Who is to say that atheists will always be a minority? Britain and much of Europe has shown what is possible.

12/29/2008 2:06:57 PM

There's more atheists than Baptists in the US, so I have hope.

12/29/2008 2:50:46 PM

Quote :

"Why does a god have to hold humanity's hand and give him favors?"

I didn't say God had to do anything. I said that in order to matter and be relevant in our morality, He had to be something more than a clockmaker.

Quote :

"Oh come on, who are you to define what the function of god is."

I've not even attempted to do any such thing. I've not claimed anywhere that God should or should do anything, and I've not even really refuted the idea that He wound up the Earth and set it on its way without interfering. I've merely claimed that such a belief is functionally very different from the more mainstream theism.

Quote :

"How do you know god isn't keeping your feet fastened to the ground right now through the force of gravity."

Well, I don't know that. I do know that such a thing would be divine intervention and rather contrary to the concept of deism. If god created gravity when he created the world and that's currently keeping me fastened, that would be deism. But the idea of god actively doing -- well, pretty much anything to us mortals -- would not.

Quote :

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

Yes. But then again, not so much deviation that it involves departing from the ACTUAL FUCKING DEFINITION.

Quote :

"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."

Bullshit. They both have sources. They both have the same source -- human reason and logic. Human reason and logic =/= god.

12/29/2008 3:41:11 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say God had to do anything. I said that in order to matter and be relevant in our morality, He had to be something more than a clockmaker."

Look, I understand you're speaking for yourself and your own theology but dont assume that a deist's god does not come into play with the workings of morality or everything else for that matter. Just because "god" may be the figurehead behind the mechanisms of nature does not mean that that god is not the mechanism in of itself. You talking as if you already know the definite version of how to perceive the deist's god as a deist, when there is no doctrine or dogma involved in deism at all. There are only clauses and they have to do with the absence of doctrinated dogma and the fact that conclusions based in the physical realm must be reached through reason and observation of nature. Please take your arguement up with someone else instead of me, wikipedia could be a start.

When it comes to gravity, yes the way I put that would seem to be a form of divine intervention, but note how I alluded to two forms of divine intervention in the previous paragraph - "detectable" and the obvious other, non-detectable. Gravity of course is measurable in terms of newtons and mass, but whats not clearly defined is the driving force behind it. Could this change with today's advancing technology into the probing of the sub atomic particle, possibly. But this was just an example in order to show that we dont know everything and we will never know everything.

How can we determine god is a factor in the process of learning said morals and ethics on the basis that we can not detect him? How can we not? This is the argument that atheist and deist make against each other. What your implying here is that such as god must make itself known in the physical realm to provide said moralty and ethics. That is what your original post said, and as of yet you have still failed to correct me on that regard. Your view on how deist practice their beliefs are at worst inflammatory and at best, false.

12/29/2008 4:41:34 PM

Quote :

"What your implying here is that such as god must make itself known in the physical realm to provide said moralty and ethics."

No. Your crippling inability to understand words when they are said to you is a bit grating.

If god does not make himself known in the physical realm, the only means by which to ascertain morality and ethics is through observation and reason, right? Because god didn't talk to anybody to help them write religious texts or spread the word. So they use observation and reason to arrive at morality and ethics -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT ATHEISTS DO, WHICH IS WHY THE TWO BELIEFS ARE FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL.

Quote :

"there is no doctrine or dogma involved in deism at all."

I never said there was, but you're acting as though the word doesn't have a fucking meaning. You're playing so fast and loose with the concept that it is rendered insubstantial. The definition is so watered down as to be nonexistent. You're a deist. I'm a deist. That chair is deist. The sky is deist. This food tastes really deist.

Quote :

"Your view on how deist practice their beliefs are at worst inflammatory and at best, false. "

Inflammatory? Really? It's the fucking wolfweb. I say something you disagree with and you act like I'm trying to incite a riot. Give me a break.

[Edited on December 29, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2008 4:53:50 PM

Quote :

""I didn't say God had to do anything. I said that in order to matter and be relevant in our morality, He had to be something more than a clockmaker.""

Quote :

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them... (The Q'uran, sura 47:4)"

Quote :

"Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)"

Which is right and which is wrong? Which morality do you subscribe too and why? If God does not exist, is Morality a constant within the universe?

12/29/2008 4:59:03 PM

^^ Yes, we already covered that atheist and deist attain ethics and morals in similar ways, which are not identical. I dont know where your getting this function bs from. A function of a religion is to serve as an explanation first and primarily. We may just have to agree to disagree on this aspect if it comes to it.

But the arguement was how you described a deist's god as irrelevent. And I have repeatedly refuted that claim to be false in accordance to what actual deism is. If you're not going to respect the philosophy behind it then maybe you shouldn't make comments about it.

[Edited on December 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM. Reason : /]

12/29/2008 5:15:10 PM

Quote :

"A function of a religion is to serve as an explanation first and primarily."

I'm not using the term to describe purpose. I'm using it because it best covers the way in which deism and atheism come from different places but still end up with the same result in terms of morality. If I drink a bottle of whiskey and you drink a case of beer, we start out doing different things that get us to the same place: Drunktown, population us. Whiskey and beer are obviously not the same thing, but both of them are used in the same way and ultimately produce the same effect.

Atheism and deism are different things, too, but in terms of morality they both involve the same process: you observe the natural, physical world, and apply logic to those observations.

Quote :

"And I have repeatedly refuted that claim to be false in accordance to what actual deism is."

Not really. You have yet to demonstrate that an absent, detached god is in any way meaningful after he creates the universe. He's done his bit.

Quote :

"If you're not going to respect the philosophy behind it then maybe you shouldn't make comments about it."

I don't respect the philosophy behind a lot of things: eugenics, chattel slavery, National Socialism, Stalinism, female circumcision, human sacrifice, and the divine right of kings, to name a few. Am I not allowed to comment on any of them, either?

---

Quote :

"Which is right and which is wrong? Which morality do you subscribe too and why? If God does not exist, is Morality a constant within the universe?"

You know which one I subscribe to, and I have chosen it because I believe in God as envisioned in Christianity. As it happens, the morality He puts forward is pretty much in line with my experience in the natural world, so that's convenient.

Morality isn't necessarily a constant even if God does exist, because an all-powerful God presumably has it within His power to change it for whatever reason. If there is no god, then "morality" loses the meaning it currently has and simply becomes a set of unofficial laws designed to make restrict human behavior in a way that is beneficial to somebody -- perhaps society as a whole, or perhaps a certain subset of it.

12/29/2008 10:06:37 PM

oh look, another religion thread

12/29/2008 10:38:25 PM

Quote :

"Because god didn't talk to anybody to help them write religious texts or spread the word."

much of the Old Testament is written by prophets who claim to have received the words directly from God.

12/29/2008 11:16:40 PM

The kind of god that Grumpy is talking about and the one you mention--the one that is meddling in everything like it was his job or something--are two completely different entities and you know it.

[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 1:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/30/2008 1:33:18 AM

^^ he's talking about Deists.

12/30/2008 9:59:20 AM

cue FroshKiller rant in 3...




[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2008 12:23:43 PM

wont be necessary. I went ahead and bowed out of this thread. Based on what flying tiger just said nothing is getting through, so i'm gonna quit wasting my time. Grumpy's gonna keep quote bombing me, skirting the issue, and misconstuing my posts based on minor word discrepencies. Theres nothing thats gonna be solved. Theist will continue not respecting deists as they do atheist. The world moves on.

[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/30/2008 1:31:38 PM

I want to know why "quote bombing" is used as a pejorative term. I'm trying to respond to things you say, and the best way I know to do that by referencing the things to which I am responding. It isn't some sort of shady tactic.

12/30/2008 3:00:14 PM

some of your quote, counter-quote extravaganzas are.... well, lets say, "dense"

12/30/2008 3:33:52 PM

understatement of the year.

12/30/2008 4:18:08 PM

What I'm trying to convey now I guess, is that (yes) I could have retorted to your before-last post in a the same manner but it would lead us only into a babbling argument that amounts to anal retentative dribble. It would simply turn the rest of the thread into this.

Quote :

"I said..."

you said...

Quote :

"I said..."

you said...


and so on and so forth

What we're basically not understanding (you and I both) is that we dont see god in the same way and have already decided to stick with our own versions. So in terms of how we define the others viewpoints it will always be skewed to our own opinion and we will never come to an agreeable conclusion. Can we just leave it at that and call it off.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 8:39 AM. Reason : that's a little much--theduke866]

12/30/2008 4:27:38 PM

Quote :

"some of your quote, counter-quote extravaganzas are.... well, lets say, "dense""

Thank God we have you to come in and post nothing but fluff, thereby restoring balance to the wolfweb.

If there are enough points in a post that I want to respond to, the style is going to be dense no matter what. I feel like the quote boxes, at least, break it up into discernible lines of discussion.

12/31/2008 2:26:26 PM

hey, im just saying. there's a certain art to making your point succinctly.

This isn't the Jefferson-Adams Collection here... it's The Soap Box.

12/31/2008 4:18:17 PM

I don't really think we've reached an impasse yet, and I think supercalo is bowing out too early.

I also agree with GrumpyGOP on the "quote bombs" he was just trying to respond in a thorough manner.

12/31/2008 4:48:17 PM

Whats the impasse then. When grumpy can prove to me that my version of god is irrelevent on the basis that such proof of relevance is demonstratable. I find it hardly worth even arguing about to be honest.

12/31/2008 5:23:36 PM

aha... i think found the problem: you used "prove" and "god" in the same sentence.




and without any irony.

12/31/2008 5:42:44 PM

^; aggreed, when we're talking the non physical realm how can one be right over the other. Thats what I was going for with that post.

You know I could easily ask the question what makes the Yahweh god relevent. Was it because it was an un-unique monotheist god that just so happened to be popular around the location and time where the first written languages became standard, and all gods before be it (poly or mono) were just out of luck. Their languages and civilizations fell away into obscurity such as the ancient egyptians, mayans, celts, and any other enumerable cult. Does having scripture, temples, rituals really make certain gods relevant? The answer is: only in the eyes of their followers.

So when grumpy asks me to demonstrate my gods relevance, he's barking up the wrong tree. All I have to do is tell him to look out the window and thats demonstration enough. And if he doesn't like the format, the style, the approach I'm taking then thats his fault. People find profound meaning through different means. I'm sorry the whole heaven/hell, angels/deamons, adam/eve thing isn't profound to me. But you shouldn't define another persons god as irrelevent based on how you perceive your own. Thats all.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ;]

12/31/2008 5:52:24 PM

i think gods compete with each other in a cosmological economy, and worshippers' prayers/sacrifices are the currency they exchange to replenish their divine power to battle the others.

this explains why Zeus and Odin and Xochiquetzal are out of the race. no one much prays to them anymore.

NOW PROVE ME WRONG!!!

12/31/2008 6:12:23 PM

^ If gods will lie to us and deceive us in order to gain our favor, they're not really gods.

12/31/2008 6:46:02 PM

says you.

that's only according to your Omnipresent/Omnibenevolent/Omnipotent paradigm.

which was, of course, long ago shown to be invalid by the Problem of Evil, your meagre attempts at theodicy notwithstanding.

12/31/2008 7:33:33 PM

^you forgot to throw in Omnipresent (just to reconcile free will). someone said on an earlier page that ^ type of God was impossible. i would agree. it just seems COMPLETELY inconsistent with the universe we experience. GrumpyGOP said that Gods that just wind up the clock and walk away are irrelevant, i think so as well. i don't see how it would be any different than one of us playing Black & White by starting the game and just forgetting it until the end of their time. quite different than if we would sit down and play the game, rewarding and punishing them for doing or failing to do the Will of God.

and on topic, i'll rarely volunteer the fact that i'm an atheist. i was talking to a baptist minister and i think he put us right under devilworshippers. he thought i was a fellow christian too because i can quote scripture with the best of them.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2008 9:46:48 PM

Quote :

"....baptist minister and i think he put us right under devilworshippers"

Devil worshippers at least acknowledge the existence of "God"....right? So it's no surprise that baptists favor them over atheists.

1/1/2009 8:49:57 AM

Quote :

"You know I could easily ask the question what makes the Yahweh god relevent."

Deism and the Yahweh vision of God aren't even mutually exclusive.

At any rate, you're again completely missing his point. His charge of irrelevence has nothing to do with the lack of belief in Yahweh, or even the lack of a monotheistic belief system. It has to do with the belief that God exists, but is completely detached and has served no role since setting the machine into motion.

Now, I think that strictly as a belief system, that is perfectly fine. It just doesn't make for much of a religion when you believe that God's gig has long since been up.

Quote :

"I'm sorry the whole heaven/hell, angels/deamons, adam/eve thing isn't profound to me. quote] Dude, none of that has anything to do with his argument. You're just butthurt and being irrational. "

Quote :

"Devil worshippers at least acknowledge the existence of "God"....right? So it's no surprise that baptists favor them over atheists. "

The majority of so-called "satanists" are really just agnostics/atheists who embrace the imperfect, for lack of a better word, nature of mankind.

...and the Baptist ministers I've met don't look upon atheists/agnostics with scorn per se...only when they perceive them to be actively engaged against Christianity.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM. Reason : asdfas]

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/1/2009 8:51:04 AM

Quote :

"The majority of so-called "satanists" are really just agnostics/atheists who embrace the imperfect fucking idiots who want to be emo"

1/1/2009 9:38:49 AM

ha, probably that too.

1/1/2009 10:01:28 AM

Quote :

"At any rate, you're again completely missing his point. His charge of irrelevence has nothing to do with the lack of belief in Yahweh, or even the lack of a monotheistic belief system. It has to do with the belief that God exists, but is completely detached and has served no role since setting the machine into motion. Now, I think that strictly as a belief system, that is perfectly fine. It just doesn't make for much of a religion when you believe that God's gig has long since been up. "

Nuh uh, completely missed the point I've been going after. I've been telling him it's wrong to define the deist's god as a detached entity to begin with. Atleast, thats what i've been trying to convey this whole time. Just because the deist's god isn't directly discernable to the human condition doesn't mean that that god's will, or purpose what have you, isn't being played out through the process of nature and the force (of nature) is the active role itself. If it really needs futher explanation, I could do so in my own way, but know this: (deism holds no boundaries in terms of dogma or doctrine and cannot hold a self attached label in the metaphysical, that would go beyond the limits of intellectualism).

There are observable constants in nature, some of them (imo) could be linked to a driving force, god if you will. Chaos theory, things that have to do with the organization of chaos into order and back again into chaos. The nature of the electron of an atom to seek lower energy which is a known chemistry law. The purpose of evolution which is to adapt and become 'more intelligent'. All such things are inherent in nature and as deist I attribute such ever going, ever perpetuating forces to be that mystical will of god. I'm sorry to get all new age hippy on you, but theres obviously a hang up on how people are perceiving deism here on this forum.

In the definition of deism there is no clause anywhere from any dictionary or any encyclopedia entry for that matter that directly dictates that the deist's god has made his work and left it at the beginning of time. This is only a stereotypical view that some proponents of other religious philosophy push. It is not in accordance with what a true deist believes and it never will be.

1/1/2009 1:54:13 PM

Quote :

"You know I could easily ask the question what makes the Yahweh god relevent. Was it because it was an un-unique monotheist god that just so happened to be popular around the location and time where the first written languages became standard, and all gods before be it (poly or mono) were just out of luck."

From your second sentence it is clear that, since you came into this thread, you have not understood anything I've said. Not one solitary thing.

I'm not saying that my god is more important than your god, or the celtic gods, or any of that other shit you listed. I'm not talking about relevance in historical terms. This conversation apparently started because you took something I said in a specific context and applied it to many others.

---

Quote :

"So when grumpy asks me to demonstrate my gods relevance, he's barking up the wrong tree. All I have to do is tell him to look out the window and thats demonstration enough."

God as I conceive of him takes an active role in the physical world. He intervenes in my life and all others. Sooner or later, He will punish wrongdoing and reward good deeds.

God as you conceive of him created the world and the physical laws governing it, then he stepped back, presumably for good. He does not intervene in this world. He does not punish wrongdoing or reward good deeds. No matter what you do, gods response is the same: nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Now, your god created everything, and obviously that's kind of a big deal because it's what allowed us to exist. But if a mother gives up her newborn for adoption, or a father ducks out for good when he finds out his girl is pregnant, they're not exactly relevant in the life of the kid. The kid may even grow up completely unaware that his adopted parents are not his biological ones. It's the same with your god -- if you create and then go, then so the fuck what? Why bother believing in him at all? You can thank him for the creation and everything, but he doesn't give a shit -- or, if he does give a shit, he does precisely dick about it.

A thing that doesn't interact in any way with anything anywhere is pretty much the epitome of irrelevance.

Quote :

"Just because the deist's god isn't directly discernable to the human condition doesn't mean that that god's will, or purpose what have you, isn't being played out through the process of nature and the force (of nature) is the active role itself."

OK, like I said, deism god made up the rules of the natural world, but that's not interaction -- its detachment. The people who invented chess set up rules, too, but they are detached from any chess games going on today because they're fucking dead. Your god could have created the world and its rules and then blown his divine brains out.

On the extreme end of what you're saying is determinism, in which god is also irrelevant because we have no free will (we're animated completely by the laws of nature).

1/1/2009 5:42:55 PM

Rednecks. Or people with southern accents.

1/1/2009 5:53:24 PM

^ Haha, you may be on to something

Quote :

"From your second sentence it is clear that, since you came into this thread, you have not understood anything I've said. Not one solitary thing."

Let me make it clear, I'm here to make it known to you that you are simply wrong. Your opinion is not shared unilaterally. Its yours, and while some may share it, it does not speak for the spiritual philosophy you are trying to label. That is all. Let it also be known you are in a religious debate right now and as of yet none of your claims have been supported other than by heresay. Mine on the other hand, are in line with the basic fundumentals of my religion's philosophy. So if you cant formulate any argument that can directly scrutinize that philosphy itself or any of the other things i've laid out here, then dont expect your argument to be considered a coherent conjecture.

Because it is false.

Grumpy I know we're not talking about who's god is better. We're not in fucking middle school. What we're talking about is how my god interacts with human day to day life, and what is considered irrelevant and what isn't. You pushed me to scrutinize your own god with this comment here:

Quote :

"You have yet to demonstrate that an absent, detached god is in any way meaningful after he creates the universe."

and not only that, you have refused to recieve any of my explanations as you have continued to push your unsubstantiated reasoning, making you look down right ignorant.

Determinism you say? They why wont you go ahead and use determinism in your little atheism/irrelevant god comparing spiels, because there is certainly nothing about "no free will" in any deism definition. You're supplying a shit ton of assumptive conjecture and have no backing to do so whatsoever.

And I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself. There is no irrelevance at all, in any way, that could be contributed to the deist's god by the deist. You may think otherwise with your humanistic approach, but its not shared by the deist and thats what you need to understand.

I'm not saying you cant keep believing what your believing right now, but every time you falsely intepret my religion like your doing expect these same damn lines to come right back at you. This is a forum where people share their opinions, so expect nothing less from me.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2009 6:48:18 PM

Quote :

"there is certainly nothing about "no free will" in any deism definition."

I'm aware of that. It's why I said "on the extreme end of what you're saying" about natural laws governing things on Earth.

Quote :

"What we're talking about is how my god interacts with human day to day life, and what is considered irrelevant and what isn't."

Well, it's what I'm trying to talk about. You seem to have degenerated into a barely-comprehensible rant. Perhaps instead you could respond to my last post.

Quote :

"A thing that doesn't interact in any way with anything anywhere is pretty much the epitome of irrelevance. "

1/1/2009 7:13:38 PM

Quote :

""What we're talking about is how my god interacts with human day to day life, and what is considered irrelevant and what isn't." Well, it's what I'm trying to talk about. You seem to have degenerated into a barely-comprehensible rant. Perhaps instead you could respond to my last post. "

Refer to my last post, the one I gave to Duke. If you're not on the same page than me, then just leave it at that. We dont have to make this harder than it is. I'm very accepting of other peoples faiths so dont think that i'm not.

""A thing that doesn't interact in any way with anything anywhere is pretty much the epitome of irrelevance."

Grumpy the human being is only capable of 5 senses by nature, so will say 6, but we dont need to go there. What i've been neglecting to say here is that deism (and I know you're tired of seeing that word by now) is a religion based on faith too. It may be really open ended and undefined, but it still just that, a faith. So you see, when you say that my god isn't somehow a player in my life, be it through karma, ironic situations of meeting friends from long ago, or through beauty that is our surrounding you're talking about a god based on same principals of your own. Albeit purposely undefined, but similar non the less.

1/1/2009 7:28:53 PM

You're consistently refusing to respond to legitimate points and questions. You keep talking about the discussion instead of actually participating in it.

1/1/2009 7:36:14 PM

I dont know how to aswer your questions other than the way i've been putting it. I'm no prophet from god. I have my own opinion when it comes to things like this. How am I suppose to pull my god out of the woodwork for someone to touch, I'm just a human being. How can you really expect me to prove anything based in faith.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM. Reason : but I agree with you, we are on a huge ass tangent from the OP]

1/1/2009 7:47:31 PM

Quote :

" Yes, we already covered that atheist and deist attain ethics and morals in similar ways, which are not identical. I dont know where your getting this function bs from. A function of a religion is to serve as an explanation first and primarily. We may just have to agree to disagree on this aspect if it comes to it. But the arguement was how you described a deist's god as irrelevent. And I have repeatedly refuted that claim to be false in accordance to what actual deism is. If you're not going to respect the philosophy behind it then maybe you shouldn't make comments about it."

Theism is a subset of deism, GrumpyGOP seems to be talking about the parts that are exclusively deism (because that is in fact what you were trying to discuss), and you seem frustrated that he's not acknowledging the theistic parts. There's a very fine line between the 2 beliefs, but they have distinct qualities.

Here's a fun fact: if you believe that a god created the universe, and inherent to the laws of physics, there is some fate or destiny for things, then you're a theist. It's just not a mainstream theism.

Quote :

" When grumpy can prove to me that my version of god is irrelevent on the basis that such proof of relevance is demonstratable."

I don't think he was saying it was "irrelevant" in a negative sense (although he may believe that...), he was saying the consequences of strict deism and non-militant atheism are identical.

Let's say for example that a random glowing purple tree were found in a forest, and a local church said it was God. As a deist, you wouldn't instantly discount their statement like an atheist would, but you would demand proof that it was god (which would never come), therefore leaving you and the atheist with the same conclusion that it must have been caused by the depleted uranium buried beneath the tree.

---
joeschmoe:

Quote :

"says you. that's only according to your Omnipresent/Omnibenevolent/Omnipotent paradigm. "

Which is what mainstream theologies are based on. Therefore mainstream theology is wrong, by the parameters you specified.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 8:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2009 8:00:01 PM

Quote :

"Here's a fun fact: if you believe that a god created the universe, and inherent to the laws of physics, there is some fate or destiny for things, then you're a theist. It's just not a mainstream theism. "

I can certainly agree with that. Anything that involves a final destination, outcome, or 'grand scheme of it all'' rhetoric is what I would consider a theistic religion. Defined metaphysical realities are what set the two apart. This is not to say that I would ever condemn anybody for having this type of faith on the basis that all religion is, is a explanation of the unknown. And what more it gives people hope and thats all that matters.

1/1/2009 9:07:58 PM

Quote :

"How can you really expect me to prove anything based in faith."

I'm not asking you to prove anything. You don't have to be a prophet. You do have to understand that the world "irrelevant" has a meaning, and as much as you are kicking and screaming about it, that definition applies to god as deism sees him.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not asking you to prove that God behaves in any particular way. I'm asking you to explain to me how a deistic god is relevant in any way to us here on earth.

1/1/2009 9:22:47 PM

^ In terms of what, morals?

If I were to approach morals I can say nature is the cause, being that evolution has programmed us to live in societies and build cities along with proffessions and what not. Although that would be a slippery slope, because to be honest we're all not moral and all socieities aren't necessarily civil. But this is just to show that nature is just an ongoing method of god's will. (to the deist)

To put it in the least vague possible way I can.
A deistic god is relevant in the subconcious longing for meaning and purpose for existance. Everything else that belongs to that existance automatically falls under the afermentioned relevance. It is an omnipresent entity that is intrinsic in all things including a human's life, however small or inconsequential it may be.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : God damnit, you're making me sound like keanu reeves or something]

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : this is why I hate these discussions]

1/1/2009 9:44:08 PM

Quote :

"And don't even get me started on creationism in schools. I'm sure you have absolutely no problem whatsoever teaching that evolution is a fact."

Quote :

"doing so expressly says that any religion claiming otherwise is wrong."

Would you also argue against teaching that the earth is more than 40,000 years old?

1/3/2009 1:26:58 AM

I would argue that creationism should be taught in private schools, and that anything having to do with science should be taught to the full extent of science but with the exception that the majority of it is just 'theory' as well, atleast when it comes to our origin.

1/3/2009 1:33:07 AM

trans-sexual-flaming-african/mexican-scientologist

/thread

1/3/2009 1:41:06 AM