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!
(April 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Any time dear, though I don't know I can offer much.
Mostly I'm just interested in learning the details that separate different philosophies. I try doing it with Christians too, which sometimes gets hairy.
(April 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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 went through the opposite all up till about 2 years ago when I met my current boyfriend and a guy he went to college with. I spent from about the time of my bat mitzvah till then wondering why I couldn't be a "normal Jew." Someone made the unfortunate mistake of exposing me to Spinoza when I was around 13-14 and that made it worse. At 10 I had already figured if there was a god, he wasn't listening in on the world. I started giving people a definition of belief that pretty much belonged to pantheism all up until those two guys were like "relax...you're an atheist. You're not weird, and you're not a bad person." I just can't bring myself to believe in a god.
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.
(April 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:
(April 29, 2011 at 1:05 pm)tackattack Wrote:
(April 29, 2011 at 11:24 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:
(April 29, 2011 at 7:11 am)tackattack Wrote:
(April 28, 2011 at 2:39 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: 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.
"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
April 30, 2011 at 7:01 am (This post was last modified: April 30, 2011 at 7:03 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(April 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: On a macro level it can give the appearance of design. On the micro as well.
agreed but on the nano, reality is a scary chaotic and unpredictable place
(April 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:
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.
Really? You are going to have to let me press you on this a little. If you perceive the universe as in someway ordered (thus implying an intelligence behind it), you have an idea of what order is, and that it is strong enough to imply design. So you must have an idea of what disorder looks like that would cause you to question your beliefs on the universe? I suppose this is a how do you falsify deism question.
The more we understand the universe, the less design there really appears to be. A universe seemingly created out-of-chaos, where stars explode devasting million of light years of space; the 99.9999etc% of space hostile to us; galaxies colliding; black holes hoovering up space, matter and time; destined to a death (probably entropic); where particles pop in and out of existence and exist in more than one place simultaneously. None of this implies order to me and even if it did the strength of the analogy to other form of known design is incredibly weak. Ultimately are we not bound to see the universe as ordered if we evolved within it as pattern seekling mammals? Thus leaving nothing to explain in the first place. There is no reason to suppose that deism is more likely than atheism.
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.
Haven't a clue, I don't think it was ever made explicit...but he was a methodoligical naturalist in a show that regularly showed its disdain for organised religion.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
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 do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.
Quote: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.
I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.
Quote: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.
All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.
(April 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: 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 do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.
Quote: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.
I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.
Quote: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.
All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.
Post 28 by you is where you started to attempt to answer some of my questions.
I addressed the 3 points you made there
your points summation?
1.Christianity lies somewhere between utter nonsense and morally reprehensible
2.deists are not a bunch of theists
3.That you did in fact answer min's question
my rebuttal was in post 31 (4,6,7,8) following is a summation:
4-your first point is opinion alone and you have a positive assertion/generalization, prove it with me as an example
6-your definition of deism or theism isn't in line with the dictionary
7- You answered the question now support your claim if you wish
8-I never said what you claimed I did, if you would like to define your god please do.
If you need an example of actual discussion where someone asks questions and they're answered, please see post 22 and 25 by DeistPaladin.
The only thing you actually rebutted was point 5 which was a personal side note and not related to your points. You claim to have already sufficiently supported your claim that your god is different than nothing, which is easiest summed by the one liner I "continuously quote". You haven't rebutted anything other than the side point 5. I'm not trying to bait you into an argument, just asking some simple questions about deism to a deist. DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to. Luckily he doesn't assert that deism isn't a type theism, because that was the easiest to rebut. If that is still your contention after reading the dictionary then I am forced to conclude you're intellectually incapable of seeing things objectively. That is not claiming that I am intellectually superior to you or a claim out of arrogance, it's simple English and a dictionary.
If there are any points of yours I did not address, please lay them out clearly and I'd be happy to answer your questions.
"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
(April 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: 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 do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.
Quote: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.
I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.
Quote: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.
All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.
Post 28 by you is where you started to attempt to answer some of my questions.
I addressed the 3 points you made there
your points summation?
1.Christianity lies somewhere between utter nonsense and morally reprehensible
2.deists are not a bunch of theists
3.That you did in fact answer min's question
my rebuttal was in post 31 (4,6,7,8) following is a summation:
4-your first point is opinion alone and you have a positive assertion/generalization, prove it with me as an example
6-your definition of deism or theism isn't in line with the dictionary
7- You answered the question now support your claim if you wish
8-I never said what you claimed I did, if you would like to define your god please do.
If you need an example of actual discussion where someone asks questions and they're answered, please see post 22 and 25 by DeistPaladin.
The only thing you actually rebutted was point 5 which was a personal side note and not related to your points. You claim to have already sufficiently supported your claim that your god is different than nothing, which is easiest summed by the one liner I "continuously quote". You haven't rebutted anything other than the side point 5. I'm not trying to bait you into an argument, just asking some simple questions about deism to a deist. DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to. Luckily he doesn't assert that deism isn't a type theism, because that was the easiest to rebut. If that is still your contention after reading the dictionary then I am forced to conclude you're intellectually incapable of seeing things objectively. That is not claiming that I am intellectually superior to you or a claim out of arrogance, it's simple English and a dictionary.
If there are any points of yours I did not address, please lay them out clearly and I'd be happy to answer your questions.
No problem. Here's a couple points you did not address from my very last post:
1. "I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all." <---Tack, address point here
2. "I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it." <----- Tack address how this is not a valid point as you made claim?
And now a rebuttal to your last claim: You will not, and possibly cannot (due to your arrogance - see dictionary), admit that I answered the question Min posed to me - and answered it succinctly. Yet in your very last rebuttal you wrote, quote, "DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to", which is a blatant admission of what I've been saying all along. You want me to answer YOUR questions. Our original debate and the only one I'm still attempting is this:
You claim that I did not answer MIN's question and I of course claim that I did.
THAT is our current debate. None other. I told you and everyone else I wasn't going to get into a battle of "Who's god is more Likely" .... which is exactly what you tried to bate me into despite what you now deny. Your statement, "DP already answered my quesitons which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to" clearly shows that you are not even arguing the original topic and in fact have assigned me a defensive side for a position I never took.
MIN'S question: What's the difference between the Deist's god and No god? I told you I wouldnt answer it again. Scroll up. It's gotta be there about a half-dozen or so times now ... it's an entire paragraph. What's the difference between something and nothing?... not a hard question to answer, but apparently for you, a hard answer to understand.
Oh, and insult my intelligence all you want ... it's only a subtle attempt at deflection and is just tant amount to name calling. It's not good debating and your verbose presentation of it doesn't make you look superior. You've only succeeded at losing respect.
(April 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: 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 do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.
Quote: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.
I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.
Quote: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.
All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.
Post 28 by you is where you started to attempt to answer some of my questions.
I addressed the 3 points you made there
your points summation?
1.Christianity lies somewhere between utter nonsense and morally reprehensible
2.deists are not a bunch of theists
3.That you did in fact answer min's question
my rebuttal was in post 31 (4,6,7,8) following is a summation:
4-your first point is opinion alone and you have a positive assertion/generalization, prove it with me as an example
6-your definition of deism or theism isn't in line with the dictionary
7- You answered the question now support your claim if you wish
8-I never said what you claimed I did, if you would like to define your god please do.
If you need an example of actual discussion where someone asks questions and they're answered, please see post 22 and 25 by DeistPaladin.
The only thing you actually rebutted was point 5 which was a personal side note and not related to your points. You claim to have already sufficiently supported your claim that your god is different than nothing, which is easiest summed by the one liner I "continuously quote". You haven't rebutted anything other than the side point 5. I'm not trying to bait you into an argument, just asking some simple questions about deism to a deist. DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to. Luckily he doesn't assert that deism isn't a type theism, because that was the easiest to rebut. If that is still your contention after reading the dictionary then I am forced to conclude you're intellectually incapable of seeing things objectively. That is not claiming that I am intellectually superior to you or a claim out of arrogance, it's simple English and a dictionary.
If there are any points of yours I did not address, please lay them out clearly and I'd be happy to answer your questions.
No problem. Here's a couple points you did not address from my very last post:
1. "I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all." <---Tack, address point here
2. "I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it." <----- Tack address how this is not a valid point as you made claim?
And now a rebuttal to your last claim: You will not, and possibly cannot (due to your arrogance - see dictionary), admit that I answered the question Min posed to me - and answered it succinctly. Yet in your very last rebuttal you wrote, quote, "DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to", which is a blatant admission of what I've been saying all along. You want me to answer YOUR questions. Our original debate and the only one I'm still attempting is this:
You claim that I did not answer MIN's question and I of course claim that I did.
THAT is our current debate. None other. I told you and everyone else I wasn't going to get into a battle of "Who's god is more Likely" .... which is exactly what you tried to bate me into despite what you now deny. Your statement, "DP already answered my quesitons which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to" clearly shows that you are not even arguing the original topic and in fact have assigned me a defensive side for a position I never took.
MIN'S question: What's the difference between the Deist's god and No god? I told you I wouldnt answer it again. Scroll up. It's gotta be there about a half-dozen or so times now ... it's an entire paragraph. What's the difference between something and nothing?... not a hard question to answer, but apparently for you, a hard answer to understand.
Oh, and insult my intelligence all you want ... it's only a subtle attempt at deflection and is just tant amount to name calling. It's not good debating and your verbose presentation of it doesn't make you look superior. You've only succeeded at losing respect.
To answer your questions:
1.
Quote:your responces to CS and min
"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. "
"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 only answer that talks about your belief about your god and isn't some Christian slander I can see in there is :
1a-"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."
1b-"God puts a hand on this planet"
Technically I fully concede you did answer min's question vaguely. Hopefully you can see where this is a less than a clear definition (with your words in front of you) and I fully admit it was hard to see past all of the emotionalism to pull out what little I could.The point of my observation was to point out your lack of an answer though. I then did try asking a question related to min's question which you refused to answer until this point was conceded. You gave a shitty answer to his question, congratulations, it doesn't help any of us better understand deism and why you chose that over nothing or some other theism.
2- I fully agree that you don't have to be hurt by something to hate it, as you hate Islam. However you don't go on emotional rants about Islam in this thread, so I assumed you hated Christianity, which you admit to. I gave a possible reason and you rejected it without sharing your true reason. OK, you hate Christianity, got it. You don't want to say why, fine. It's not because you were butt raped, good, glad to hear it.
If my addressing your posts isn't clear enough you addressed min's question. It was not succinct and was riddled with emotionalism. If you don't want to compare gods that's fine (I honestly never intended to, just wanted to find out more about deism from a deist), DP already answered some questions.
I am not claiming a superior intelligence or insulting yours. I am claiming you are either being intellectually dishonest or emotionally biased beyond reason. If you don't want to discuss theological philosophies I'm fine with that. If you want to address the claim of your intellectual dishonesty read on (pardon the verboseness).
A)In post 15 you started with "and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs -"
Quote: excerpt from post 13 in case you don't remember
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.
which you can see is clearly intellectually dishonest.
B)Also in post 13 you then claimed that you already answered with the above 2 posts and for further info you linked to a deist site. You also claimed "I wasn't asked to prove that my God was better than a theist god .... I already know I cannot prove that. And I don't care to. " Which is true and clearly stated.
Quote: This is as far as I got (about 4 lines) into the site before I saw misinformation and bias
"inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "
So that clearly wasn't much helping me gathering information about deism, nor were you willing to help further answering my questions. Your refusal to answer simple questions shows closed-mindedness. Your references to your beliefs are biased, as I can only conclude you are emotionally biased beyond sound reason by your use of them.
C)You clearly claimed deism was not theism. I clearly cited clear dictionary references where it was. It is either ignorance, intellectual dishonestly or you making up your own definitions, which?
"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
(April 30, 2011 at 6:49 am)tackattack Wrote: 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 do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.
Quote: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.
I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.
Quote: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.
All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.
Post 28 by you is where you started to attempt to answer some of my questions.
I addressed the 3 points you made there
your points summation?
1.Christianity lies somewhere between utter nonsense and morally reprehensible
2.deists are not a bunch of theists
3.That you did in fact answer min's question
my rebuttal was in post 31 (4,6,7,8) following is a summation:
4-your first point is opinion alone and you have a positive assertion/generalization, prove it with me as an example
6-your definition of deism or theism isn't in line with the dictionary
7- You answered the question now support your claim if you wish
8-I never said what you claimed I did, if you would like to define your god please do.
If you need an example of actual discussion where someone asks questions and they're answered, please see post 22 and 25 by DeistPaladin.
The only thing you actually rebutted was point 5 which was a personal side note and not related to your points. You claim to have already sufficiently supported your claim that your god is different than nothing, which is easiest summed by the one liner I "continuously quote". You haven't rebutted anything other than the side point 5. I'm not trying to bait you into an argument, just asking some simple questions about deism to a deist. DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to. Luckily he doesn't assert that deism isn't a type theism, because that was the easiest to rebut. If that is still your contention after reading the dictionary then I am forced to conclude you're intellectually incapable of seeing things objectively. That is not claiming that I am intellectually superior to you or a claim out of arrogance, it's simple English and a dictionary.
If there are any points of yours I did not address, please lay them out clearly and I'd be happy to answer your questions.
No problem. Here's a couple points you did not address from my very last post:
1. "I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all." <---Tack, address point here
2. "I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it." <----- Tack address how this is not a valid point as you made claim?
And now a rebuttal to your last claim: You will not, and possibly cannot (due to your arrogance - see dictionary), admit that I answered the question Min posed to me - and answered it succinctly. Yet in your very last rebuttal you wrote, quote, "DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to", which is a blatant admission of what I've been saying all along. You want me to answer YOUR questions. Our original debate and the only one I'm still attempting is this:
You claim that I did not answer MIN's question and I of course claim that I did.
THAT is our current debate. None other. I told you and everyone else I wasn't going to get into a battle of "Who's god is more Likely" .... which is exactly what you tried to bate me into despite what you now deny. Your statement, "DP already answered my quesitons which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to" clearly shows that you are not even arguing the original topic and in fact have assigned me a defensive side for a position I never took.
MIN'S question: What's the difference between the Deist's god and No god? I told you I wouldnt answer it again. Scroll up. It's gotta be there about a half-dozen or so times now ... it's an entire paragraph. What's the difference between something and nothing?... not a hard question to answer, but apparently for you, a hard answer to understand.
Oh, and insult my intelligence all you want ... it's only a subtle attempt at deflection and is just tant amount to name calling. It's not good debating and your verbose presentation of it doesn't make you look superior. You've only succeeded at losing respect.
To answer your questions:
1.
Quote:your responces to CS and min
"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. "
"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 only answer that talks about your belief about your god and isn't some Christian slander I can see in there is :
1a-"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."
1b-"God puts a hand on this planet"
Technically I fully concede you did answer min's question vaguely. Hopefully you can see where this is a less than a clear definition (with your words in front of you) and I fully admit it was hard to see past all of the emotionalism to pull out what little I could.The point of my observation was to point out your lack of an answer though. I then did try asking a question related to min's question which you refused to answer until this point was conceded. You gave a shitty answer to his question, congratulations, it doesn't help any of us better understand deism and why you chose that over nothing or some other theism.
2- I fully agree that you don't have to be hurt by something to hate it, as you hate Islam. However you don't go on emotional rants about Islam in this thread, so I assumed you hated Christianity, which you admit to. I gave a possible reason and you rejected it without sharing your true reason. OK, you hate Christianity, got it. You don't want to say why, fine. It's not because you were butt raped, good, glad to hear it.
If my addressing your posts isn't clear enough you addressed min's question. It was not succinct and was riddled with emotionalism. If you don't want to compare gods that's fine (I honestly never intended to, just wanted to find out more about deism from a deist), DP already answered some questions.
I am not claiming a superior intelligence or insulting yours. I am claiming you are either being intellectually dishonest or emotionally biased beyond reason. If you don't want to discuss theological philosophies I'm fine with that. If you want to address the claim of your intellectual dishonesty read on (pardon the verboseness).
A)In post 15 you started with "and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs -"
Quote: excerpt from post 13 in case you don't remember
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.
which you can see is clearly intellectually dishonest.
B)Also in post 13 you then claimed that you already answered with the above 2 posts and for further info you linked to a deist site. You also claimed "I wasn't asked to prove that my God was better than a theist god .... I already know I cannot prove that. And I don't care to. " Which is true and clearly stated.
Quote: This is as far as I got (about 4 lines) into the site before I saw misinformation and bias
"inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "
So that clearly wasn't much helping me gathering information about deism, nor were you willing to help further answering my questions. Your refusal to answer simple questions shows closed-mindedness. Your references to your beliefs are biased, as I can only conclude you are emotionally biased beyond sound reason by your use of them.
C)You clearly claimed deism was not theism. I clearly cited clear dictionary references where it was. It is either ignorance, intellectual dishonestly or you making up your own definitions, which?
Before your first response to my posts, I wrote, quote, "I'm not a preacher trying to win souls, if you'ed like to know more ..." and then I left a link for those who would like to know more about Deism. You know as well as I do that the moment I start "sharing information" about deistic beliefs that I open myself up as a target for an onslaught of pointless arguments and ridicules. I was trying to answer a simple question - simply, not defend an entire belief structure to a handful of people that have no legitimate long-term interest in practicing Deism. I don't appreciate it when christians fire off their beliefs at me and I strictly practice not doing the same to others. If Min had asked me, What are the underlying principles that make Deism any more legit than the revealed religions of the world? I wouldn't have answered. I would not have gotten involved with that mess. He did not ask me that question. You were the one who wouldn't let it go. You were the one that wanted to pick it apart and wanted me to jump into a debate about our different belief systems. You can deny it as many times as you like, but your posts say otherwise. You wanted to challenge deism. There’s really nothing wrong with that – just the shitty way you went about it.
I have definitely insulted your religion and I will definitely continue to do so. However, you insulted me personally throughout this entire debate and then tried to back-peddle every time I called you out on it. Congratulations you fit perfectly into the sweeping generalizations that I often make about christians. The only other thing that you have proven to me is that you are very skilled at twisting words around to make them say what you want. EXAMPLES:
1. I said YOU can call me a theist if you like. Deism, Theism – I don’t care & never have.
2. I never made this statement, “inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam”, and I don’t know where you got this from.
3. Some emotion interjected into a debate does not make that argument “riddled with emotion” and you have used the “emotion” argument in EVERY post you’ve had. Get over it.
4. “Your references to your beliefs are biased” … of course they’re biased. It’s a belief system, not a science. Everyone’s religious references are biased… they have to be – otherwise we’d all love everybody’s stupid religion. Religion by its nature is biased. I don’t know too many muslims who want to hold hands with a Christian and say, “I’m not biased at all against your views and I think you’ve got some really great points.”
Now, if you want to keep beating a dead horse about this, please do feel free, but all I ever wanted to do was answer a simple question – simply. When are you going to let it go?
If you truly wanted to know more about Deism, there is a much better way of doing that than insulting me and claiming that I’m closed minded because I don’t want to engage in an unwinnable and useless debate about our two belief systems.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
