Antitheism

[MTL]

Mad at yourself? Aw don't be mad at yourself. Hug?

aw.  *turtle hugs*

[MTL]

yeah, I guess I could be a, or join a, anti-over-sized-religion.  So long as we are not attacking the normal's that are just trying to get through this shit sandwich we call life.  Maybe not antitheist but anti theism.  Like communism.  I am not anti communist regular people until such time as we have to go to war.  But as of now religion is the least dangerous thing in my area.

I am anti pushing-a-belief on others.  like pushing anti-religious people does.  I do know we are part of a larger system and that system probably is alive.  Thats a basic base point.  Omni-dude aint real but so is nothing.

[Excited Penguin]

At least their God can be described, the deistic God is nothing but a half-baked unprovable and unfalsifiable concept that is by its very definition unknowable, thus meaningless.

I'd wager that the Abrahamic god is also unprovable and unfalsifiable. At least, that's how his followers behave.

Also, some forms of deism subscribe to the belief that the Universe itself is god. That idea has meaning too, even if it is unknowable or unfalsifiable.

(Emphasis mine.)
Yep. Except I wasn't talking about the Abrahamic God in particular. All beliefs in god are unprovable and unfalsifiable, as they are presented to us(I shouldn't have to add this caveat, it should be obvious). But a theistic God(no matter from which religion it is) insofar as it is purported to relate to the universe in any meaningful way holds some real meaning, even though said meaning is terribly misplaced and thus misleading. A deistic God purports something to exist that, by its very definition, doesn't. So it's a contradiction in terms. 

Also, some forms of deism subscribe to the belief that the Universe itself is god. That idea has meaning too, even if it is unknowable or unfalsifiable.

All forms of belief in a creating God imply that the Universe is God. Few of them explicitly say so.

This belief is meaningless in itself. It is a misuse of language to call something else the Universe and claim that that is somehow its own thing at the same time. The universe is all there is.

---

Just because certain ideas exist, doesn't mean they make any sense.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd wager that the Abrahamic god is also unprovable and unfalsifiable. At least, that's how his followers behave.

Also, some forms of deism subscribe to the belief that the Universe itself is god. That idea has meaning too, even if it is unknowable or unfalsifiable.

(Emphasis mine.)
Yep. Except I wasn't talking about the Abrahamic God in particular. All beliefs in god are unprovable and unfalsifiable, as they are presented to us(I shouldn't have to add this caveat, it should be obvious). But a theistic God(no matter from which religion it is) insofar as it is purported to relate to the universe in any meaningful way holds some real meaning, even though said meaning is terribly misplaced and thus misleading. A deistic God purports something to exist that, by its very definition, doesn't. So it's a contradiction in terms. 

Why does a "theistic god" (whatever you might mean by that) have more meaning that a deistic god?

They are each, and all, unprovable. This is probably why -- are you sitting down? you should sit down -- they haven't been proven. They are also each and all unfalsifiable, insofar as they are all claimed to exist in some non-Earthly place not subject to scientific inquiry.

Both deist and theist conceptions of god "purport something to exist which, by its very definition, doesn't. So they're both contradictions in terms." That is, according to your "logic". Do you think plans are meaningless? They are preconceived notions which exist nowhere outside the heads of planners. But when those planners take action based on their thoughts -- plans -- do you still think those plans are meaningless? The idea that a "theistic god" has more meaning because of how it is asserted to relate to the universe is silly. A deist god has exactly the same relation described when it is asserted that the deist god is the universe. You're being argumentative for no good reason, and demonstrating again why interacting with you is such a waste of time.

All forms of belief in a creating God imply that the Universe is God. Few of them explicitly say so.

lol, "all"? You're too funny.

Just because certain ideas exist, doesn't mean they make any sense.

The sensibility of any given statement relies upon the thinker as well as the idea. Just because an idea is wrong doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. The fact that you confuse the two reveals a deep weakness in your thinking.

You'll deny that, of course, and you'll spend 428 words explaining why you're right. But at the end of the day, your explanation will be meaningless.

See how that works?

[robvalue]

The thing that confuses me a little about deism is whether the "creator" is supposed to be magical, or whatever. The name implies a deity, but I don't know what a deity is. If it's just something that creates realities, then it's a tautology of course.

Does my favourite computer programmer count as a deity? If I believe this is a simulation, programmed by Kevin, am I a deist?

I guess some people would say yes, and some no. If anyone can tell me what the fuck a deity is, and how I tell a deity from a non-deity, that would be peaches and cream.

[Edwardo Piet]

I hope John Romero programmed reality because of Wolf3D and Doom.

[Excited Penguin]

The thing that confuses me a little about deism is whether the "creator" is supposed to be magical, or whatever. The name implies a deity, but I don't know what a deity is. If it's just something that creates realities, then it's a tautology of course.

Does my favourite computer programmer count as a deity? If I believe this is a simulation, programmed by Kevin, am I a deist?

I guess some people would say yes, and some no. If anyone can tell me what the fuck a deity is, and how I tell a deity from a non-deity, that would be peaches and cream.

A computer programmer is not a deity. He's a computer programmer that happens to run a simulation. In the case of Gods, people can't explain how or why a God created the world, or even what a God means. In the simulation theory we can say we're basically talking about more evolved minds than us that are capable of running a incredibly powerful simulation that emulates reality and that given the possibility that we'll be those minds one day in the future it's far more likely that we live in a simulation than not - if it can be possible to run such a simulation, how likely is it that we'll be the first ones to do it in reality number 1?

[Edwardo Piet]

A computer programmer is not a deity.

*Ahem* Wrong.





Even Leonardo Da Vinci painted him:



He's clearly a deity.

[Edwardo Piet]

I made a Doom level today. I'm a deity too now.

[robvalue]

I don't think "deity" is well defined. I think it just carries the loaded assumption that you can't create realities without being all magical and stuff.