Deism in the Dock

No mo.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You seem to be under the impression that it makes a difference who's doing the masturbating. Thank goodness for people who ignore the advice of poets. Otherwise we'd still be a race of humans hoping to live their way into how to make fire or how to deal with diseases.

Any God? Surely not, Omni. The degree to which a God is knowable certainly depends on how it is defined, but obviously just appending the word "God" to describe something doesn't automatically render it beyond all capacity of knowledge.I mean, think it through. You say any God, but obviously if I define "God" as "a penguin who lives in a box in Times Square", it's easy enough to go see if there's really one there or not.How God is defined makes a big difference. It's a little ridiculous to pretend like you've made this great commitment to logic at the same time you seem completely adverse to using any, ever.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

The Itachi Uchiha and jazzlover_PR accounts have been merged. The primary alias is Itachi Uchiha and all profile settings are the Itachi ones. You can toggle the alias choice and change anything of your profile by clicking on the "Profile" at the top of the page.You also still have the linked account to AdminJazzlover and should have all your admin privileges and powers. Your default ID is what you are currently logged/logging in as. As such, you need to chose the admin mode when posting as AdminJazzlover.Any further discussion of this should go somewhere in the "Private Administration Forum".Adminnemooseus

That is pretty much the basis of my own atheistic tendencies.Do you think authors like Hawking and Kaku (and no doubt many more) leave the option of a sort of non-interfering deity very intentionally open in order just to appease the theistically minded slightly? Or do you think they genuinely consider it a possibility?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My only real problem with that attitude is that it presupposes what we can and cannot know.We know things now that would have been unimaginable not too many generations ago. Things that would have been considered 'unknowable'.The nature of God (or whatever) may be unknowable but the nature of the cosmos at levels so fundamental we cannot even yet comprehend of them may be perfectly knowable in time.How can we differentiate the seemingly pointless questions from the extremely difficult questions unless we ask them all and see where they lead?

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.

Well I am glad you enjoyed it.I do think the atheist position is prone to smugness despite the fact that I would describe myself as an atheist.There is a tendancy to treat any alternative as obviously and trivially wrong and to implicitly treat the advocate of any alternative as an obviously irrational imbecile.Occasionally this derision is justified But all too often it seems to be the default stance.

Thanks and thanks (I think.....) for promoting it. I didn't expect it to be taken too seriously or get promoted as a topic.
In proposing nothing and dismissing everything I was taking the opportunity to let off some steam Sorry to disappoint but I think my deistic flirtations are fairly abstract in nature. Pertaining mainly to qustions of why nature sees fit to follow laws and to the origin of those laws. Maybe some sort of minor pantheistic dabbling would be a more accurate description.So my Godless ways remain I am afraid I think deism is a much ignored subject at EvC.The deists get away with a lot because of the almost unarguable nature of their position. I was hoping to raise the profile of deism and pin deists down on what it is they actually believe whilst attempting also to make theists and atheists consider their position in relation to deism instead of the usual squabble between the main two positions. I rarely agree with your views but the controversy that your posts usually inspire and the arguments that they spark off almost always make them welcome additions to any thread

Hmm...capacity of knowledge, capacity of knowledge, capacity of knowledge... You sure you're a verbally gifted language professional?Splitting linguistic hairs outside the context provided by the thread doesn't make you more logical, crash, but it does seem (what's that word you like to apply to others so much?) masturbatory. You think it through, tadpole.You could define a singularity as your asshole and collect data scientists never dreamed would be available. So what? Others could define your asshole as a singularity, too, but if scientists are attempting to determine whether or not it is, in fact, a singularity, they won't be asking themselves whether you are an asshole.I didn't say "the existence of any God"--the construction of "God or ultimate reality" is quite clear in the context of this thread. Don't be deliberately thick. You do well enough casually.Still, let's look at your boo-boo. If I put a penquin in a box in Times Square and call it God, and you verify its presence, you'll accept that it is a god? How would you determine that? No, not the trivial quibble of whether or not someone calls it a god, but whether it has the god-like nature and power addressed by this thread.Wringing its neck or noting its refusal to perform miracles won't work. Cannot a god sacrifice itself or remain deaf to prayer? You once believed those things possible for a god, if I recall correctly. For the purposes of this thread, God was already defined. You're like the context-free kid who runs into the nudist colony screaming, "The Emperor has no clothes!"By the way, the word is averse, O wisest of poopy-headed penquin pilgrims.If you're going to split other people's hairs, comb your own first.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I know all that, I am just playing along. (And when I am playing along, I take it quite seriously.)

PaulK, I simply take people at their word, devout and disbeliever alike.It's true that self-identified atheists may secretly believe, and the self-identified religious may secretly not, but I'm just a simple Unfrozen Caveman agnostic and accept their declarations at face value.If some of them are lying, who does that refute?

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

You set up three straw man arguments to show why you think nobody could logically believe in deism. The fact is you care little for truth, as you frequently misrepresent the posts of others and make whopper statements where you could easily check the facts, such as:

The US border is 98% land,

The Swedish health tax is over half of their paycheck.

​

There are many examples. Many. But beyond that, you repeat these even when you have been shown to be in error: you do not learn. Ergo you are not interested in learning the truth.

​

Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale?

​

(1) That still does not lessen your ability to understand being your problem in any way

​

(2) You assume I don't

​

(3) This is an attack instead of a response. One of your favorite moves.

​

Pardon the frankness, but it does sound as if you are deluding yourself if you are basing your belief upon belief itself. That is generally characterized as blind faith, which is, interestingly, slammed vehemently in most cases. I have an informed faith. There are very real reasons why I believe as I do.

​

Ah, the arrogance of blind faith in ones own belief being more than just belief. In the words of Bill Cosby: Riiiiiiight.

​

You still don't understand. You'll pardon me if you find I am not interested in discussing things with you until you show some learning.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It is a spiritual journey. I believe that everyone has their own path to walk, their own spiritual truth to find. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. Thus to tell you why I've made certain choices won't help you. This too is why I reject formal religions as they are all someone else's truth (and those are obviously contradictory). It's no less logical. As I said before the logical position is agnosticism: if the logical conclusion were compelling to either side of that position there would be no agnostics. The usual argument put forward by atheists that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a "godless in the gaps" argument that I consider as invalid as the theist "argument from design" that we have just been all over with the 'Best evidence for creation' thread. 42.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome back and enjoy the journey.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.