I'm not sure i'd call a deist a person of faith. All they are assuming is that something god-like does exist. They don't think it interacts with anything or anyone. They don't believe in miracles. It's entirely causal and in their viewpoints, rational.
Faith is defined as believing in the goodness, trustworthiness, reliability, etc. of something, be it a person, concept, or thing, this includes deities such as God or Supreme Being.
Deists still believe in God and believe God is good.
Sorry, didn't read the pages before but asking someone who is agnostic to prove you in the existence of lack there of is kind of futile don't you think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Faith is defined as believing in the goodness, trustworthiness, reliability, etc. of something, be it a person, concept, or thing, this includes deities such as God or Supreme Being.
Deists still believe in God and believe God is good.
Well, Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it.
This may be splitting hairs, if you happen to be a deist that doesn't reject supernatural events, but I don't think this model of god (a god that invents the universe and lets it do it's own thing) leaves any room for it to be charactarized as good, bad, or anything else. Of course, it's necessarily "good," that it created the universe, but beyond that there's no transendental goodness to be had. Most people would charactarize their faith as a trust that there will be divine intervention or at least salvation for themselves, presumably for living according to scripture. I guess we can play fast and loose with the definition and say anyone who trusts anyone has faith in the most general sense, but I think in this context that's a bit misleading.
(Oh and i'm still quite eager to hear about this atheist immaturity.)
Sorry, didn't read the pages before but asking someone who is agnostic to prove you in the existence of lack there of is kind of futile don't you think?
And yet here we are on page 39...
On a more serious note, we've more or less spun onto tangents at this point and i'm ok with it.
Well, Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it.
This may be splitting hairs, if you happen to be a deist that doesn't reject supernatural events, but I don't think this model of god (a god that invents the universe and lets it do it's own thing) leaves any room for it to be charactarized as good, bad, or anything else. Of course, it's necessarily "good," that it created the universe, but beyond that there's no transendental goodness to be had. Most people would charactarize their faith as a trust that there will be divine intervention or at least salvation for themselves, presumably for living according to scripture. I guess we can play fast and loose with the definition and say anyone who trusts anyone has faith in the most general sense, but I think in this context that's a bit misleading.
(Oh and i'm still quite eager to hear about this atheist immaturity.)
Yes deists typically reject supernatural events and any interference with God/Supreme Being. However some deists still believe in the judgement/afterlife, others the concept of soul, and some believing that everything is in accordance with a "Grand Plan" drawn up from God/Supreme Being.
That's one of the wonderful things about deism, there is no set structure and it can easily integrate with one's philosophy without interfering with the strive for knowledge and/or science.
Said concepts drawn from the ambiguity of deism is what I mean when we believe "God is good."
As for the atheist immaturity part, I do not know how to go about that without getting too controversial but I'll give it shot:
It is no question that the Atheist movement only begun just recently (the past 1-2 decades to be exact) and with all movements you have the intellectuals and the sheep, the sheep being "going with the flow" because there's a mass number of people, think of it as a "riot mentality." It may be a little harsh but that's the gist of it.
Aside from online conversations (and even then they are few) atheists in general don't know what the hell they are talking about and keep putting the blame on the Catholic Church, the Bible, etc. without even knowing what "wrongs" they did/have (not to mention all they target is the Catholic Church and its branch-offs, never do I see atheists target Buddhism or Hinduism).
For example, let's look at the Bible. I guarantee that at least 70% of the Atheists in any location (school, neighborhood, city, country, etc.) will most likely have not ridden the Bible or if they have have only decided to target specific passages and not take into account the previous or following verses from it, let alone the chapter.
Now don't get me wrong, ignorance is perfectly fine. It's the fact that people choose to remain ignorant even if they know the resource is right in front of them that really ticks me off.
Yes deists typically reject supernatural events and any interference with God/Supreme Being. However some deists still believe in the judgement/afterlife, others the concept of soul, and some believing that everything is in accordance with a "Grand Plan" drawn up from God/Supreme Being.
That's one of the wonderful things about deism, there is no set structure and it can easily integrate with one's philosophy without interfering with the strive for knowledge and/or science.
Said concepts drawn from the ambiguity of deism is what I mean when we believe "God is good."
I'll have to take your word for it. I don't know of any deists who ascribe to that level of confidence in god as more than simple creator, but also keeper, judge, etc. It seems foreign to my understanding, but anyone who strives for empirical knowledge is doing well for themselves regardless.
As for the atheist immaturity part, I do not know how to go about that without getting too controversial but I'll give it shot:
It is no question that the Atheist movement only begun just recently (the past 1-2 decades to be exact) and with all movements you have the intellectuals and the sheep, the sheep being "going with the flow" because there's a mass number of people, think of it as a "riot mentality." It may be a little harsh but that's the gist of it.
Fortunately, you're mis-informed.
Atheism is quite old. There are tribes in Africa who developed no ritual/religious traditions (Will Durant has written at some length on them, if you're interested) who might be considered the first atheists. As far as traditional western skepticism/atheism, that developed in the 16th century and often overlapped with (or was disguised as) deism. Many of the so-called deists of the American enlightenment (including Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, and Adam Smith) were prone to visit the Salon meetings of Paul Baron d'Holbach, who was an early and vocal atheist intellectual.
Like most of the enlightenment, it was a review of greek philosphy. Protagoras wrote, "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist," in the 5th century and Lucretius is probably the most famous epicurean atheist of the ancient greek tradition.
It is also widely suggested that Cicero (of Roman fame) was an atheist aswell, having penned to his friend "In this subject of the nature of the gods the first question is: do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree, if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind it is perfectly easy to do so."
And of course, it cannot be omitted that the developement of socialism came along side a dramatic growth of anti-theist fervor in europe and asia during the late 19th and early 20th century. It goes without saying that Marx, Engles, Lenin, and other political figures of that time were quite stridently atheist.
So the idea that Atheism is a recent development is completely without merit.
Aside from online conversations (and even then they are few) atheists in general don't know what the hell they are talking about and keep putting the blame on the Catholic Church, the Bible, etc. without even knowing what "wrongs" they did/have (not to mention all they target is the Catholic Church and its branch-offs, never do I see atheists target Buddhism or Hinduism).
Reactionary atheism does tend to aim at western religions more than eastern, but I think this has two root causes:
1. Most people in the west aren't familiar with hindu tradition or anything but Aberhamic religions.
2. Neither religion has attempted the ammount of push-back against science and reason as the Aberhamic traditions. In-fact it's quite possible to be a buddhist and an atheist (at least in some schools of buddhism).
For example, let's look at the Bible. I guarantee that at least 70% of the Atheists in any location (school, neighborhood, city, country, etc.) will most likely have not ridden the Bible or if they have have only decided to target specific passages and not take into account the previous or following verses from it, let alone the chapter.
Pew polls dispute this handily. The US Religious Knowledge Survey, released in 2010 from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, found atheists and agnostics know more basic facts about the Bible than either Protestants or Catholics. That isn't to say more of them has read the bible cover to cover, but apparently they're more knowledgable.
"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups in a 32-question survey of religious knowledge by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. On average, Americans got 16 of the 32 questions correct. Atheists and agnostics got an average of 20.9 correct answers. Jews (20.5) and Mormons (20.3). Protestants got 16 correct answers on average, while Catholics got 14.7 questions right."
Glad I could clear up some of your misconceptions.
Atheism is quite old. There are tribes in Africa who developed no ritual/religious traditions (Will Durant has written at some length on them, if you're interested) who might be considered the first atheists. As far as traditional western skepticism/atheism, that developed in the 16th century and often overlapped with (or was disguised as) deism. Many of the so-called deists of the American enlightenment (including Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, and Adam Smith) were prone to visit the Salon meetings of Paul Baron d'Holbach, who was an early and vocal atheist intellectual.
Like most of the enlightenment, it was a review of greek philosphy. Protagoras wrote, "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist," in the 5th century and Lucretius is probably the most famous epicurean atheist of the ancient greek tradition.
It is also widely suggested that Cicero (of Roman fame) was an atheist aswell, having penned to his friend "In this subject of the nature of the gods the first question is: do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree, if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind it is perfectly easy to do so."
And of course, it cannot be omitted that the developement of socialism came along side a dramatic growth of anti-theist fervor in europe and asia during the late 19th and early 20th century. It goes without saying that Marx, Engles, Lenin, and other political figures of that time were quite stridently atheist.
So the idea that Atheism is a recent development is completely without merit.
I didn't state Atheism was a recent development, I'm well aware on how long it existed. What I stated was the "Atheism movement" as in when mass peoples begun to flock towards the concept. Its similarity is that of one like the "women rights movement": people have been advocating women rights for a long period of time dating back to the formation of the United States of America and even Greece but only until the late 1900s did it become prominent (and established) as mass peoples began to flock to it in support.
I may be wrong, but never in history than today have I seen a mass movement/flocking of peoples towards Atheism.
Reactionary atheism does tend to aim at western religions more than eastern, but I think this has two root causes:
1. Most people in the west aren't familiar with hindu tradition or anything but Aberhamic religions.
2. Neither religion has attempted the ammount of push-back against science and reason as the Aberhamic traditions. In-fact it's quite possible to be a buddhist and an atheist (at least in some schools of buddhism).
That is true, but as atheism is literally "without god/deity" I would like for it to transcend other than targeting Catholicism or any of its branches.
Few polls dispute this handily. The US Religious Knowledge Survey, released in 2010 from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, found atheists and agnostics know more basic facts about the Bible than either Protestants or Catholics. That isn't to say more of them has read the bible cover to cover, but apparently they're more knowledgable.
"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups in a 32-question survey of religious knowledge by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. On average, Americans got 16 of the 32 questions correct. Atheists and agnostics got an average of 20.9 correct answers. Jews (20.5) and Mormons (20.3). Protestants got 16 correct answers on average, while Catholics got 14.7 questions right."
That's what typically happens when the majority of an entire movement target only a specific religion and its related cousins. Then you have to also take into account about the Catholic/Christian mission to spread influence worldwide, there's bound to be more religious followers unknown to basic facts than there are Atheists/Agnostics to the sheer size of today's population of religious followers. Either way, the poll results are expected given on what we have today.
But I'll take into account my perception of the amount of knowledgeable Atheists/Agnostics were wrong.
I didn't state Atheism was a recent development, I'm well aware on how long it existed. What I stated was the "Atheism movement" as in when mass peoples begun to flock towards the concept. Its similarity is that of one like the "women rights movement": people have been advocating women rights for a long period of time dating back to the formation of the United States of America and even Greece but only until the late 1900s did it become prominent (and established) as mass peoples began to flock to it in support.
I may be wrong, but never in history than today have I seen a mass movement/flocking of peoples towards Atheism.
Well you made it sound, in your initial description, like atheists (one and all) coule be lumped into this group. I trust you realize that there is no concept to "flock," toward in atheism. The tendency towards rational skepticism is universal and even the religious among us utilize it daily. Atheists simply take this one step further and decline to make the god concept exempt from rationality. In terms of the historical record, you have to also understand that for most of history being an atheist was a death-wish. Many greek socieities (including Athens), the romans, and of course all of Christendom, were more than happy to kill non-believers. Even deism was a very dirisive school of thought in the 18th century.
In other words, you're not wrong from a literalist perspective, but given the documentation we do have of atheistic thought it seems unreasonable to assume that atheism had a porportionally smaller following among the inteligencia of developed nations (Ancient Greece, Rome, Enlightenment Europe and America). I would assert that the reason it has become more widely accepted today is that knowledge is more easily accessable and people are now free to question the belief systems that were once absolutely demanded of them.
That is true, but as atheism is literally "without god/deity" I would like for it to transcend other than targeting Catholicism or any of its branches.
I've shared my take on atheism, but i'll repeat that I see it as "there is no evidence for the existence of any god." Of course, literally speaking, you may interpret atheists to be directly denying the possibility of god, but I see that as an illogical premise. I happen to know the opinions of many atheists on this subject and all of them are of my opinion: it is about doubt, not denial, because we simply have no evdience on which to base such an assumption.
As for the reason Catholocism catches so much heat, my brother is stanchly Catholic and even he has some fairly low opinions of the Church these days. I won't go into the blatantly obvious reasons because i'm sure you're aware of them, but any religious organization making headlines will attract the attention of anti-theists who want to make a point.
That's what typically happens when the majority of an entire movement target only a specific religion and its related cousins. Then you have to also take into account about the Catholic/Christian mission to spread influence worldwide, there's bound to be more religious followers unknown to basic facts than there are Atheists/Agnostics to the sheer size of today's population of religious followers. Either way, the poll results are expected given on what we have today.
But I'll take into account my perception of the amount of knowledgeable Atheists/Agnostics were wrong.
Well yes, the poll was specifically of America. There are more Catholics in the world than there are Americans by a wide margin. Of course, that doesn't mean all those catholics know anything about their bible (they might, but there's really no telling unless someone does this kind of poll internationally). I think the take-home point is fairly simple, most atheists and agnostics do know quite a bit about religion. They don't generally have a mis-understanding of what the religions teach their followers or what the dogma entails. They understand it and they directly oppose it on the grounds that it is irrational or worse.
Another fun-fact from the Pew Pollsters: Atheist/Agnostic/Don't Ascribe to Religion is the fastest growing religious (well, non-religious) demographic in both the US and Europe. The only group growing faster anywhere in the world is Islam in Asia.
religious people wont try to prove there is a god because they know they cant. they want to remain constantly in denial(faith) about everything in life and give everything in life an excuse or meaning instantly without thinking ("god has a plan and everything happens for a reason"). i hear religious people argue this constantly. ill give a generalized example of something and then the typical religious response.
really so little timmy (:P) - who never did wrong and always prayed and believed in god, got cancer and died at 7 because... why? (you may sub in 'murdered' or 'raped' if it seems more severe, or heck both)
-"god had a bigger plan for him": his plan was living for 7 miserable years having done no wrong and then dying in constant agony? awesome plan!
-"god wanted him to be with him in heaven": god doesnt have enough people up there so he wanted another little boy to keep him company? (michael J alert). not to mention the fact that god doesnt "give" anyone cancer. if you believed that would you really like god? would anyone? lol
-"god is a kid with a magnifying glass on ant hill": JK (maybe?)
the only real explanation is not that god doesnt exist but that god doesnt control ANYTHING, because that would conflict with free will, the bible says god gave man free will. even the weather would conflict with free will, because some poor bastard being struck by lightning because "god made a storm" inflicts on his free will. so in life we get what we get and thats it, make the most of it folks, your son timmy died for no reason whatsoever then randomness. there is no greater plan. if there is a god he's chilling in 'heaven' grabbin souls out of the air as they leave earth and putting em in his house or satans depending on his naughty list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
religious people wont try to prove there is a god because they know they cant. they want to remain constantly in denial(faith) about everything in life and give everything in life an excuse or meaning instantly without thinking ("god has a plan and everything happens for a reason"). i hear religious people argue this constantly. ill give a generalized example of something and then the typical religious response.
So you see proletaria, these are the select people I refer to
really so little timmy (:P) - who never did wrong and always prayed and believed in god, got cancer and died at 7 because... why? (you may sub in 'murdered' or 'raped' if it seems more severe, or heck both)
-"god had a bigger plan for him": his plan was living for 7 miserable years having done no wrong and then dying in constant agony? awesome plan!
-"god wanted him to be with him in heaven": god doesnt have enough people up there so he wanted another little boy to keep him company? (michael J alert). not to mention the fact that god doesnt "give" anyone cancer. if you believed that would you really like god? would anyone? lol
-"god is a kid with a magnifying glass on ant hill": JK (maybe?)
the only real explanation is not that god doesnt exist but that god doesnt control ANYTHING, because that would conflict with free will, the bible says god gave man free will. even the weather would conflict with free will, because some poor bastard being struck by lightning because "god made a storm" inflicts on his free will. so in life we get what we get and thats it, make the most of it folks, your son timmy died for no reason whatsoever then randomness. there is no greater plan. if there is a god he's chilling in 'heaven' grabbin souls out of the air as they leave earth and putting em in his house or satans depending on his naughty list.
Even though I'm a Deist, there's multiple points in your argument that are wrong.
Catholics/Christians do not believe that God directly affects mankind/the world in the ways of curing cancer, sending extreme weathers, etc. If you read the Bible you would know that the relationship between a Christian and God is that of a spiritual nature as explained by Jesus Christ.
On your point on the lightning storm, how does lightning killing a man affect free will at all? Lightning does not command people to pop up as the nearest "conductor" to strike. This argument is flimsy at best, strawman.
Plus I do hope you know not all Christians believe Hell exists, in fact most don't.
I went to a Christian church for 15 years 2-3 times a week. I met thousands of them. And literally almost ALL of them believed what I said. "everything happens for a reason". It was the main part of their beliefs. It was the only way they could cope with bad things happening. Randomly stating what you think christians believe is pretty funny considering thats impossible.
the belief of a religion cannot simply be "googled". you cant just use a survey and say "yep this yata yata is what all/most christians/specific religion believe". because one christian(or any religion) church could have different views on how they take things in the bible and it differs from the other christian church down the street. you have to meet with them, talk and walk with them, thousands of them to know what they truly believe. you can say "the christians IVE met believe so n so" that would be a valid statement like i said, but saying "christians believe so n so" is you speaking for everyone of them on earth which is just ignorant.
i went to the biggest christian church in nevada and after many years this is what most of them (95%+) believed. when someone had troubled times or a loved one died the pastor or fellow christians would simply say "it will be ok, everything happens for a reason" or "god has a plan for everything, itll work out". i heard this more often then ANYTHING else combined.
but that cant possibly be true. because if "everything happens for a reason" then there is no such thing as absolute free will. because if god is controlling ANYTHING you dont have free will, getting struck by lightning that god controlled means that your free will is not there, god did something to you. unless the storm isnt controlled by god, its all random. god created the earth and just lets it do what it does. after he originally created the earth (IF he did) he just lets it go about its earthly business, it HAS to be for free will to exist. therefor cancer, the weather, anything and everything in the universe (your son dying, being raped yata yata) is completely random OR we don't truly have free will. saying we have free will and in the same breath saying something is ultimately going to happen regardless is contradicting yourself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
idk, that whole noah's ark thing sounds like "sending extreme weathers" to me. but im no bible scholar.
I specifically stated Catholics/Christians not Judaism, Islam, and the like.
Plus at the end of that story God vowed not to initiate any such event ever again.
a christian also includes the old testament. unless catholic bibles dont.
and then theres that whole Revelations thing with the seals and such...
No the Bible includes both Old and New Testament. But due to the New Testament being about Jesus, and the New Testament coming after the Old Testament, and the fact that Catholicism/Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings... in short the New Testament usually overrides the Old Testament in Catholicism/Christianity.
No the Bible includes both Old and New Testament. But due to the New Testament being about Jesus, and the New Testament coming after the Old Testament, and the fact that Catholicism/Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings... in short the New Testament usually overrides the Old Testament in Catholicism/Christianity.
again your spouting nonsense about what catholics and christians believe but you have NO idea. lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
I went to a Christian church for 15 years 2-3 times a week. I met thousands of them. And literally almost ALL of them believed what I said. "everything happens for a reason". It was the main part of their beliefs. It was the only way they could cope with bad things happening. Randomly stating what you think christians believe is pretty funny considering thats impossible.
the belief of a religion cannot simply be "googled". you cant just use a survey and say "yep this yata yata is what all/most christians/specific religion believe". because one christian(or any religion) church could have different views on how they take things in the bible and it differs from the other christian church down the street. you have to meet with them, talk and walk with them, thousands of them to know what they truly believe. you can say "the christians IVE met believe so n so" that would be a valid statement like i said, but saying "christians believe so n so" is you speaking for everyone of them on earth which is just ignorant.
i went to the biggest christian church in nevada and after many years this is what most of them (95%+) believed. when someone had troubled times or a loved one died the pastor or fellow christians would simply say "it will be ok, everything happens for a reason" or "god has a plan for everything, itll work out". i heard this more often then ANYTHING else combined.
but that cant possibly be true. because if "everything happens for a reason" then there is no such thing as absolute free will. because if god is controlling ANYTHING you dont have free will, getting struck by lightning that god controlled means that your free will is not there, god did something to you. unless the storm isnt controlled by god, its all random. god created the earth and just lets it do what it does. after he originally created the earth (IF he did) he just lets it go about its earthly business, it HAS to be for free will to exist. therefor cancer, the weather, anything and everything in the universe (your son dying, being raped yata yata) is completely random OR we don't truly have free will. saying we have free will and in the same breath saying something is ultimately going to happen regardless is contradicting yourself.
This is why in my previous post that one most look and read the Bible with an open mind. It is true in the past that Catholics/Christians took the reading literally, but today the book is being read the way it is meant to be read by non-believers and believers alike.
In short if you read the Bible literally, you will find contradictions, which is where most of the controversy on religion stems from, however if you read it with an open mind you will understand that it a good book and food for philosophical thought and perhaps a moral guide (to an extent).
I made a general comment on Christians and you chastise me for it, then you make out a general comment on Christians (with statistics nonetheless [95%+ bullshit]) and you expect me to take this point seriously? Bah I will argue it nonetheless. Ignoring your statistic (which is flawed in your premise) you are right in saying that Catholics/Christians do believe "God had a grand plan," this is embedded in the religion. However I still do not see how "God having a grand plan" affects the concept of free will at all.
From the Catholic/Christian perspective, God created humans with free will for they were made in his image. In the Old Testament God gets pissed off a few times hence the Noah's Ark incident etc. still not conflicting with mankind's free will as it was the free will that pissed him off in the first place. After Old Testament God became apathetic according to his plan which was later revealed by his son Jesus. From here Jesus acts as the beacon of God's will and creates new requirements in how to enter Heaven overturning the requirements stated in the Old Testament. Mankind's free will will decide whether to fulfill this requirement(s) or not.
So what does this all mean? In short God's apathy is explained by Jesus and God no longer directly affects the world/creatures in anyway. Thus like you said things happen at "random." This randomness does not mean that God does not have a plan however. Even if randomness were controlled by God this still does not override free will as God does not control people to run into specific spots to get hit by lightning.
i said 95% of the christians IVE met, did you not read my whole post? obviously not. because its perfectly valid and not contradictory for me to say that because its my personal experience with SPECIFIC people ive met, did i say the christians in my AREA? NO, i said christans IVE met. DOH
god cant control randomness, because by definition it WOULDNT be random, it would be god... lol...
also god sending the flood impeded with those peoples free will. free will remains constant as long as god does not interfere with our lives in any way. think of 'free will' as your rights as a free man. someone putting you in prison or raping you is taking away your free will because its FORCING you to do something regardless of you doing something to "deserve" it, we wont go into that. therefor god forcing anything on someone is taking away their free will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
i said 95% of the christians IVE met, did you not read my whole post? obviously not. because its perfectly valid for me to say that because its my personal experience.
god cant control randomness, because by definition it WOULDNT be random, it would be god... lol...
also god sending the flood impeded with those peoples free will. free will remains constant as long as god does not interfere with our lives in any way. think of 'free will' as your rights as a free man. someone putting you in prison or raping you is taking away your free will because its FORCING you to do something regardless of you doing something to "deserve" it, we wont go into that. therefor god forcing anything on someone is taking away their free will.
I think you are confused on the concept of free will.
If two beings who have free will clash, this does not override the concept of free will itself. Take the police vs citizen for example. If police arrests a person, that person being arrested still has free will. The person can still move his feet, body, speak his/her mind, etc. Just because the cop is binding him/her at that moment and preventing any escape doesn't mean that the person's free will is gone, it's just that the police's free will (due to his/her position of authority and equipment) is of greater power, but by no means snuffs out the other person's free will.
Edit: And another thing, if your going from experience you know that your argument turns biased if your trying to objectively state "Christians believe this and that" which you are in arguing my objective point (which you replied to), thus making your side of the argument less credible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Faith is defined as believing in the goodness, trustworthiness, reliability, etc. of something, be it a person, concept, or thing, this includes deities such as God or Supreme Being.
Deists still believe in God and believe God is good.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Well, Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it.
This may be splitting hairs, if you happen to be a deist that doesn't reject supernatural events, but I don't think this model of god (a god that invents the universe and lets it do it's own thing) leaves any room for it to be charactarized as good, bad, or anything else. Of course, it's necessarily "good," that it created the universe, but beyond that there's no transendental goodness to be had. Most people would charactarize their faith as a trust that there will be divine intervention or at least salvation for themselves, presumably for living according to scripture. I guess we can play fast and loose with the definition and say anyone who trusts anyone has faith in the most general sense, but I think in this context that's a bit misleading.
(Oh and i'm still quite eager to hear about this atheist immaturity.)
And yet here we are on page 39...
On a more serious note, we've more or less spun onto tangents at this point and i'm ok with it.
Yes deists typically reject supernatural events and any interference with God/Supreme Being. However some deists still believe in the judgement/afterlife, others the concept of soul, and some believing that everything is in accordance with a "Grand Plan" drawn up from God/Supreme Being.
That's one of the wonderful things about deism, there is no set structure and it can easily integrate with one's philosophy without interfering with the strive for knowledge and/or science.
Said concepts drawn from the ambiguity of deism is what I mean when we believe "God is good."
As for the atheist immaturity part, I do not know how to go about that without getting too controversial but I'll give it shot:
It is no question that the Atheist movement only begun just recently (the past 1-2 decades to be exact) and with all movements you have the intellectuals and the sheep, the sheep being "going with the flow" because there's a mass number of people, think of it as a "riot mentality." It may be a little harsh but that's the gist of it.
Aside from online conversations (and even then they are few) atheists in general don't know what the hell they are talking about and keep putting the blame on the Catholic Church, the Bible, etc. without even knowing what "wrongs" they did/have (not to mention all they target is the Catholic Church and its branch-offs, never do I see atheists target Buddhism or Hinduism).
For example, let's look at the Bible. I guarantee that at least 70% of the Atheists in any location (school, neighborhood, city, country, etc.) will most likely have not ridden the Bible or if they have have only decided to target specific passages and not take into account the previous or following verses from it, let alone the chapter.
Now don't get me wrong, ignorance is perfectly fine. It's the fact that people choose to remain ignorant even if they know the resource is right in front of them that really ticks me off.
I'll have to take your word for it. I don't know of any deists who ascribe to that level of confidence in god as more than simple creator, but also keeper, judge, etc. It seems foreign to my understanding, but anyone who strives for empirical knowledge is doing well for themselves regardless.
Fortunately, you're mis-informed.
Atheism is quite old. There are tribes in Africa who developed no ritual/religious traditions (Will Durant has written at some length on them, if you're interested) who might be considered the first atheists. As far as traditional western skepticism/atheism, that developed in the 16th century and often overlapped with (or was disguised as) deism. Many of the so-called deists of the American enlightenment (including Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, and Adam Smith) were prone to visit the Salon meetings of Paul Baron d'Holbach, who was an early and vocal atheist intellectual.
Like most of the enlightenment, it was a review of greek philosphy. Protagoras wrote, "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist," in the 5th century and Lucretius is probably the most famous epicurean atheist of the ancient greek tradition.
It is also widely suggested that Cicero (of Roman fame) was an atheist aswell, having penned to his friend "In this subject of the nature of the gods the first question is: do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree, if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind it is perfectly easy to do so."
And of course, it cannot be omitted that the developement of socialism came along side a dramatic growth of anti-theist fervor in europe and asia during the late 19th and early 20th century. It goes without saying that Marx, Engles, Lenin, and other political figures of that time were quite stridently atheist.
So the idea that Atheism is a recent development is completely without merit.
Reactionary atheism does tend to aim at western religions more than eastern, but I think this has two root causes:
1. Most people in the west aren't familiar with hindu tradition or anything but Aberhamic religions.
2. Neither religion has attempted the ammount of push-back against science and reason as the Aberhamic traditions. In-fact it's quite possible to be a buddhist and an atheist (at least in some schools of buddhism).
Pew polls dispute this handily. The US Religious Knowledge Survey, released in 2010 from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, found atheists and agnostics know more basic facts about the Bible than either Protestants or Catholics. That isn't to say more of them has read the bible cover to cover, but apparently they're more knowledgable.
"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups in a 32-question survey of religious knowledge by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. On average, Americans got 16 of the 32 questions correct. Atheists and agnostics got an average of 20.9 correct answers. Jews (20.5) and Mormons (20.3). Protestants got 16 correct answers on average, while Catholics got 14.7 questions right."
Glad I could clear up some of your misconceptions.
I didn't state Atheism was a recent development, I'm well aware on how long it existed. What I stated was the "Atheism movement" as in when mass peoples begun to flock towards the concept. Its similarity is that of one like the "women rights movement": people have been advocating women rights for a long period of time dating back to the formation of the United States of America and even Greece but only until the late 1900s did it become prominent (and established) as mass peoples began to flock to it in support.
I may be wrong, but never in history than today have I seen a mass movement/flocking of peoples towards Atheism.
That is true, but as atheism is literally "without god/deity" I would like for it to transcend other than targeting Catholicism or any of its branches.
That's what typically happens when the majority of an entire movement target only a specific religion and its related cousins. Then you have to also take into account about the Catholic/Christian mission to spread influence worldwide, there's bound to be more religious followers unknown to basic facts than there are Atheists/Agnostics to the sheer size of today's population of religious followers. Either way, the poll results are expected given on what we have today.
But I'll take into account my perception of the amount of knowledgeable Atheists/Agnostics were wrong.
Well you made it sound, in your initial description, like atheists (one and all) coule be lumped into this group. I trust you realize that there is no concept to "flock," toward in atheism. The tendency towards rational skepticism is universal and even the religious among us utilize it daily. Atheists simply take this one step further and decline to make the god concept exempt from rationality. In terms of the historical record, you have to also understand that for most of history being an atheist was a death-wish. Many greek socieities (including Athens), the romans, and of course all of Christendom, were more than happy to kill non-believers. Even deism was a very dirisive school of thought in the 18th century.
In other words, you're not wrong from a literalist perspective, but given the documentation we do have of atheistic thought it seems unreasonable to assume that atheism had a porportionally smaller following among the inteligencia of developed nations (Ancient Greece, Rome, Enlightenment Europe and America). I would assert that the reason it has become more widely accepted today is that knowledge is more easily accessable and people are now free to question the belief systems that were once absolutely demanded of them.
I've shared my take on atheism, but i'll repeat that I see it as "there is no evidence for the existence of any god." Of course, literally speaking, you may interpret atheists to be directly denying the possibility of god, but I see that as an illogical premise. I happen to know the opinions of many atheists on this subject and all of them are of my opinion: it is about doubt, not denial, because we simply have no evdience on which to base such an assumption.
As for the reason Catholocism catches so much heat, my brother is stanchly Catholic and even he has some fairly low opinions of the Church these days. I won't go into the blatantly obvious reasons because i'm sure you're aware of them, but any religious organization making headlines will attract the attention of anti-theists who want to make a point.
Well yes, the poll was specifically of America. There are more Catholics in the world than there are Americans by a wide margin. Of course, that doesn't mean all those catholics know anything about their bible (they might, but there's really no telling unless someone does this kind of poll internationally). I think the take-home point is fairly simple, most atheists and agnostics do know quite a bit about religion. They don't generally have a mis-understanding of what the religions teach their followers or what the dogma entails. They understand it and they directly oppose it on the grounds that it is irrational or worse.
Another fun-fact from the Pew Pollsters: Atheist/Agnostic/Don't Ascribe to Religion is the fastest growing religious (well, non-religious) demographic in both the US and Europe. The only group growing faster anywhere in the world is Islam in Asia.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
They do seem to cling to some of the more traditional methods of christianity. But crazy is relative to the person you ask.
really so little timmy (:P) - who never did wrong and always prayed and believed in god, got cancer and died at 7 because... why? (you may sub in 'murdered' or 'raped' if it seems more severe, or heck both)
-"god had a bigger plan for him": his plan was living for 7 miserable years having done no wrong and then dying in constant agony? awesome plan!
-"god wanted him to be with him in heaven": god doesnt have enough people up there so he wanted another little boy to keep him company? (michael J alert). not to mention the fact that god doesnt "give" anyone cancer. if you believed that would you really like god? would anyone? lol
-"god is a kid with a magnifying glass on ant hill": JK (maybe?)
the only real explanation is not that god doesnt exist but that god doesnt control ANYTHING, because that would conflict with free will, the bible says god gave man free will. even the weather would conflict with free will, because some poor bastard being struck by lightning because "god made a storm" inflicts on his free will. so in life we get what we get and thats it, make the most of it folks, your son timmy died for no reason whatsoever then randomness. there is no greater plan. if there is a god he's chilling in 'heaven' grabbin souls out of the air as they leave earth and putting em in his house or satans depending on his naughty list.
So you see proletaria, these are the select people I refer to
Even though I'm a Deist, there's multiple points in your argument that are wrong.
Catholics/Christians do not believe that God directly affects mankind/the world in the ways of curing cancer, sending extreme weathers, etc. If you read the Bible you would know that the relationship between a Christian and God is that of a spiritual nature as explained by Jesus Christ.
On your point on the lightning storm, how does lightning killing a man affect free will at all? Lightning does not command people to pop up as the nearest "conductor" to strike. This argument is flimsy at best, strawman.
Plus I do hope you know not all Christians believe Hell exists, in fact most don't.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I specifically stated Catholics/Christians not Judaism, Islam, and the like.
Plus at the end of that story God vowed not to initiate any such event ever again.
and then theres that whole Revelations thing with the seals and such...
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
the belief of a religion cannot simply be "googled". you cant just use a survey and say "yep this yata yata is what all/most christians/specific religion believe". because one christian(or any religion) church could have different views on how they take things in the bible and it differs from the other christian church down the street. you have to meet with them, talk and walk with them, thousands of them to know what they truly believe. you can say "the christians IVE met believe so n so" that would be a valid statement like i said, but saying "christians believe so n so" is you speaking for everyone of them on earth which is just ignorant.
i went to the biggest christian church in nevada and after many years this is what most of them (95%+) believed. when someone had troubled times or a loved one died the pastor or fellow christians would simply say "it will be ok, everything happens for a reason" or "god has a plan for everything, itll work out". i heard this more often then ANYTHING else combined.
but that cant possibly be true. because if "everything happens for a reason" then there is no such thing as absolute free will. because if god is controlling ANYTHING you dont have free will, getting struck by lightning that god controlled means that your free will is not there, god did something to you. unless the storm isnt controlled by god, its all random. god created the earth and just lets it do what it does. after he originally created the earth (IF he did) he just lets it go about its earthly business, it HAS to be for free will to exist. therefor cancer, the weather, anything and everything in the universe (your son dying, being raped yata yata) is completely random OR we don't truly have free will. saying we have free will and in the same breath saying something is ultimately going to happen regardless is contradicting yourself.
No the Bible includes both Old and New Testament. But due to the New Testament being about Jesus, and the New Testament coming after the Old Testament, and the fact that Catholicism/Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings... in short the New Testament usually overrides the Old Testament in Catholicism/Christianity.
again your spouting nonsense about what catholics and christians believe but you have NO idea. lol
This is why in my previous post that one most look and read the Bible with an open mind. It is true in the past that Catholics/Christians took the reading literally, but today the book is being read the way it is meant to be read by non-believers and believers alike.
In short if you read the Bible literally, you will find contradictions, which is where most of the controversy on religion stems from, however if you read it with an open mind you will understand that it a good book and food for philosophical thought and perhaps a moral guide (to an extent).
I made a general comment on Christians and you chastise me for it, then you make out a general comment on Christians (with statistics nonetheless [95%+ bullshit]) and you expect me to take this point seriously? Bah I will argue it nonetheless. Ignoring your statistic (which is flawed in your premise) you are right in saying that Catholics/Christians do believe "God had a grand plan," this is embedded in the religion. However I still do not see how "God having a grand plan" affects the concept of free will at all.
From the Catholic/Christian perspective, God created humans with free will for they were made in his image. In the Old Testament God gets pissed off a few times hence the Noah's Ark incident etc. still not conflicting with mankind's free will as it was the free will that pissed him off in the first place. After Old Testament God became apathetic according to his plan which was later revealed by his son Jesus. From here Jesus acts as the beacon of God's will and creates new requirements in how to enter Heaven overturning the requirements stated in the Old Testament. Mankind's free will will decide whether to fulfill this requirement(s) or not.
So what does this all mean? In short God's apathy is explained by Jesus and God no longer directly affects the world/creatures in anyway. Thus like you said things happen at "random." This randomness does not mean that God does not have a plan however. Even if randomness were controlled by God this still does not override free will as God does not control people to run into specific spots to get hit by lightning.
Says the one who directly contradicted himself in naming statistics of the Christian belief in his/her area.
i said 95% of the christians IVE met, did you not read my whole post? obviously not. because its perfectly valid and not contradictory for me to say that because its my personal experience with SPECIFIC people ive met, did i say the christians in my AREA? NO, i said christans IVE met. DOH
god cant control randomness, because by definition it WOULDNT be random, it would be god... lol...
also god sending the flood impeded with those peoples free will. free will remains constant as long as god does not interfere with our lives in any way. think of 'free will' as your rights as a free man. someone putting you in prison or raping you is taking away your free will because its FORCING you to do something regardless of you doing something to "deserve" it, we wont go into that. therefor god forcing anything on someone is taking away their free will.
I think you are confused on the concept of free will.
If two beings who have free will clash, this does not override the concept of free will itself. Take the police vs citizen for example. If police arrests a person, that person being arrested still has free will. The person can still move his feet, body, speak his/her mind, etc. Just because the cop is binding him/her at that moment and preventing any escape doesn't mean that the person's free will is gone, it's just that the police's free will (due to his/her position of authority and equipment) is of greater power, but by no means snuffs out the other person's free will.
Edit: And another thing, if your going from experience you know that your argument turns biased if your trying to objectively state "Christians believe this and that" which you are in arguing my objective point (which you replied to), thus making your side of the argument less credible.