Amoral Inaction

[tackattack]

Trekie talk

---

Excluding those infernal movies and speaking as a trekie based solely off of the original ST, IMO Spock was an agnostic spiritualist. He very clearly was agnostic. Several episodes spoke of "the ancient ways" and a "bible" of sorts. They did believe in the soul being the essence of a person and that it could go from one person into another. Modern Christian definition of a soul wouldn't apply probably, but the soul as defined in the Septuagint would probably apply to their definition. They called it katras I believe. No note was ever specifically made about a religion, at best it was hinted for Vulcans. Add to that their ceremonies and rituals. Rumarie was in Voyager as a precursor "pagan" belief prior to embracing logic.

If you want to factor in the books and movies as well, it was clearly established that there was prior to Surack(sp?) a passionate and emotional war-like race. They worshiped many different gods. The races split (Romulan-Vulcan). Romulans and Vulcans both have spiritual-esque rituals. Vulcans in one of the ST movies talked about Sha-ka-re which was like an Eden myth. Factor that in with Katras and actually having a personality to survive after death, is all very indicative of a Vulcan spirituality. Spock did have a diety bust in his room in a few episodes if I recall, I don't remember which deity though. That would force me to conclude that he knows there's life after death, has loosely detached acceptance of pagan rituals and has an oft overlooked personal shrine. Sounds like he's an agnostic spiritualist to me.

---

---

The question you are asking implys that deists need a god for some reason. I don't need a god. People who need a god are called christians, or muslims or whatever. They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning. I don't need a god .... therefore its of no concern to me whether hes watching over the planet or has completely forgotten all about us. I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference.

The question wasn't answered, nor does it imply anything. It's a clear statement of What is the difference between the desitic god, and not having a God? If I asked what's the difference between the Abrtahamic God and the desistic god would you have dismissed it just as easily?

As far as the rest of that crap, it's obvious you've been quite hurt by Christians. Since I'm included in your horribly mis-informed sweeping irrational generalization, allow me to apologize on behalf of Christianity.

Just so you know I don't need God either, he's revealed himself or been observed and for me it's a simple classification issue, not a need. I do find my faith more usefull than useless and my life is exponentially better with God which bolsters my observations, but it doesn't ever cross over to need over want.

@Doubting Thomas- I found your comment so interesting because I find deists I as a bunch of theists who are afraid to call themselves Christians. These are just my opinions but, perhaps they are sick of being picked on by atheists for their flawed view of Christianity, societal or familial pressures to claim belief. They usually believe this because they don't see any cause & effect with regards to prayer, or why a loving god would allow natural disasters, but they've just eschewed all acountability for their faulty interpretation or lack of insight. They'd probably rather blame the Christian interpretation of God and generally label their belief as a God without a name, but it does make a smaller target.

First of all Tack - I think christianity is utter nonsense at best and morally reprehensible at worst. AND I would say that generally, most atheists would feel this way. That is an example of a sweeping generalization and it is warranted because it's been proven to be accurate. I will continue to make sweeping generalizations of religions that I think are generally stupid. If your brothers in christ stop acting like dipshits - I'll stop generalizing all of them. Perhaps (and this is a big perhaps judging by your reply) you are not one of these types of christians, but generally they fall into the same category of human being. As for your apology - don't put that I'm a martyr bull shit on me. You can nail yourself and your condescending apology up on the cross in your church where unwanted martyrs belong.

2nd - I love your horribly mis-informed sweeping irrational generalization of defining deists as a bunch of theists. LMAO ... christians are always such hypocrits. (<----generalization)
3rd - Are both you and Scarlet blind? I will now post word for word my answer that I did indeed give. No, I did not give a dissertation on the subject as DP so eloquently put, but I also explained that I am not here to save souls and you can find out about Deism on your own time.

My answer was in two posts: I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference. I don't know what Deists you're talking to, but I never said that I didn't think God controlled anything. I also never said absolutely that God doesn't get involved with earth. Once again, I have to add that I do not know what Gods daily planner looks like but most Deists will tell you it is possible that God puts a hand on this planet much like any creator of any project would come back to a certain portion of that project and do a little re-adjusting. There are also other factors to consider for the reason we have a God, but I'm not a preacher trying to win souls. If you'd like to know a little more about Deism. Here is a link.
and finally, my last answer to Scarlet ...
It's plain to see that I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role.

Now, read the initial question and then read the above answers. CLEARLY, I have shown a DIFFERENCE between My God and no God, and that is all the question required. I'm not answering this question a fourth time. I'm not writing out my entire belief system just to answer such a simple question.

4) Your opinion that Christianity is utter nonsense at best and morally reprehensible at worst and your assumption that most atheists would feel this way is irrelevant as you are part of neither atheism or Christianity, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you would like to entertain the notion further and go on a tangent to this thread in your lashing out feel free to prove that I (as a practicing and self labeled Christian)am either morally reprehensible, utterly nonsensical or anywhere in between.

5) A simply I reject your apology would have sufficed, however it appears (from your response) you have far too much emotional hurt to really be open minded in my case or anyone else claiming Christianity. I'll leave it at that.

6) I cited definitions and reference in the def. section above. Feel free to define words any way you like, it won't however get you very far. If you answer yes to the following question you are some version of a theist: Do you hold any belief in the existence of any type of god?

7)So the answer to the question is "I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role." What succinctly do you have to support that.

8) I never claimed you said : "that I didn't think God controlled anything." or "that God doesn't get involved with earth." I believe you to be a general theist with a lack of definition, by design rather than observation. I would by default assume that you felt God had some sort of controlling ability and involvement, otherwise you'd be a metaphysical atheist (ie. There's something more than the physical properties I observe, but I refuse to label it). If you would like to express more of a definition as to what your god is, feel free.

I already said I would not answer the same question a fourth time so I'm only going to offer a rebuttal to one point: #5
This is the third time in two threads that you have used the phrase, you're too emotionally hurt to have an open mind. This rude little remark is just your subtle way of implying that I don't really have a valid point because I'm "emotional" about the topic. You're attempting to discredit me and minimalize my point by responding to me as if I was your wife on the rag .... "It's ok honey, you're just emotional."
It's condescending bullshit, but what really annoys me the most about it is that you don’t know a damn thing about me. My hatred of christianity is almost equal to my hatred of Islam. If you don't believe me - go read my posts in threads concerning Islam ... and I assure you, I've never practiced Islam and no single muslim has ever "emotionally hurt" me in my life. I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it. I don't care if you are a moderator and everybody loves you - it's a bullshit argument and you should be embarrassed to have relied on it so many times. This is NOT the first. Stop presuming what I feel.

That being said, I still only hate two people on this forum and you are not one of them.


(notice that I have not been emotionally hurt by them – but I still despise them)

---

As aside, as long as we're having a discussion and you're not just making unsupported assertions, you shouldn't care one iota about me being a mod, it doesn't factor in unless someone is breaking the rules or their intent. I come here to discuss, not gain respect or get people to like me. I also come fully aware that a vast majority of people here have little concern for my beliefs and feel they're complete crap.

4) Glad you're not entertaining this further as it would derail the thread
5)I admit freely that it's rude to presume how someone else is feeling. I am trying only to read your words at face value though, and they're coming off as emotional, just as mine were coming off as rude. I also have personal bias with people considering me irrational, stupid and being hateful towards me, simply for my religious beliefs. Probably much the same way as athesits are assumed by a lot of people to be arrogant, overly-intellectual, amoral people. I try not to play into those biases whenever possible though. My rudeness was intentional, as to hopefully get you to reevaluate how you've written, not what. I'm also not assuming you have no point, you've made no point. I asked several question succinctly and numbered them. Your original question which you claim to have repeatedly answered (number 7) I followed with another question (pardon the punctuation), but you chose not to address that or any other points I've made. You have then made no point other than, "I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role." and have not supported it personally.
6) Since you refuse to acknowledge this point I'll assume all I like that you are either intellectually dishonest or are conceeding that deism is a variety of theism.
7)You don't want to support your statement, fine with me.
8)You don't want to define your god, but claim his existence, fine with me as well.