^ brevity. it is the soul of wit.

12/26/2008 2:52:38 AM

Quote :

"Not at all. Atheism isn't a philosophical theory to me, it's just the result of my skeptical personality. I don't choose it anymore than I choose to be straight or like pizza."

This gets into the murky nature of choice and preferences. I'll laugh myself senseless if atheists end up winning popular acceptance on this basis. "It's not my fault, really!" Ah, what a great argument.

12/26/2008 9:52:38 AM

I started out with no belief in anything and quickly passed from that into something else because of growing up in a strong Christian family. I have since lapsed out of Christianity into a whole new realm of non-belief in anything. Losing my religion was a pretty powerful event, not something that I specifically chose, but not a straight personality result either.

Atheism is definitely a philosophical system, thought it's difficult to nail down specific beliefs besides "no belief in G/god(s)"--and even then we argue for pages over what that means. There's no Head Guy In-Charge like the Pope or Lama and no internal structure to guide and to lay out what we believe and how to act and all that. I'd say it's a pretty individualistic belief system where you really have to decide for yourself what atheism means to you and how everything works (ethics is my biggest concern, personally), rather than getting 95% of your worldview spoon-fed to you from the pulpit.

12/26/2008 11:29:04 AM

Quote :

"the early, important, and influential concepts of the system held that religion was an "opiate of the masses" that must eventually be removed."

mm, interesting. Still, atheism doesn't strike me as being fundamental to the social or economic practices of communism. Hell, it might've worked with more opium. But still off topic.

Quote :

" Kris -- would argue that nobody really chooses much of anything ... At the very least, I think I can say with confidence that your atheism was more of a choice than your ethnicity or gender."

All of that was a really nice discussion of nature/nurture and choice theory, but it's not relevant. The point is that I can make choices about how I think things should be, but not about how I think things are. I can change my mind all day long about what I "should" do this weekend or who "should" be president, but I can't think that God doesn't exist and then decide against it. That's Moore's paradox.

12/26/2008 12:05:37 PM

So GOP is trying to state that Atheism is a political ideology. In a supposedly "non secular" government wouldn't an atheist be the only one who would be fit to govern since admittedly we don't have a horse in the race?
That was just playing devil's advocate I disagree fundamentally with GOP's argument. Other religious beliefs seem to fit better with certain political ideology. That doesn't necessarily mean that those beleifs are a gateway to that political system. I am an atheist but I think the communist ideology is pretty retarded. People are competitive and greedy by biological nature.
I too was very surprised by the Muslim results until I realized that this was what people were willing to admit to being prejudiced against. In other words it seems like atheism is still the most PC thing to discriminate against (at least out of those things polled).

12/26/2008 1:05:22 PM

Quote :

"There's no Head Guy In-Charge like the Pope or Lama"

12/26/2008 4:07:29 PM

Ha. You made me giggle. I'm sure Dawkins is the most-recognized atheist, but he's also the most obnoxious. I'd rather go with PZ Myers.

12/26/2008 5:15:35 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure Dawkins is the most-recognized atheist, but he's also the most obnoxious"

Guess you've never listened to Christopher Hitchens.


Atheism isn't a freaking philosophical system. It is simple. You don't believe in God or gods, or spirits, or gremlins, or whatever. It isn't complicated. I am an atheist and I am agnostic. I don't believe in God(s), nor do I claim to know they don't exist. That's it. There is nothing else to it.

Having no belief in God is not a belief system. Ethics and morals have zero to do with atheism directly.

12/26/2008 7:14:51 PM

..... you don't find PZ Myers more obnoxious than Dawkins?
Really?

If you want to go with a well known, well-spoken, non-obnoxious atheist, I would go with Sam Harris. He pwns in debates, interviews (with usually hostile interviewers), and lectures.


-----------

this point has probably been covered, but atheism is pretty much the only belief (or non-belief) system that is not a choice. By default, we are all atheists. We are not pre-programmed with any belief system, and any religion is only thrust upon us by parents and societal norms. Most atheists do choose to give up their childhood beliefs, but we are really only returning to our natural state.

[Edited on December 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2008 7:35:35 PM

That's not true at all. Atheism is the rejection/disbelief in God or God-like figure.

Since you can't reject something until you've been told it exists or are given the option to believe in it, you can hardly argue that people are atheists by nature.

12/26/2008 8:04:20 PM

That's true, people can't really be atheist by nature. People are non-religious by nature, though. A man on a deserted island with no human contact is unlikely to believe in God.

12/26/2008 8:12:21 PM

It's hard to even argue that, since most rejection of God has a basis in science, which a person who has been completed isolated from society is unlikely to have.

And, lets be realistic, if someone is 100% isolated from any previous belief systems and other people, are they more likely to default to the belief that there's something out there that created/controls everything around them or that everything around them is made up of tiny tiny little parts that have spent millenia evolving.

12/26/2008 8:21:03 PM

Yay, god of the gaps. I can't understand it, therefore it must be supernatural.

Quote :

"you don't find PZ Myers more obnoxious than Dawkins? Really?"

I misspoke. I should have said Dawkins is one of the most obnoxious, less than Dr. Myers.

Quote :

"Since you can't reject something until you've been told it exists or are given the option to believe in it"

But you can't believe in something until those conditions are given, either. What are we going to call this "blank slate" state? "A-belief"?

12/26/2008 8:49:12 PM

Well, I believe you'd call it a blank slate.

12/26/2008 9:02:45 PM

Quote :

"brevity. it is the soul of wit."

Maybe, but it's the heart of misunderstanding, the brain of logical fallacy, and the spleen of me having to explain myself twenty times while the debate stagnates. So I'll focus on being as clear as I can, and leave all the "wit" to people who haven't posted anything meaningful in months.

Quote :

"Still, atheism doesn't strike me as being fundamental to the social or economic practices of communism."

I mean, OK, that's fine that you don't see it that way, but atheism is part of what Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and the definition of "Communism" see.

Quote :

"The point is that I can make choices about how I think things should be, but not about how I think things are."

But of course you don't know with certainty how things are. That applies in general to pretty much everything, but it goes double for religious questions in particular. You know how you think things are. And you will continue to think that way until something changes your mind. You're not going to do an about-face on a whim; you wouldn't do that about anything. If you've liked Mexican food best of all your entire life, you're not going to sit down one day and consciously make the choice, "You know what? From now on I'm going to like Chinese food the best." No, something will happen -- you'll have a really good Chinese dinner, you'll get food poisoning from Mexican food, or maybe something more subtle -- and that will cause you to change your mind.

Democrats don't decide to become Republicans for no reason. No theist sits down one day and says, "You know what? I'm going to change religions for no particular reason." No. They believe what they think to be true; you believe what you think to be true. And you will both do that until something changes your mind.

Perhaps it's more likely that you're going to turn out to be right -- perhaps it's enormously more likely. The point stands that you, the theists, the democrats, the republicans, all fall into basically the same category.

Quote :

"So GOP is trying to state that Atheism is a political ideology."

I don't think it's a political ideology per se; I do, however, think that it, like a lot of things, colors your political ideology. If I really enjoy alcohol (and how!), that's not a political ideology -- but you can draw some pretty reliable conclusions about elements of my politics from that part of my personality. Namely, you can guess that I wouldn't have been lining up to vote for prohibition.

The point I wanted people to take away is that atheism is a choice to the same extent that political ideology is.

I also wasn't trying to equate atheists and communists. I've met a lot of politically conservative atheists, and anyone who has spent time on a college campus has met some dingbat commie who believes all manner of spiritual shit.

Quote :

"Atheism isn't a freaking philosophical system."

You chose it like you chose your philosophical system, and they are invariably related.

Quote :

"Ethics and morals have zero to do with atheism directly."

Preposterous. Atheism radically changes what you perceive as the source and nature of ethics and morals.

Quote :

"By default, we are all atheists. We are not pre-programmed with any belief system, and any religion is only thrust upon us by parents and societal norms."

This is pretty laughable. Religion originated from something, and while we may not be programmed with any specific beliefs we certainly seem designed to seek them out. In looking at all of the history of human society I don't ever recall hearing of one that was atheist. Meaning that for all of human history, we've been worshiping something -- the sun, the ocean, the pointed stick, what have you. What, is all religion inflicted on us because the first homo sapiens parents were sadists who wanted to confuse the shit out of their kids and made up a story about gods to do it?

We're born not believing in a god, sure, but we're also born not believing ANYTHING ELSE. The "default" state for a human being is lying on your back naked covered in your own shit.

[Edited on December 27, 2008 at 1:11 AM. Reason : ]

12/27/2008 1:10:27 AM

fwiw, most of the atheists I have met were libertarian

12/27/2008 1:19:02 AM

Quote :

"this point has probably been covered, but atheism is pretty much the only belief (or non-belief) system that is not a choice. By default, we are all atheists. We are not pre-programmed with any belief system, and any religion is only thrust upon us by parents and societal norms. Most atheists do choose to give up their childhood beliefs, but we are really only returning to our natural state. "

You are using the word "we" here when you really mean "I." YOU may have never seen the need for anything beyond atheism, but as GrumpyGOP pointed out, the vast majority of human beings, and probably all societies ever, where theists of some kind. You can't speak for all humans.

It makes sense though that the constructs of religion would be emergent to any system where perceptions and knowledge are limited. Early man, and modern man still, can't look around their daily lives and explain everything. Some people might even find existence itself, and what we perceive as self-awareness, to be puzzling. It's extremely natural that a belief in a higher order gives rise to that. You will NEVER, EVER stop human beings from believing in a god, where is where your militant atheists go wrong. The issue is not with deism though, it's theism. The best we can hope to do is to prevent people from using theologies do maliciously manipulate other people, or segment themselves, or anything else of that nature.

But religion itself is fairly natural for beings like ourselves.

12/27/2008 2:52:32 AM

Quote :

"Preposterous. Atheism radically changes what you perceive as the source and nature of ethics and morals."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I can see it as possible for some, but not always the case, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a preposterous idea. An atheist might have a radically different view of the "source and nature of ethics and morals" than a Christian, for instance, but they may end up having the exact same ethics and morals in the end; they just can get there through a different path. Alternatively, deists, or others who believe in an absent creator, might believe in a god of some form while believing that ethics and morals originate through reason rather than god or faith in exactly the same way that an atheist would.

I would agree that in general, religion does have an intrinsic entanglement with ethics and morals, but it's only one path that could lead to the same destination. An atheist and a theist could even have the same views on the source and nature--depending on the kind of theist we're talking about.

12/27/2008 4:23:06 AM

Quote :

"Ethics and morals have zero to do with atheism directly."

Quote :

"Preposterous...."

Yes, this is beyond preposterous.
Am I reading this correctly?...Does he actually think ethics and morals only come from god or gods? Most of the atheists and agnostic that I know are the most ethical and moral people I've ever met. Contrarily, you have all these christians running around "sinning" their fucking asses off, while simply counting on asking god for forgiveness to make everything OK.

12/27/2008 7:12:00 AM

Quote :

"The point I wanted people to take away is that atheism is a choice to the same extent that political ideology is."

But when you are a political figure and you say that you made the choice to be Muslim that is less damaging to your career than to say that you made the choice to be an atheist. This is a clear example of the prejudice that atheists are faced with in our political system. From that vantage point you can deduce that as a group atheists are more likely to face prejudice throughout society. And for those of you who say that atheists invite it on themselves by opening their mouths. I guess you also believe that it is ok to discriminate against gays because they sure could act strait. Or against Muslims because they could pretend to be Christian??

In other words back on topic.

12/27/2008 11:37:12 AM

^^ Umm... I don't see where GrumpyGOP implied ethics/morals ONLY came from God. He was saying there that an atheist would perceive the SOURCE of these things differently than a theist, which is a generally true statement.

12/27/2008 12:07:47 PM

Quote :

"By default, we are all atheists. We are not pre-programmed with any belief system, and any religion is only thrust upon us by parents and societal norms. Most atheists do choose to give up their childhood beliefs, but we are really only returning to our natural state. "

There's a hefty amount of scientific evidence building against this. Human beings have mystical leanings and an instinct for teleological explanations.

12/27/2008 1:02:47 PM

^I agree completely that was an idiotic statement. It could be argued if we weren't inherently superstitious religion would have never arisen.

12/27/2008 1:11:29 PM

Man's mystic/shamanistic roots aren't something to be ashamed of and swept under the rug. It's part of our nature. There's nothing inherently wrong about this drive; the fact that it's exploited for social/economic control and "strays" from purity should not be surprising, as this is the way with all things.

[Edited on December 27, 2008 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2008 1:17:34 PM

Quote :

"Umm... I don't see where GrumpyGOP implied ethics/morals ONLY came from God"

Umm... That's because he didn't. I was agreeing with him that Ytsejam's statement was preposterous. ("Ethics and morals have zero to do with atheism directly." - Ytsejam)

12/27/2008 1:30:14 PM

^^ There is nothing to be ashamed about historically but when these superstitions persist in the face of facts it simply points to willful ignorance and that is shameful.

12/27/2008 1:36:13 PM

The only shameful thing here is your inability to study it with the same lens you study all other human phenomena / facets of human nature. Simply ignoring a major part of our cognitive system because you have psychological hangups is anti-scientific, anti-enlightenment, and anti-intellectual.

12/27/2008 1:38:31 PM

^He's not ignoring it -- he just acknowledged it here^^, in fact. You can't seem to tell the difference between acknowledgment and acceptance.


Just because something is an instinct doesn't mean it is acceptable behavior.

[Edited on December 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2008 2:07:19 PM

^ That's true, but he's also saying that it's absurd people are still religious, when that's not really the case, it's not absurd at all.

What's absurd are the handful of religious leaders that use it to manipulate people. But people clinging to religion is very understandable.

12/27/2008 3:29:02 PM

It is very understandable and I don't blame people for it. However when religious hangups and ideals are brought into politics or they hold back the education of our children there is some shame in it.

12/27/2008 3:50:16 PM

Quote :

"^ That's true, but he's also saying that it's absurd people are still religious, when that's not really the case, it's not absurd at all. What's absurd are the handful of religious leaders that use it to manipulate people. But people clinging to religion is very understandable."

Thank god somebody here still knows how to fucking read.

12/27/2008 4:19:48 PM

Quote :

"Yes, this is beyond preposterous. Am I reading this correctly?...Does he actually think ethics and morals only come from god or gods? Most of the atheists and agnostic that I know are the most ethical and moral people I've ever met. Contrarily, you have all these christians running around "sinning" their fucking asses off, while simply counting on asking god for forgiveness to make everything OK. Umm... That's because he didn't. I was agreeing with him that Ytsejam's statement was preposterous. ("Ethics and morals have zero to do with atheism directly." - Ytsejam)"

Wat? You haven't made any sense. I said ethics and morals have nothing to do with atheism directly. In that, you can be ethical and/or moral and be an atheist or a theist. You can say that ethics/morals is directly related to a religion, since most religions dictate a certain behavior, but atheism is NOT a religion, or even a belief system. Thus you don't derive ethical or moral behavior from being an atheist.

Yeah, it's preposterous that not having a belief in God doesn't determine ethical behavior.

12/27/2008 4:22:13 PM

"Yeah, it's preposterous that not having a belief in God doesn't determine ethical behavior."
/

12/27/2008 4:33:54 PM

So the conclusion that I am drawing from your statement is. Atheists are immoral so it is OK that society discriminates against them.

12/27/2008 5:23:12 PM

Quote :

"There's a hefty amount of scientific evidence building against this. Human beings have mystical leanings and an instinct for teleological explanations."

There is no doubt that societies and civilizations instinctively collectively seek answers through religion and mythologies. And maybe the same is true for individuals too, i don't know. I guess if someone is somehow rought up in isolation with no scientific knowledge of the world, he might instinctively seek supernatural answers also.

But with today's scientific knowledge about the earth and universe, there is no reason for a child to grow up learning the mythological teachings of religion. As a child becomes naturally curious about the world around him, most questions can be answered with science. Those that cannot be answered fully yet can be theoroized, or answered simply with the perfectly acceptable response of "we don't know", which is not something religion will ever tell you (except about already supernatural acts, like "why does God allow bad things to happen")

12/27/2008 10:51:34 PM

Quote :

"An atheist might have a radically different view of the "source and nature of ethics and morals" than a Christian, for instance, but they may end up having the exact same ethics and morals in the end; they just can get there through a different path."

They may have ended up at the same place in practical terms (they both believe the same things to be moral or immoral), but their reasoning is different -- and that's a big deal, especially in terms of human discourse. In debating a topic with an atheist and a theist who hold the same ethical position, you will probably still end up having very different conversations with each of them.

And don't talk to me about deists, or at least, don't try to lump them in with theists. Believing in an irrelevant god is functionally the same as not believing in god, and it's possibly the laziest cop-out of all.

Quote :

"But when you are a political figure and you say that you made the choice to be Muslim that is less damaging to your career than to say that you made the choice to be an atheist. This is a clear example of the prejudice that atheists are faced with in our political system."

I don't care what that survey says, if you pit an atheist against a Muslim in an election, my money is on the atheist to win.

But even if the survey is dead on, you're still missing the point. There is a sliding scale of how much distaste people have for certain qualities in their political candidates. As a whole this country doesn't like socialists or outright communists, but they probably "discriminate" (read: vote) against communists more.

Voting against a class with a certain set of ideas isn't the same as oppressing them, or even discriminating against them. The voting booth is the one place where you are allowed to do whatever you want for even the stupidest of reasons. And if you want to reduce some of that stupidity, more power to you. You have my support. But here's a hint: you do it by educating people about how you're not bad, not by calling their beliefs idiotic.

Quote :

"I guess if someone is somehow rought up in isolation with no scientific knowledge of the world, he might instinctively seek supernatural answers also."

I'd bet heavily on it, based on the historical evidence and common sense. Without any scientific knowledge or outside contact, your day to day life involves giant balls of fire moving across the sky and, in the case of the moon, changing shape. It's no wonder that primitive religions almost universally feature sun worship to a large extent. I'm having a hard time picturing an isolated person determining that the earth rotates around one of those balls, and the other one rotates around the earth. I also don't see them shrugging and saying, "Well, I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable, determinable explanation for Great-Light-That-Makes-The-Day and Little-Light-In-The-Dark(-but-also-sometimes-the-day)."

Quote :

""we don't know", which is not something religion will ever tell you"

If you say so. I'm in one of the oldest, largest, and most conservative Christian denominations on the planet, and I've heard "we don't know" a number of times in reference to scientific phenomena.

For example, when considering converting:

"What is your stance on evolution?"
Priest: "We don't know. It's the Bible, not a science textbook. It makes sense. God was involved in the process, but as to the details, He didn't include His itinerary."
"So you don't literally interpret the 'seven days' thing?"
[shrug] "Maybe it was seven literal days, but looking at the rest of the Bible it's pretty clear that the Almighty Creator of the universe is capable of figurative language."

[Edited on December 28, 2008 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

12/28/2008 12:26:38 AM

Quote :

" "What is your stance on evolution?" Priest: "We don't know. It's the Bible, not a science textbook. It makes sense. God was involved in the process, but as to the details, He didn't include His itinerary." "So you don't literally interpret the 'seven days' thing?" [shrug] "Maybe it was seven literal days, but looking at the rest of the Bible it's pretty clear that the Almighty Creator of the universe is capable of figurative language." "

Is this belief of all the Eastern Orthodox, or just your church? I just finished watching the otherwise terrible movie with Bill Maher, "Religulous" and it was obvious the "experts" and holy men don't agree with each other from church to church, even on things like this.

The problem, as I see it, from a political standpoint with accepting openly that the Bible can be figurative, is where do you draw these figurative lines? Who gets to decide what's literal and what's not? Once you invite "choice" in to the interpretation, the religion can be whatever anyone wants it to be. But obviously things can't all be taken literally because it's impossible to reconcile with the measurements we have of the universe. It essentially opens up the door for all religious beliefs to be cast out of government, which is not something the religious people are going to accept happening.

12/28/2008 3:47:13 AM

Quote :

"Wat? You haven't made any sense. I said ethics and morals have nothing to do with atheism directly. In that, you can be ethical and/or moral and be an atheist or a theist. You can say that ethics/morals is directly related to a religion, since most religions dictate a certain behavior, but atheism is NOT a religion, or even a belief system. Thus you don't derive ethical or moral behavior from being an atheist. Yeah, it's preposterous that not having a belief in God doesn't determine ethical behavior. "

You are comparing atheism to religion, which is apples and oranges. Atheism compares to monotheism and polytheism. You can't take one particular monotheistic religion and generalize all monotheists that way. Yes, certain (and most,) religions have moral rules and such, but that is a result of the evolution of religion. Other monotheist religions could have malicious intent and no such moral rules. It's just that they were conquered and/or failed long ago. In other words, certain religions have moral rules, but since others (extant or not,) may not, one can not attribute moral rules to religions per se, let alone attributing it to monotheism (per se,) in general. Do you get it? Your're implying that monotheism, or even religion per se, has a more direct relationship with morality than atheism, but it doesn't.

Quote :

"I said ethics and morals have nothing to do with atheism directly."

Yes, and ethics and morals have nothing to do with monotheism directly.

Quote :

"you can be ethical and/or moral and be an atheist or a theist."

You can also be unethical and/or immoral and be an atheist or a monotheist. (keep in mind that "theist" != "monotheist")

Quote :

"You can say that ethics/morals is directly related to a religion, since most religions dictate a certain behavior, but atheism is NOT a religion, or even a belief system. Thus you don't derive ethical or moral behavior from being an atheist."

Some atheists have "religions" and there are atheist churches, however even without that, atheists aren't a homogeneous group any more that monotheists are. Monotheists that participate in [good] religion are introduced to moral rules, but other monotheists that don't participate in religion are still in society, and therefore can still develop morals and ethics. Atheists that participate in [good] religion (yes, a very rare and nascent trend,) are similarly introduced to moral rules, but other atheists that don't participate in religion are still in society, and therefore can (and do,) still develop morals and ethics. There is no difference between the relationship of atheists and morality, and the relationship of monotheists and morality, in and of themselves.

Quote :

"And don't talk to me about deists, or at least, don't try to lump them in with theists. Believing in an irrelevant god is functionally the same as not believing in god, and it's possibly the laziest cop-out of all."

Wow. That's ignorant. You just dismissed an entire group of individuals because you disagree with their beliefs. You called their god "irrelevant". Guess what? You're a bigoted jerk, and it's YOUR POSTS that we should all regard as irrelevant.

It's clear that you, like most monotheists, have anthropomorphized god. (You know, that's when little human minds can't wrap themselves around the idea that god would or could be anything other than male, human-like, sentient and intelligent...) That's fine, though. Most people view god that way. You, however, have gone further and belittled those who may view god differently than you. Good job on being an insensitive douche. You basically just labeled as worthless the beliefs of everyone who views god as a [non-human, non-sentient] spirit, substance, pool of consciousness, universal flow, or whatever else they might call it. You said they might as well not beleive in god, simply because you have a different view. Do you not see why we atheists have such contempt for you? You don't respect others' beliefs, monotheist or otherwise.

Quote :

"if you pit an atheist against a Muslim in an election"

Does Gallup take requests? I'm curious about the outcome of that one. (I'd say muslim would win...)

[Edited on December 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM. Reason : ]

12/28/2008 8:54:25 AM

Quote :

"You called their god "irrelevant". "

I don't agree with his assertion that Deists might as well be atheists, and Deism is a pretty big tent, but I know what he's saying about belief in an "irrelevent God"--you are grossly overreacting to that statement.

12/28/2008 11:40:09 AM

Quote :

"Is this belief of all the Eastern Orthodox, or just your church? I just finished watching the otherwise terrible movie with Bill Maher, "Religulous" and it was obvious the "experts" and holy men don't agree with each other from church to church, even on things like this."

It's been my understanding that the Catholic Church (and possibly the Orthodox Church as well) is a bit more progressive than their Protestant counterparts on matters of science. They tend to defer to scientists in their areas of expertise, instead of, say, taking their congregations to the creation "museum" in Kentucky.

That was one of my beefs with the church/religious people I grew up in: they were never honest about not knowing answers and tried to make shit up or just confuse the issue. If Grumpy's priest/church does that, more power to them.

12/28/2008 1:30:30 PM

^^ Then you grossly misunderstand deism like grumpy. To a deist, god is the reason for all creation and is self-evident through the works of nature only. There is no irrelevancy to speak of. And I find it very disconcerting to be labeled a "cop-out" as a deist or an agnostic.

12/28/2008 2:40:08 PM

He could've probably chosen a better word, but I see the point he's getting at.

12/28/2008 5:12:43 PM

What exactly is that point, in your words?
(He called their god "irrelevant", then backed it up with calling their belief in god "functionally the same as not believing in god", and finished by calling it "possibly the laziest cop-out of all.")

12/28/2008 5:25:32 PM

No, he didn't call their god irrelevant, he said they believe in an irrelevant god. Like, the god doesn't do anything. He wound up the world like a clock and let it go. So he might have created it way back then, but he has little-to-nothing to do with it now. Irrelevant.

12/28/2008 6:06:38 PM

That is a misguided statement then. Who's to say a deist's god isn't active indefinitely? A constantly running reality machine in of itself.

As a deist I could say god was the finger that knocked down the first dominoe but that doesn't necessarilly have to be the total sum of my beliefs. Direction, purpose, irony, all things to consider from the view point of the deist, many of which are not occluded from early imaginations of early culture's god such as "Yahweh" from the judeo religion.

The main difference here is that a deist attain enlightenment from a source that is indifferent to human race as it is indifferent to the sea slug race. This doesn't make god irrelevent, just fair to the entire universe. Morals and ethics are learned from environmental situations and in some cases inherently instinctual, not derived from false divinations.

12/28/2008 8:39:35 PM

^ i think you're misunderstanding what they're saying.

We could type a million different pages on different models of god/gods, but that's not what this thread is about.

12/28/2008 8:43:38 PM

This tangent was in correction to how deism is interpreted through the eyes of others. Not everyone believes in the same way, true. But such a gross misunderstanding on the basic principles behind deism will not go uncorrected, I'm sorry. It just wont.

I didn't lead the arguement here, I'm just going with the flow.

12/28/2008 8:57:08 PM

the J00s

12/28/2008 10:15:27 PM

Quote :

"Is this belief of all the Eastern Orthodox, or just your church?"

It's obvious enough that not "all" of any group agree completely, including atheists. I can't speak for everybody in my religion; I know that the catechism texts I read, as well as the words of the priest that I heard, were in line with what I described earlier. One of the advantages of my religion is that it allows for a certain degree of deviation from the norm.

Quote :

"The problem, as I see it, from a political standpoint with accepting openly that the Bible can be figurative, is where do you draw these figurative lines?"

Like I say, my denomination allows for some deviation. There isn't a crushing penalty for independent thought.

But, of course, the question of where to draw certain lines is always present. This is called human discourse. It's been around since Thag had a different idea from Ugg.

Quote :

"You just dismissed an entire group of individuals because you disagree with their beliefs. You called their god "irrelevant"."

No, I didn't.

The beliefs of deists are relevant, if only because they exist. But the very nature of the deist understanding of God boils down to the conception of an irrelevant diety -- that is, one which does not interact with life on Earth, one which has not passed down moral principals or named consequences to violating the same.

If a god is so detached from humanity, how the fuck does he matter?

Quote :

"It's clear that you, like most monotheists, have anthropomorphized god. (You know, that's when little human minds can't wrap themselves around the idea that god would or could be anything other than male, human-like, sentient and intelligent...)"

I appreciate your impassioned (if inaccurate) explanation of anthropomorphism. You failed horribly at employing the concept, but it was a good effort, and you deserve a participation trophy.

Quote :

"You basically just labeled as worthless the beliefs of everyone who views god as a [non-human, non-sentient] spirit, substance, pool of consciousness, universal flow, or whatever else they might call it."

No, I didn't. I labeled a certain group of beliefs as being functionally the same as atheism, because a distant, uninvolved god who leaves morality and consequences to our own devices is, functionally, nonexistent.

I'm sorry if the concepts escaped your understanding.

Quote :

"To a deist, god is the reason for all creation and is self-evident through the works of nature only."

So the fuck what? We were created. Big fucking deal. I've created shit with Legos before, that doesn't mean that the little figures were important. A god that doesn't care what we do is functionally irrelevant.

Quote :

"Who's to say a deist's god isn't active indefinitely? "

To name one, whoever defined deism.

Quote :

"The main difference here is that a deist attain enlightenment from a source that is indifferent to human race as it is indifferent to the sea slug race. This doesn't make god irrelevent, just fair to the entire universe. Morals and ethics are learned from environmental situations and in some cases inherently instinctual, not derived from false divinations."

Please explain to me how this belief system is functionally different from atheism.

12/29/2008 5:48:15 AM

Grumpy, here we part. You have shown a complete lack of interest in understanding what deism is about. What ever your motives are for it, be it so. But you are not going to wave any fact stick about deism and be considered in the right. From hence forth, your opinion will be regarded as just that, your opinion on the subject.

Quote :

"If a god is so detached from humanity, how the fuck does he matter?"

Why does a god have to hold humanity's hand and give him favors? Does a god need to be related to Santa Clause to matter? The point is, god allows for humanity to make its own path, any divine intervention detectable to the human being is a break from reality. A jarring circumstance that would hinder or slow down the path of advancement. See 'religion' + 'war'.

Quote :

""...uninvolved god who leaves morality and consequences to our own devices is, functionally, nonexistent." and "I've created shit with Legos before, that doesn't mean that the little figures were important.""

Oh come on, who are you to define what the function of god is. How do you know god isn't keeping your feet fastened to the ground right now through the force of gravity. You have no fucking clue what the itinerary of god is. As they say, god works in mysterious ways. When it comes to your legos......did your legos get up and move around and build city's on there own. Did you create the actual legos, the very atoms that they are composed of. Again you're speaking for a god you know nothing about.

Quote :

"To name one, whoever defined deism."

This coming from the guy who says his religion sect offers a degree of deviation.

Quote :

"Please explain to me how this belief system is functionally different from atheism."

When it comes to morals and ethics, yes deism and atheism may share similar traits, but in the end one is enevitably source-less and the other is not. [/clarified?]

This is not to say that the morals and ethics of the atheist are without merit. I see now, that this is the major issue that atheist have with most theist.



[Edited on December 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : /]

12/29/2008 11:52:06 AM