Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 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 replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 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 replied

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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 237 of 270 (416541)
08-16-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
08-15-2007 5:20 PM


Ringo writes:
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.
Anything which we internalize can be wrong or petty or useless. Things which are meaningful are those things which can be shown to 'perform'.
A philosophy that doesn't care to dictate how we should live life seems more sound to me.
And yet, it is a contradiction. You will find some philosophy to adhere to in the end, which does care how you live life.
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.
I did not talk about fear or reward, but I do think it is complete human nature to desire justice. Did you not say that a good philosophy should not care how you live life? Why are you now talking about being a 'better person' or 'doing what we need to do'? How can you make any sort of judgement call without a philosophy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 5:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 08-16-2007 3:58 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 238 of 270 (416542)
08-16-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
08-16-2007 1:56 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of "monotheism"
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
By this definition, angels and demons are not gods. Why are you only picking a definition that suits you, and ignoring the fact that these definitions are only reflections of existing uses for the word 'God'? It is just a word! This is too much like Rob and his 'theory'. I suppose it is common knowledge that dictionaries and words came first, and that we have to use one of many English definitions for 'God' if we want to believe?
I suppose it is also common knowledge that every faith has to utilize all of the definitions for God which we can find in the dictionary, even when the word 'angel' appears in there as well?
While the Trinity may be a strange belief, having three aspects of God does not make 3 gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2007 1:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2007 4:50 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 240 of 270 (416547)
08-16-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by petrophysics1
08-16-2007 3:27 PM


Re: Viewpoint bias, and a problen to figure out.
petro writes:
Try assuming all other belief systems, including mine, are true. Do that and then consider what kind of information should be available here to prove it. What evidence should be available to “prove” Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity . . etc?
To a great extent, we can all find evidence for our beliefs. Most beliefs have elements that are not possible to evidence.
It is obvious that God works in the world.
It is obvious that God does not.
It is obvious that people are being reincarnated to another role.
It is obvious that people are not being reincarnated to this world.
It is obvious that God exists.
It is obvious that He does not.
It is obvious that God cares about us.
It is obvious that God is indifferent.
I could give evidence for every position. A belief need not reflect reality, but it should not contradict reality. Then again, a belief in an immortal soul, and a belief in an invisible 6th toe, are not very different. A real belief is nothing more than a gut feeling. It conforms to reality about as much as one could say 'hey, I awoke today with better balance than I have ever had before, I believe I have an extra invisible toe, and no one can convince me otherwise'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by petrophysics1, posted 08-16-2007 3:27 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 247 of 270 (416573)
08-16-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
08-16-2007 3:58 PM


Ringo writes:
And that performance is assessed in real-world terms, not by adherence to some "revealed" standard.
If what is revealed makes sense, it doesn't matter where it supposedly came from. I gave my humble opinion that for me, I can not understand why I should worry about a God who I can't know. To the other extreme, since I can never know God well enough, perhaps I should just not worry about what I do?
I said that a good philosophy shouldn't dictate how you live life.
A philosophy has to dictate how you live life. That's what a philosophy is, and what it does.
Conscience.
That's good but not enough.
I don't. I think it's human nature to desire vengeance. Religionists are never happier than when they're revelling in the punishment that the other guy is going to get.
Justice: the simple concept of getting what you deserve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 08-16-2007 3:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 08-16-2007 7:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 257 of 270 (416666)
08-17-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Hyroglyphx
08-16-2007 8:43 PM


Re: "inadequacies" again.
nem, I don't want to make anyone mad by butting in, and I am not trying to answer for RAZD, but don't you think it is possible, even logical, for anyone to beieve in God without going through the usual processes?
Say early man was not able to define the origins of life and what we see around us, and therefore presumed God.
Do you think it is impossible for someone who feels comfortable and confident in science to believe in God anyway?
Isn't it possible that while most 'gods' as creators and superpowers come with an obligation to praise them, to pacify them, to be subject to them, that one could conceive of a God Who just is?
Is it really necessary to deduce God externally? Did any of us go through such logical steps to get to our belief? Or did we just go with our hearts?
Isn't it more common to look for confirmation of our belief only after we believe? Most of us may try desperately to fit God in somewhere, or we may see Him everywhere. What if we spent more time looking at what God isn't, and where He isn't? Naybe God created nothing, maybe God has no concern about what we do. That may seem pointless to you or me, but would God be less 'God'?
I agree with you that the technical, historical God may be a creator, and that there is less 'room' for this God with the advancement of science, but this is something which goes for all of us, deist or theist. Revelation, of course, is not necessary to 'please' a god, as all cultures pay tribute to God in their own custom and tradition. Do you think all Christians worship in the same way? Or even the same God? Do you think someone can worship just by living?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-16-2007 8:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 12:28 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 264 of 270 (417192)
08-19-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2007 12:28 AM


Re: "inadequacies" again.
nemesis writes:
I think that it takes little contemplation. I'm curious how anyone deduces automatically some grand spiritual being without any actual corroboration. The fact that so many people sort of intrinsically know and understand God is one of the more surer ways that I, personally, know He exists.
Do any of us have 'actual corroboration'?
I was basically asking you to use some imagination, try not to think of everyone's God as the personal Christian God. You don't have to deduce God, or feel God, or know God. You can just believe in God, and your reason can be as subjective as 'because I want to'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2007 12:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024