Deism vs Religion (Non-guidance vs guidance).

[Jenny A]

[The Grand Nudger]

It's -particularly- irritating to watch them complain about all the -others- doing exactly the same thing they are..at a fundamental level.....as though it were wrong somehow..........

[AFTT47]

You just summarized why I strongly prefer deist behavior to theist behavior.  Deists don't think that they know what god wants and therefore think for themselves.  Theists tend to think a book written a hundreds of years ago is the word of god or worse yet that god is speaking to them directly: wars, burnings, discrimination, guilt over harmless things, burdensome rituals, shunninge, and other ugliness ensue.  There's nothing like thinking your own personal moral choices are ratified by god to cause evil in the world.

Thanks Jenny. Good job summarizing why dogmatic religion is a terrible idea. Whether it's President Scroob (Spaceballs), The Great Pumpkin (Charlie Brown), Yahweh, Allah or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) it's the same problem. It's MUCH better to think for yourself. One would be hard-pressed to do any worse.

[Mystic]

[robvalue]

Edit:

Never mind.

[ignoramus]

[The Grand Nudger]

@Mystic
"If my religion were true these problems wouldn't exist"
-Negative, the problems with your religion, and religion in general, exist -regardless- of the truth of any given religion.  As regards god being able to write the perfect book..i'd have to agree, and the quran is no such book, so...QED?

[robvalue]

You said before that if Islam was true, we'd have no choice but to obey Allah.

I'm not obeying. So it can't be true.

Deism makes two assumptions:

1) This reality was created

2) The agent was intelligent

That's it. It's consistent with reality and scientific knowledge.

Any other brand of theism just makes further assumptions, adding arbitrary and untestable attributes to the agent. It also sometimes makes claims about reality, which often render it inconsistent; or the agent is given contradictory attributes making it internally inconsistent.

It's all a set of unecessary assumptions, which we have no need of to function perfectly well. I am sad that you feel you need so much guidance, rather than just thinking for yourself.

[ignoramus]

I can understand where he's coming from though.

He lost his mind to save his head!
Good trade if you ask me.

[Jenny A]

You just summarized why I strongly prefer deist behavior to theist behavior.  Deists don't think that they know what god wants and therefore think for themselves.  Theists tend to think a book written a hundreds of years ago is the word of god or worse yet that god is speaking to them directly: wars, burnings, discrimination, guilt over harmless things, burdensome rituals, shunninge, and other ugliness ensue.  There's nothing like thinking your own personal moral choices are ratified by god to cause evil in the world.

If I was an Atheist, I would prefer people believe Deism out of belief no religion is true.  

No need to capitalize atheist or deist. Neither is an organized religion or an organization of any kind. It's like capitalizing Left Handed as if that made left handed people a coherent group. It's that self thinking, lack of group think, or I know what god wants thinking, that I like about deists.

However as far as reflecting goes, I find the way the Quran is designed, it's designed so we reflect a lot, and a lot, to begin to scratch the surface and appreciate it.

I see you and others attempting to demonstrate that from time to time. Mostly though I see simple minded Islamist Fundies crying infidel! Study yes. Deep reflection, possibly. But the loudest voices don't seem very reflective to me.

That said, logically, God can design literature in a way that makes us reflect more so then absence of his literature. I know in English class we thought a lot about different topics. Often it was the more unspoken parts of the literature, that had implicit messages, that were the deeper and more profound impact to people.

God can design the ultimate literature, that would inspire the best type of pondering and reflecting. 

So revealing a book doesn't mean you don't think. Yes you don't think independently, but, why is that it's good to read from all sorts of people but God is not suppose to reveal any literature to humanity? 

I don't think that there is a god let alone a god inspiring literature.

Why is that's good to learn from everyone but God?

Something is not adding up. Again, I understand this preference if one is Atheist. 

I understand why Atheists prefer for someone to be a Deist as opposed to a Theist.

But it's not because Deism is more logical then Theism, it's simply from the perspective of the Atheist, it's better to think for ourselves, then follow someone who made up a religion blindly.[/quote]

Ah huh.

However if religion was to be from God and it was not to be followed blindly but rather upon insight and seeing it to be true upon evidences, and clear proofs for the religion, then these problems don't exist.

We are arguing in theory which is better. 

In practicality, everyone can argue they are better off then another people, that's besides the point.

The point is that there is no god inspired literature. That's it. And the literature that is supposed to be god inspired gives weight to some very ugly ideas. I'm not interested in arguing what if it were god inspired until there is some evidence it was.