Religious people: what is your level of observance? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Your level of observance?
Non-practicing/secular form of religion 20 43.48%
A little observant 3 6.52%
Middle-of-the-road observance 11 23.91%
Strict adherence to religious rules 4 8.70%
Don't know 8 17.39%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2011, 05:15 PM   #321 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
GeddyBass2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 165
Default

I'll scrub all my previous posts in this thread...I'm a deist, no pretending about it.
__________________
Cello fund: $300/$750.
GeddyBass2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2011, 05:27 PM   #322 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112 View Post
I'll scrub all my previous posts in this thread...I'm a deist, no pretending about it.
Though I applaud your stance can you tell us what differs you from Atheism?
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2011, 06:01 PM   #323 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
GeddyBass2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIRIUSB View Post
Though I applaud your stance can you tell us what differs you from Atheism?
Deists believe, to put this simply, in a God who created the universe according to the scientific principles we observe for ourselves, and that this same God gave us the gift of reason, with which we understand the universe.

This God however is limited ONLY to creating the universe, and setting up those initial principles which allowed the universe to come into being as it is today.

To answer the question, atheism is similar to deism in that it rejects superstition and replaces it with scientific and logic principles, but the major difference is that in the case of the deist, there exists a God who gave us those principles.
__________________
Cello fund: $300/$750.
GeddyBass2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2011, 06:19 PM   #324 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112 View Post
Deists believe, to put this simply, in a God who created the universe according to the scientific principles we observe for ourselves, and that this same God gave us the gift of reason, with which we understand the universe.

This God however is limited ONLY to creating the universe, and setting up those initial principles which allowed the universe to come into being as it is today.

To answer the question, atheism is similar to deism in that it rejects superstition and replaces it with scientific and logic principles, but the major difference is that in the case of the deist, there exists a God who gave us those principles.
Deism is the only form of theism I can respect, however...

"If the general picture of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter somehow, suddenly created? How did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"

Then where did God come from? (Carl Sagan) - YouTube
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 11:10 AM   #325 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Deism is the only form of theism I can respect, however...
It's not that I don't respect the deists themselves, as they're usually far more intelligent and reasonable than most, but deists strikes me as atheists too scared to not believe in god. They get rid of everything religious, except for the actual god belief.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 02:49 PM   #326 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
GeddyBass2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
It's not that I don't respect the deists themselves, as they're usually far more intelligent and reasonable than most, but deists strikes me as atheists too scared to not believe in god. They get rid of everything religious, except for the actual god belief.
Major problem for even atheists is that for a lot of people, God and the traditional ideas of heaven, hell, answered prayer, belief in sin and all the usual traditional ideas that come in the 'God package'. Even atheists cannot understand the idea of a God without all those other things attached.

But the belief in a God CAN exist without believing in prayer, the afterlife or anything else. Indeed, God doesn't need these ideas to exist.
__________________
Cello fund: $300/$750.
GeddyBass2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 05:30 PM   #327 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112 View Post
Major problem for even atheists is that for a lot of people, God and the traditional ideas of heaven, hell, answered prayer, belief in sin and all the usual traditional ideas that come in the 'God package'. Even atheists cannot understand the idea of a God without all those other things attached.

But the belief in a God CAN exist without believing in prayer, the afterlife or anything else. Indeed, God doesn't need these ideas to exist.
I understand perfectly the type of deism that you subscribe to. My question is this: if you hold god to be an immutable and unchangeable constant in the equation of life, why not eliminate him/her/it from the equation altogether? Perhaps a god did create everything, but there is no evidence one way or the other. So why not stick to Occam's Razor and shave off the unnecessary bits? Why can't the laws of physics and the existence of the universe itself be the "end all be all", and why do they need a creator who is doomed to sit idly by for the rest of eternity?
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 10:46 PM   #328 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

God hates us all

Eyehategod
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 03:00 PM   #329 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
GeddyBass2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
I understand perfectly the type of deism that you subscribe to. My question is this: if you hold god to be an immutable and unchangeable constant in the equation of life, why not eliminate him/her/it from the equation altogether? Perhaps a god did create everything, but there is no evidence one way or the other. So why not stick to Occam's Razor and shave off the unnecessary bits? Why can't the laws of physics and the existence of the universe itself be the "end all be all", and why do they need a creator who is doomed to sit idly by for the rest of eternity?
I'm going to quote Thomas Paine at this point, as his English is better than mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Paine
"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it.

"It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.

"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.

"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.

"It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.

"The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.

"Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.

"But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.

"But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.

"Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.

"When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.

"As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."
__________________
Cello fund: $300/$750.
GeddyBass2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 08:31 PM   #330 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

I'm sorry but Paine is simply using mathematics as a guise to fancy up his real argument: God must exist because there has to have been a "first mover", and this is something I have already addressed by quoting Carl Sagan. Perhaps God was the "first mover", but then where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?

If "God" must be an immutable "first mover", why not save a step and conclude that physics does not need a "first mover"?

Last edited by RVCA; 08-23-2011 at 08:37 PM.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.