Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 342 of 382 (670261)
08-11-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by GDR
08-11-2012 5:07 PM


GDR writes:
It seems to me that it is more difficult to rationalize a deistic god with sufficient intelligence to design a process that would bring about human curiosity, reason and imagination without being involved in one way or another, even if it just being involved in the human thought process.
A deistic god would be a scientific god, with a hands-off approach to his experiment. By contrast, most theistic gods are depicted as obsessive and often bumbling tinkerers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by GDR, posted 08-11-2012 5:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by GDR, posted 08-11-2012 5:34 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 346 of 382 (670265)
08-11-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by GDR
08-11-2012 5:34 PM


GDR writes:
ringo writes:
By contrast, most theistic gods are depicted as obsessive and often bumbling tinkerers.
You've been listening to the wrong theists.
So how is an interfering god "more plausible"? Since we discovered evolution, antibiotics, etc. by using science, why is it less plausible that a god would use a similar process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by GDR, posted 08-11-2012 5:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by GDR, posted 08-11-2012 8:05 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 374 of 382 (670365)
08-13-2012 11:57 AM


People who equivocate deisim with atheism seem to be defining atheism as "no theism". It's a simplistic way of thinking where everything is black and white, everything is true or false.
But it isn't a true or false question; it's multiple choice: theism, deism or atheism - where atheism is defined as "no (theism + deisim)".
Then there are those pesky agnostics who just go on to the next question.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024