I'm not trying to bash christianity, but...

[Jadebrain_Prime]

But, then you could eliminate another level of complexity and confusion by simply removing god from the equation altogether and leave it at that - the universe came about all on its own, naturally, with physics.

True, but we don't care how complex the plausibilities on the truth are so much as what the truth is. Even if there is no god, it wouldn't hurt too much to simply make sure of that... right?... right? As concluded from our knowledge and logic regarding this issue, we think that there is a god, and are willing to accept any relevant information that might enforce or contradict this belief, just to be as certain as we can (which really isn't that certain) that we believe what is most likely to be true. This varies from mind to mind, however, as there are differences in the logic used by the people in question, or different levels of education, or what other whatnot! Like me. I'm relatively uneducated, and I don't know how my logic compares to the logic of other people; given adequate information, my beliefs may change in any way, at any time!

Oh, and what's this brownie stuff that EmptyForceOfChi was talking about?

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Something from nothing is physics? Darn, I knew I'd regret dozing in that class.

I don't get it either, but for some reason people keep telling me that it can work that way... something about singularities being able to break the laws of common sense...

 

[S.A.M.]

something about singularities being able to break the laws of common sense...

Oh well that explains it.

 

[(Q)]

Something from nothing is physics? Darn, I knew I'd regret dozing in that class.

Something from nothing.

 

[(Q)]

True, but we don't care how complex the plausibilities on the truth are so much as what the truth is. Even if there is no god, it wouldn't hurt too much to simply make sure of that... right?... right?

Ok, but first, please tell me what observation you or anyone else has made that would lead one to even assert a god? Anything at all other than wishful thinking?

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

 

[S.A.M.]

Something from nothing.

Interesting.

So the world is infinitely more complex and more simple all at the same time.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

Depends, are you using hydroponics or growing the tree on Mars?

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Ok, but first, please tell me what observation you or anyone else has made that would lead one to even assert a god? Anything at all other than wishful thinking?

It's like planting a tree and watching it grow over time. Does it grow out of the ground all on it's own or does a god push it out?

It's not really an observation so much as it is a concept. Not counting the whole "too much of a coincidence" excuse used by most theists, we have reasons of the more 'logic' variety, rather than the 'observable evidence' variety. We find that certain things just don't make sense without a little metaphysics. Like how I don't get how singularities can break the laws of common sense: I don't know right now, but I might know in the future, so I'll have to work towards that future goal. Deism doesn't really claim to know all of the answers; it's really more something to do in an attempt to get those answers in a faster/otherwise better way.

But right now, I have to go. It's getting late.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I learned to hate. I learned to judge.

I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.

what I'm trying to do with this thread is raise awareness that christian children are being taught fundamentalism, maybe even brainstorm some ideas

It seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

 

[peta9]

I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.
It seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

You must be joking. Christians don't judge? That is a new one on me.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

I seem to remember hearing something about judge not, lest yee be judged and throwing the first stone. Maybe if you'd stay'd a bit longer, you might have learned something useful.
It seems like all you learned was to hate Christians.

You do realize that I'm talking more of the more subtle lessons, right? Like how there's all of those christian children's stories I talked about earlier, where life sucks if you're not christian, but then someone converts, and they get a better life almost instantly. See post #20 on this thread to look at more of what I'm talking about.

 

[(Q)]

We find that certain things just don't make sense without a little metaphysics.

That's ridiculous.

Why submit yourself to false answers when all you need to do is either seek to understand or simply admit you don't know? Creating answers with magical beings at the helm only serves to deceive and confuse.

Like how I don't get how singularities can break the laws of common sense: I don't know right now, but I might know in the future, so I'll have to work towards that future goal.

So, in the meantime, you pretend gods did it?

Deism doesn't really claim to know all of the answers; it's really more something to do in an attempt to get those answers in a faster/otherwise better way.

Deism doesn't provide any answers but claims to know the absolute truth.

Ignorance at its finest.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

That's ridiculous.

Why submit yourself to false answers when all you need to do is either seek to understand or simply admit you don't know? Creating answers with magical beings at the helm only serves to deceive and confuse.

You are proving to be quite good evidence of what S.A.M. is trying to say, in that it is possible for atheism to oppress others, just the way you said theism does. You seem to be ridiculing me for simply disagreeing with your ideas. We have reasons for believing what we believe, and that will remain so until those reasons are completely invalidated. If they are partially invalidated, then some may become atheists, and some may not. That said, it would only be logical for those who did not convert to have their reasons; if they didn't, they would be theists, not deists.

So, in the meantime, you pretend gods did it?

No. We do not pretend. If we were intentionally pretending, we would only be turning our beliefs logic, and our very purpose into a train wreck. As said before, we have reasons to believe what we believe. If we are disproven, we will not try to change the truth, nor will we try to cover it up. We only believe what we think is true, and if we find out we are wrong, we'll adjust our own beliefs to what is right.

But you... You don't even care. You are trying to convince me that I am wrong through no more than ridicule and repeated assertions. Just as with the other two threads I have made, you have yet to adequately prove your point. Until then, do not lower yourself to the standards of the theists which you hate. You haven't proven anything yet, and you act as though there might as well be no competition.

Deism doesn't provide any answers but claims to know the absolute truth.

No, that's theism. Deism is meant to be based purely on rational thinking and what has been confirmed by science. Rational thinking uses science to help find the answers. Therefore, Deism is a scientific belief system. And science is always growing because science is a way to reach the truths of the universe. Therefore, Deism does not claim to have the answers, but is willing to admit that the answers have not yet been reached, and is working to change that.

Ignorance at its finest.

And you don't even appreciate our efforts to make sure that we know the truth, you just stick with what you already believe. I get the feeling you don't care whether or not you are right; so long as you can make a good argument, you might as well be right. I do not agree with that.

Truly, would it hurt that much just to make sure?

 

[(Q)]

You are proving to be quite good evidence of what S.A.M. is trying to say, in that it is possible for atheism to oppress others, just the way you said theism does.

Yeah, right. A lack of belief = oppression.

You seem to be ridiculing me for simply disagreeing with your ideas. We have reasons for believing what we believe, and that will remain so until those reasons are completely invalidated.

No one has yet completely invalidated the concept of unicorns or leprechauns, why don't you believe in those as well?

If they are partially invalidated, then some may become atheists, and some may not. That said, it would only be logical for those who did not convert to have their reasons; if they didn't, they would be theists, not deists.

There is an invisible pink dragon living in my attic. Can you completely invalidate that concept, please?

No. We do not pretend. If we were intentionally pretending, we would only be turning our beliefs logic, and our very purpose into a train wreck.

It IS a train wreck.

As said before, we have reasons to believe what we believe. If we are disproven, we will not try to change the truth, nor will we try to cover it up. We only believe what we think is true, and if we find out we are wrong, we'll adjust our own beliefs to what is right.

Exactly, you choose to believe whatever you want, regardless.

But you... You don't even care. You are trying to convince me that I am wrong through no more than ridicule and repeated assertions.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You won't be convinced gods don't exist no matter what anyone says. Again, it's what YOU choose to believe.

Deism is meant to be based purely on rational thinking and what has been confirmed by science.

Complete crap! The existence of gods has not been revealed in nature in any way, shape or form. Science has confirmed nothing of the sort.

Rational thinking uses science to help find the answers. Therefore, Deism is a scientific belief system. And science is always growing because science is a way to reach the truths of the universe. Therefore, Deism does not claim to have the answers, but is willing to admit that the answers have not yet been reached, and is working to change that.

Horsepucky! Deism already reaches the conclusion gods exist, and then attempts to use science to support the conclusion, even though the science makes no reference to the conclusion whatsoever.

And you don't even appreciate our efforts to make sure that we know the truth, you just stick with what you already believe. I get the feeling you don't care whether or not you are right; so long as you can make a good argument, you might as well be right. I do not agree with that.

Truly, would it hurt that much just to make sure?

YES! Living and propagating a state of ignorance hurts everyone.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

All these facts serve as very strong supportive evidence that 'God' is a delusion.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

All these facts serve as very strong supportive evidence that 'God' is a delusion.

That's theism.

 

[(Q)]

There is a gap that I don't think Q is bridging. It's the proof against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

That's theism.

Thank you, CC. I haven't gone that far as I suspected Rokkon to provide the exact answer he DID provide.

Rokkon needs to first understand that his beliefs are based on a conclusion that requires support as opposed to observation evidence leading to a conclusion. Deism is exactly that, as is theism. They both come to the same conclusion before any evidence is presented. Then, they both try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

It's bass ackwards, to science, of course.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Thank you, CC. I haven't gone that far as I suspected Rokkon to provide the exact answer he DID provide.

Rokkon needs to first understand that his beliefs are based on a conclusion that requires support as opposed to observation evidence leading to a conclusion. Deism is exactly that, as is theism. They both come to the same conclusion before any evidence is presented. Then, they both try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

It's bass ackwards, to science, of course.

No, we... oh, nevermind. If you are not a fundamentalist, what is?

 

[(Q)]

No, we... oh, nevermind. If you are not a fundamentalist, what is?

You see, you have no answers. Isn't deism wonderful?

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

(Q), in case you, by your authority as a moderator, know what I have just done, let the other moderators decide your fate.