Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 01:44 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 12:27 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  I get what you're saying, but if god created the first organism, or the process for it to come about, and also created evolution, then he is responsible for the creation of all known creatures.

That is theistic evolution yes but it moves god several steps further away. That's the problem with the God of Gaps he just keep running further and further away.

I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I am just arguing for arguments sake. This seems like the most reasonable rational way for someone to believe in a god or creator. You cannot create something out of nothing. If someone whittled (sp? Correct word?) a bear, you would not dismiss its creator because it started as a block of wood. When he says, I am the creator of this bear, you wouldn't say no this is simply an evolved block of wood. You did not create it you just assisted in its evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(22-10-2013 09:17 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 08:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Well, despite being ineffable, you're going to have to do your best to describe this experience, this evidence that you see all around you because we atheists don't see or feel that. Maybe an atheist like Sam Harris would be able to describe the kind of transcendence and spirituality he's experienced as an atheist, but he would not attribute those experiences to god.




It's like... *struggles for words* ....it's like.... having the key to every door, you know? Everything kinda has it's own place and makes sense in the Universe. Now I'm no Buddha beneath the Bodhi (I hope I didn't come off like that), but I think that I found some legitimate beauty in everything. So few troubles. That's the experience.

Was that what you wanted?
Things make sense, but only to a degree. For example, I don't call earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis things that make sense.

The things that do make sense do so by no mere coincidence or directed design. It's because they develop in response to surroundings. For example, it seems to makes sense to have eyes to see because vision is very useful for so many things. However, radar and feelers which other species have also make sense and serve a similar purpose. If this was all by some deistic design, we'd likely all have eyes or radar or feelers - whichever made the most sense. But these things evolved through adaptations, not through deliberate design. Likewise, planets don't just come into existence out of nowhere because some deity thought they would look pretty. For example, at least many planets are formed by debris clumping together in space. The planets form that way because the materials are out there to be able to combine and the forces that hold them together are out there as well. No coincidence. No purposeful design. Just the way it is and things in the universe develop accordingly.

Why is this so hard to accept that you conclude it can't be and instead there must be a god designer?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 08:35 AM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 03:20 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Deists are theists.

I thought Deism was a god that didn't interact with the universe, while Theists believed a god DID interact in some way?

No. A theist is simply one who believes in at least one deity - interaction or no.

All deists are theists but not a theists are deists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
23-10-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 07:39 AM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 07:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No.
This one didn't know the difference between deism and theism, didn't know what god of the gaps was, can't spell very well, and generally ignores questions he can't answer, and generally is pretty ill-informed about what he's trying to push. I think not. Actually Ed was much smarter, had his ideas much more developed and worked out, and much more informed.

Censored you, man!

(I'll answer everyone's questions- feel free to remind me if I miss yours)

Thumbsup

Just not right now.

Don't bother.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 08:46 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  When he says, I am the creator of this bear, you wouldn't say no this is simply an evolved block of wood. You did not create it you just assisted in its evolution.

Ja, but *God himself* doesn't say anything. It's always his followers selling you stuff.

If we don't have a reason to postulate God, why would we put him there ?

God of the gaps is called God of the gaps 'cos he *lives* in the gaps - where there is a lack of knowledge. You often come across people who say stuff like "science can't explain X therefore God" - but even if science can't explain X - if there is a bona fide gap in other words - there's no reason to drop God in there.

With your example of the bear - we have no reason to believe God made the bear. If we adopt the belief that he did make the bear through evolution it adds nothing to our knowledge, and we haven't given a *reason* why we adopted that belief. Sure God *could* be in that gap but it really seems to diminish God a lot if every time science advances (we gain e.g. better understanding of evolutionary processes) God's function decreases.

I can't remember who, but someone derided Newton himself for reducing God to a kind of cosmic clock-winder, after the laws governing the movement of the planets were well understood - it used to be believed that God was making the planets go around. While you can still hold this belief, now it must be subject to the belief that God either is the reason for gravity or makes everything act exactly as gravity would... his omnipotence has been diminished from being the guy who *did* stuff to the cosmic janitor who just makes it all work...

But yeah, deism is a lot harder to argue against than angry-Jehovah-wants-you-to-bow-down theism Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-10-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:21 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  No. A theist is simply one who believes in at least one deity - interaction or no.

All deists are theists but not a theists are deists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Huh, never thought I was wrong on this issue. I always put Theism and Deism on different levels, maybe it's because Deism had a special place in my heart because that was the first one I picked myself before I went to Atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
To call deist theist is a stretch in my opinion. Deist are more of the opinion that god is more akin to a watch maker that created the universe,sets in motion and then has nothing more to do with it as Thomas Paine explains in common sense. As far as I can tell there is no strict theology that goes along with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:39 AM)bill1 Wrote:  To call deist theist is a stretch in my opinion. Deist are more of the opinion that god is more akin to a watch maker that created the universe,sets in motion and then has nothing more to do with it as Thomas Paine explains in common sense. As far as I can tell there is no strict theology that goes along with it.

Hi, Bill. Welcome to the forum!

Yes, it is true that Deism isn't dependent on some kind on scripture. However, theism by definition is just a belief in a god or gods. Deism falls under that umbrella.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:21 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 08:35 AM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  I thought Deism was a god that didn't interact with the universe, while Theists believed a god DID interact in some way?

No. A theist is simply one who believes in at least one deity - interaction or no.

All deists are theists but not a theists are deists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Maybe it's midweek brain cobwebs, but I can't seem to wrap my head around this. "Interaction or no" - without interaction, they would be a deist. So the distinguishing feature that makes someone a theist would be the interaction, no?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:46 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:21 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  No. A theist is simply one who believes in at least one deity - interaction or no.

All deists are theists but not a theists are deists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Maybe it's midweek brain cobwebs, but I can't seem to wrap my head around this. "Interaction or no" - without interaction, they would be a deist. So the distinguishing feature that makes someone a theist would be the interaction, no?

No, indeed.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: