What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2014, 10:02 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 06:31 PM)Mora Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 06:10 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  Do you see any evidence for that God?

(09-07-2014 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Let me be clearer.

Do you have a belief in god, or do you lack a belief in god?

Well , evidence is something too confident , then I would have to say no .
...
Well , as I said in my previous post , I came out of this thread more agnostic than before . And that is how I am willing to compromise , because truly the evidence I now think is not beyond reasonable doubt .

Thanks you both and everyone for the share of thoughts . And no hard feelings I hope .

You are still missing the point. Theism/atheism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

You appear to be an agnostic atheist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-07-2014, 10:57 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 10:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 06:31 PM)Mora Wrote:  Well , evidence is something too confident , then I would have to say no .
...
Well , as I said in my previous post , I came out of this thread more agnostic than before . And that is how I am willing to compromise , because truly the evidence I now think is not beyond reasonable doubt .

Thanks you both and everyone for the share of thoughts . And no hard feelings I hope .

You are still missing the point. Theism/atheism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

You appear to be an agnostic atheist.

It seems that way to me too Chas. Reading through the thread it looks like the smear tactics from the religious right to change the definition of the word atheist, from without religion, to arrogant god hating pseudo intellectual prick have had the desired effect on our friend. I think he thinks it's a dirty word!

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 10:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 06:31 PM)Mora Wrote:  Well , evidence is something too confident , then I would have to say no .
...
Well , as I said in my previous post , I came out of this thread more agnostic than before . And that is how I am willing to compromise , because truly the evidence I now think is not beyond reasonable doubt .

Thanks you both and everyone for the share of thoughts . And no hard feelings I hope .

You are still missing the point. Theism/atheism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

You appear to be an agnostic atheist.

(09-07-2014 10:57 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 10:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are still missing the point. Theism/atheism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

You appear to be an agnostic atheist.

It seems that way to me too Chas. Reading through the thread it looks like the smear tactics from the religious right to change the definition of the word atheist, from without religion, to arrogant god hating pseudo intellectual prick have had the desired effect on our friend. I think he thinks it's a dirty word!

I have said since the beginning that I hold no certainties , I preach for nothing , and I have no tricks . I have constantly criticized theism through this thread and in my personal life too . If atheism is the belief in no deities rather than the denial of the confident denial of the possibility of existence of deities than I would agree with you.
So Ok there is no reason to believe in one. But does that mean there is no creator , not to me until now .

I came here to challenge my views and mission complete . I am trying to keep the sarcastic comments I have seen from averting me from rational judgment .

Also like I said the thread made me even lean even less towards the existence of a god . What I am against is absolute certainty . like Bill Maher said or quoted I do not remember but not knowing is humble .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(09-07-2014 07:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 06:04 PM)Mora Wrote:  Good , I can understand that , but then as a consequence , you can not say that Deism is an end to curiosity or is something that makes you less of a scientist . And If you are willing to discredit the value of opinions one of the greatest scientist that ever lived then there is no way you can ever quote his opinions in support of your views or any opinion for that matter because let's face it no one is without errors .


I can quote Einstein when he TALKS ABOUT PHYSICS and MATH. That is his field. Not Religion or Philosophy. I have never quoted him nor would I ever with respect to anything else. He is an expert in neither Religion or Philosophy. I KNOW who are the experts in Religion and Philosophy. He was not talking about science, when he was speculating about the gods. You seem to think that referencing what he said about Religion or Philosophy somehow grants to the idea of Agnosticism some validity. He was speculating about a field he was not an expert in. I can use any experts I want, who have the DATA to support their views.

I never have quoted Einstein, so you're preaching to the choir. No one here quotes him, as far as I know. So it's all a strawman you're wasting your time with, with respect to Einstein.

The teapot is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no "frame of reference" for the gods, other than your Presuppositionalism. Our science may be incomplete, but filling the gaps with any deity, (the very notion which is incoherent and undefined), is no answer to anything.

Thanks for the sermon, but you have failed to define what the word "god" means, or how the concept that flows from your definition is coherent. Obviously you NEED to maintain a god in your hip pocket as a trump card. The concept of "god" has as much meaning or value as the teapot.

So, tell us, "What EXACTLY is a *god*", and what does the word "god" refer to, EXACTLY.

Then explain how a being, which MUST participate in Reality, can be the creator of the very Reality in which it is REQUIRED to participate, for it's existence, and how that is a coherent concept.

I submit you have not considered what you are even talking about. There is no need to be "humble" about a concept that has NO COHERENT definition, (which is why I compared it to the teapot). YOU have not even tried to define what it is you're being agnostic about, yet you think it's reasonable to be agnostic about "something", you can't and won't define. That's just stupid.


Sorry to disappoint you , I do not know What a God is exactly , want to call it a higher power , the whole that is the same thing that is manifested differently through existence , Whatever it is , I do not know exactly , but could such a thing be? ok there is a possibility we have too little to judge over . Does that mean you should preach about it ? no . Do we have to constantly consider it ? not really . But should we confidant deny it ? I do not know . I do not know because it is humble to say so ,

Richard Dawkins although he does not believe in a deistic God said that "we" can have a serious discussion with someone like that . He also said " you can actually persuade me to believe in a God that made it happen " of course he means through science . Not that he would accept it , but no that he confidently denies it .

I Think for the point of quoting people in their field , I am going to say something and your natural instinct might be to jump over it like a sumo wrestler but if there was a God , The universe would be his open book , science would be his rules and would be the only thing that would be able to understand its language .

If you have read , you possibly did , in his book future of the mind , Michio Kaku says " Nobel Laureate Eric R. Kandel of the max Planck institute in Tubingen , Germany , writes " The most valuable insights into the human mind to emerge during this period did not come from the disciplines traditionally concerned with the mind - philosophy , psychology, or psycho-analysis. Instead they came from a merger of these disciplines with the biology of the brain ... "

Physicists have played a pivotal role in the endeavor, providing a flood of new tools
with acronyms like MRI , EEG , PET TCM , TES and DBS that have dramatically changed the study of the brain . Suddenly with these machines we could see thoughts moving within the living, thinking brain. As neurologist V. S. Ramachandran of the university of California , San Diego says : All these questions that philosophers have been studying for millennia, we scientists can being to explore it by doing brain imaging and by studying patients and asking the right questions " " Page nine

I guess what I want to say is that science is connected , it does not mean that you can go to a dentist to have a heart surgery but that there is no scientific field that is exclusive to a field . If we want to move forward we can see a pattern of similarities and interdependence between scientific fields .

I would quote theoretical physicist Lawrance Krauss to end my post " That one of the hall marks of progress in science is seeing that things that on the surface seem very different are really different manifestations of the same thing . " to here it was a quote of someone that he was quoting and acknowledging . He continues "And of-course again when I look at Richard ( Dawkins ) I think of evolution in that sense as well . One of the great beauties of Darwinian evolution is the realization that this incredible diversity of life can come from a simple beginning "


Thanks to everyone for their posts .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(14-07-2014 06:50 PM)Mora Wrote:  Sorry to disappoint you , I do not know What a God is exactly , want to call it a higher power , the whole that is the same thing that is manifested differently through existence , Whatever it is , I do not know exactly , but could such a thing be? ok there is a possibility we have too little to judge over.

So despite that fact you don't know what your brain is referencing when you call up the "meme" "gawd", you feel the need to take a formal existential defining position ("Agnostic") with respect to something you don't know what you mean, can't define, or can't say what you're talking about. I see.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. If we all needed to take formal positions with respect to things we can't define, not much else would get done, would it ?

I think you're not being totally honest here. Either with yourself, or with us.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2014 11:54 AM by Mora.)
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(14-07-2014 06:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 06:50 PM)Mora Wrote:  Sorry to disappoint you , I do not know What a God is exactly , want to call it a higher power , the whole that is the same thing that is manifested differently through existence , Whatever it is , I do not know exactly , but could such a thing be? ok there is a possibility we have too little to judge over.

So despite that fact you don't know what your brain is referencing when you call up the "meme" "gawd", you feel the need to take a formal existential defining position ("Agnostic") with respect to something you don't know what you mean, can't define, or can't say what you're talking about. I see.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. If we all needed to take formal positions with respect to things we can't define, not much else would get done, would it ?

I think you're not being totally honest here. Either with yourself, or with us.

A waste of time is me answering , many things , from books that I had to search specific things on and to quote people from a debate or a lecture to share my thoughts and you come here and not even give a damn about it .

It shows that really , you do not want to share thoughts , you want to prove your point . So really it is rather a waste of time .

It especially reflects the arrogance represented in your confident denial of giving a possibility to a higher power . Like I said , I am humble enough to acknowledge our humble existence and amount of knowledge . But you do not want to acknowledge a possible existence of a higher power perhaps you want a picture or a diagram of its powers .

This is especially when I am not saying it exists , but I will not confidently deny the possibility . I think there is no need to continue a discussion further with you , if we can not go further than this point .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(15-07-2014 11:41 AM)Mora Wrote:  It especially reflects the arrogance represented in your confident denial of giving a possibility to a higher power . Like I said , I am humble enough to acknowledge our humble existence and amount of knowledge . But you do not want to acknowledge a possible existence of a higher power perhaps you want a picture or a diagram of its powers.

I don't think you understand what Bucky was saying.

It's all well and good to say "I don't know what I don't know".

That is not agnosticism.

"Agnostic" refers to uncertainty regarding a specific belief or claim. "Higher power" is a vague and vacuous deepity. It means nothing. There's quite literally nothing to accept or not accept in it. It is pointless.

(15-07-2014 11:41 AM)Mora Wrote:  This is especially when I am not saying it exists , but I will not confidently deny the possibility . I think there is no need to continue a discussion further with you , if we can not go further than this point .

You're referring to an "it". Can you define "it"?

If not, the statement is meaningless.

Being pissy does not endow nonsense with meaning.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 09:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-07-2014 11:41 AM)Mora Wrote:  It especially reflects the arrogance represented in your confident denial of giving a possibility to a higher power . Like I said , I am humble enough to acknowledge our humble existence and amount of knowledge . But you do not want to acknowledge a possible existence of a higher power perhaps you want a picture or a diagram of its powers.

I don't think you understand what Bucky was saying.

It's all well and good to say "I don't know what I don't know".

That is not agnosticism.

"Agnostic" refers to uncertainty regarding a specific belief or claim. "Higher power" is a vague and vacuous deepity. It means nothing. There's quite literally nothing to accept or not accept in it. It is pointless.

(15-07-2014 11:41 AM)Mora Wrote:  This is especially when I am not saying it exists , but I will not confidently deny the possibility . I think there is no need to continue a discussion further with you , if we can not go further than this point .

You're referring to an "it". Can you define "it"?

If not, the statement is meaningless.

Being pissy does not endow nonsense with meaning.


I would say vague is word that can be used subjectively . But what I think many people agree on in a God is that he is a higher power that is conscious that has made everything possible through science and yet he is forever over time and space.

Again I am not sure of it . I guess I am fluctuating between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism and that I am not confident enough to go either way .

It might have been an Islamic finger-print left in me . Since I am a Saudi and forever I was a Muslim . So The Idea of believing a God that you do not understand is not a stranger to religion . Which could be why I do not see eye to eye with people here on wanting to define God more precisely . I say this with pure honesty , I think someone who have the thread would understand , I do not want someone to jump over to this comment and tell me I am hiding Muslim or preacher .

Bible
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Quran
"He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing."

"[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would say vague is word that can be used subjectively . But what I think many people agree on in a God is that he is a higher power that is conscious that has made everything possible through science and yet he is forever over time and space.

And? So what?

Deism is the worst sort of God of the Gaps - taking what we don't understand and calling it God for no reason.

Anything further - ascribing any quality whatsoever to whatever "God" - needs to be considered separately.

In which case - even if theistic claims of knowledge and divine intervention weren't easily falsifiable - the attributes themselves are explicitly incoherent.

(16-07-2014 12:09 PM)Mora Wrote:  Again I am not sure of it . I guess I am fluctuating between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism and that I am not confident enough to go either way .

It might have been an Islamic finger-print left in me . Since I am a Saudi and forever I was a Muslim . So The Idea of believing a God that you do not understand is not a stranger to religion . Which could be why I do not see eye to eye with people here on wanting to define God more precisely . I say this with pure honesty , I think someone who have the thread would understand , I do not want someone to jump over to this comment and tell me I am hiding Muslim or preacher .

That's fair enough.

I think what some of us here find frustrating is that for you to say "I believe in something" without being able to say what "something" is is nonsensical.

And to be sure, that is how many believers take the easy way out. "Oh, but it's all ineffable, so never you mind the details." We atheists are the ones who aren't satisfied with that kind of platitudinous non-answer.

And it's self-defeating, because it only ever comes after claiming to know something. Let's say "God is all-powerful". Superficially that glosses as "God is, like, really powerful". But that isn't what it means, or else they would just say that instead. So - can omnipotent God violate his own physical laws? Can omnipotent God create something greater than himself? The questions can't be answered. So perhaps the believer says "God is all-powerful in ways we can't understand". But the concept remains incoherent. "All-powerful" is a meaningless phrase. It conveys nothing. The sentence contains exactly the same meaning if it just skips to "God is something we can't understand".

Or perhaps "God answers prayers". Answering prayers is a predictable cause-and-effect phenomenon. It has never happened ever. So the believer says, "God answers prayers in ways we can't understand". Which is once again to say that God doesn't answer prayers, because how can you assert that God does if you're also saying necessarily that you couldn't possibly know how or even if God actually did or not?

So that's where faith comes in. Believing in things you know ain't so. Usually this means ignoring anything rational because there's an emotional attachment to the idea. People want to believe, so they make up whatever shitty justifications they need to pretend it's justifiable.

Examined seriously it all collapses down to deism. "Something we don't understand created the universe in ways we can't understand and may or may not continue to interact with us in ways we can't understand". Which is finally coherent, but now also completely unfalsifiable.

Except even that is a positive claim even so. Removed from testability and banished to the realm of idle speculation, yes, but nonetheless an assertion only, literally impossible to ever prove. What, then, is the point to it?

At every step of the way the claims for what God may or may not be and what God may or may not do - which were originally intended to explain things - had to be modified. Except preserving them means they now explain nothing.

The fancy philosophical word for what I believe - that all conceptions of "God" ever proposed are pointless, meaningless nonsense - is theological noncognitivism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-07-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Your uncertainty is just a remnant of your religious upbringing. The only reason you give credence to the god concept is because you are familiar with the idea. While you will hum and how over the possibility of a god and that we can't KNOW if he exists so he might, but if I asked you what your opinion is on the probability of things your not and never were invested in you would dismiss them out of hand.
You aren't agnostic about Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Jlousic the time traveling turnip, or any other concept I can come up with. You don't seriously maintain an agnostic attitude or world view on these things despite there is just as much evidence for god: none. The evidence for a theistic god and a deistic one are the same: none at all. Its just special pleading for a concept you understand.

Its not a matter of humility. Either a thing is or is not, and our being humble about the possibility of a thing says nothing about the reality of the thing. "I don't know its not true" is not a sound or intellectually valid reason to believe something. Unless you can provide reasons or evidence why a thing should be believed then it remains irrational to do so and its not a mark of humility to entertain credulous views without a shred of evidence.

All you have, no offence, is an inability to fully let go of your childhood indoctrination. It's sad but its common and it might just be your not at the point in your life where you can move past the last vestiges of your Islamic way of thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: