Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:48 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:46 AM)Impulse Wrote:  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.

Well that clears it up...

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
23-10-2013, 09:49 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?
I think what he's saying is that Deism is a subcategory of Theism. Theism is just belief in a god, Deism goes a step further and say it doesn't interact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DemonicLemon's post
23-10-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:49 AM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:46 AM)Impulse Wrote:  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?
I think what he's saying is that Deism is a subcategory of Theism. Theism is just belief in a god, Deism goes a step further and say it doesn't interact.
Thanks. That's how I understood him as well, but I'm not sure I agree. I do see that is what the Wikipedia article says too, but it has the "broader" and "stricter" versions. I have always understood theism under it's "stricter" version. I also don't trust everything in Wikipedia so now I'm going to have to do more research on this.

"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, 10:10 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:55 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:49 AM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  I think what he's saying is that Deism is a subcategory of Theism. Theism is just belief in a god, Deism goes a step further and say it doesn't interact.
Thanks. That's how I understood him as well, but I'm not sure I agree. I do see that is what the Wikipedia article says too, but it has the "broader" and "stricter" versions. I have always understood theism under it's "stricter" version. I also don't trust everything in Wikipedia so now I'm going to have to do more research on this.

Do you trust the Oxford definition? Merriam-Webster?Dictionary.Reference.com? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 08:46 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 01:44 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

Actually it is closer to this: Lets say one day you decide you are going to make some rice pudding. The rice pudding is good but very filling so you don't finish all of it and put the rest of it away in the refrigerator. Now as time passes the rice pudding is forgotten and pushed to the back of the fridge until 2 years have passed. You open the container and find a huge colony of mold has grown. Would you consider yourself the creator of that mold?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-10-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 10:10 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:55 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Thanks. That's how I understood him as well, but I'm not sure I agree. I do see that is what the Wikipedia article says too, but it has the "broader" and "stricter" versions. I have always understood theism under it's "stricter" version. I also don't trust everything in Wikipedia so now I'm going to have to do more research on this.

Do you trust the Oxford definition? Merriam-Webster?Dictionary.Reference.com? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
After looking around the internet at a bunch of sites, I've concluded that you are technically correct so thanks for the enlightenment. I do think there is a common misconception though that it is the way I had previously understood the difference and it's even supported in those dictionary definitions by "especially" and "specifically". But I'm happy to have the correct information so thanks again. Thumbsup

"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, 10:37 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 10:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 10:10 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Do you trust the Oxford definition? Merriam-Webster?Dictionary.Reference.com? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
After looking around the internet at a bunch of sites, I've concluded that you are technically correct so thanks for the enlightenment.

That's the best kind of correct Big Grin

(23-10-2013 10:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I do think there is a common misconception though that it is the way I had previously understood the difference and it's even supported in those dictionary definitions by "especially" and "specifically". But I'm happy to have the correct information so thanks again. Thumbsup

I wasn't even aware that there was a common misconception, but you are welcome. Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
23-10-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 09:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  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

It is. That is why I ask the questions. I am hoping someone out there has a better argument than I can think of. This is still my favorite god. Of all the gods people choose to believe in this one seems most plausible (maybe just because there is no way to prove it wrong lol). It is so hard to be alive and thinking and reasoning but not know why. That is why people invented these gods IMO. I guess I mostly just like this god better because if he is an asshole we don't know about it. Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 11:44 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 11:36 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  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

It is. That is why I ask the questions. I am hoping someone out there has a better argument than I can think of. This is still my favorite god. Of all the gods people choose to believe in this one seems most plausible (maybe just because there is no way to prove it wrong lol). It is so hard to be alive and thinking and reasoning but not know why. That is why people invented these gods IMO. I guess I mostly just like this god better because if he is an asshole we don't know about it. Lol

It all comes down to this. You believe without physical evidence, you suspend belief, or you disbelieve because there is no evidence. That's a bit of a simplification, but that's the basics, if we assume that a potential deity or deities is responsible for the creation of the universe.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(23-10-2013 11:44 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  It all comes down to this. You believe without physical evidence, you suspend belief, or you disbelieve because there is no evidence. That's a bit of a simplification, but that's the basics, if we assume that a potential deity or deities is responsible for the creation of the universe.
I don't believe that any potential deity is responsible for the creation of anything (and I figure if I am wrong I don't really care all that much), but I completely understand people who need to believe that the universe was created or willed into exist by some sort of god. This god who simply willed the science to happen who is just the cause of everything we know to be true scientifically is very hard to argue against, and that is very frustrating. Our own insecurities may be the only reason to believe in his existence, but just because they can't prove he exists doesn't prove that he doesn't.
If someone has a great argument against this "god of the gaps", I would love to hear it so I can use it for future reference.

Also, is it just me or does it seem that that TTT just answered the questions he/she liked and then left the thread?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Losty's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: