What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2014, 03:31 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .

You don't know how to explain some phenomena and thus you call your ignorance God. To me this is merely a fear of the unknown and so you're looking for an explanation.

I put it to you that there's nothing frightening or worrying about not knowing the answer - yet.


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 05:00 AM
Re: RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 07:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're full to the brim with your presuppositions and unexamined assumptions.
Many people here have been non-believers since childhood. You seem rather new to it. This universe may appear to have had a beginning, but that's the most we know now. We also know that observation of a singularity from a distance is NOT reliable, and in fact way more than not reliable. Hawking's friend Roger Penrose write a book called "Cycles of Time" in which he propses the universe bangs, collapses, and re-bangs. "Creation" is an ACT. IN PRE-universe Reality. THAT STILL requires Causality AND TIME. It's meaningless. (See the debate below).

Science is "not connected" to the opinions of Einstein about religion. He's SPECULATING, and it's not science, as it can't be tested. Granted his speculation is on a higher level than some, but it's still speculation. He was wrong about many things, including some really BIG things he speculated about, ( using his "intuition"... ie "god doesn't play dice" was PROVEN WRONG). The fundamental nature of the universe has been proven to be non-intuitive, (Relativity, Uncertainty etc) and only evidence remains.


I have no clue what that even means.

Listen very carefully when Carroll tell Craig why his assertions are meaningless, and you'll get where we're coming from .





Well , it is good to point out what you think is wrong , I would think that direct confrontation is important . But one that is aggressive by being sarcastic to someone who comes to learn as mentioned many times is wrong , in my opinion . Especially the tone of voice that makes you feel less . Why ?

I appreciate the debate I would watch it . When I watch debates and share thoughts I also expect something in return . I will watch it and see if I believe its convincing .

Things I can say I did right in this thread ,
Despite provocations and sarcastic comments I tried to keep it beneficial to me and advance and change .
I backed down from deism ( progress )
I acknowledged a misunderstanding of terms and actually asked someone over private massages and searched wiki
I tried to answer comments maybe that were not for me to answer .
I am sincerely trying to argument to my ability without being intimidated by the number of disagreement .
I am trying to incorporate things I watched from debates and lectures from people that most atheists accredit , like Krauss and Dawkins .

I might have been provoked to say something better not said . But I still struggle to see why this negative feeling when I try to cooperate . I see nothing left to do to please people than to say I completely agree with everything your saying , But why should I not say what I think is true , even if it is wrong . Honesty I expected people to say watch this and that , read this and that . But I feel it was more like people want to feel like a master teaching than a person helping .

For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .

It may help to explain why you struggle other than saying things as they are.

Why would it be difficult to accept things may have no cause? There's no truthfully shown reason to think something must be initially caused by another source. In that case, no position should be needless disregarded or unacceptable as an open stance.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2014 10:14 AM by Mora.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 11:16 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 07:35 PM)Mora Wrote:  What is there that I might be fearing .

Your own ignorance.
You don't know how to explain something and instead of just saying the intellectually brave and honest thing ("I don't know") your trying to jam a god in there for which you have no evidence for, no argument for, not even a bloody definition for, and no reason to think exists.

I never made a confident claim that there is a god for you to say I am trying to jam it in ... I claimed the possibility .. I cant recall anyone saying I am here to learn and to challenge my views and I dont know as much as I did in this thread .. ppl asked for a definition and got angry when I refused .. I gave something they said too vague .. than I get you must prove it first for something I think most people agree on when they say God ... so I find it contradictive ... I find your tone offensive and trying to analyze my personality throught few posts .. A person afraid of his ignorace is someone who make confident claims not the one who reapidtly is saying I do not know ... the only person who comprised his beliefs was me .. the only thing left to please people would be to comply to thier views completely ... I do not know why I am answering this ... just a waste of time
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(17-07-2014 05:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-07-2014 08:19 PM)Mora Wrote:  Well , it is good to point out what you think is wrong , I would think that direct confrontation is important . But one that is aggressive by being sarcastic to someone who comes to learn as mentioned many times is wrong , in my opinion . Especially the tone of voice that makes you feel less . Why ?

I appreciate the debate I would watch it . When I watch debates and share thoughts I also expect something in return . I will watch it and see if I believe its convincing .

Things I can say I did right in this thread ,
Despite provocations and sarcastic comments I tried to keep it beneficial to me and advance and change .
I backed down from deism ( progress )
I acknowledged a misunderstanding of terms and actually asked someone over private massages and searched wiki
I tried to answer comments maybe that were not for me to answer .
I am sincerely trying to argument to my ability without being intimidated by the number of disagreement .
I am trying to incorporate things I watched from debates and lectures from people that most atheists accredit , like Krauss and Dawkins .

I might have been provoked to say something better not said . But I still struggle to see why this negative feeling when I try to cooperate . I see nothing left to do to please people than to say I completely agree with everything your saying , But why should I not say what I think is true , even if it is wrong . Honesty I expected people to say watch this and that , read this and that . But I feel it was more like people want to feel like a master teaching than a person helping .

For Example I still struggle to see how I can accept something that has not cause .

The fear thing I don't get Cider sorry .

It may help to explain why you struggle other than saying things as they are.

Why would it be difficult to accept things may have no cause? There's no truthfully shown reason to think something must be initially caused by another source. In that case, no position should be needless disregarded or unacceptable as an open stance.

I think the image I have is if there is a products someone made it ... if I am here its because I was conceived .. perhaps its wrong.. I still have few lectures I am watching .. but it is one of the most common arguments theists make ..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(17-07-2014 10:11 AM)Mora Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 05:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It may help to explain why you struggle other than saying things as they are.

Why would it be difficult to accept things may have no cause? There's no truthfully shown reason to think something must be initially caused by another source. In that case, no position should be needless disregarded or unacceptable as an open stance.

I think the image I have is if there is a products someone made it ... if I am here its because I was conceived .. perhaps its wrong.. I still have few lectures I am watching .. but it is one of the most common arguments theists make ..

The watchmaker fallacy. Just because something appears designed does not mean that it is. As for uncaused beginnings remember the big bang was much closer to the quantum level than the marco one. On the quantum level particles do appear spontaneously.

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: