Deism in the Dock

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).

Hi, jar.I should also point out that most of the traditional denominations (including, I suspect, nj's, although I don't know which one he belongs to) admit that the concept of the Trinity is a mystery that appears to be logically incoherent to finite human minds. So Archer's example is apt -- Christianity itself isn't free from the coherency problem nj is trying to associate with the non-exclusive religions.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Christians believe that it is an extension of Judaism, just as Mormons believe its an extension of Christianity. Oh, I don't know... maybe that its a common objection that opponents make all the time concerning Christianity. Its very obvious you wanted to convey that point.

quote:

---

No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out.

---

So as long as we can butcher language and coherence, we all will be copacetic because we can simply invent whatever we want in such a way that we'll never actually be wrong about anything.

quote:

---

God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.

---

Sure, anyone can say whatever they want and invent anything to absolve themselves. But it will be meaningless. Answering you directly is ignoring you???? Its really quite simple. You keep saying God, which is singular, and then you are trying to say that God is one, three, and ten thousand. You are fallaciously spinning it in what ever you want to justify yourself.You yourself said God. I'm merely telling you that having different characteristics does not equal a separate god for each one. Kabbalah uses 12 characteristics for one God.But you have no problem turning around and saying that multiple gods and no gods could actually be considered the same thing. LOL! Well, which is it?!?!?You're a walking contradiction.

quote:

---

Can you be a Hindu Christian with any cogency?

---

No, sir, not at all. I was merely pointing out that your phrasing of the statement was fallacious. You are conflating things and then muddling terms. I still maintain that. I'm not seeing your objection.

---

​

"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

Are you saying a religious proposition has to be exclusively applied to be worth even mentioning? It appears you are. Wow.OK. Buckle up.

The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a pearl.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a lost coin.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a thief in the night.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a sower sowing seed.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like yeast.

​

Mutually exclusive propositions all. Otherwise, why mention any of them?So which one is right?No fair trying to have them all. 'A house divided against itself.' You know.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : htmlEdited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Surely all faith has to be irrational at root?
Thats what makes it faith and not knowledge.

you used the word rational; i simply stated that i am not what you defined as a "rational theist".i guess i just wanted you to know that there are theists who have considered their own small place in the world. i'd imagine your idea of a theist is a bit limited.but then you don't seem to appreciate anyone's position.

I don't. At all.I wanted to ask about deism and wanted to know what made atheists atheists rather than deists.
If anything I didn't do a very good job at asking very challenging questions because A) I was a bit beered up and B) I am an atheist and essentially agree with the gist of your answers.They are the sort of questions that deists and theists might ask atheists in order to justify their position against deism. So I asked them. There is indeed a lot of woo woo BS regards this subject around. But I think you dismiss the question as completely irrelevant too easilyIt is interesting to be treated as someone on the other side of the fence for a change.......You guys don't take any prisoners.

My idea of theists has been changed quite significantly by my participation at EvC. In the case of many, such as yourself, definitely positively.You really shouldn't take my opening post too seriously.
Having a go at everyone indiscriminately seemed like a fun idea at the time.
It seems like less fun now I am dealing with the responses!

that's what you get.

I have no evidence whatsoeverMy post was not intended to be taken too seriously.
I was proposing nothing and dismissing everything so I suppose I should expect abuse back from all denominations.If I thought the question was completely settled in favour of theism or deism I wouldn't have asked equally dumbass questions to deists and theists.However I do think the question is largely settled. I am an atheist. But I do think that there are some interesting questions about reality, consciousness and the origins of everything that are worth asking even if ultimately they cannot be answered. Absolutely. But there are intersting questions that arise if you apply the same principle of eigenstates to the universe (or multiverse or whatever) as a whole.
Imagine the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) as the cat in the box. Nobody has to observe all the particles that make up the cat for the thought experiemnt to apply.

I would generally class my position as pretty strongly atheistic too for the record.My OP was never really meant to be a serious critique of atheism (or any of the other points of view I ranted against for that matter).I am slightly stunned that my fellow atheists treated it as such and all started vigorously defending their position against what was a pretty shambolic attack at best.I can only conclude that there are not enough creationists around to vent our frustrations out on

I agree with your comments on deism It does indeed pose a problem for monotheists.I think the question of where the rules that govern nature come from is an interesting one.
Even if we are one of many universes in a vast multiverse all with different physical constants and different natural laws being played out, the question of what laws this 'multiverse' is obeying such that all the differnt universe can come into existence remains unanswered.I don't really think deism is a realistic answer but the questions it causes us to pose are interesting ones.

You are the only actual deist to reply.From your science posts I must admit that I had always assumed you to be an atheist (until recently where in the 'Best evidence for creation' thread your deism did shine through)As such I would be interested to know how you made the personal choice you did in a bit more detailIs there a rational basis for it? Why exactly is it a superior conclusion to atheism?My own interest is in why the universe should obey any laws at all. Even if we regress the physical laws of the universe back to notions of a multiverse with countless universes each with different physical laws then we still have the question of the laws that govern the creation of those multiple universes.Why does nature ultimately obey physical laws and where do these come from?I don't actually think deism is necessarily the answer despite the misrepresentation I seem to have given in my OP.But it does give rise to some interesting questions

How does 'extension' negate the idea of 'borrowing'?Christians incorporated over thirty books from Judaism into their canon. You want to think of those books as 'extended' instead of 'borrowed'?Well, OK.You may as well know that many people around the world view religious ideas as extensions of each other. Not always in a chronological/historical sense, but in the most important elements. The ideas extend each other.That's it, really. You can understand others, if you want to.You view Judaism as valid (much as an orthodox Jew would) but leaving more to be said (much as an orthodox Jew wouldn't). You view Christianity as filling in the picture more completely. Other people do the same. They see this or that belief system having some insight to offer, and this or that other religion filling in some area of the picture a bit better. Fallacy of Catastrophic Threat: I win, or the world descends into chaos.The catastrophe doesn't happen. Where I live, millions of happy polytheists drive to work, get married, raise children, operate computer programs, eat stinky tofu, and keep their streets more free of crime than in any metropolis you've probably ever lived in--without caring one whit whether you think they butcher their language you never learned.You are overlooking something important about the way religious language,in every tongue, works. You can catch it yourself, I think. It would be better for the discussion if you did.You got a hint from Straggler... Not at all. I just laid out the propositions. If a fallacy exists, it's your own.Don't you say God is singular--and three?If that's a fallacy, so be it. The same holds true of a singular God equalling any other number.If it makes sense, it makes sense. The same holds true, again, with any other number.I'm not taking a side. I don't have a god in this fight. (haha) I'm just showing you how these things are done.They're done the way you already do them. On the contrary. I set down distinct, concise propositions: God is knowable / God is unknowable. The terms were simple.You immediately started explaining things so that you could make a place for both seeming contradictory propositions. Are you 'conflating things and muddling terms'? Having it both ways? Well, some might view it that way. You're certainly making matters more complex.But that's the point. All religions do this. Yours and everyone else's.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

See, I'm largely of the opinion that questions that can't be answered aren't interesting, and simply aren't worth asking. They're a waste of time.The really interesting questions are the ones with answers that are hard, but not impossible, to get to. The ones that can't ever be answered - why bother? What on Earth do you gain when you ask such a question? Nothing, that I can see.