I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I find it pretty interesting. I am always open to criticism, btw, just because someone might point out something to me that I never saw before. None of this is meant to offend anyone.
Okay, so I'm a Deist. What is a Deist? Basically, a Deist is someone who believes in the existence of God through reason/logical reasoning, and not through what I call "blind faith", aka, believing in God without some kind of logical evidence/reason. An example of "blind faith" would be believing in God "just because" or because you were raised to believe in God, etc. Deists don't rely on, and most often reject, revealed religious teachings and books (an example would be the Bible), and instead rely on their reason and personal experience to justify the existence of God. I could go in to the finer details of Deism, but that's basically it in a nutshell.
By the way, what do I mean when I say reason? Let me give a personal example: The main thing that convinces me that God exists is the creational argument. I believe that everything in existence comes from the Big Bang. Now, what caused the Big Bang? Well, there are many theories out there, but there's one concept that remains constant: everything has to come from something else preceding it. With the concept, you eventually reach a point where you come to the conclusion that something had to have started the process known as, or even led to, the Big Bang. This thing would have to transcend time, space, and it would have to be unmade and be all powerful since it would be literally making something out of nothing. I call this thing God.
So where I am going with all of this? Basically, I feel that most Theists and Atheists alike are missing the big picture when it comes to God because
- Theists (not all, but most) tend to believe in God through blind faith, and their arguments for God tend to be very weak. Also, because of their often reliance on religious texts (to different degrees), they sometimes deny obvious scientific claims and weave inaccurate views of others.
-Atheists, even though they do question things (Bob bless them), tend to have arguments against God that many times are just as weak as a Theist's argument for God.
I feel like Deism is the best road because it combines the skepticism of Atheism with the God aspect of Theism. That's not to say that Deism is a synthesis of these two (it isn't), but that it takes the best qualities of the two. Also, Deism doesn't have any discriminatory teachings, teachings on the afterlife, etc, because it's really a personal religious path without any prophets, books, etc. I would love to hear people's thought's on this topic. Once again, I mean no offense to anyone. Okay, discuss..... "Try not. Do or do not, there is no try."
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/03/22 00:45
By: Sxcriley
Status:
I would classify myself as a Theist but not by your description of one (I don't follow blindly, but I do accept the Bible). If you feel like it you can see my post "Does God Exist?" to see some of my reason as to why I believe in God. On Deism, so you accept there is a God or Supernatural Creator of some sort. Now what? Is that it? Coolies.. But why did this supernatural creator create the big bang (or create life as we know it depending on the way you think it came about)? I don't think everything is totally devoid of purpose. That just seems pointless. "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/03/23 00:55
By: BravoLima
Status:
So basically, you don't believe in the 'God' that necessarily exists in any religions. You kind of just substitute the scary 'unknown' from science with some kind of easily answerable entity know to you as 'God'.
Sounds just as easy as saying God created the universe in six days and had a smokoe on the Sabbath.
There are things that science have not been able to find yet, some things that we may ever accomplish before we all destroy ourselves on this little petrie dish, but I find it's a balance of believing what's more credible. When I hear the theory of evolution vs. the creation story, I opt for the former. It may not be correct, but in theory, it's a hell of a lot better than the latter. You seem to just fill in the blanks with unexplained entities. Part of understanding and accepting science is knowing that some things are just out of our grasp, and coming up with theories, not making it up as you go along based on nothing. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/11 14:09
By: the_crampo
Status:
BravoLima wrote: So basically, you don't believe in the 'God' that necessarily exists in any religions. You kind of just substitute the scary 'unknown' from science with some kind of easily answerable entity know to you as 'God'.
Sounds just as easy as saying God created the universe in six days and had a smokoe on the Sabbath.
Dont mock people so unnecessarily.
There are things that science have not been able to find yet, some things that we may ever accomplish before we all destroy ourselves on this little petrie dish, but I find it's a balance of believing what's more credible.
"Believing what's more credible" to "Having faith in what's more credible" to "Having faith based on prior assumption in what's more credible" to "Having blind faith based on a posteriori, primi facia observations in what's more credible"
They all mean virtually the same thing, the wording is just different an more expanded apon.
Basically, you believe in science in the same way that christians believe in God. You make up your decisions of belief and world view and then find arguments to substantiate your view.
When I hear the theory of evolution vs. the creation story, I opt for the former. It may not be correct, but in theory, it's a hell of a lot better than the latter.
Maybe... But evolution theory turns human existance into a pointless struggle for betterness. An endless competition.
Thanks for that idea darwin. The idea that turns our lives into pinpricks of unnecessary existence.
You seem to just fill in the blanks with unexplained entities. Part of understanding and accepting science is knowing that some things are just out of our grasp, and coming up with theories, not making it up as you go along based on nothing.
Where do new theories come from? Nowhere. They are ideas in peoples head, that are then tested. Science is not better than faith in that respect.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/13 04:54
By: BravoLima
Status:
'Don't mock people so unnecessarily.'
Actually, I thought it was quite necessary. What is this, now you're getting offended on other people's behalf? Tito accepted my views, you're getting insulted via proxy.
'Basically, you believe in science in the same way that christians believe in God. You make up your decisions of belief and world view and then find arguments to substantiate your view.'
I back my opinions and beliefs with reason and knowledge. The church actively preaches the notion that faith is incompatible with reason and logic. It teaches that one should not try to comprehend religion logically, but rather to just 'have faith'. I'm sorry, but if a scientist brings a new piece of science onto the table, and tells me to just 'have faith' in his assertions, and offers no proof or even a theory, then I would tell him the same crap as I would tell a Catholic telling me about his fairytales.
'Where do new theories come from? Nowhere. They are ideas in peoples head, that are then tested. Science is not better than faith in that respect.'
Let's do a comparison, shall we?
The creation story is based on the ideas of, by today's standards, poorly educated people that lived well over a thousand years ago. It's based on the same basic, immediate, uneducated, primitive understandings of our world that spawned the ideas that the world was flat, or the earth was the centre of the universe. Both of these, have beyond a reasonable doubt, been proven false. The creation story was folklore, told to ease the minds of people that didn't even have a chance of comprehending even fundamental facts of life, like the earth being only an insignificant part of a much larger universe. It is radically outdated, and yet still taught, for what practical reasons being very murky. The story has the severe flaw that it is entirely unaccountable for dinosaurs; which makes sense as those that made up this crock of shit story had no idea about dinosaurs ever existing prior to their own civilisation. Assuming Adam and Eve were both... what... Israelis? This doesn't explain how there is so much diversity all over the world.
The theory of evolution is born out of what we do know about biology and procreation of animals, coupled in with what we do know about gradual mutation. This is also backed up by credible observations of animals that existed many a year ago, such as bones of early human ancestors etc. The theory takes into account the vast expanse of time that our lonely planet has seen over time, and even provides incite to the reasons of many differences between us as humans. In modern human history alone, it explains the differences between us as humans. It shows, with evidence that humans spread from Africa, settling across the globe and mutating into the different varieties of humans that we know today.
Much like our understanding of the universe, there are always going to be holes in our understanding of things we cannot observe. We cannot go back in time and see definitively what happened over time. We can only find evidence. I've said before, I believe in science, I don't always believe in scientists though. There will always be those that confuse issues with psuedo-science and their own fishy agendas. However, being an athiest, and believing in science, logic and reasoning, I can't tolerate deism; to me, it's just filling in the blank holes with made up answers. To me, that is exactly what the, by today's standards, poorly educated people did thousands of years ago. They made things up to fill up the missing lines.
I think I'd rather future generations and species to look back on us as creatures that accepted what we didn't know, rather than the same way as I've looked back upon those poorly educated individuals who thought the world was flat because they could only see so far.
No one's saying the evolution theory is fact, it would be contradictory to it's very name.
And I know what you're getting at; to believe in something that isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt is just like believing in God. However, I don't see it that way. To me, I'm believing in the more credible theory. One that's actually based in reality, for the reasons I've listed above. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/13 07:29
By: the_crampo
Status:
BravoLima wrote: 'Don't mock people so unnecessarily.'
Actually, I thought it was quite necessary. What is this, now you're getting offended on other people's behalf? Tito accepted my views, you're getting insulted via proxy.
'Basically, you believe in science in the same way that christians believe in God. You make up your decisions of belief and world view and then find arguments to substantiate your view.'
I back my opinions and beliefs with reason and knowledge. The church actively preaches the notion that faith is incompatible with reason and logic. It teaches that one should not try to comprehend religion logically, but rather to just 'have faith'. I'm sorry, but if a scientist brings a new piece of science onto the table, and tells me to just 'have faith' in his assertions, and offers no proof or even a theory, then I would tell him the same crap as I would tell a Catholic telling me about his fairytales.
'Where do new theories come from? Nowhere. They are ideas in peoples head, that are then tested. Science is not better than faith in that respect.'
Let's do a comparison, shall we?
The creation story is based on the ideas of, by today's standards, poorly educated people that lived well over a thousand years ago. It's based on the same basic, immediate, uneducated, primitive understandings of our world that spawned the ideas that the world was flat, or the earth was the centre of the universe. Both of these, have beyond a reasonable doubt, been proven false. The creation story was folklore, told to ease the minds of people that didn't even have a chance of comprehending even fundamental facts of life,
Yes, the fundamental facts of life... That we are pointless, pathetic, unimportant, doomed, miniscule, hopeless, stupid and unable.
like the earth being only an insignificant part of a much larger universe. It is radically outdated, and yet still taught, for what practical reasons being very murky. The story has the severe flaw that it is entirely unaccountable for dinosaurs; which makes sense as those that made up this crock of shit story had no idea about dinosaurs ever existing prior to their own civilisation. Assuming Adam and Eve were both... what... Israelis? This doesn't explain how there is so much diversity all over the world.
You make a bigoted assumption that the people of those times were less knowledgeable than us. And that they were fundamentally retarded.
Yes they were less knowledgable than us. But they are only less knowledgable in our worldview.
Science is a view.
And they had a different one. Which you are not educated in.
The theory of evolution is born out of what we do know about biology and procreation of animals, coupled in with what we do know about gradual mutation. This is also backed up by credible observations of animals that existed many a year ago, such as bones of early human ancestors etc. The theory takes into account the vast expanse of time that our lonely planet has seen over time, and even provides incite to the reasons of many differences between us as humans. In modern human history alone, it explains the differences between us as humans. It shows, with evidence that humans spread from Africa, settling across the globe and mutating into the different varieties of humans that we know today.
Much like our understanding of the universe, there are always going to be holes in our understanding of things we cannot observe. We cannot go back in time and see definitively what happened over time. We can only find evidence. I've said before, I believe in science, I don't always believe in scientists though. There will always be those that confuse issues with psuedo-science and their own fishy agendas. However, being an athiest, and believing in science, logic and reasoning, I can't tolerate deism; to me, it's just filling in the blank holes with made up answers. To me, that is exactly what the, by today's standards, poorly educated people did thousands of years ago. They made things up to fill up the missing lines.
I think I'd rather future generations and species to look back on us as creatures that accepted what we didn't know, rather than the same way as I've looked back upon those poorly educated individuals who thought the world was flat because they could only see so far.
And what about the people in the future that look down on us, like you have just done, for being so poorly educated?
That we believe in quantum mechanics, because we could only see so far.
No one's saying the evolution theory is fact, it would be contradictory to it's very name.
And I know what you're getting at; to believe in something that isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt is just like believing in God. However, I don't see it that way. To me, I'm believing in the more credible theory. One that's actually based in reality, for the reasons I've listed above.
Post edited by: the_crampo, at: 2008/04/13 07:33
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/14 04:02
By: BravoLima
Status:
'Yes, the fundamental facts of life... That we are pointless, pathetic, unimportant, doomed, miniscule, hopeless, stupid and unable.'
Reality is not always so kind. You make it clear you're unwilling to settle for reality because fairytales are far more comforting. You are a child.
'You make a bigoted assumption that the people of those times were less knowledgeable than us. And that they were fundamentally retarded.'
No, I make the correct assumption that you're less knowledgeable than us, and that you're fundamentally retarded. I clearly stated that, RELATIVELY TO US, they are poorly educated. Show me a State education school system in Jesus's time that ensured everyone would have the right to an education. Show me a working class that could afford private schooling for their children. For fuck's sake, show me a school. I could not have made it clearer and you still missed it. Learn to read.
They were far less knowledgeable. Much like how we will be compareably less knowledgeable to later species, generations, assuming no global catastrophes etc. occur
'Science is a view.'
One that's backed up with evidence. The Bible was never founded on an ounce of evidence. Burning bush? Red sea seperating? Yeah right.
'And they had a different one. Which you are not educated in.'
Oh yes. Please, educate me in their world view oh wise one. This of course would be coming from someone that said atheism is an antonym of deism.
'And what about the people in the future that look down on us, like you have just done, for being so poorly educated?'
Depending on future circumstance, we're not very poorly educated. The reasons why I've briefly mentioned above when talking about the utter lack of education in Jesus's time and prior.
Of course, future generations and species will create much better understanding of our world.
Quantum mechanics is something that at this point is largely only discussed in theoretical terms. It's so largely based on ideas and mathematics that would make my head explode, that I've never read into it much. I don't believe in it. Until I see the concrete that the scientists have based their theories on, then I'll remain skeptical.
After all of this. Just what the hell is your point?
That the creation story is as equally plausible as the evolution theory? That the Bible actually makes sense? That science is all a bunch of hocus-pocus? Come on, enough bush-beating. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/14 07:50
By: the_crampo
Status:
BravoLima wrote: 'Yes, the fundamental facts of life... That we are pointless, pathetic, unimportant, doomed, miniscule, hopeless, stupid and unable.'
Reality is not always so kind. You make it clear you're unwilling to settle for reality because fairytales are far more comforting. You are a child.
This is so typical.
Science people think they are so much better than everyone else. You think you can just deny humanity its pleasures and existence because the maths says so.
Science is not deep, it is not meaningful. It is not the region of a human, it is region of a calculator.
When did you loose your humanity?
The topic has been locked.
Re:Deism vs Theism and Atheism
Date: 2008/04/15 03:08
By: BravoLima
Status:
Science people? Hahahahahahah.
'You think you can just deny humanity its pleasures and existence because the maths says so.'
I'm not denying anyone anything you anti-science person. Still, I don't see the logic in believing in something that makes no sense just because it feels good. Particularly when I believe deeply it's incorrect, and when too many people believing in it is dangerous.
'Science is not deep, it is not meaningful.'
You can study the Bible, even get in the Kuran and Buddhist texts and still have time to convert to Rasta Farianism. You will never experience all the science in the world in a lifetime. Religion offers cheap, quick, shallow and often incorrect answers to huge puzzles. The seemingly infinite complexity of the arrival of our existence as a species is simplified for the weak-minded into a 6-day working week for God. Probably the only work the bastard's ever done. The scientific ideas behind the same question is far more complex.
I don't need religion to maintain my humanity. Perhaps you don't have the mental strength to think for yourself, the same does not go for others. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
