3RU7AL

Logic and independently verifiable evidence isn't what really convinces people.

People might say that is what they find convincing, but I think that is naive view.

Would using that definition weaken my position?

Don't we need a very definite meaning for both life and death before I can say?

Can anyone ever really die who has been a part of my subjective experience? Are they not still with me in that way?

Does the fact that I have never, to date, physically died count as such evidence?

They certainly fall short of proving the existence of an entity that "so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." and has strong views on marriage.

Maybe because god is important to theists they think god is important us... but its RELIGION that matters to atheists, particularly its many negative aspects. 

Your criteria for testing is insufficient to prove the existence of things you hold to be true, like math and logic.

In 2018 the main debate is between theists and 'full on' atheists, with deism a very distant 3rd.  In 1818 (say) the debate would have been between theists and deists, who the theists would accuse of atheism.   What I called 'full on' atheism barely existed until the C19th.

Today if you self-identify as an atheist it implies 'adeism' simply because you have the option of self-identifying as a deist if that is more accurate.

There's lot of things I don't believe in - Feng shui, magic crystals, lay lines, gods, the tooth fairy, horoscopes, yetis.. there's more but you get the point.  atheism is incidental to my worldview, not central to it.

That may be true. However, there is more than one kind of God in which not to believe. There is the notion of deism which would solve the paradox of existence but is only one of an unknown number of possibilities. I give that theory a higher probability than that of theism which provides no evidence of any personal interaction between God and sentient beings. Rather than thinking of it as a complete lack of belief, I consider each possibility to have a higher or lower probability.

It's just to point out that you weren't speaking for me

You are claiming revelation with your characterization, and also happen to be misconstruing what I intend to say to Mopac.  

The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.

Is that necessarily the case? Is an atheist also an adeist by definition?

Because of the way religious groups , well " that i know about "  have painted God , really , really thick like. 

It would  stop half the atheists when they catch a glimpse of the God word , their out. 

I'd say most people that can fathom this " Deism " would make the god thing a " bright white light god "

And of course this deisms ex god doesn't / didn't  have a voice , No rules , and definitely no opinions. 

It didn't get guys to do a book for it.

I've always been a big fan of the ( BBWLG  blinding bright white light god )

I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?

Well, I can't experience things for you.

How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law?  That may be helpful 

The experience of the church.

It is not legally binding.  It is however, constitutional

Orthodoxy teaches that we have a personal, synergistic relationship with God. 

That's not exactly how I would frame the ramifications of "under God" 

Edited, and I don't have a point.   I have a question that hasn't been answered

This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking. 

Religion practically invented "legalistic".

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this. 

Thinks like what?  Blame the child?

I think we agree.

I'd say there's no big difference between deism and atheism.   Both suppose there is no god now.   The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.   Beyond that there is no difference.

I'm sure many deists of the past would be full-on atheists if they had access to modern cosmology and biology. 

Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"

You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"

Obviously you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.  

This opens a can of worms for me.  Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.

You are thinking in a legalistic sense, which is not how we think.

Playing the blame game is fundamentally in opposition to a heart of forgiveness.

You who are corrupted by the excommunicated church see the church as a courthouse. That isn't the Orthodox view. We see the church as a hospital. And this legalistic mindset would be seen as a sickness to be cured.

Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?

A perfect god is incapable of making mistakes like Noah and the floods. Sod and gom.

If god is omni ( whatever )  What about Asteroids and dinosaurs ?

God wouldn't of wasted 13.2 seconds  making a full set of dinosaurs.

Nor would he of wasted the required .2 of a second ( approximate meteorite building time ) 

Now I'm not sure if he built asteroids, and the time it takes to build one, 

I wouldn't even like to guess. 

And this deism thing sounds alright. Kind of. Half of it. 

I can go with a " god thing " creating the universe but , but . 

It then goes on to say.

( But god does not interfere directly )  how could i believe or not believe this added bit of nonsense ?

Isn't it so that the Bible is irrelevant as to whether gods exist?

When it comes to scripture, you have to understand that it belongs to the church. It isn't really yours to interpret.

Why is it important to blame someone for something?

The only way you are going to stop drugs is to stop doing them.

Are you going to blame the drugs?

The people handing you the drugs?

Stop taking them. You have a choice. Nobody ever said it would be easy all the time, but you still have a choice.

All the people telling you otherwise, no matter how impressive their credentials, are wrong. You want to be a slave? Listen to those people. 

This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.

The protestant churches that broke from them often think like this. The dehumanizing death cult of secularism thinks like this.

And like I said, this type of thinking is alien to orthodoxy.

Someone who is severely mentally retarded, to the point where they don't understand that people have personal belongings, is less morally culpable, or not at all, for stealing than someone who does have the cognitive capability of understanding that stealing is wrong.

The second layer, which is independent from cognitive capability, is your motive for doing something. Intentions matter. You are less culpable for accidentally taking someone else's personal belongings than if you do it deliberately.

Are you saying that I won't live forever!?!

DILIGAF?

Do you think it is evasive to try and answer your question without not using a question?

Do you think me incapable of such a simple thing?

Do you think you might need some assistance?

Aren't you bored with this game?

God doesn't make mistakes either.

So like the free will discussion, this really has to do with moral culpability, because that is where this comes from.

Because if God did everything and there is no free will, that means I cannot be blamed for my actions.

There is a choice we all can make.

To go with God or detach ourselves from God.

God has given us the choice.

God isn't going to force us.

So lets be clear, God does not send people to hell.

People choose to go to hell, and the door is locked from the inside.

I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ.

This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits.

This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence.

I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others [YATBAOHYAAO].

Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural law

Deism is the belief that God created the universe, but does not interact with it.

Naturally this denies the incarnation. It also denies God's omnipresence.

It's probably a dualistic heresy.

If it's correct that "Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ." then nice people should be punished more than nasty people if/when they do something bad.

I'm not sure that's a good idea!

Would it be fair to say that the very point of this game is that I cannot answer your question?

Unless time is linear can we say there are good times and bad times or only that there is time?

Do you think me incapable of such a simple thing?

The social construct of the United States is predicated on deity, the consequence being the respect of truth.

How can I tell if it's a good time?

Should I go check it out now?