
But I assume you read the definition of deism. Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it, unless of course you can give some examples of the descriptions that I'm allegedly not understanding. Don't you find all of this a little disconcerting?

Not disconcerting at all nem, because your (many) assumptions are false. It's really quite simple. See if you can figure it out -- without needing to hold someone's hand to get there. Consider this an exercise in 'getting it right' before making unfounded conclusions.

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
3. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Where in here do you fit that would allow you to justifiably refer to yourself as a deist? I'm asking a serious question. Stop assuming that you're under attack. Its a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

You get free reign to make all kinds of disparaging, offensive and frankly insulting remarks about my "inadequacies" and my beliefs, and I don't get to talk about your inability to look at the facts and your failure to review available information.

You do, and you have! Its usually in proportion to the topic, so that's totally fine with me. Its only now that you apparently feel truly threatened and seem to be speaking solely out of anger, so you feel the need to bring up totally irrelevant topics to take the spotlight off of you.

At least you admit you are attacking me and not my arguments.

Where have I admitted that I'm attacking you and not the argument?

You think you have put deism in a box, nem, but I am not in that box.

Deism is in a box. You may not be. You can believe in whatever you want. But you don't get to redefine something just so you can continue calling yourself something that you aren't.

I don't see how your version of deism is compatible with everyone else's understanding of it. If you say that its personal and you don't want to discuss it, then fine. I won't prod you for information you don't feel comfortable sharing. But at the same time, don't come out swinging at innocuous questions and feel instantly martyred by them.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 9:00 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 6:48 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 207 of 270 (416411)
08-15-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ringo
08-15-2007 4:06 PM


Ringo writes:

I'm saying that deism makes more sense, in a way, than your brand of kindergarten theism because it doesn't claim "special knowledge" or divine revelation like you do.

Still, you know very well that which 'solution' makes sense is completely relative to the 'problem' one proposes to solve.

Deism, to me, lacks something in philosophy. It does not care how we live life, and does not know where we ultimately wind up. If a person wants to 'know' these things, revelation starts to seem like the only sensible way to learn them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 4:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 5:20 PM anastasia has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 208 of 270 (416414)
08-15-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


Is there really nothing out there.

There is almost definitely something out there, some things I'm more sure of than others. Is there a god? Who knows? Who cares? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What difference can it make if an entity exists that we can have no way of being sure about any conclusions about it?

“There is no evidence” I hear you cry. You smug self-righteous bastards.

I don't believe something until I see evidence for it. It's simple common sense. If you think that makes someone smug and self-righteous in your eyes - so be it. However, it serves as the best method I have encountered for not being fooled into believing untrue things. Sure, it also means I might not believe some true things - but everybody finds themselves in the same position - that's life.

Did everything really come from nothing?

Sounds impossible to me, but I cannot say anything for sure. I'd venture that everything did not come from anything, since anything that it came from would be part of 'everything'.

No space, no time, no other dimensions. No forces, no matter, no energy. No equation obeying abstract concepts. No laws. No rules. No……consciousness? NOTHING. Really?

I think what you are essentially asking is 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. I don't know the answer to that question any more than a theist or a deist, since 'something' includes a deity. Did a deity come from NOTHING? If a deity is able to exist in exemption from asking this question, why can't reality?

And doesn’t quantum theory and it’s ‘role of the conscious observer’ implications pose some fairly awkward questions?

Yes - but not theological questions. The role of the conscious observer is a minority position as far as I am aware, anyway.

Come out from your façade of rationalism and admit it. The ultimate evidence is against you.

The 'ultimate evidence' which I assume to mean the existence of reality, is equally against all positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Ben!, posted 08-16-2007 11:53 AM Modulous has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1573 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 209 of 270 (416415)
08-15-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Rob
08-15-2007 10:33 AM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
Rob:

Your the one named 'Archer'.

And I must have hit the bull's eye, because nothing in your post addresses addresses the points I made. You just typed up a little homily that talks all around them.

Case in point:

Christianity has very little to do with being happy. It is about joy.

Word game. My point stands.

If it's true that non-Christians are in 'eternal torment' right now, as you said earlier, we should see lots of tortured-looking people when we look around. We should find a significant correlation between that look and the profession of beliefs other than yours. We do not. Non-Christians are just as likely to be happy and joyful, or morose and miserable, as the people at your church on any given day.

How can we be well adjusted in a world governed by the greedy and power-mad?

I knew you'd go for the flip-flop.

One post ago you told me Christians are on Easy Street while their neighbours live in 'eternal torture.' I said no evidence in the real world supports this fantasy. Now you say that, because the world is such a mess, Christians are the ones tortured while their neighbours live on Easy Street.

It's just another rationalization. If Christians look happier than people around them, you have your rationalization to explain why. If they look less happy than people around them, you have your rationalization to explain that, too. Anything to help keep the fantasy alive that your own sectarian club is special... when no evidence exists in the real world to support this.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 10:33 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 5:41 PM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 218 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:10 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 210 of 270 (416416)
08-15-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by anastasia
08-15-2007 5:04 PM


anastasia writes:

Deism, to me, lacks something in philosophy. It does not care how we live life....

We've been through this before. Everybody lives life depending on what they have internalized from whatever source. Theism claims a special source, but there are so many versions of that special source that it isn't special any more. It's meaningless.

A philosophy that doesn't care to dictate how we should live life seems more sound to me.

... and does not know where we ultimately wind up.

So much the better. Living our lives for reward or punishment doesn't make us better people. Doing what we need to do without hope of reward or fear of punishment is far more noble.

If a person wants to 'know' these things, revelation starts to seem like the only sensible way to learn them.

If a person wants to "know" these things, the first step is to stop wanting to know. Her time would be better spent on something useful. :)

Edited by Ringo, : Spilling.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 5:04 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by anastasia, posted 08-16-2007 2:58 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018