-->
@3RU7AL
Your logical fallacy is the "fallacy fallacy".
(IFF) Deism is true (THEN) what?
Posts
Total:
178
-->
@Mopac
Back to your sophistry again I see.
Case in point. Rush to disqualify.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
-->
@Mopac
Your logical fallacy is the "fallacy fallacy".
I never contended that your statement was "false" specifically because it is a logical fallacy.
My contention is that your statement is immaterial and bears no rhetorical or logical weight specifically because it is a logical fallacy.
Your implication would seem to be the rather ridiculous (counterfactual) proposition that your statement is "true" or otherwise "valid" specifically because it is a logical fallacy.
The fact that a statement is a logical fallacy is no measure of its hypothetical "fundamental abstract truth value".
For example, an ad hominem may be "true" and it may even be verifiably "true", but that doesn't matter because a mere personal attack (like dime-store psychoanalysis for example) is not a valid logical argument.
Not to mention, the "fallacy fallacy" is a literally self-defeating argument because it invalidates itself.
-->
@3RU7AL
A heresy is a choice. A choice to depart from the truth.
Heretics are united only in their opposition to orthodoxy, nothing else.
You say heresy doesn't exist. You say evil doesn't exist. It seems to me that you are playing a disruptive game here because you aren't really taking our discussion seriously.
Well, you can walk away triumphant in your delusions if you so wish. You can argue for the heretics you yourself don't even believe all you want. If you really knew the subject matter as well as you'd like to think based on your half hearted googling, you would realize that authority overwhelmingly rules in favor of Orthodoxy, and as every single protestant who converts comes to find out, they have always had an incomplete religion.
It would definitely play in the favor of the secularist to defend a more protestant Christianity, as Protestantism quite naturally leads to deism, which quite naturally leads to outright secularism, even atheism.
-->
@Mopac
Heretics are united only in their opposition to orthodoxy, nothing else.
Funny Mopac, you are the one that divides and puts other people in categories. Read your posts. If you come here trashing other beliefs you will be challenged on it. Don't pretend your some martyr.
-->
@EtrnlVw
"a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
-->
@Mopac
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."
In other words, don't make up new traditions and pretend they are biblical and don't try to explain or amplify scripture.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet it was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
And so we now have a covenent not of the letter, but of the spirit.
-->
@Mopac
A heresy is a choice. A choice to depart from the truth.
It wouldn't seem to be a proper "choice" if your orthodoxy is unknown.
Heretics are united only in their opposition to orthodoxy, nothing else.
They wouldn't seem to be properly "unified" but rather, more precisely, arbitrarily categorized by people like yourself.
You say heresy doesn't exist. You say evil doesn't exist. It seems to me that you are playing a disruptive game here because you aren't really taking our discussion seriously.
I've already explained that only concrete nouns can be considered real or extant. This is not a rare or unique viewpoint.
Well, you can walk away triumphant in your delusions if you so wish. You can argue for the heretics you yourself don't even believe all you want. If you really knew the subject matter as well as you'd like to think based on your half hearted googling, you would realize that [your own arbitrary] authority overwhelmingly rules in favor of Orthodoxy, and as every single protestant who converts comes to find out, they have always had an incomplete religion.
I've actually learned quite a bit about the Eastern Orthodox Church from our conversations and, relatively speaking, it doesn't sound half-bad.
It would definitely play in the favor of the secularist to defend a more protestant Christianity, as Protestantism quite naturally leads to deism, which quite naturally leads to outright secularism, even atheism.
Based on my current superficial assessment, I would tend to argue that, generally speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church is, at least in theory, philosophically superior to most other flavors of Christianity.
-->
@Mopac
Your conclusion does not follow logically from your quoted source.And so we now have a covenent not of the letter, but of the spirit.
The prohibition against adding or subtracting from gods word in no way contradicts or conflicts with gods writing on peoples inward parts.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, we wouldn't call someone a heretic simply for belonging to a protestant church. A heretic would be someone who say, admits that the orthodox church is the real church, but prefers to go to their church on the corner because they like the band that plays there.
Otherwise, it is kind of rude to call someone a heretic.
But just because we don't call someone a heretic doesn't mean that they don't have heretical beliefs.
-->
@Mopac
"a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Thanks for quoting my scriptures bub, they are mine as they are everyone's. But I don't need you to tell me the contents of MY book.
-->
@EtrnlVw
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us"
-->
@3RU7AL
The Orthodox Church is New Israel.
That is how it has always been understood. And with that, both those who are under mosaic law(Jews) and those who are not under Mosaic law(non-Jews) can be together in the church.
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
The letter kills, the spirit gives life.
Our religion is not about following set of instructions. The point of the law was to write these two commandments on the heart of Israel.
It is certainly not required, but I already follow the mosaic law quite naturally due to my lifestyle.
-->
@Mopac
Amen Brotha
1698 days later
-->
@3RU7AL
@#68
"The only reason I am driving towards Deism is because every logical defense of Theism (Aquinas, et al) is merely a defense of Deism.
Most atheists fight tooth and claw to deny Deism (and paint themselves into a paradoxical corner) because they believe that admitting Deism is a "win" for the Theists.
I'm merely pointing out that Deism is actually a "win" for atheism, because Deism is functionally identical to atheism." - 3RU7AL
I would figure that Deists and Atheists might differ in their perspective of existence.
Compare an individual who believes the American founding fathers existed,
Set the laws of the nation, but now no longer interact with America.
. .
And an individual who believes the founding fathers never existed,
Never set any laws of the nation.
A believer in the existence of the founding fathers might feel comfort,
In the ones of them, that had hopes for this nation, it's people,
Founders who made effort for the good of people, for fairness, had an 'idea of what was right.
Course one might complain about values dissonance in places, but this is just a clumsy comparison,
My point is a deist and an atheist seem a bit different to me.
-->
@Lemming
I am a theist. Duh. Deism is essentially and functionally atheistic. I would agree with that view. I argue against Deism as much as I argue against Atheism.
Yet there are interesting differences. One - the deist can put together a worldview and admit it. The atheist according to its brightest has one doctrine. One thought. And nothing further. So on that basis alone, deism is epistemologically, more dangerous than atheism. Atheism actually is a little bit like the Green's political Party. It has one issue. but it purports to be knowledgable about so much more.
Funny that. I actually find it ironic that atheists insist upon only having one doctrine. It makes it redundant really. But I suppose it's intriguing too since it means they only have one purpose in life. Proving that God doesn't exist. It makes me wonder, whether actually, it is just a little boy or girl crying for help.
Still thanks for the comment.
-->
@Tradesecret
To me,
An Agnostic sounds closer to an Atheist, than a Theist,
As a Deist sounds closer to a Theist, than an Atheist.
While some definitions say Deists don't believe in 'any Godly intervention,
I don't find 'all the examples as such.
While I suppose one would expect a Deist to be less about ritual than a Theist,
I don't see why it would 'have to be so,
One could have ritual, and teachings, yet admit themselves doubtful of historical claims of what God/s 'truly are, or what actions they supposedly took.
. .
Though I suppose one might call such a person, for example, a Christian Atheist,
An Atheist would not believe in God at all, even if they followed the teachings,
A Deist would believe in God, though they might disagree on the 'certainty of religious claims.
. . . . . . .
Functionally, a Theist and an Atheist could be the same,
What one 'believes to be of 'one particular,
Doesn't mean all one's actions follow.
Theist or Atheist, one can commit crimes, or altruism,
Participate in ritual or not.
-->
@Lemming
Functionally, a theist and an atheist are the same.
Cognitive outcomes and labels might vary, but function and process are the same.
So deism is true, in so much as we cannot deny outcomes.
So similarly theism is also true.
Though whether or not outcomes are correct representations of real universal events, is another and indeterminate issue.
43 days later
-->
@Lemming
I would figure that Deists and Atheists might differ in their perspective of existence.Compare an individual who believes the American founding fathers existed,Set the laws of the nation, but now no longer interact with America.. .And an individual who believes the founding fathers never existed,Never set any laws of the nation.
a DEIST has no "faith"
a DEIST has no DOGMA
a DEIST has absolutely no reason to fabricate and project human emotions onto a hypothetical creator
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about them personally
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about the existence of the human race in the slightest
a DEIST understands that an apparatus capable of creating all things functions on scales that more than dwarf human insignificance
a DEIST understands that such a thing (if it would even properly qualify as a "thing") would be, for all practical intents and purposes, "incomprehensible"
NOUMENON
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionally, a theist and an atheist are the same.
no, not even close
a THEIST believes in strictly superstitious "rules for society" based on their faith in THE ANGRY SKY DADDY
an ATHEIST believes in no such thing
a DEIST also believes in no such thing
-->
@Lemming
A Deist would believe in God, though they might disagree on the 'certainty of religious claims.
a DEIST disagrees with ALL POSSIBLE RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
because if they believed in a PARTICULAR god (or any religious claims for that matter)
then they would magically and instantly, in a puff of logic, be turned into a THEIST
-->
@3RU7AL
Functionality as in processing equipment.
The variability of stored data and it's application is another issue.
Though data is largely the same...Just applied differently.
It's not that the Atheist computer does not store Theist data...Or vice versa.
-->
@3RU7AL
Possibly the below does not fall under your definition of Deist,
But I would argue that there are people who have called and currently call themselves Deists,
Who 'do/did at least three actions, you stated a Deist did not do,
After looking up three, I got bored, and decided not to do the rest.
Wikipedia uses the word 'faith here,
"In Nazi Germany, Gottgläubig (literally: "believing in God")[84][85] was a Nazi religious term for a form of non-denominationalism practised by those German citizens who had officially left Christian churches but professed faith in some higher power or divine creator."
Might be an example of Dogma?
Though maybe depends if you consider them Deists or not, people and definitions what.
Emotion
"Miracles and divine providence[edit]
The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible. The problem was that the rejection of miracles also seemed to entail the rejection of divine providence (that is, God taking a hand in human affairs), something that many Deists were inclined to accept.[48] Those who believed in a watch-maker God rejected the possibility of miracles and divine providence. They believed that God, after establishing natural laws and setting the cosmos in motion, stepped away. He didn't need to keep tinkering with his creation, and the suggestion that he did was insulting.[49] Others, however, firmly believed in divine providence, and so, were reluctantly forced to accept at least the possibility of miracles. God was, after all, all-powerful and could do whatever he wanted including temporarily suspending his own natural laws."
The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible. The problem was that the rejection of miracles also seemed to entail the rejection of divine providence (that is, God taking a hand in human affairs), something that many Deists were inclined to accept.[48] Those who believed in a watch-maker God rejected the possibility of miracles and divine providence. They believed that God, after establishing natural laws and setting the cosmos in motion, stepped away. He didn't need to keep tinkering with his creation, and the suggestion that he did was insulting.[49] Others, however, firmly believed in divine providence, and so, were reluctantly forced to accept at least the possibility of miracles. God was, after all, all-powerful and could do whatever he wanted including temporarily suspending his own natural laws."
If a creator takes action, this might imply emotion?
Still, it's not a topic I've thought deeply on, nor researched deep on,
So I don't have strong views on what makes on a Deist or not.
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionality as in processing equipment.
i'm not sure how you're missing this
atheist and deist are functionally identical when faced with any aspect of "organized religion"
more specifically, the god of the deist is UNKNOWABLE NOUMENON
and therefore, didn't write a majikal instruction booklet for anyone
-->
@Lemming
professed faith in some higher power
"some higher power" = some unspecified non-specific impersonal force, you know like gravity - - not a "miracle daddy" who "listens to my prayers like santa claus"
a theist believes in a specific god with a specific definition
a deist believes in a NON-specific unknowable god often referred to by the american founding fathers as "the god of nature" also commonly "mother nature" giving rise to the idea of "natural laws" which are not written in a book, but can be extrapolated by communing with and observing "nature" itself
-->
@3RU7AL
Hm, hard to tell inflection with text,
For me anyway.
"miracle daddy" who "listens to my prayers like santa claus" - #176
Sounds dismissive and insulting though.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep, we are in agreement.
I haven't missed anything there.