Deism in the Dock

Ignoring the insults...

quote:

---

Is there really nothing out there. Are you really really sure?

---

If you mean am I sure that there's no God, I'm as sure as I can be when dealing with something that is ill-defined and amorphous. [quote] Did everything really come from nothing? I mean really absolutely [b]nothing[\b]. 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? [/quote]I don't think so. And there's no reason why I as an atheist should think so. There's just no good reason to suppose that the basic level of reality - that which just exists - is anything we would consider a god.

quote:

---

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

---

Quantum theory doesn't require any special role for consciousness. That's just a rather dubious interpretation (and one that I don't believe). But if it did it'd be more of a problem for the monotheists - an omniscient and omnipresent being observes EVERYTHING so there's no room for the quantum weirdness that we actually observe. And maybe it would explain why we are here -perhaps, as soon as the wavefunction includes a possible state where conscious observers exist it is forced to collapse into that state. So even if it were true it could be quite convenient for atheists.I have a few comments on Deism, too. It's a philosophically appealing position because it allows for cosmological arguments for God, but avoids all the numerous problems of theism. Even the fine-tuning argument works better for deism than theism. You don't have to think about why a being capable of creating the universe would be so interested in us. Even dispensing with revelation is more of an advantage than a disadvantage from a philosophical perspective because it avoids dealing with the awkward question of distinguishing true from false.

quote:

---

Afterall, religions claim exclusivity, and indeed have to in order to remain coherent.

---

Anyone with any knowledge of comparative religion knows that this is not true.Buddhism is not really about Gods and can and does co-exist with other religions (Hinduism and Shinto to name two obvious examples).Polytheistic religions can and do combine (syncretism). To a large extent Hinduism is a complex of religions that have grown together.Religions need to claim some special knowledge, but they don't need to completely or even partially exclude all other religions.

quote:

---

While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another, the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have, while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.

---

I think you're assuming a lot here. Are religions primarily about a "path of righteousness" ? Can the combining of religions be considered simply "borrowing" ? Where religions coexist to the point that people can and do honour two - or more - where is the exclusivity ?

quote:

---

As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right. They may be accepting and tolerant of different view points, but that does not negate the fact of exclusivity.

---

That ISN'T what I said. What I said is that Buddhism is not about gods. The core teachings of Buddhism are about the path to enlightenment - not about gods at all. Buddhists can believe in many gods or none or even one. Many elevate the Buddha to a god-like status, often above the gods. But they don't have to.

quote:

---

I was just using the search for righteousness as an example. Insert another trait common to most religions if you'd like. I was just illustrating a point.

---

In that case you're begging the question. You're assuming that there must be some difference that requires exclusivity and then offering an "example".

quote:

---

You can merge all of the religions in the world and call yourself a Shintoist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim if you wanted. But it would just be meaningless gobbledegook if you did.

​

Think about it. Can you be a Muslim Hindu? Obviously not. Why? Because their foundational tenets differ radically to the point where they contradict each other.

---

Talk about missing the point. Hinduism IS an example of religions that have merged to the point where they are considered a single religion by most. If you say someone's a Hindu you ARE saying that they are a member of such a religion. And your example doesn't work as an example because Islam is exclusivist (and very intolerant of polytheism)- which is WHY there are such problems between Muslims and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent.

quote:

---

So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?

---

A Buddhist could believe in either or neither. It's not a core teaching.

quote:

---

The point I am trying to make is one of coherence. You can't ascribe to a multiplicity of things with religion without also being inherently duplicitous to one side or the other.

---

But your point misses the fact that all religions allow some variations in doctrine outside of core teachings. If the core teachings do not clash then it is possible to believe in two religions - or more. Without incoherence or duplicity.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is that a religion may offer inclusive ideals as part of the package deal, but as one goes deeper into both religions, the incompatibility becomes more clear.

​

For instance, the whole debacle with Tom Cruise and his Scientology. Tom tells his wife that she can still be a Catholic while also being a Scientologist.

---

Except you're NOT offering any significant support for your claims. Christianity is an exclusivist religion (although that hasn't stopped all Christians embracing inclusivist ideas). You can't prove a universal by cherrypicking "examples".

quote:

---

You completely avoided answering anything I actually said or asked.

---

That's certainly not true. In fact I answered every point you raised in your previous post. You only have to read them to see that. Please spare us the false accusatiosn creationists seem to like so much.

quote:

---

You have asserted that polytheism and monotheism really don't present a problem. I am very simply saying that religions, whether they outright say it or not, teach exclusivity because they have to in order to remain coherent.

---

In fact I said that a religion that is not about gods is compatible with differing views on gods. And you keep ignoring the examples of religions that do work together and obviously can't be teaching exclusivity.

quote:

---

Then what is the purpose for the sage to have mentioned it? Teachings like New Age and Baha'i like to glean from every religions aspects that it likes, while discarding others, and erecting a religion on the fly. They don't teach exclusivity, but it ends up being exclusive because it is not compatible with other religions.

---

For which sage to have mentioned what ? And you're still only making assertions.

quote:

---

What do you identify as being the core teaching that runs a thread through all religions?

---

That's pretty much the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that Buddhism can coexist with other religions not because they share a core teaching but because their core teachings do not interact (or do not to any great extent).

Yes, it would be interesting to know where the "rules" come from. But ultimately every rule seems to rest on another. So probably there is some basic reality that just is.

quote:

---

We agnostics are more loyal to logic than either the atheist or deist/theist camps: any God or "ultimate reality" is unknown and probably unknowable.

​

The rest of you just like to choose sides and pick fights.

​

Extremists, all of you--true believers, every last one.

---

Although this is a joke, some agnostics really DO take this attitude.Which is self-refuting, since they claim to know the beliefs of people they've never interacted with - although their logic should tell them that they do not.

Your post really has nothing to do with the post it was replying to. I simply pointed out that the arrogant attitude you jokingly assumed was something that could be found in some agnostics.However the position IS self-refuting because it assumes knowledge that the agnostic could not have. He would have to know that all atheists took a hardline stance that GOd absolutely does not exist. But how could he know that ? The answer is that he cannot and thus his alleged superiority vanishes. He is the real fanatic, since he is taking a hardline position without knowledge - or even as good a case as the atheist could make.It goes way beyond taking people at their word. If someone says that he is an atheist and no more you could not rationally conclude that he took a hardline position on that basis. IF you did you would be irrationally jumping to conclusions.So I really have to ask why you introduce the idea of lying. If someone believes that no God exists but does not take the hardline position of saying that there is absolutely definitely no God then they could still truthfully claim to be an atheist. But their mere existence would refute the idea that all atheists claim that there is absolutely definitely no God. So how could you honestly claim to know that no such people existed ?