NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?

Watered down theism. The Lord disapproves. His Judgement will pass though. The Lord provides for all.

Watered down theism. The Lord disapproves. His Judgement will pass though. The Lord provides for all.

Except for Homosexuals, Lesbians, Pagans, Heathens, Jews, and anyone who like music that isn't country or gospel.

Except for Homosexuals, Lesbians, Pagans, Heathens, Jews, and anyone who like music that isn't country or gospel.
Country music is Satan's work. And read my posts more carefully - I did say Judgement will pass. That will be the Lord's provision to the aforementioned. And it will be Good.

Deism is the perfect religion for people that think all religion is stupid, but don't want to go on the record as an atheist.

Country music is Satan's work. And read my posts more carefully - I did say Judgement will pass. That will be the Lord's provision to the aforementioned. And it will be Good.

Ok, so how is country music (granted that it's only bearable in small dosage) Satan's work? I'm just going to ignore the rest because I think this whole "Country music = Satan work" thing can lead to somewhere fun.

Ok, so how is country music (granted that it's only bearable in small dosage) Satan's work? I'm just going to ignore the rest because I think this whole "Country music = Satan work" thing can lead to somewhere fun.
It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.
You are one of the Chosen few. May the Lord continue illuminating thy soul.

To all ye who doubt His might, nothing shall spare ye from His wrath. As it should be.

It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

Didn't Dolly get a breast reduction though? Wouldn't that make her less eviler?

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.

So, I take it you have been to the after life and have actually met the deity that gave us life then huh?

This is going to be a fun night.

Didn't Dolly get a breast reduction though? Wouldn't that make her less eviler?
Her existence is still a blight on this fair world.

This isn't going as planned.


Though Gartref was pretty right about being in denial of atheism. For some reason I got that shred of hope that we got a creator God.

Ok, so how is country music (granted that it's only bearable in small dosage) Satan's work? I'm just going to ignore the rest because I think this whole "Country music = Satan work" thing can lead to somewhere fun.Actually listen to a country song. It will follow one of the following models:

"I got drunk then came home and made love to my sleeping wife."

"I got drunk, and when my wife didn't make me some 'taters I gave 'er one across the lips."

"I shot my dog, because I was drunk."

"I crash my truck, because I was drunk."

"I ran over my dog in my truck, because I was drunk."

"I woke up hungover to see my wife left me, so I got drunk."

"I woke up in the drunk tank, because I was drunk."

This shit is worse than rap music.

Actually listen to a country song. It will follow one of the following models:

"I got drunk then came home and made love to my sleeping wife."

"I got drunk, and when my wife didn't make me some 'taters I gave 'er one across the lips."

"I shot my dog, because I was drunk."

"I crash my truck, because I was drunk."

"I ran over my dog in my truck, because I was drunk."

"I woke up hungover to see my wife left me, so I got drunk."

"I woke up in the drunk tank, because I was drunk."

This shit is worse than rap music.
Exactly. The Lord hears this and recoils in horror. Heavy shall be the price to be paid by those who extol this sinful filth.

Didn't Dolly get a breast reduction though? Wouldn't that make her less eviler?A wholesome wench wouldn't have breasts in the first place.

A wholesome wench wouldn't have breasts in the first place.
If she shrouded herself in black and followed the Lord's calling, she could still remain pure in His eyes, and remain inviolate from all but His gentle touch.

Americans are very lucky that our key founding fathers were Deists, instead of Christians. Being a Deist is very convenient for politicians. It enables them to feel less like a hypocrite when they have to play along with all the phony invocations, prayers and other tripe that is inevitable when the hollow piety of "respectable" people manifests itself.

So you are saying I'm doomed to hell because I'm Jewish? Come on surely there isn't that much difference. Also if you have a problem with women dressing provocatively why the hell are you on the internet?

Except for Homosexuals, Lesbians, Pagans, Heathens, Jews, and anyone who like music that isn't country or gospel.

FTW!

If she shrouded herself in black and followed the Lord's calling, she could still remain pure in His eyes, and remain inviolate from all but His gentle touch.

Nicely. nicely put. You rarely hear "inviolate" here on NS in context. :D

So you are saying I'm doomed to hell because I'm Jewish?
That is up to the Creator. It is not my choice.

Also if you have a problem with women dressing provocatively why the hell are you on the internet?
Is that a serious question?

I think the enthusiastic atheists are as stupid as religious people.

Nobody is in a position to tell me, one way or another, whether or not there exists a supernatural power. You can tell me there is an absence of evidence for one, or that it simply doesn't make sense, but you're not in position to definitively tell me one way or another.

I think the enthusiastic atheists are as stupid as religious people.

Nobody is in a position to tell me, one way or another, whether or not there exists a supernatural power. You can tell me there is an absence of evidence for one, or that it simply doesn't make sense, but you're not in position to definitively tell me one way or another.
Funny that you have "geist" in your nom de guerre. :p

Why not be enthusiastic anyway?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1261.gif

I think the enthusiastic atheists are as stupid as religious people.

Nobody is in a position to tell me, one way or another, whether or not there exists a supernatural power. You can tell me there is an absence of evidence for one, or that it simply doesn't make sense, but you're not in position to definitively tell me one way or another.


I agree. In my head, I'm an Agnostic. I am only an Atheist in my gut.

I am only an Atheist in my gut.Seems like the concept of "fundamentalism where it counts" comes *up* an awful lot lately.
:D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13130103&postcount=77

I agree. In my head, I'm an Agnostic. I am only an Atheist in my gut.I am an Atheist. I wouldn't believe in God even if he decided to prove himself to the world. I would just put my hands over my ears and yell, "LALALALALALLALALALALALALA I"M NOT SEEING THIS!!!!!! LALALALALALLALALALALALALA YOU ARE NOT REALLY HAPPENING!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALA." I would right the events off as a vivid dream.

Well, I'm fairly close to being a deist. I believe in a God of sorts; I do not believe in any organized religion. I don't, however, believe that God created the world and then abandoned it to its fate, which is a fairly standard part of deism. If forced to categorize myself, the best description I can conjure up would be something like "semi-agnostic rational theist."

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?
Day-ist. Obviously.

Oh and no, because copping out in such a fashion is laaame :p

"semi-agnostic rational theist."

"Indecisive"

"semi-agnostic rational theist."
"Vague and pretentious", eh?

This isn't going as planned.


Though Gartref was pretty right about being in denial of atheism. For some reason I got that shred of hope that we got a creator God.

what is the value in having a creator that doesnt DO anything?

I am an Atheist. I wouldn't believe in God even if he decided to prove himself to the world. I would just put my hands over my ears and yell, "LALALALALALLALALALALALALA I"M NOT SEEING THIS!!!!!! LALALALALALLALALALALALALA YOU ARE NOT REALLY HAPPENING!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALA." I would right the events off as a vivid dream.

cant we put off worrying about this until he actually does decide to prove himself to the world?

It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

Weren't her breasts designed BY GOD?

i'm an adeist.

It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

dolly parton is a hero!

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.

I tihnk you'll find that there are many, many religions other than your one.

you're not in position to definitively tell me one way or another.

I'm not in a position to "definitively" tell you much of anything at all.

But certainly I can say that certain possibilities are far more absurd and less plausible than others.

Deism doesn't answer any questions. If god created the world, who created god? What is god for that matter?

Noone, can answer that so it's a pointless discussion.

Deism doesn't answer any questions. If god created the world, who created god? What is god for that matter?

Noone, can answer that so it's a pointless discussion.

Welcome to the internet.

Welcome to the internet.

I've been around the net for a long time now. Nothing ever comes out of these types of discussions except for constant repetitions of arguments.

I've been around the net for a long time now. Nothing ever comes out of these types of discussions except for constant repetitions of arguments.

And yet they never go away. One of life's great mysteries.

And yet they never go away. One of life's great mysteries.
We'll have to ask god about it. ;)

Get educated, folks. The deists would want you to.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

It helps to know what we're talking about.

I'm not a deist. I'm an animist, but just as lonely around here as the OP. In some way his religion and mine operate the same way, but we have a few significantly different theological beliefs about the nature of the universe -- petty stuff like that.

what is the value in having a creator that doesnt DO anything?

Come on, think, Ashmoria. Isn't that the best kind of creator? Just like the best kind of boss is one who never comes to the office?

Watered down theism. The Lord disapproves. His Judgement will pass though. The Lord provides for all.

:rolleyes: If you were truly as devout as you think you are, you'd not be posting your faux sanctimony and blatant tripe here. But hey, it's your hell, you burn in it.

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?

I go for the Deism/Taoism combination. Largely because I've seen karma in action, and I cannot explain how I feel when I hear tight four-part harmony or visit the ocean or gaze at a sunset. As for pronunciation, the Greeks would have it "THEY-eest", but we're not on Santorini, so go with whatever's easier for you to say.

If you understand anything all religion came from the very start of mankind the shaman the witch doctor
and so on and religion was started to control the people if you do this you will go to hell if you do that you will go to heaven i dont understand how modern man still lets this go on wake up and think for yourself its you who decide if your going to be a bad person or a good one not a god or holyman
if most people would only stop being sheep for religion and choose to be good we would have much less war and hate because thats all religion is is a place for sheep to graze and tout the standard of ignorance and hate just like you hate all people who are not christian and dont say you dont hate them just look at what you wrote you sheep
Have you heard the Good News about punctuation?

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.



And there is no "Christian God", either, if you want the truth of it.







I realize, of course, that you most certainly DON'T want the truth of it... sorry for dumping cold water on your delusions.:p

Watered down theism. The Lord disapproves. His Judgement will pass though. The Lord provides for all.

Oh dear, displaying these sentiments on this forum is going to leave you open to all sorts of grief, even mockery. Do you really think that you know what God (if he even exists) approves or disapproves? Do you have an open line to deity? Does he/she/it speak to you personally?

"Indecisive"

:p

Actually, not so much. "Semi-agnostic" because I acknowledge that I cannot know whether God exists or not, but I simply choose to believe. "Rational" because "gnostic" sounds funny right after "agnostic," and I feel it important to communicate that I strongly believe the pursuit of objective knowledge to be a virtue, seeing as many people who consider themselves religious do not. "Theist," obviously, because I believe in God, but not the toddler-throwing-a-tantrum God featured in the Abrahamic religions.

There is no religion, there are no gods, other than the Christian God. Not Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or Judaism: the Almighty and True, Christian God.If you understand anything all religion came from the very start of mankind the shaman the witch doctor
and so on and religion was started to control the people if you do this you will go to hell if you do that you will go to heaven i dont understand how modern man still lets this go on wake up and think for yourself its you who decide if your going to be a bad person or a good one not a god or holyman
if most people would only stop being sheep for religion and choose to be good we would have much less war and hate because thats all religion is is a place for sheep to graze and tout the standard of ignorance and hate just like you hate all people who are not christian and dont say you dont hate them just look at what you wrote you sheep

"Vague and pretentious", eh?

I suppose you could make a case for "pretentious" (although it'd be a lousy case, seeing as I only trot out that description when asked to precisely define my beliefs; the rest of the time, I simply say, "I believe in God. I don't believe in organized religion"). "Vague," however, hardly seems like a sensible adjective to apply to what is, if anything, an overly-specific description of my theological position.

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?


It's [dee-ist]


I've always thought that this was a rather succinct explanation of Deism:


"All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good;
And in spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, whatever is, is right"

-Alexander Pope (a very famous Deist)



However, there are several problems with his position, and those of Deists in general:



1. The second and third lines are inherently in contradiction with another of Deism's tenets; that God is simply a clock-maker who left the world alone after building it. How can their be any 'direction' or 'harmony not understood' given this, especially in light of the final line?


2. The last line, no matter how you view it, ends up essentially moving ethics totally out of the picture. HOWEVER, most Deists are quite famous for using ethics in their discources. For a well known example:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, all the Founding Fathers were very prominant Deists as well, yet this states that men have unalienable rights, which is very clearly an ethical and moral position. (that of the idea that humans have rights) Not to mention the fact that if 'their Creator' 'endowed' them with rights of any kind, he is clearly influencing the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, the reason few people are Deists today is because it was a very contradictory viewpoint, and disagreements among its 'believers' were so common, even among its most basic tenets, that it was simply not steady enough to survive.

:p

Actually, not so much. "Semi-agnostic" because I acknowledge that I cannot know whether God exists or not, but I simply choose to believe.

I don't see anything semi about that, only relevant part bolded for convinience.

"Rational" because "gnostic" sounds funny right after "agnostic," and I feel it important to communicate that I strongly believe the pursuit of objective knowledge to be a virtue, seeing as many people who consider themselves religious do not.

Seems like a whole separate issue, b'eh.

"Theist," obviously, because I believe in God, but not the toddler-throwing-a-tantrum God featured in the Abrahamic religions.

Come on, think, Ashmoria. Isn't that the best kind of creator? Just like the best kind of boss is one who never comes to the office?

yeah, but why bother? Why not become an atheist? Isn't the deist god in essence the same as the absence of god?

Watered down theism. The Lord disapproves. His Judgement will pass though. The Lord provides for all.

The "Lord" cannot disapprove as he does not exist.

The "Lord" provides squat, zilch and a whole lot of nothing. It's a crutch for those who don't want to be accountable for their actions; it is for those who lack the imagination to think beyond "God did it".

This imaginary entity has held back medical science due to unreasonable fearmongering. This type of zealotry allows for people to die because irrational paranoia of some imaginary sky friend has people shitting their pants in fear of after-life repercussions that will never happen.

You are one of the Chosen few. May the Lord continue illuminating thy soul.

To all ye who doubt His might, nothing shall spare ye from His wrath. As it should be.

Such thoughts... how utterly archaic.

Why should we fear "his" wrath if there is no proof he could smite a "blasphemer" or "sinner"? His 'wrath' is just fear-mongering to force conformist thinking.

Exactly. The Lord hears this and recoils in horror. Heavy shall be the price to be paid by those who extol this sinful filth.

Religion is sinful filth. Religion has prevent medical science from advancing because people were deceived into thinking some imaginary sky friend would take care of them, but instead they suffered in pain because despite calls for help through "prayer" nothing has ever happened.

yeah, but why bother? Why not become an atheist? Isn't the deist god in essence the same as the absence of god?
No, not at all.

I think of it this way: The Prince of Monaco has no influence on my life whatsoever. He does precious little, and none of it is relevant to anything that matters to me. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Prince of Monaco. But the Prince of Monaco exists, and it would be nuts of me to say he doesn't because he doesn't do anything for or to me.

So, Deism is really for people who do believe there's a god, but who think that god is mostly irrelevant.

One might ask why they bothered to create a religion then, but we may as well ask why we bother to log onto NSG, since NSG accomplishes nothing.

EDIT: Actually, I think I should mention that in deist thought, as I've read it (not an expert), there is a reason to think about god even though he is pretty well absent. It is to gain what might be called an enlightened understanding of the world. By observing the natural world, the real world, deists argued that one could gain insight into the mind of god, and thus achieve an understanding of what truth is. The search for knowledge/wisdom is what many religions are about, so I guess this would be the reason why they would bother making a religion for themselves.

One might ask why they bothered to create a religion then, but we may as well ask why we bother to log onto NSG, since NSG accomplishes nothing.

EDIT: Actually, I think I should mention that in deist thought, as I've read it (not an expert), there is a reason to think about god even though he is pretty well absent. It is to gain what might be called an enlightened understanding of the world. By observing the natural world, the real world, deists argued that one could gain insight into the mind of god, and thus achieve an understanding of what truth is. The search for knowledge/wisdom is what many religions are about, so I guess this would be the reason why they would bother making a religion for themselves.

I come on NSG because I'm bored, I hope they had a better reason to start a religion than that. (and if I were to start a religion while bored it would be a lot more interesting than deism)

And wouldn't it be a better idea to become a scientist if you want to know how the world works?

I don't see anything semi about that, only relevant part bolded for convinience.



Seems like a whole separate issue, b'eh.

Well, essentially, a lot of my religious viewpoint comes from being raised Catholic by an atheist biologist mother and a somewhat-lapsed-Catholic father who never talked about his faith. One thing I learned quickly was that I despised faith that rejected science and scientific thought - but I still quite definitely believed in God. One can accurately call me an agnostic in the sense that I accept that the existence of God is fundamentally unknowable, but that's not the sense in which most people use it. Most people who call themselves agnostics mean that they have no real opinion on the existence or non-existence of God, and that simply doesn't apply to me. So I call myself a "semi-agnostic," to differentiate.

(Really, I suppose if I was going to try to categorize my beliefs properly, my list should actually be more like "ex-Catholic, philosophically-Christian, semi-agnostic, rational, faintly-animist, gnostic theist who finds art and nature to be forms of God and who despises anyone who thinks that God intended us to walk through the world wearing blinders" - but that's even more ridiculous-sounding than my original list. :p )

Wouldn't it be preferable to call them nonsense names, instead of yourself?


Nah, 'cause then they get mad at me. I like being nice. (Consider that another precept of my personal long-winded religion.) ;)

Well, essentially, a lot of my religious viewpoint comes from being raised Catholic by an atheist biologist mother and a somewhat-lapsed-Catholic father who never talked about his faith. One thing I learned quickly was that I despised faith that rejected science and scientific thought - but I still quite definitely believed in God. One can accurately call me an agnostic in the sense that I accept that the existence of God is fundamentally unknowable, but that's not the sense in which most people use it. Most people who call themselves agnostics mean that they have no real opinion on the existence or non-existence of God, and that simply doesn't apply to me. So I call myself a "semi-agnostic," to differentiate.

Wouldn't it be preferable to call them nonsense names, instead of yourself?

(Really, I suppose if I was going to try to categorize my beliefs properly, my list should actually be more like "ex-Catholic, philosophically... but that's even more ridiculous-sounding than my original list. :p )
No comment. >_>

I come on NSG because I'm bored, I hope they had a better reason to start a religion than that. (and if I were to start a religion while bored it would be a lot more interesting than deism)

And wouldn't it be a better idea to become a scientist if you want to know how the world works?
If you had looked at the link I posted earlier (the post that starts with "Get educated, folks. The deists would want you to."), you'd know that many prominent deists are/have been scientists.

Apparently, you are writing from the viewpoint that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but that is an unrealistic viewpoint, easily countered simply by pointing to all the religious scientists in the world.

Also, I did not mean to suggest that people invent religions for the same reason people come to NSG. But they might. It's their business, not mine, why they do what they do. I come to NSG because I don't want to clean my house. If inventing a religion would get me out of cleaning my house, I might do that, too. What's it to you?

No one is under any obligation to conform to your standards of what constitutes a worthwhile reason for an activity. It's my time. I can waste it anyway I like.

Day-ist.

It is one of the most credible ideas about god and can be said to differ from Atheism only by saying that there is a god who created the universe. After that, they are the same.

Hmmm... I've never thought about it, but now that I do, I might actually be a deist. At least mostly. I want to believe in free will, so I don't like the idea about God having already decided what will happen to me and when. So yes, I am (mostly) deist.

Come on, think, Ashmoria. Isn't that the best kind of creator? Just like the best kind of boss is one who never comes to the office?

its kinda like i have this job i have to do and im not too good about getting it done so i pretend that there is a boss and pretend that the boss demands that i get it done. so i work more efficiently.

whatever works for you, i suppose, but its just not my turn of mind.

the universe "needs" a creator so i believe in one but nothing else about religious thought makes sense so i stop right there. arent i left with a "god" whose only accomplishment im sure of happened long ago and whose will now is completely unknowable?

isnt the only difference between that and atheism my peace of mind?

It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

You are possibly the funniest guy I've ever met.

its kinda like i have this job i have to do and im not too good about getting it done so i pretend that there is a boss and pretend that the boss demands that i get it done. so i work more efficiently.

whatever works for you, i suppose, but its just not my turn of mind.

the universe "needs" a creator so i believe in one but nothing else about religious thought makes sense so i stop right there. arent i left with a "god" whose only accomplishment im sure of happened long ago and whose will now is completely unknowable?

isnt the only difference between that and atheism my peace of mind?
No, I don't think so. Most deist writers of the 18th century, when it was at its height, spent a lot of time philosophizing very deeply about the spiritual nature of the universe and humanity's place and role in it. That is something atheists typically don't spend much time doing. Many of the deists had a goal that could be desribed as mystical. Atheists are typically not inclined towards mysticism. Mysticism is never associated with seeking to reassure or console oneself, or otherwise maintain peace of mind. It is a search for a kind of truth, that one is sure is out there somewhere.

The deists believed they could find keys to the truth they were looking for -- a spiritual truth -- in observation of the natural world. For them it was enough to see and try to understand what God had already done -- almost like spiritual archeologists, if you will. They did not need a God who was present to tell them what to do now. THAT is where they chiefly differ(ed) from the rest of Christianity, so that now they are not considered Christians at all. If you are using the assumptions about the nature and role of God that mainstream Christianity believes in, and trying to apply that to the idea of God that deism believes in, then deism will make no sense. But the fault is in your approach, not in deism. It would be just as wrong of an approach if you applied the Christian standards of how to relate to god to Hinduism.

No, I don't think so. Most deist writers of the 18th century, when it was at its height, spent a lot of time philosophizing very deeply about the spiritual nature of the universe and humanity's place and role in it. That is something atheists typically don't spend much time doing. Many of the deists had a goal that could be desribed as mystical. Atheists are typically not inclined towards mysticism. Mysticism is never associated with seeking to reassure or console oneself, or otherwise maintain peace of mind. It is a search for a kind of truth, that one is sure is out there somewhere.

The deists believed they could find keys to the truth they were looking for -- a spiritual truth -- in observation of the natural world. For them it was enough to see and try to understand what God had already done -- almost like spiritual archeologists, if you will. They did not need a God who was present to tell them what to do now. THAT is where they chiefly differ(ed) from the rest of Christianity, so that now they are not considered Christians at all. If you are using the assumptions about the nature and role of God that mainstream Christianity believes in, and trying to apply that to the idea of God that deism believes in, then deism will make no sense. But the fault is in your approach, not in deism. It would be just as wrong of an approach if you applied the Christian standards of how to relate to god to Hinduism.


ya but then youre just making stuff up. you are no better than shirley mcclaine taking bits and pieces of various religious traditions and sticking them together willynilly.

Have you heard the Good News about punctuation?

*FLORT*
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/irre.gif

<3 ya Muravyets!

what is the value in having a creator that doesnt DO anything?

When said creator is a fickle, bloodthirsty bastard who, in absence of iron chariots, really feels quite at home with the destructive aspect of power.
Kinda don't want so much capability to come to fruition, really.

And yet they never go away. One of life's great mysteries.

It's a paradigm, really of perpetuity .... kinda gives one a comforting feeling of purpose and belonging.

Just like the best kind of boss is one who never comes to the office?Actually i heard it here somewhere that they spent some quality time with god, and found out (much to their disappointment) that god had the cosmic equivalent of crotch-rot, at least by smells and appearance.

Didn't read, too much Imperial Brazil.

I'm Deist. Non-Abrahamic of course.

You are possibly the funniest guy I've ever met.

It would be at least twice now. *nods*

ya but then youre just making stuff up. you are no better than shirley mcclaine taking bits and pieces of various religious traditions and sticking them together willynilly.
Nonsense. Where do you get any suggestion that people are just sticking bits and pieces together willynilly in regard to deism? Deism starts well within the foundation of mainstream Christian theology, and then finds its own path -- a new one in its day -- by applying critical judgment to that theology. The Jesuits and various Protestant sects had been doing that for centuries. There is nothing inherently Shirley McClaine-ish about it. If you are going to suggest that no one is allowed to apply critical judgment to theological arguments, then you would be talking like one of the more radical conservative fundamentalists.

If anything, I'd say Deism is a radically stripped down version of the Abrahamic religions, in which all bits considered extraneous were sliced away to get at what they saw as the core point -- they wanted fewer bits, so they did not go looking for bits from other sources to add.

And anyway, what's wrong with sticking bits and pieces together willynilly? This is not what the deists did, but it is how some other religions were created -- possibly including Christianity. At what point is a critical mass of orthodoxy reached, so that people are precluded from making further adjustments to it without being accused of "just making stuff up"? If all religion is just "made up," then I suggest people should be free to make up as much as they like, as often as they like.

I guess another way to say that is, at what point are we no longer allowed to develop an idea?

I guess another way to say that is, at what point are we no longer allowed to develop an idea?

When the republicans gain majority status.

*FLORT*
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/irre.gif

<3 ya Muravyets!

;)

Nonsense. Where do you get any suggestion that people are just sticking bits and pieces together willynilly in regard to deism? Deism starts well within the foundation of mainstream Christian theology, and then finds its own path -- a new one in its day -- by applying critical judgment to that theology. The Jesuits and various Protestant sects had been doing that for centuries. There is nothing inherently Shirley McClaine-ish about it. If you are going to suggest that no one is allowed to apply critical judgment to theological arguments, then you would be talking like one of the more radical conservative fundamentalists.

If anything, I'd say Deism is a radically stripped down version of the Abrahamic religions, in which all bits considered extraneous were sliced away to get at what they saw as the core point -- they wanted fewer bits, so they did not go looking for bits from other sources to add.

And anyway, what's wrong with sticking bits and pieces together willynilly? This is not what the deists did, but it is how some other religions were created -- possibly including Christianity. At what point is a critical mass of orthodoxy reached, so that people are precluded from making further adjustments to it without being accused of "just making stuff up"? If all religion is just "made up," then I suggest people should be free to make up as much as they like, as often as they like.

I guess another way to say that is, at what point are we no longer allowed to develop an idea?


because that is what they are doing. its not like science where you do experiments and if you do them right some truth is revealed. they are deciding on the basis of nothing what is true and what isnt. is there reincarnation? makes sense to me so YES. do bad people go to hell? on thats terrible, i dont like it so NO. what is god's role in the universe today? ....hmmmm i like the idea that he does nothing but kinda hold the whole system together so ...thats what it is.

i see no sense in making up new religious lies. the ones we have are bad enough.

Actually i heard it here somewhere that they spent some quality time with god, and found out (much to their disappointment) that god had the cosmic equivalent of crotch-rot, at least by smells and appearance.

I wouldn't know about that. I've never been anywhere near the Abrahamic god's crotch, and the gods I venerate are clean and circumspect.

When said creator is a fickle, bloodthirsty bastard who, in absence of iron chariots, really feels quite at home with the destructive aspect of power.
Kinda don't want so much capability to come to fruition, really.

you have a point but i dont think it works that way. its not a choice between a clockmaker god and zeus who will rape your wife if he gets a chance.

When the republicans gain majority status.
That's another fallacy promulgated by interested parties, which you make the mistake of buying into. Republicans may choose not to think, but that in no way suggests that non-republicans will give up the habit, no matter how big a majority they get. In fact, the republicans had a majority for a while there, and I never stopped thinking the entire time. Of course, I mostly thought about what a bunch of fuckheads they were, but I didn't stop at some preset orthodox form of that thought. I developed it into new forms and new directions constantly by a process of critical judgment in which I asked, is this really the best way to express their fuckheadedness? Is this all there really is to say about their fuckheadedness?

you have a point but i dont think it works that way. its not a choice between a clockmaker godWell, given entropy, the guy apparently left Voc-Ed a little too early, perhaps due a need to settle some bloodlust issues.
and zeus who will rape your wife if he gets a chance.Well, he already established the case of domestic violence with the date-rape of Adam.

Deism is fundamentally neutral. I am christian with a deism subtext. I believe that my god loves everyone (execpt pedophiles, murderers and rapitists who will f-ing burn). I do not believe my god wants me to pay some asshole to buy a huge building to preach his word either. I believe he just wants our respect and devotion.

That's another fallacy promulgated by interested parties, which you make the mistake of buying into. Republicans may choose not to think, but that in no way suggests that non-republicans will give up the habit, no matter how big a majority they get. In fact, the republicans had a majority for a while there, and I never stopped thinking the entire time. Of course, I mostly thought about what a bunch of fuckheads they were, but I didn't stop at some preset orthodox form of that thought. I developed it into new forms and new directions constantly by a process of critical judgment in which I asked, is this really the best way to express their fuckheadedness? Is this all there really is to say about their fuckheadedness?
Come come, this obviously isn't a political thread yet - t'were a jape, nothing more.
No matter how much evidence backs up my statement. Besides, you said "allowed". Just 'cuz something is verboten doesn't mean it won't be done. That is kinda the point of some the subject matter anyway, dontcha think?

http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

because that is what they are doing. its not like science where you do experiments and if you do them right some truth is revealed. they are deciding on the basis of nothing what is true and what isnt. is there reincarnation? makes sense to me so YES. do bad people go to hell? on thats terrible, i dont like it so NO. what is god's role in the universe today? ....hmmmm i like the idea that he does nothing but kinda hold the whole system together so ...thats what it is.

i see no sense in making up new religious lies. the ones we have are bad enough.
Ashmoria, I really do respect you very highly among all NSGers, but now you're just expressing your prejudice. Since you dislike religious thinking -- calling it "lies" -- you will not allow that there is any validity to criticism or development within religious thinking. But you do not show that changing a religion is a bad or wrong thing. You only show that you don't like religious thinking. Unfortunately, this kind of takes the substance out of a lot of what you say about religion in general. Rather than showing any flaws in the thinking within its own context, you merely assert that changes to a religion are no good. You merely only express an opinion that you don't like religion or its context or its manner of development. You're entitled to that opinino, but it is kind of irrelevant to this thread.

But then so is a lot of the religion-bashing here, most of which I've been ignoring. Rather than argue with you about this, I'll drop it.

I'll just say that it would be more accurate to your viewpoint if, instead of saying deism is bunk because of how the religion was developed, you said it was bunk because it was a religion and left it that.

Well, given entropy, the guy apparently left Voc-Ed a little too early, perhaps due a need to settle some bloodlust issues.
Well, he already established the case of domestic violence with the date-rape of Adam.

i see your point but can you really support a stance of "i dont like the way god is portrayed in the bible so im going to pretend that he is entirely different"?

seems to me that its better to dump christianity (or judaism) completely and take up a new religious system whole cloth.

Ashmoria, I really do respect you very highly among all NSGers, but now you're just expressing your prejudice. Since you dislike religious thinking -- calling it "lies" -- you will not allow that there is any validity to criticism or development within religious thinking. But you do not show that changing a religion is a bad or wrong thing. You only show that you don't like religious thinking. Unfortunately, this kind of takes the substance out of a lot of what you say about religion in general. Rather than showing any flaws in the thinking within its own context, you merely assert that changes to a religion are no good. You merely only express an opinion that you don't like religion or its context or its manner of development. You're entitled to that opinino, but it is kind of irrelevant to this thread.

But then so is a lot of the religion-bashing here, most of which I've been ignoring. Rather than argue with you about this, I'll drop it.

*shrug* you are fine with religion as metaphor. im not.

i see your point but can you really support a stance of "i dont like the way god is portrayed in the bible so im going to pretend that he is entirely different"?

seems to me that its better to dump christianity (or judaism) completely and take up a new religious system whole cloth.
Well, i'm just working with the material i'm given. If there's holes, i'll nibble through them, just like i have my own imperfections.
I don't have any reason to think there's any validity whatsoever to the OT's version of "god", so i might as well give it the reverence it deserves as the caricature it is.
Pretending isn't really a take home issue with me about it.

Come come, this obviously isn't a political thread yet - t'were a jape, nothing more.
No matter how much evidence backs up my statement. Besides, you said "allowed". Just 'cuz something is verboten doesn't mean it won't be done. That is kinda the point of some the subject matter anyway, dontcha think?

http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

It is not in any way the point of the OP of this thread.

Religion-bashers have hijacked the thread to an extent.

It is not in any way the point of the OP of this thread.Not what i mean, really ... it would take a second to explain, i guess, but i'll just say that these kinds of issues of belief and devotion tend to have certain corollaries to political dilemmas.


Religion-bashers have hijacked the thread to an extent.
That could have been predicted well in advance. *nods*

i see your point but can you really support a stance of "i dont like the way god is portrayed in the bible so im going to pretend that he is entirely different"?

seems to me that its better to dump christianity (or judaism) completely and take up a new religious system whole cloth.

Where do you think new religions come from? They have mommies and daddies just like babies. Sometimes they have several mommies and daddies. Every new thought is an off-shoot of an old thought, including every religion in the world today and for the last 7000 years, at least. At some point in the history of every single religion that ever was, somebody decided they had issues with this or that part of it, and started tinkering with it until they came up with something that was entirely different from the old thing. That's not "metaphor" or "lies," that's called thinking. And it's a good thing, even if it sometimes backfires on us.

*shrug* you are fine with religion as metaphor. im not.

We'll agree to disagree about that. To be honest, I am so comfortable with metaphor (not just in religion) that I am completely incapable of understanding why some people aren't.

I guess that's why I will never understand why some people need the Bible to be literally, factually true.

Her existence is still a blight on this fair world.

Fair world?

Tell that to Margaret Thatcher.

Not what i mean, really ... it would take a second to explain, i guess, but i'll just say that these kinds of issues of belief and devotion tend to have certain corollaries to political dilemmas.
We can blame the republicans for that too, if we like. ;)


That could have been predicted well in advance. *nods*
Yes, I wasn't surprised by it.

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?

You've just met another one :).

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?

What the hell is with all the religious threads lately? Trolls and moderators are having a field day. STOP FEEDING THE SCOURGE OF NSG!

We can blame the republicans for that too, if we like. ;)
Upon reflection (and viewing of two movies), yes, i can! :D


Yes, I wasn't surprised by it.I guess it could get more lively if our new Imperial / olde Imperial Brazil shows up, but i don't have any significant problems with deism, personally.

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?

Thanks to the wonders of the British/American English split. You can get away with dee-ist, day-ist and usually deh-ist as well.

Americans are very lucky that our key founding fathers were Deists, instead of Christians. Being a Deist is very convenient for politicians. It enables them to feel less like a hypocrite when they have to play along with all the phony invocations, prayers and other tripe that is inevitable when the hollow piety of "respectable" people manifests itself.

It also allows them to look at the tanakh, new testament, Qur'an, and various other holy books - and acknowledge wisdom when it exists rather than isolating themselves from the world of knowledge that exists.

The problem with mainline religions is this; it is the equivalence of Hitler when he tried to remove 'jewish science' and some how claim there was a 'true german science' and all outside 'germany science' was false.

It would be at least twice now. *nods*

Eh?

Deism doesn't answer any questions. If god created the world, who created god? What is god for that matter?

Noone, can answer that so it's a pointless discussion.

That's the point of Deism -- answering your OWN questions, and not relying on a book that forgot to mention dinosaurs (Bill Hicks, ftw).

If she shrouded herself in black and followed the Lord's calling, she could still remain pure in His eyes, and remain inviolate from all but His gentle touch.

You, my green, knobbly and regenerating friend, are a laugh riot.

ya but then youre just making stuff up. you are no better than shirley mcclaine taking bits and pieces of various religious traditions and sticking them together willynilly.

That's what religions have been since after the first one was organized. What's your point?

I'm so far the only deist I know. Is anyone else here one as well?
Not me.

And how exactly do you pronounce the word? Is it dee-ist or day-ist?
I don't think you'll be making many conversions.

because that is what they are doing. its not like science where you do experiments and if you do them right some truth is revealed. they are deciding on the basis of nothing what is true and what isnt. is there reincarnation? makes sense to me so YES. do bad people go to hell? on thats terrible, i dont like it so NO. what is god's role in the universe today? ....hmmmm i like the idea that he does nothing but kinda hold the whole system together so ...thats what it is.

i see no sense in making up new religious lies. the ones we have are bad enough.

Welcome to philosophy. People think about things, talk about things, and come to conclusions about things. I'm not deist (Christian, but I do kinda lean that way), and I don't have any problem with thinking about things and deciding what you'll believe.

my green, knobbly and regenerating friend

Is it bad that I laughed almost immediately?

What the hell is with all the religious threads lately? Trolls and moderators are having a field day. STOP FEEDING THE SCOURGE OF NSG!

It has been a while since I have been on the NS boards and here in General. So I was unaware.

Secondly, I was not here in the attempt to convert anyone. Nor am I here to create religious discussion. I was just curious as to how many people have a similar view to me. As far as I know, there are not too many people out there who are deist. So I was curious if I'm not alone in this modern 2007 times. Perhaps it was a bit naive of me to not think about any potential stirrings it would cause in terms of religious debate.

Eh?

You, my green, knobbly and regenerating friend, are a laugh riot.

;)

;)

Oh. Right. :p

It encourages filthy, degenerate lifestyles. Not to mention the sick fiends that count as its most prominent artists. Dolly Parton? The epitome of all evil. Her breasts are clearly designed to tempt her fellowmen into wallowing in sin. Disgusting.

Good one lol

Thanks to the wonders of the British/American English split. You can get away with dee-ist, day-ist and usually deh-ist as well.

If you pronounce it dee-ist, you will go to day-ist hell. It's actually a lot like earth, but with fewer desserts.