Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 1:35 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Amoral Inaction
#31
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 11:14 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:


def.-theism is a belief in God (whether personal, impersonal or multiple gods and the qualities of said god(s) is irrelevant) just as atheism is lack in a belief in any god(s)




1)Nor did I claim you were proselytizing or citing a reason for anyone else to believe. I was however, pointing out that in a deterministic universe your reasoning holds no explanatory power and is the definition of the "God of the Gaps fallacy" by a lack of said causality.

2)"Mysterious mind behind the natural universe that may have had some involvement in our evolution, ensuring that we might develop the minds and potential that we have. Beyond that, it's up for grabs. It could be the FSM for all we know. " Is fine for your definition of God as you stated. It's ambiguity an lack of definition is what I hope you can see leads it to be perceived as a dodge by the atheistic community. I'm not a member of the atheistic community so I don't wish to pick appart your definition.

3)Your response to 3a) and 3b) seems a little wishy-washy and indirect, if these are indeed your contentions then a simple yes, no or restating would be sufficient.

Thank you for your attention in your response

(April 29, 2011 at 11:24 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:


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.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#32
RE: Amoral Inaction
Go ahead, be aggressive, just remember that I bite. Big Grin

I do wonder the same thing - if there is a god, and it's deist sort, what's the point? I think of someone who builds a hugely complex model train set and then abandons it. Maybe that's still human bias coming through. [shrugs]

But I was once accused of so thoroughly not needing philosophy that it's rather moot. I just do what I do. Hence my Whitman quote.

(April 29, 2011 at 12:58 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Why is it so important to you that my God be involved in my life????
Too many times arguing with other theists - generalizations get made and deists get swept into the same dustpan?

(April 29, 2011 at 12:58 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Why does my God have to make sense to you?
I asked the question - as long as I'm still listening, the most polite thing you could do is find a common language to make me understand. Wink
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#33
RE: Amoral Inaction
That's why I think he's being asked to define their god, to assess a common language with which to call it just as irrational as the Christian one
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#34
RE: Amoral Inaction
No offense, Tack-love...maybe not QUITE as irrational as the Christian one...but that's only because being born as one of the "Chosen People" made me already think you Christians were a few screws short of a toolbox.

Tongue

[hugs]
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#35
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I do wonder the same thing - if there is a god, and it's deist sort, what's the point? I think of someone who builds a hugely complex model train set and then abandons it. Maybe that's still human bias coming through. [shrugs]

The word "abandons" is sometimes used in a biased definition of deism but not by deists themselves. I know of no deist philosopher that ever used the term or anything like it.

My bacteria cell in a petri dish analogy might be helpful for your understanding of the deist's position on the topic of God.

Put another way, I can tell you the joke about one bacteria cell in said petri dish approaching another and saying "let me tell you about my personal relationship with the great lab coat in the sky".

I see it as a matter of scale.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#36
RE: Amoral Inaction
@TSQ- no offense taken, lots of people have justified reason why people claiming to be Christians are crazy, there's a lot of fundamental nut jobs out there. I just hope you know they're not accept by mainstream Christianity either. As of now it appears I'm doing all the questioning for the atheistic community when I had no original intention of denouncing the deistic god, just wanted some cohesion of definition. I'll let the atheists around here do the rest. I have enough on my plate fending off bitter atheists and being a mod, I don't need bitter deists on there as well.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#37
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The word "abandons" is sometimes used in a biased definition of deism but not by deists themselves. I know of no deist philosopher that ever used the term or anything like it.

My bacteria cell in a petri dish analogy might be helpful for your understanding of the deist's position on the topic of God.

I did see it, dear, and it is interesting - again I have only the most superficial of understandings of a deist's position, though I've been meaning to stalk you a bit and learn more. Have a lot on my plate between work, school, and my oh-so-important morning glories. Smile

(April 29, 2011 at 1:22 pm)tackattack Wrote: I don't need bitter deists on there as well.

Perish the thought.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#38
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 10:32 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I see the universe as a machine as opposed to something that we're lucky to have. I see the human mind and our capacity for building our civilization as an intention as opposed to a fortunate turn by natural selection.
This implies purpose, order, design, regulation, certainty, maintenance etc. Yet there is no evidence of purpose in the natural world, just chaos and probability. On a macro level it can give the appearance of design, but can you describe what would a disordered universe would look like? Something that would cause you to doubt the existence of an ordering, creative force when you look through the telescope or microscope?
Quote:Because, to quote Mr. Spock, I look at the universe and say "fascinating".
Wasn't Mr Spock an atheist?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Reply
#39
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: On a macro level it can give the appearance of design
On the micro as well.

Quote:but can you describe what would a disordered universe would look like? Something that would cause you to doubt the existence of an ordering, creative force when you look through the telescope or microscope?
I probably wouldn't be around to see it, or if I was, unable to rationally evaluate it.

Quote:Wasn't Mr Spock an atheist?
Was his philosophy ever determined in any episode? I ask because I don't know. I'm not as much an expert on Star Trek as other nerds might be.
(April 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I did see it, dear, and it is interesting - again I have only the most superficial of understandings of a deist's position, though I've been meaning to stalk you a bit and learn more.
Any time dear, though I don't know I can offer much. Even my sense of wonder of the natural universe is something most atheists would share (notable examples, Sagan, Dawkins and even the curmudgeonly Hitchens). One atheist once asked me if I could offer any reasons why she should "convert". I answered that I won't tell her or anyone else that they should be a deist. How you make sense of life and the universe is up to you, whether you think it's absurd or a machine (wink to Rev J).

Believe it or not, a few years ago I actually wondered why I couldn't be a "normal atheist". This phase lasted about two weeks where I seriously wondered what was "wrong with me". The skeptical side (agnostic side) of my brain is well aware that I can't prove the existence of God to anyone else's satisfaction. I'm not even sure what might constitute solid evidence for the claim. And yet I can't honestly adopt the label "atheist" because I'm so instinctively convinced. Ever seen the end of the movie "Contact"?

I eventually came to a resolution that it simply is my nature. I can't seem to get God out of my mind but at least It doesn't seem to weigh me down much.
Afterthought for Scarlet:

One thing I do expect to see, if the deist model of the universe is correct, is abundant examples of life on other worlds. In fact, not just life but intelligent life and other civilizations.

Neither this nor the lack thereof will decisively prove it one way or the other, but if it is just us, it lends a lot more weight to the idea that we did hit the cosmic lottery.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#40
RE: Amoral Inaction
(April 29, 2011 at 1:05 pm)tackattack Wrote:
(April 29, 2011 at 11:24 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:


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) Think
[Image: Evolution.png]

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  trying to adopt an amoral worldview bonbonbaron 46 3609 January 26, 2021 at 12:23 am
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)