|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Am Not An Atheist! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
You will find your answer there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The "first cause" concept in general is just creationist mumbo-jumbo, it has no scientific basis. You know I asked why you're a deist? I still want to know. You are going even further than I would ever do. I don't dismiss the "first cause concept in general" as being mere "creationist mumbo-jumbo", and yet I'm an atheist and you call yourself a deist, which surely means by definition that you believe in a First Cause, and an intelligent one at that. So I have to wonder either why you're a deist or why you think you're a deist when you're not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh --- I composed my message 362 while you were composing your message 361. I'll have a look at your link to Percy's explanation and come back to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi marc9000
marc9000 writes: Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design. Since you believe deists are just atheists by another name, this deist/atheist is so interested in intelligent design that he dedicated an entire forum of his discussion board to it. What that seems to have resulted in is an attractive looking place for atheists to shout down Intelligent Design, and give each other more and more ideas in how to further shout it down in places other than just these forums. If it was your attempt to genuinely search for new knowledge about Intelligent Design, and how it may fit with your religion, I don’t think it worked out very well for you. A quick glance through that forum showed me one of your messages on it, a complete dismissal of ID. What I generally find is that ID proponents are
See Is ID properly pursued? and Message 39 among many others for additional comments. This was originally posted on my second day on the forum (when I was entranced by bright colors ...) Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? You will find your answer there. OK, I've read it. It seems to me (I'll read it over again) that he doesn't actually have a reason. He just says that it's a psychological fact about himself that he does believe in God, just like we might say: "Fred is color-blind" or "Harry is gay" or "Jake has Anton's blindness". Percy just does as a matter of fact believe in God, and reason has nothing to do with it and can't correct it.
Percy writes: In other words, wouldn't reality make more sense if I wasn't the way I am? Wouldn't I be more consistent if I was more the way you suggest? Sure. But I'm the way I am, and I'm just trying to describe it, inconsistencies and all. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Concerning first causes, I thought the context was science, so I was speaking scientifically. I don't mix my science with my religion.
About why I'm a deist, I have no idea, I just am. I don't put a lot of time or effort into examining my irrational beliefs. Their main purpose in my life seems to be to make me happy. Other than that I can't find any particular practical application for them, and I certainly don't try to reconcile them with reality. As to whether my religious beliefs include a first cause, I would say most definitely not. But while I don't include it, I don't exclude it either, so I guess I'm a definite "I don't know" on this one. As to how we can both be deists while believing differently, the original deism movement was based upon human reason, and given what we knew in the 17th and 18th centuries it held that God created the universe and then let things run their course. But much like the beliefs of some established Christian religions, this belief hasn't been updated to reflect more recent knowledge. If deism is supposed to reflect human reason then there's a lot it's leaving out, but if you want to go strictly by today's definition then I guess I'm not a true deist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Did Johnson happen to prattle on about materialism? And about how this materialism prevades science? And how we must remove this materialism from science?
Well, that's a fundamental problem of ID. Consider two different types of "materialism" There's philosophical materialism. This is a philosophical position that the supernatural does not exist. This is the position that creationism describes as the belief that only "man and molecule" exist. The supernatural does not exist nor could not exist. There is also methodological materialism. This is the realization that science is limited. The material is all that science is able to deal with. This view does not say that the supernatural does not exist nor could not possibly exist, but only thatscience cannot deal with the supernatural. Science deals only in methodological materialism. Out of pure necessity. ID accuses science of philosophical materialism. Completely falsely. As a lie. We have already learned to not trust the lies of creationism. Less so should we trust the lies of intelligent design! Edited by dwise1, : minor mark-up clean-up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
About why I'm a deist, I have no idea, I just am. [...] As to whether my religious beliefs include a first cause, I would say most definitely not. Please explain further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They usually say "naturalism" rather than "materialism".
And I want to fight against both sides. I believe I shall start a thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Creationists commonly associate evolution and much else in science with atheism. Hence we're treated to a constant barrage of phrases like "atheistic evolution", "Godless cosmology" and "immoral science". They'll mix and match adjectives and nouns to their heart's content, but the message is always the same: those who reject creationist views are atheists who reject or even hate God. I have been reading many of the messages on this thread and I am probably most closely aligned with GDR"s philosophy. However I am uncertain as to how you use the designation "creationists". Is anyone who believes that a Supernatural being is the creator of we see and do not see, a creationists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Percy writes: The "first cause" concept in general is just creationist mumbo-jumbo, it has no scientific basis. Regarding its application to intelligent life, you seem to have forgotten about the infinite regression - what is the first cause of the first intelligent life? String theory and other scientific theories postulate more than one dimension in time. From what I have read the mathematics of physics tells us that time should be symmetrical and it should flow in either direction. If science can talk about more than one dimension in time why shouldn’t it be allowed theologically as well? If time flows in more than one direction, in the same way that we can travel infinitely around our 3 dimensional planet then we only require a first cause for our one dimensional existence Let’s face it a living cell is incredibly complex and to perceive of it being formed by a mindless combination of mindless particles stretches the imagination just a bit IMHO.
Percy writes: Science accepts that which has evidence. Mechanisms without evidence, as Jar described a few posts earlier, can be imagined without limit and have no place in scientific theory. At best they have a place as hypotheses awaiting evidence, like string theory (which is a hypothesis despite the name). No problem with that. We all believe things for which there is no conclusive evidence. To get back to the point of your OP, I agree with you. Christian fundamentalists are largely an exclusive group. They believe that they have a specific knowledge that is unassailable in that it is directly from God. It is my view that they have totally misunderstood the Bible, and specifically the gospel message of Jesus. At any rate rest assured Percy I don’t consider you an atheist. I’m sure you’ll sleep better tonight. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Despite people claiming that Percy is an atheist, reality is that Percy is not an atheist.
Any one who claims Percy is an atheist is simply wrong. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Anyone who believes that there is a God is not an atheist, by definition.
Percy believes that there is a God. Percy is not an atheist. Deism is entirely consistent with unguided evolution, therefore Percy's rejection of creationism and intelligent design is consistent with his religious beliefs. Which leads to the fact that it is obviously wrong to call anyone who accepts evolution an "atheist". Marc can offer no valid reason for doing so - his explanation is, at best, the mere assertion that creationists are ignorant and prejudiced. So there seems little point in discussion - the facts are obvious and the fault is with the creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Tangle writes: marc9000 writes: ....and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it) I'm calling you on this one. Would you like to start a new thread to defend your assertion? A great debate with only you, or a general thread? PM me if you want a great debate - otherwise I'll propose a new thread in the coming days/weeks. _______________
PaulK writes: Anyone who believes that there is a God is not an atheist, by definition. Percy believes that there is a God. Percy is not an atheist. Deism is entirely consistent with unguided evolution, therefore Percy's rejection of creationism and intelligent design is consistent with his religious beliefs. And it's entirely consistent with the political ambitions of atheists, that is, to destroy traditional religion in the U.S. and make "unguided evolution" the basis for political decisions that much of the general public finds troubling. Creationists are often labeled "anti-science" by evolutionists, yet obviously the only science they oppose is the "progressive" kind - the experimentation that considers animals the same as humans, that worships the environment as if it's a god, that promotes abortion, that eliminates the belief that we were "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights".
Which leads to the fact that it is obviously wrong to call anyone who accepts evolution an "atheist". Marc can offer no valid reason for doing so - his explanation is, at best, the mere assertion that creationists are ignorant and prejudiced. The valid reason is this, the mystery of why Deists believe in a creator, then agree with the atheists that there was no creator. I asked Percy to name one difference in beliefs of how the world works between a Deist and an atheist, and got no answer. People with religions that always take a back seat to what atheists claim about science share much/most of the blame that causes creationists to declare them to be atheists. (THE END)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024