I'd just like to introduce myself...

[Paris_Lennon]

Hey everybody,

I've been looking for a new message board for about a year now, the one I'm currently leaving has gotten pretty boring to me. I'm really interested in sciforums.com mainly because of the religion section. I'm extremely interested in religion, so hopefully it's a good fit. I don't know if it matters, but just for reference since I'm the newbie:

I would closest define myself as a Deist, but only by title. Although I don't follow an organized religion, I think God(s) is more than a creator who walked away, although I'm not sure whether or not Homo Sapians are the top priority in the universe. I've read the Qu'ran and the Holy Bible and am currently reading The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. It's a goal of mine to read most religious texts in due time, so if anybody has any suggestions feel free to let me know!

I suppose I'll stop ranting about myself now, but I look forward to meeting some people around here and hopefully hear some new, refreshing ideas on religion and philosophy.

 

[Godless]

Well Paris, welcome to Sci-forums.

My name states my stance on religion.

If you truly are in quest of religious texts, here's a good list of ancient religious literature.
http://www.meta-religion.com/Directory/ancient_religions.htm

I truly don't find religion, all that interesting. But then again here I am in the religion section of sci, I'm intriqued by the primitive philosophy that is still believed today by so many people, supposedly one god, and thousands of religions just don't make sense to me. It's beyond me why primitive rhetoric, founded on mysticism is still followed today as if it were a path to truth and enlightenment. When in reality it is science that has brouth us out of the dark ages!.

Godless.

 

[Paris_Lennon]

Godless,

Nice to meet you and thanks for the site! That will help me kill some time seeking new books. I'm a former atheist who now believes in a God or Gods (?), but I can certainly respect atheists.

Thanks again for the site, and may...enter something here...be with you!

 

[TheERK]

You can only go from atheist to theist if you didn't understand atheism and theism in the first place.

Bullshit. This is the same argument that Christians use when they decide to become an atheists; "Oh, he wasn't a real Christian then."

Also, he/she didn't even say he was a theist. He said he was a deist. If you don't know the difference, perhaps it is you who doesn't understand theism.

 

[marv]

Welcome aboard, Paris.

I was raised a Lutheran (Missouri Synod), but had lingering doubts about the need for any deity(s) and became an atheist at seventeen, forty-nine years ago. I also just celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary with my wife, a born-again Southern Baptist! Two worlds can live together.

 

[marv]

A theist says, "I believe."
A deist says, "I believe, but I'm not sure what I believe."
An agnostic says, "I don't know."
An atheist says, "There's nothing there."

Maybe simplistic, but........

 

[Blue_UK]

I had a huge debate/argument with me, my sister, my other sister and her boyfriend about religous people not having proof of god. Other sister was all by her self in this one, outright claiming that we were 'stupid' and 'ignorant' not to believe in God. The classice responce was:

"These are all good questions, but we cannot fathom what god is - only he can".

So clearly god must exist! Stupid cow.

Her: particles of gas can't just come about from nothing - something must have made them.

Me: ok, how were they made?

Her: God made them

Me: Who made God?

Her: no one

Me: Why can you accept God as spontatiously existing and not particles of gas.

Her: Because he is a unique case

Me: why accept your definition above any other. Stfu.

Her: You're stupid

Me: On the contrary, it is you that is stupid.

Go back two.

 

[MacM]

Paris Lennon,

Welcome. I too consider myself a Deist but only in title and only because I have no proof that there is no God. I certainly am convienced that there is none and can never have been one. Further if there was/is one all human made religions are demeaning to any such God.

 

[James R]

Paris_Lennon:

Welcome to sciforums. We hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[marv]

a- prefix 1. Without; not: achromatic. 2. Apart from; unconcerned with: amoral. [Reduced form of AN- used before consonant sounds.]

...as in a-theist. Atheists do not believe there are no gods.

 

[TheERK]

Yes. You either understand religion and are an atheist, or you don't understand religion. And with the latter it doesn't really matter what you believe because you don't understand.

Plenty of religious people understand their own religion. If you think this is false, you're beyond hope of discussion.

Rofl, semantic ignorance at it's worse. Let me pull out this new invention, called a dictionary, and explain it to you:

As you can clearly see a deist IS a theist, but a theist is not always a deist. So I made no mistake by calling him a theist. This is exactly what I'm talking about, religious ignorance rears it's ugly head yet again.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'd call you ignorant, but you seem almost deceptive in your deliberate ommision of the rest of the dictionary definition. The complete definition is:

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Note the part where it says "specifically." Theism, in philosophy, almost always implies a God that interacts with the world.

Now, if you knew your stuff about religion, you would know that this specification is the exact opposite of what Deism says about God. Deism almost always implies a "clockmaker" God who does not interact with the world; no miracles, no divine intervention, no saviors, etc.

So, save your "rofling" (wow, that doesn't make you sound immature or anything), your ridiculous sarcasm, and perhaps touch up on your own semantic ignorance before pointing out others'.

 

[marv]

Matrix, the burden of proof is on the one who claims the positive. For clarification, I don't believe there is no god, I simply reject the idea. The concept of a deity is up there with the belief in flying saucers and alien abduction. Atheism is not a belief for me, it is a reasoned opinion - quite different.

So prove to me that there is a god.

 

[TheERK]

I'm talking generically and you're thinking

I was using definition 2, the opposite of atheism. Am I allowed to use that o lord of the english language? This is what I love about idiots, everyone else is wrong, next you'll probably blame the word for having two definitions.

Good for you, but the problem is you tried to call me out on using the most common definition, claiming that it was wrong. This leads me to believe that you simply didn't know what theism meant, specifically when contrasted with deism, which is what the discussion was about in the first place.

Now, if you knew your stuff about language, you would know that a semicolon in the middle of a definition means the start of another separate definition. Example: Fool - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding; To deceive or trick

First of all, no, it does not mean a separate definition when the word "especially" follows it. You are simply wrong here. But hey, nice try being witty by using the word 'fool' as an example!

Also, this has nothing to do with language. It has to do with the format of a particular dictionary; in the one I used (m-w), it was quite obvious that this was not a new definition, but a specification on the first one.

I usually refrain from arguing with idiots, like the old saying says, "they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". But with you I'll make an exception because it's so darn fun. roflroflrofl

Yeah, sorry, but you're just wrong and now resorting to ad-hominem attacks. You know, it's people like you that make atheists look bad. You make us all look like angst-ridden, sociopathic elitists when you're an asshole. Please do us a favor and lighten up.

 

[marv]

Matrix, please accept my appologies for misunderstanding you.

 

[TheERK]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten your the one who claimed my definition was wrong in the first place. It wasn't, as I have shown. Jesus fucking Christ, I said very clearly in my first post "You can only go from atheist to theist if you didn't understand atheism and theism in the first place." Do you see the fucking word DEIST in that sentence? Huh? No, it's contrasted with the word atheist, hence the second definition. You’re wrong, I'm right. Now get over it.

You shouldn't have ever used the word "theist" in the first place, because the opening poster specifically said deist. You took it upon yourself to generalize his/her claim, which implies things that might not necessarily be true. Always use the more specific connotation to avoid confusion.

So, I'm not referring to your post. This place doesn't revolve around you.

Sorry that I have to explain it to you. You said: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." Hence my above response. Just because one is more specific doesn't mean you can't use the more generic one.

You can use it all you want, but it's not the best choice, for the reason above. Even besides the dictionary, theism in almost all serious theological discussions refers to an interactive God as opposed to Deism's first-cause-only God.

It's my fault you don't understand your dictionary? The word "specifically" between the two definitions does not mean that you can't just use the first one. Look at this, also from m-w:

Eh, I'm just saying that it's preferable to use the one that makes sense.

I'm light as a feather to people who want to carry on intelligent conversations, not morons who try to correct what I say and aren't even right.

Wow, chill out. My semantic interpretation of "theist" vs "deist" happens to be correct according to almost anyone who's done any serious reading on it, so, actually, I'm right. That's not to say you are wrong, I just think you could have used a better choice of words. Also, it was quite irritating that your first remark in this thread was pretty much blatant trolling.

It's clear from "perhaps it is you who doesn't understand theism" that you were only trying to be a troll to insight a flame war, because it's blatantly obvious you can carry on no other type of conversation. Now fuck off troll.

No, actually, it's just annoying that you were act like such a smartass, and on top of that, you weren't even right about it. Your post pretty much translated to "theists are idiots, anybody who is a theist doesn't even understand what they believe in." You act like this quite often (see recent "grow a fucking brain" thread), and it's unfortunate that other members here don't call you out for being a jerk. So who's the troll now?

 

[TheERK]

First of all, to quote me and change it to "bullshit deleted" is immature and signifies you're no longer able to reasonably argue your position. That's fine. If you want to call discussion of semantics in philosophy "bullshit", fine; but eventually you will learn that many discussions revolve around precise definitions of words and their implications.

Wow, you're actually talking about what I said instead of vocabulary bullshit, good job. I love your unbiased paraphrasing, but what I actually said was "You either understand religion and are an atheist, or you don't understand religion. And with the latter it doesn't really matter what you believe because you don't understand." There's a difference between being an idiot and not understanding. All I'm trying to say with the above statement is that someone who has sat down, with an unbiased and open mind, and truly analyzed religion, what it is, how it works, why people do it, where it came from, what evidence there is, all of that, they will be an atheist.

Yeah, and this is why I said you've got the same mindset as some Christians. Sound familiar? "If you sit down and read the Bible with an open mind, you will understand and convert, etc." Same argument. You need to accept the fact that different people come to different conclusions from the same analysis. Also, you are flat out wrong: do I really need to cite examples of people who have done exactly what you said (truly analyzed religion, what it is, etc) and remain religious? I certainly hope not.

Love is just a chemical release in your brain so that you will form social attachment and increase your chances of procreating and ensuring the survival of your genes. Love isn't real;

You just gave a concrete example of what love is and then claimed that said structure isn't real. Okay.

I'm not a jerk; I'm just to the point, which is why I come off as harsh. If someone told me to grow a fucking brain and pointed out how much of an idiot I was, I would analyze what I did that was idiotic and correct my idiocy.

Oh god, give me a break. Actually, I'm quite sure you'd take offense and defend yourself, just like you did in this thread and just like any normal rational person would. Don't pretend that saying "fucking grow a brain" isn't rude and counterproductive by making up some bullshit reaction that you never have and probably never will experience.

 

[Ophiolite]

Opinion alert:
I am amazed at TheERK's equanimity in the face of Matrix's rude, ill-argued posts. Well done TheERK.
Matrix, I seriously doubt if someone of your apparently high intelligence coupled with your very obvious arrogance is capable of "growing a fucking brain". Nevertheless. I shall watch your future posts with interest to see if it is possible.

 

[TheERK]

I'm not going to reply to the majority of that, simply because this needs to end. Three quick points:

"A moderator would boo you" is equivalent to saying "your argument sucks!" No content, no explanation, just an unsupported claim.

Two, you have quite clearly demonstrated in this very thread that your reaction is pretty much the opposite of what you claim you would do in another situation.

Three, I'll present the recent mind-changing of Anthony Flew as an example.

 

[TheERK]

I have yet to hear you tell me to grow a brain, probably because I have conclusively proved my usage of the word "theist" was entirely correct and your whole arguing "fit" was pointless.

Or maybe it's because I'm not a troll, but whatever.

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/en/rationalist_2004/138.html

Either that's inaccurate or Flew is insane.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf