I wish I had some deep involved insight on this question. I really do.
I never subscribed to the religious views I was exposed to, but I suspected a deeper meaning to it all, and perhaps a deity that is the source of the bastardised versions man created.
Once I realised "I Don't Know" is a valid answer, and it rapidly disappated any views in deism. So I suppose I was a deist until I realised that I don't need to know why, but instead came to the conclusion that the invention of supernatural agency to explain something does not make it valid.
I never subscribed to the religious views I was exposed to, but I suspected a deeper meaning to it all, and perhaps a deity that is the source of the bastardised versions man created.
Once I realised "I Don't Know" is a valid answer, and it rapidly disappated any views in deism. So I suppose I was a deist until I realised that I don't need to know why, but instead came to the conclusion that the invention of supernatural agency to explain something does not make it valid.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
