Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2018 2:31 PM
275 online now:
caffeine, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile (6 members, 269 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,711 Year: 13,534/29,783 Month: 980/1,576 Week: 192/303 Day: 16/36 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 211 of 270 (416421)
08-15-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
08-15-2007 5:00 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
... 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.

No we don't. Since the 'red car fallacy' still applies. All gods in this definition are supernatural and worshipped and generally control some part of reality. The definition does not say 'Any being of supernatural powers...', thus we cannot reverse and say that all supernatural beings that are worshipped and control nature are gods.

If I said a motor car is a motorized form of transport with four wheels, would you be justified in pointing to a van and saying it is a car by that definition? No - I was saying what a car is not what a van is. My definition isn't great because it isn't worded very well, but it is not technically wrong. A motor car is a motorized form of transport with four wheels. A human is an animal with hair, but that doesn't mean a dog is a human.

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

Obviously they don't - you were talking about how the ancient Greeks defined gods in their mythology, and I pointed out that entities exist in Greek mythology that fall under the attributes of the definition and are not gods.

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

Sure - the article says that demigods is a modern distinction. Thus, they were not written to be demigods by the authors it is a modern descriptive for Nephilim, but the point being made is that demigods is a way of describing a mythological thematic element - beings that are imbued with limited supernatural powers after a supernatural being mates with a natural one. In that sense the Nephilim are demigods, but that was not how I was referring to 'half gods'. I was talking of certain Heroes in Greek literature with overt supernatural properties who were born of (often) Zeus and a mortal woman.

Don't get me wrong - angels are often seen with roles similar to the lesser gods of many pantheons. Angel of Death, Horsemen of the Apocolypse spring to mind as being on a par with 'Gods of X', and Yahweh is on a par with (though generally considered more powerful than) many sky or sun gods who was often the head of such pantheons. However, the Christian mythology clearly states that angels are not gods - so when considering Christian mythology that's all that really counts as far as making sense is concerned.

Heck - if you're going to make the point that Angels are gods from the definition, you might even consider saints in the list too - they performed miracles and are revered - perhaps even worshipped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 5:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 7:12 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 243 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-16-2007 5:22 PM Modulous has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 270 (416422)
08-15-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Archer Opteryx
08-15-2007 5:16 PM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
Archer:
One post ago you told me Christians are on Easy Street while their neighbours live in 'eternal torture.'

Your impatience and hostility are causing you to miss the mark (the definition of sin-an archer's term- btw).

Here is what I said...

Rob: It's not 'marry me or I'll shoot'... it's, 'your dying. I can help you; your sinking, and I can walk on water; come and follow me'.

The 'everlasting torture' is a state of being that we are already in.

Do you notice the we in there?

I contend that we are all in the same sinking ship. It is you who has tried in the past to argue for relative truth.

In your irrational state of mind, you've perceived a dichotomy that I have never drawn..

Archer:

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.

I agree, Christians are nothing special. We're just people like everyone else.

But now that we agree that we're all in the same boat, then we must all be in need of the same salvation.

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

Archer: Word game. My point stands.

Whoah... easy there Hoss!

The examples to explain this are so plentiful it is rediculous.

It may make a child happy to eat ice-cream at any given time, and it may not be convenient for the parent to not allow it for reasons only the parent can perceive. Yet it is a greater form of joy (or happiness) to see the larger story unfold gracefully though it may cause temporary unhappiness.

Though 'happy' and 'joy' are related, if you look at their definitions, their is a definite link to long term sucess attended to joy, and an immediate quality associated with happiness. It' not black and white grant you, but it is distinguishable.

What I was trying to argue against was your inferring that 'happiness' can be achieved in many forms, and that that is the purpose of religion.

If that is true, then for some joining a S& M club may be the best 'religious' option for some.

I am only trying to show that happiness is not the goal in the temporal sense that I perceived was inferred by one of your replies.

Now out of all the conversations I am having at the moment, yours is the most unendurable. Even Ringo, who usually leaves me feeling molested and used, is managing (at times) to show enormous progress in his ability to take subjects seriously. His have actually been recently semi-intelligent questions that do not immediately appear to be motivated by a tantrum.

What's got into you? It seemed to me that you were far more reasonable in the past.

I hope I am not in danger of maturing, because my pride might immediately jump on the thought and send me backsliding into the abyss once again.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 5:16 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-16-2007 11:57 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-17-2007 2:05 AM Rob has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 213 of 270 (416432)
08-15-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Hyroglyphx
08-15-2007 5:03 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
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.

I guess you really are totally clueless to how insensitive and insulting your comments in Message 5 are (even though this is the SECOND time this has been discussed between us).

Curious that discussions with other posters on this thread about deism doesn't result in 'venemous responses' from me -- care to venture what the difference is?

You said that you couldn't really explain it,

Stop making up your version of reality nem and then try to foist if off as the real thing: I never said I couldn't explain it - I said the explanation was personal.

You shouldn't need to make up reality if you had an inkling of the truth eh?

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

Admit the full truth here nem -- YOU are unable to see any other alternatives. Which is ALL that I have accused you of - a stunning inability to see other possibilities.

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.

Are you sure those are the only valid definitions nem? There is no dogma or "gospel" of deism, no requirement for one deist to believe what another believes (and believe me there are a wide variety of beliefs under the "deist umbrella"), just a general "now you see it now you don't" deity.

But if it helps you out, I am a deist -- you are the one that claimed I wasn't (yeah no insult there eh nem?):

Message 141
Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it,...

See if you can figure out where you went wrong reaching that conclusion (not that you haven't ever reached false conclusions before ...). If it helps you further this definition I prefer to yours:

deism –noun
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. In the eighteenth century, numerous important thinkers held deist beliefs.

I did post this in another response on this thread, so you should be aware of it and make some adjustment to your (now documented above) limited thinking on this issue. Ask yourself why I would post that definition if I didn't think it applied, nem. Any conclusion come to mind?

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.

You don't threaten me or my beliefs, you - your approach - offends me and insults my belief. Only your inability to see other possibilities leaves you with this false impression of reality (not that this has ever happened before either). You reach your conclusions based on your need to feel superior, nem. It's not just here it's all over this forum.

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.

Deism is not in your box either nem. I am a deist: you do not get to decide my faith, nor it's limitations. That is the height of arrogance, typical of one in a desperate need to feel superior.

Do you have a clue yet? or do you need your hand held some more?

Enjoy.

ps -- let me know when you are ready to apologize.


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 206 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 5:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 7:45 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 220 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:14 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 214 of 270 (416433)
08-15-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rob
08-15-2007 3:39 PM


Rob writes:

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.

God (reality in the Judeo-Christian sense) created life on earth, according to your religion. So am I correct in suggesting that you believe that life, then, was created by reality, but is not part of it?

I ask because you seem to believe that life was designed by a designer, but that your God (reality) was not. This must mean that biological life cannot be part of your God (your undesigned reality).

(This is rather off topic, I realise, but I didn't know that there were Christians who believed that life was not part of reality, so I thought that the point was too interesting to ignore).

Edited by bluegenes, : corrected phrase


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:39 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 7:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 215 of 270 (416435)
08-15-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Modulous
08-15-2007 5:39 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
No we don't. Since the 'red car fallacy' still applies. All gods in this definition are supernatural and worshipped and generally control some part of reality. The definition does not say 'Any being of supernatural powers...',

Sorry the way definitions work is WORD = DEFINITION, Not WORD < DEFINITION. Words and their definitions can be used interchangeably.

Don't get me wrong - angels are often seen with roles similar to the lesser gods of many pantheons. Angel of Death, Horsemen of the Apocolypse spring to mind as being on a par with 'Gods of X', and Yahweh is on a par with (though generally considered more powerful than) many sky or sun gods who was often the head of such pantheons.

And this is also evidence that judaism evolved from a pantheonic faith.

However, the Christian mythology clearly states that angels are not gods - so when considering Christian mythology that's all that really counts as far as making sense is concerned.

Revisionist coverup. Denial doesn't make the definition invalid. The question is NOT what the faith claims, as people can believe whatever they choose, but how it compares to other faiths and the definitions of gods. That is objective eh?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : interchangable


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 211 by Modulous, posted 08-15-2007 5:39 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 08-16-2007 2:26 AM RAZD has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 216 of 270 (416436)
08-15-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by bluegenes
08-15-2007 6:55 PM


bluegenes:
God (reality in the Judeo-Christian sense) created life on earth, according to your religion. So am I correct in suggesting that you believe that life, then, was created by reality, but is not part of it?

That's why were lost, yes. It is of corse not totally removed. That would be hell.

bluegenes:

is rather off topic, I realise, but I didn't know that there were Christians who believed that life was not part of reality, so I thought that the point was too interesting to ignore).

Well then you never understood Christianity. That's the whole point of Christianity. That reality/God (a being, not a concept), created a world that was perfect like Him. And then one of his creatures in particular decided to try a different way of doing things at the suggestion of yet another.

We, in effect, became partially seperated from reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 6:55 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 8:43 PM Rob has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 217 of 270 (416439)
08-15-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
08-15-2007 6:48 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
I guess you really are totally clueless to how insensitive and insulting your comments in Message 5 are (even though this is the SECOND time this has been discussed between us).

Yes, this is true. I am totally and completely mystified as to how message 5 could have been construed as insensitive and insulting. You act as if I just hurled a brick at your head.

Curious that discussions with other posters on this thread about deism doesn't result in 'venemous responses' from me -- care to venture what the difference is?

Perhaps they haven't offered anything as remotely problematic to your position as I have.

quote:
You said that you couldn't really explain it

Stop making up your version of reality nem and then try to foist if off as the real thing: I never said I couldn't explain it - I said the explanation was personal.

This could very easily be construed by some, as "a.k.a, I don't have a decent reason, so I'll just plead the fifth". Nonetheless, I said that I wouldn't pry and I intend to live up to that. So, okay, its personal. Done.

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

Admit the full truth here nem -- YOU are unable to see any other alternatives. Which is ALL that I have accused you of - a stunning inability to see other possibilities.

Its true, RAZD! It makes no sense to me. I admit that your version of deism completely, totally, and utterly does not make any sense to me. I admit it. I also admit that I can see no reconciliation with your version of deism compared to the prevailing understanding that everyone else does, because it scoffs at a logical conclusion. Since your version seems to maintain logical inconsistencies, I am unable to surmise anything substantive from it. Its true, I don't know what to make of the paradox. Which is probably why I'm asking you to help me understand (hint hint).

But, as you know, I asked you to offer another solution. So far you have declined that offer simply by saying that its personal. That doesn't give me a lot to go on.

Are you sure those are the only valid definitions nem? There is no dogma or "gospel" of deism, no requirement for one deist to believe what another believes (and believe me there are a wide variety of beliefs under the "deist umbrella"), just a general "now you see it now you don't" deity.

If you want to redefine what deism means, or have some splinter cult of deism, you are entitled to that. I just want you to be aware that people who have come to deism, such as Spinoza, Einstein, Jefferson, etc, have all come to their conclusions based on teleology. Your view, as far as I can tell, is the very antithesis to that. I don't think you can really scorn me for pointing out the flaw, especially since it so fundamental to what deism is.

But if it helps you out, I am a deist -- you are the one that claimed I wasn't (yeah no insult there eh nem?):

I'm trying to get you to think about your position more carefully. If I said that I was an intelligent design/evolutionist, you might likely be inclined to inquire how I believe in two contradictory theories in the same breath. If I was incapable of explaining it, you would rightly say, whether you thought its insulting or not, that I can't refer to myself as such and remain coherent at the same time.

quote:
deism –noun
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. In the eighteenth century, numerous important thinkers held deist beliefs.

RAZD, try and understand the problem here. If you are an evolutionist, as we all know, how did you ever come to the conclusion that such a God exists if there is no avenue by which that God could have revelaed himself? Think deeply about it. The very reason why deists are deists is because of the teleological argument. Indeed, that is the avenue by which they came to their conclusions. You have no such avenue. So how can you be a deist?

To add: I'm not saying that you can't be a deist and an evolutionist at the same time. I'm saying that you can't be completely against intelligent design and also be a deist.

Another question I should ask is: Is the Big Bang the event instigated by God that started all life? If so, is that the moment that He stepped back to let nature do its thing w/o any intervention from Him?

Ask yourself why I would post that definition if I didn't think it applied, nem. Any conclusion come to mind?

Well, so far it seems like you haven't really thought it through, and perhaps you are beginning to see the inconsistency. In other words, perhaps you didn't initially see how it was problematic.

You don't threaten me or my beliefs, you - your approach - offends me and insults my belief.

Honestly RAZD, I thought message 5 was incredibly tame. Never would I have guessed that that post, (of all the posts you could have indicted), was the one that truly offended you.

Short of not saying anything at all, I don't see how that post could have been less offensive.

Only your inability to see other possibilities leaves you with this false impression of reality (not that this has ever happened before either). You reach your conclusions based on your need to feel superior, nem. It's not just here it's all over this forum.

I reach my conclusions based on my understanding of any given matter, RAZD. Why do you think I'm the only person on the planet that does that? Especially since you, still, have neglected to give me another possibility.

Listen, RAZD, I am not being condescending here, as much as you to want me to. I am genuinely asking you to help me understand the position better.

Deism is not in your box either nem. I am a deist: you do not get to decide my faith, nor it's limitations. That is the height of arrogance, typical of one in a desperate need to feel superior.

RAZD, I'm not trying to bash your faith or to limit it. I'm simply saying that if your beliefs were not garnered from some existential, transcendental, or rational reason, that it must be from blind faith that you believe.

But I don't believe somebody as pragmatic as yourself could believe in just any old thing, for any old reason. I have asked for that reason. You say that it is personal. That's fine with me. I won't ask you any longer. Buyt just know that until that reason is shared, we will indefinitely be at an impasse.

If that's the case, there is no point in continuing the discussion if we are only going to rehash talking points endlessly.

Do you have a clue yet? or do you need your hand held some more?

Only if its you ;)

ps -- let me know when you are ready to apologize.

If I felt I needed to, I would. I'll let you know if I feel convicted to do so.


"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 213 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 6:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 8:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 218 of 270 (416447)
08-15-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Archer Opteryx
08-15-2007 5:16 PM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
To remain consistent, I have to concede that I was making an exagerated point in saying that we are in 'the state of torment already'. We are partially in that state to be more precise. Hell will be much worse. My point is that we are sinking and on the road to that destination already.

These distinctions make a real, practical, and substantial difference. My apologies for any confusion. I also sometimes fail to take these subjects as seriously as we need to.

I am not immune to impatience and irrationality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 5:16 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 407 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 219 of 270 (416448)
08-15-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Hyroglyphx
08-15-2007 7:45 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
Mind telling us how Spinoza and Einstein are deists?

Hint: there's quite a bit of difference between the god of spinoza and the god of a deist.

NJ: if jar is totally against intelligent design (which is apparent--just ask him), and yet he believes in god, how does your statement

I'm saying that you can't be completely against intelligent design and also be a deist.
make any sense?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 7:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 9:01 PM kuresu has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 220 of 270 (416449)
08-15-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
08-15-2007 6:48 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
Razd:
Curious that discussions with other posters on this thread about deism doesn't result in 'venemous responses' from me

:laugh:

Your benevolence is known far and wide Razd. I think Ringo even worships you for your Godlike fury.

But it's only venom when others do it... Your just Right!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 6:48 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 221 of 270 (416453)
08-15-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Hyroglyphx
08-15-2007 7:45 PM


stone headed.
Perhaps they haven't offered anything as remotely problematic to your position as I have.

What you have posted is not problematic, nem, not remotely: that is a figment of your imagination and your inability to see any other reality. It's your excuse to yourself for why I am offended by what you claim about me, because gosh, you couldn't be offensive eh?

Its true, RAZD! It makes no sense to me. I admit that your version of deism completely, totally, and utterly does not make any sense to me. I admit it. I also admit that I can see no reconciliation with your version of deism compared to the prevailing understanding that everyone else does, because it scoffs at a logical conclusion. Since your version seems to maintain logical inconsistencies, I am unable to surmise anything substantive from it.

You don't think it through nem. Not really. You don't know my version, you don't have a clue about my version, but that is not material to your failure to understand deism.

Its true, I don't know what to make of the paradox. Which is probably why I'm asking you to help me understand (hint hint).

Answer: there is no paradox, your reasoning is faulty. Go back and check your premises and your assumptions. It's not just me, it's the existence of all other deists that make your "paradox" conclusion invalid.

RAZD, try and understand the problem here. If you are an evolutionist, as we all know, how did you ever come to the conclusion that such a God exists if there is no avenue by which that God could have revelaed himself? Think deeply about it. The very reason why deists are deists is because of the teleological argument. Indeed, that is the avenue by which they came to their conclusions. You have no such avenue. So how can you be a deist?

Your view, as far as I can tell, is the very antithesis to that. I don't think you can really scorn me for pointing out the flaw, especially since it so fundamental to what deism is.

You are wrong. Go back and check your premises and your assumptions.

Well, so far it seems like you haven't really thought it through, and perhaps you are beginning to see the inconsistency. In other words, perhaps you didn't initially see how it was problematic.

This continuing tone of insult and the rest of your post are not worthy of reply. Garbage in garbage out.

What I find most humorous in your deist bashing is that you want to be a deist: you claim you are a believer in Intelligent Design, and yet when you take ID to it's logical conclusion you end up with deism. There is no escape from it.

Perhaps it's your fear of deism being more logical than your faith that is coming out in your posts (seeing as you like armchair psychology)?

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 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 7:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 9:06 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 222 of 270 (416459)
08-15-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Rob
08-15-2007 7:27 PM


Rob writes:

Well then you never understood Christianity. That's the whole point of Christianity. That reality/God (a being, not a concept), created a world that was perfect like Him. And then one of his creatures in particular decided to try a different way of doing things at the suggestion of yet another.

We, in effect, became partially seperated from reality.

Fascinating! You're right to say that I never understood Christianity if your view of it is correct. I had no idea that our species being partially separated from reality was one of its doctrines. Presumably this also applies to snakes? Whereas other animals, plants and anything else around us, are still fully part of reality.

It must be a strange feeling for Christians, being partially unreal.

Yet isn't all life, in your opinion, intelligently designed? And isn't your reality, your God, definitely not intelligently designed? Wouldn't that mean that all life was completely divorced from reality, anyway, even before our ancestors mistakenly ate from the tree of knowledge?

The Deists, presumably, just have their God creating reality. That seems a lot more straightforward to me. I'm not a Deist, but at least, in their view, I'm entirely real. And for them, presumably, knowledge is perfectly O.K., even a good thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 7:27 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 9:03 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 223 of 270 (416461)
08-15-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kuresu
08-15-2007 8:13 PM


Re: "inadequacies"
Mind telling us how Spinoza and Einstein are deists?

Why don't I just let them tell you how:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." -Albert Einstein

"Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. As God is a being absolutely infinite, to whom no attribute expressing the essence of substance can be denied, and as he necessarily exists, if any other substance than God be given, it must be explained by means of some attribute of God, and thus two substances would exist possessing the same attribute, which is absurd; and so no other substance than God can be granted, and consequently not even be conceived." -Baruch Spinoza

Hence, these men see God within nature, but do not attribute such to divine inspiration.

Hint: there's quite a bit of difference between the god of spinoza and the god of a deist.

Is there though?

[i]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.[/qs]

We can also include newcomer, Antony Flew. Among his central arguments in assuming God comes directly from the teleological argument. However, like all deists, Flew claims that God is impersonal.

NJ: if jar is totally against intelligent design (which is apparent--just ask him), and yet he believes in god, how does your statement
I'm saying that you can't be completely against intelligent design and also be a deist.
make any sense?

Why not? Jar's beliefs in God seem to mirror that of RAZD's in many ways. My contention is that if they can't see God in nature, which all deists do by qualification, how then have they come to the conclusion that God in fact exists?


"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 219 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 8:13 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 9:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 9:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 224 of 270 (416464)
08-15-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by bluegenes
08-15-2007 8:43 PM


bluegenes:
Whereas other animals, plants and anything else around us, are still fully part of reality.

It's a good question... your mind seems to work in a rather logical fashion to me.

Actually, even the rest of reality suffers as a result of our part missing the mark.

Romans 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

bluegenes:

I'm not a Deist, but at least, in their view, I'm entirely real. And for them, presumably, knowledge is perfectly O.K., even a good thing.

But the deist has a problem. What do they make of the bad if everything is real and therefore true?

Is all knowledge good?

I don't know how to seduce a 2 year old girl... Am I missing out by not exploring that knowledge?

It may be a crude example, but where do we draw the line?

Let's look at something closer to home... the destruction of the environment. Is it just a fact, or is it wrong?

Many a deist would denounce it. But if everything is everything and all is real, then can we denounce anything as wrong?

It's almost pantheistic in it's duplicity.

Consider the words of Chesterton:

"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

(Orthodoxy, Chapter title - The Suicide of Thought / 1908)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 8:43 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 225 of 270 (416465)
08-15-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
08-15-2007 8:19 PM


Re: stone headed.
NJ writes:

quote:
until that reason is shared, we will indefinitely be at an impasse.

If that's the case, there is no point in continuing the discussion if we are only going to rehash talking points endlessly.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 8:19 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018