-->
@ethang5
I have not refused to support my claim,
And yet, somehow you're just making up more excuses instead of supporting your claim.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM
Posts
Total:
270
-->@3RU7AL
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
Lol. Mirror spamming. Rich.
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
Then stop spamming genius.
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.
-->
@Mopac
I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.
Yes, but what is the practical upshot?
What MORAL-MATHEMATICS are logically deducible from DEISM?
-->
@3RU7AL
I will concede that deism(that is, simple belief in the existence of God or gods) and atheism are not practically different if my assertion that atheists are simply in denial of the gods they worship is taken as true.
And it is an assertion I have been very consistent with.
-->@mopac
I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.
You an I can Mopac. You an I can.
-->@3RU7AL
It's nice to know my comment stung you into repetitive mirror spam. I have tons of them. Get your mirror ready if you're going to keep challenging me.
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
Lol. Be careful, I think there is a CoC against repeat spam.
I think you have realized you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like. That didn't take long.
Perhaps you could spam the mirror post to multiple threads. Think of how intelligent that'll make you look!
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.
And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
I have a hard time seeing how it matters if they are functionally the same if you are debating for a God. Either he exists or does not is what matters in that argument, even if he does exist as how deists imagine
-->@wylted
I have a hard time seeing how it matters...
I do too, and the OP has not yet said how it matters.
-->@3RU7AL
In time you will come to accept the truth that you mirror posting only makes you look lame and therefore I need do nothing but allow you to embarrass yourself.
And that when you have run out of meaningful things to say, you should stop posting.
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
Back and forths like this make everyone involved look bad, whether they instigated it or not. The best thing to do is overlook an offense and not dwell on squabbles that do not advance the discussion. One might have started it, but it takes two to go back and forth going, "It was you!", "No, it was you!", "Nuh uh, you!"
Try instead maybe to describe what you think the other person is saying to the point that they are satisfied with your explanation. Simply working towards that will bring about good discussion that fleshes out the subject. More importantly, it brings people together in understanding.
Love covers a multitude of sins.
Back and forths like this make everyone involved look bad,...
Quite untrue. First, it was not a "back and forth" brutal simply kept spamming the same thing I earlier said to him, and I only replied his posts to me.
I did not insult him, mirror post, or break any conduct code. You equating me with him is the height of bad moral equivalence.
Peace at the cost of morality is immoral.
-->
@ethang5
You are missing the point. I don't care about the squabble you guys are having. I am simply trying to untangle a knot.
Take it or leave it. It doesn't matter who is to blame or who is guilty. What matters is that the course is corrected. If that means overlooking offense, that is the right thing to do.
-->
@Mopac
You are missing the point. I don't care about the squabble you guys are having.
That is obvious.
I am simply trying to untangle a knot.
There is no knot.
Take it or leave it.
I will leave it.
It doesn't matter who is to blame or who is guilty.
I disagree. Guilt and innocence matters.
What matters is that the course is corrected.
Untrue. Truth matters more than peace.
If that means overlooking offense, that is the right thing to do.
It cannot be. That is not what God does. But it is always interesting when a party not being attacked wants the party being attacked to "overlook" their abuse.
Morally equating a mirror spammer to a person behaving correctly is itself morally bankrupt. It discourages good behavior and encourages bad behavior.
I will never accept abuse in order to have peace. One wonders what your solution would have been for the Jews case against Jesus. Call it a squabble, lash Jesus, and then encourage the Jews to accept the lashing and go home, in order to untie the knot?
-->
@3RU7AL
Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.
Because Theists are Deists lol? Deism agrees with a Supreme Being, though the specifics differ its' the same foundation.
The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.
Because we don't need a specific God for intelligent design, we just need a God. A God is a designer and creator. Doesn't really matter yet what the specifics are because we have yet to deal with an application.
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
No it isn't. It can be, but we have yet to establish that. God would be necessary for a created environment. That would be the first step. Then we could argue about which God interpreted is the most accurate, however not necessary.
**But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**
How? God created the universe, religion deposits there is a Creator.....the terms of use are irrelevant as of yet.
Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.
Atheists only fight one thing, that God or gods don't exist. Yet they do lol. Deism is a simple way to say God exists. Sure, that is irrelevant to religious claims but also relevant at the same time. It's both, some religions might not be a accurate as others but it all falls under the umbrella of creation.
Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).
No not at all, this is where you fail over and over. Because beliefs are everything, they form the very foundation of what you can actually experience. It's not just about beliefs but application. So the experiences differ dramatically from atheism, this should be obvious. What you believe in is a reflection of your own experience. If you want transcendent experiences you have to apply that reality to yourself. Why do you think Jesus distinguished great faith from little faith?? because one produces more than the other.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
Wrong, answer above.
Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods. Intelligently designed.
You don't have the understanding that Theistic beliefs produce different results depending on the individual, I think that is where you are headed the wrong way on this one.
Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]
That is not a good example of God, that's more an example of an advanced alien race. Advanced aliens have no impact on our direct conscious awareness whereas Theism and spirituality may have or does.
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.
Wrong, worldviews frame everything including what you experience. Your very beliefs frame what and who you are and what you can encounter.
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.
Sure, if you believe everything you wrote and believe God has no difference in experience.....that would qualify you as an atheist, not a Theist.
Basically, we're back to square-one.
No no sir, your beliefs frame what you are capable of experiencing, that is why they are so important. Even in Deism, the change should be dramatic, the difference lies in application. Religion, even in it's failures and faults can raise the level of what you experience.
-->
@Wylted
I have a hard time seeing how it matters if they are functionally the same if you are debating for a God. Either he exists or does not is what matters in that argument, even if he does exist as how deists imagine
A deistic god has no rule-book.
A universe created by a deistic god is identical to the universe imagined by an atheist.
Adding a deistic, "intelligent designer" does absolutely nothing to inform the concept of human-morality (which preoccupies religion).
-->
@Mopac
Try instead maybe to describe what you think the other person is saying to the point that they are satisfied with your explanation. Simply working towards that will bring about good discussion that fleshes out the subject. More importantly, it brings people together in understanding.
Let me know how that works out for you.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.No it isn't. It can be, but we have yet to establish that. God would be necessary for a created environment. That would be the first step. Then we could argue about which God interpreted is the most accurate, however not necessary.
Which gods are the most accurate?
Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).No not at all, this is where you fail over and over.
Please be more specific. How does a DEISTIC (intelligent designer) inform human-morality?
Because beliefs are everything, they form the very foundation of what you can actually experience. It's not just about beliefs but application.
What do you think is the application of a DEISTIC hypothesis?
So the experiences differ dramatically from atheism, this should be obvious.
I'm pretty sure it's not obvious.
What you believe in is a reflection of your own experience.
Ok,
If you want transcendent experiences you have to apply that reality to yourself.
This sounds like putting the-cart-before-the-horse (motivated reasoning).
Why do you think Jesus distinguished great faith from little faith?? because one produces more than the other.
Any appeal to faith is a naked appeal to ignorance.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Please be more specific.Even in Deism, the change should be dramatic, the difference lies in application.
-->
@3RU7AL
A universe created by a deistic god is identical to the universe imagined by an atheist.
Adding a deistic, "intelligent designer" does absolutely nothing to inform the concept of human-morality (which preoccupies religion)
I think it is just philosophical asking unanswerable questions like whether god exists. People only care about morality in so far as how much certain morality benefits them. Usually the weak wanting to place rules on the strong
-->
@Wylted
Adding a deistic, "intelligent designer" does absolutely nothing to inform the concept of human-morality (which preoccupies religion).I think it is just philosophical asking unanswerable questions like whether god exists.
Saying, "I think it is just philosophical" dismantles every conversation you've ever had.
Politics is "just philosophical".
Religion is "just philosophical".
Leaping to the conclusion that certain questions are "unanswerable" ignores logic itself by appealing to ignorance.
When properly framed with rigorously defined terms, all questions are necessarily "answerable".
(IFF) you believe that a universe with gods AND a universe without gods are identical (THEN) gods are indistinguishable from non-existent.
This kind of conclusion begs-the-question of your specific definition of "gods" and your Standards-of-Evidence for "existence".
(IFF) your definition of gods is indistinguishable from no-gods (THEN) your gods are are tautologically moot.
People only care about morality in so far as how much certain morality benefits them. Usually the weak wanting to place rules on the strong
This is an interesting observation, but appears to be wholly disconnected from the question of whether or not gods exist.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you just went off course. The point is that, it isn't an insult to say deism is similar to atheism or proof that no gods exist. I think you stated that it is functionally the same as atheism in order to feel good that you disproved god by noticing that.
-->
@Wylted
I think you just went off course.
Ok,
The point is that, it isn't an insult to say deism is similar to atheism or proof that no gods exist.
It was never intended to be an insult. It's intended to be a tautological statement.
I think you stated that it is functionally the same as atheism in order to feel good that you disproved god by noticing that.
Your dime-store-psychoanalysis (ad hominem attack) is moot.