Atheist or Religious

[qwizoking]

religious

 

[ColoHead]

If I had to pick a label, I'd label myself a Deist. I believe that nature proclaims a creator, but I don't believe anyone would be held responsible for conclusions drawn from their own personal experiences, which would include any and all spiritual revelation.

In other words: God wouldn't hold you responsible for not knowing Him without revealing Himself to you personally.

 

[Hazy_Nights.DC]

In the reality of it all..

 

[ThickStemz]

If I had to pick a label, I'd label myself a Deist. I believe that nature proclaims a creator, but I don't believe anyone would be held responsible for conclusions drawn from their own personal experiences, which would include any and all spiritual revelation.

In other words: God wouldn't hold you responsible for not knowing Him without revealing Himself to you personally.

That was the position of many of the founding fathers, all of whom most evangelicals today hold were diehard Christians. That is as far as we could see in the 18th century. We didn't yet know enough. Now we also happen to have natural explanations for all of those things you think point to a creator. Don't misjudge, I am not calling you primitive for holding to that. Many of those events that the religious used to look to as evidence to god have been explained thoroughly and god is not a reason; however, some remain unexplained and I suppose today that is where you leave room for a god.

I do not see any compelling reason to think that since all the other mysterious had a normal explanation, that these things should too. However, I cannot say that this is an unreasonable position to take. I can say that believing the Christian, or Muslim, or any other god is real and he controls this world and has an eternal plan for us and provides salvation. That is unreasonable since the 15th century. Such a being who had us as his peak of creation would have made us the center of the cosmos. Not only is our planet not at the center, our galaxy isn't. Hell our universe may not be.

 

[Hazy_Nights.DC]

Wow...one religion..

 

[ColoHead]

That was the position of many of the founding fathers, all of whom most evangelicals today hold were diehard Christians. That is as far as we could see in the 18th century. We didn't yet know enough. Now we also happen to have natural explanations for all of those things you think point to a creator. Don't misjudge, I am not calling you primitive for holding to that. Many of those events that the religious used to look to as evidence to god have been explained thoroughly and god is not a reason; however, some remain unexplained and I suppose today that is where you leave room for a god.

I do not see any compelling reason to think that since all the other mysterious had a normal explanation, that these things should too. However, I cannot say that this is an unreasonable position to take. I can say that believing the Christian, or Muslim, or any other god is real and he controls this world and has an eternal plan for us and provides salvation. That is unreasonable since the 15th century. Such a being who had us as his peak of creation would have made us the center of the cosmos. Not only is our planet not at the center, our galaxy isn't. Hell our universe may not be.

We were in agreement until your second sentence
I find it perfectly reasonable to look at the world around you, the earth, our solar system, our galaxy and greater space as full of order with laws that required immense consideration, architecting and considerable engineering.

In my experience entropy, a law, has never resulted in complex order...

What happened in the 15th century that so destroyed the credibility of Christ or Muhhamed?

 

[Heisenberg]

We were in agreement until your second sentence
I find it perfectly reasonable to look at the world around you, the earth, our solar system, our galaxy and greater space as full of order with laws that required immense consideration, architecting and considerable engineering.

In my experience entropy, a law, has never resulted in complex order...

What happened in the 15th century that so destroyed the credibility of Christ or Muhhamed?

Deism is a position that I have relatively few problems with, but the most troubling would be the problem of infinite regress. If the sole reason to suspect the cosmos had a creator is complexity, then we'd have to make the same assumption about the creator itself, as any being capable of creating complexity must itself be equally or exceedingly complex, and therefore requires a creator. If the creator needs a creator, then that creator needs a creator, and so on. Unless you suppose that at some point, one of those creators arose as a natural phenomenon, in which case, why not believe that of the universe itself? Why the need for any creator?

I think the point ThickStemz was making is that we now know that we are but a tiny speck in the universe, which changes the framing around ideas about an intentional and interactive creator. We now have to believe that God made the entire universe, billions upon billions of galaxies each containing billions and billions of planets, just so that they could have a personal relationship with one species of primate on one planet in one solar system. Further, that relationship is qualified by a test, which is, can you believe in me without any indication whatsoever that I exist? Even though I have created the universe in such a way as to give no indication that you are special to me and I refuse to show myself, and although I have imbued you with a logical mind that values evidence, can you believe anyway? If the answer is yes, you can live forever in paradise. If the answer is no, you suffer and burn and get tortured for eternity.

If belief is so important to the creator, why did that creator make it so hard to believe, and why did they offer up our eternal souls as a consequence? If order was imposed with the purpose of supporting life, why is life so often snuffed out by disorder? Why are things like genetic disease and birth defects programmed into our very existence? Why is so much of our environment so absolutely hostile to life? When you factor in questions such as these, the universe doesn't look so very well thought out after all. If God were offering up the universe at a science fair, he'd get an F. If he were an architect presenting a building with such inherent flaws and thoughtlessness, he'd be fired.

The more we learn about the universe the more we realize that, if it had a creator, that creator apparently lacked the foresight and prudence we'd expect from even the most basic engineer. And, as God is supposed to have no limits or flaws, we'd have to believe he did these things on purpose.

 

[ThickStemz]

We were in agreement until your second sentence
I find it perfectly reasonable to look at the world around you, the earth, our solar system, our galaxy and greater space as full of order with laws that required immense consideration, architecting and considerable engineering.

In my experience entropy, a law, has never resulted in complex order...

What happened in the 15th century that so destroyed the credibility of Christ or Muhhamed?

In the 15th century Galalio and Copernicus proved we weren't the center.

You lose me with the laws. It isn't like man's laws. The laws aren't proscriptive as you seem to imply. They are descriptive laws. They describe the world instead of limit it.

I never said your view was unreasonable, at least not in the same way as theistic beliefs are. There are just more reasonable views now.

Entropy on this planet doesn't go as perfectly as theorized because it isn't a closed system. The sun is adding ennergy at all times. Sub atomic particles change DNA. That is all that's needed for mutation. Though there may be other causes of mutation.

 

[ColoHead]

Deism is a position that I have relatively few problems with, but the most troubling would be the problem of infinite regress. If the sole reason to suspect the cosmos had a creator is complexity, then we'd have to make the same assumption about the creator itself, as any being capable of creating complexity must itself be equally or exceedingly complex, and therefore requires a creator. If the creator needs a creator, then that creator needs a creator, and so on. Unless you suppose that at some point, one of those creators arose as a natural phenomenon, in which case, why not believe that of the universe itself? Why the need for any creator?

I think the point ThickStemz was making is that we now know that we are but a tiny speck in the universe, which changes the framing around ideas about an intentional and interactive creator. We now have to believe that God made the entire universe, billions upon billions of galaxies each containing billions and billions of planets, just so that they could have a personal relationship with one species of primate on one planet in one solar system. Further, that relationship is qualified by a test, which is, can you believe in me without any indication whatsoever that I exist? Even though I have created the universe in such a way as to give no indication that you are special to me and I refuse to show myself, and although I have imbued you with a logical mind that values evidence, can you believe anyway? If the answer is yes, you can live forever in paradise. If the answer is no, you suffer and burn and get tortured for eternity.

If belief is so important to the creator, why did that creator make it so hard to believe, and why did they offer up our eternal souls as a consequence? If order was imposed with the purpose of supporting life, why is life so often snuffed out by disorder? Why are things like genetic disease and birth defects programmed into our very existence? Why is so much of our environment so absolutely hostile to life? When you factor in questions such as these, the universe doesn't look so very well thought out after all. If God were offering up the universe at a science fair, he'd get an F. If he were an architect presenting a building with such inherent flaws and thoughtlessness, he'd be fired.

The more we learn about the universe the more we realize that, if it had a creator, that creator apparently lacked the foresight and prudence we'd expect from even the most basic engineer. And, as God is supposed to have no limits or flaws, we'd have to believe he did these things on purpose.

These consversations are best had over beers, with some smoke... Lot's of good stuff in here. I'll send a suitable reply soon as I'm able.

 

[ColoHead]

In the 15th century Galalio and Copernicus proved we weren't the center.

You lose me with the laws. It isn't like man's laws. The laws aren't proscriptive as you seem to imply. They are descriptive laws. They describe the world instead of limit it.

I never said your view was unreasonable, at least not in the same way as theistic beliefs are. There are just more reasonable views now.

Entropy on this planet doesn't go as perfectly as theorized because it isn't a closed system. The sun is adding ennergy at all times. Sub atomic particles change DNA. That is all that's needed for mutation. Though there may be other causes of mutation.

Galileo and Copernicus continued to believe in a created universe/multiverse even after proving that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth. You’re describing man’s system of belief’s that developed from ancient writings. The Hebrew bible isn’t so exclusive on how our universe was created and certainly doesn’t exclude a multiverse.

Anything we’re able to establish as a scientific law is a theory or statement that has been proven through observation to the point that we’re able to establish a scientific law. Gravity is another one of these… They indeed describe the limits or laws that govern our universe. Are you proposing that conditions were different at some point which caused entropy to not yet exist? Not that it’s not possible, but it’s an assumption and a leap of faith.

Again, I haven’t personally found anything more reasonable than believing that I’m in a created universe. I posit no specific knowledge as to how that creation came to be, other than to observe that I find immense complexity and wonder in the world around me, and can’t really comprehend that it came into existence through a series of random chaotic events. Based on the law of entropy I find it most reasonable to believe in a point of origin because I can't understand and don't observe simultaneously increasingly complex systems + chaos.

You’re going to have to cite something on the changes to established laws of entropy. As far as I’m aware this is still a scientific law.

I believe much of the tendency towards atheism in these later generations is the continued cause religious institutions provide us to loath them.

 

[ThickStemz]

Galileo and Copernicus continued to believe in a created universe/multiverse even after proving that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth. You’re describing man’s system of belief’s that developed from ancient writings. The Hebrew bible isn’t so exclusive on how our universe was created and certainly doesn’t exclude a multiverse.

Anything we’re able to establish as a scientific law is a theory or statement that has been proven through observation to the point that we’re able to establish a scientific law. Gravity is another one of these… They indeed describe the limits or laws that govern our universe. Are you proposing that conditions were different at some point which caused entropy to not yet exist? Not that it’s not possible, but it’s an assumption and a leap of faith.

Again, I haven’t personally found anything more reasonable than believing that I’m in a created universe. I posit no specific knowledge as to how that creation came to be, other than to observe that I find immense complexity and wonder in the world around me, and can’t really comprehend that it came into existence through a series of random chaotic events. Based on the law of entropy I find it most reasonable to believe in a point of origin because I can't understand and don't observe simultaneously increasingly complex systems + chaos.

You’re going to have to cite something on the changes to established laws of entropy. As far as I’m aware this is still a scientific law.

I believe much of the tendency towards atheism in these later generations is the continued cause religious institutions provide us to loath them.

I think it is irrelevant that the two great scientists of Europe's late middle age continued to believe in a god. The point is that if we were created by a theistic god who loved us and we were the pinnacle of his creation, one would expect us to be the center, indeed Jerusalem to be the center of the world and universe. Before them they all thought everything revolved around the world. Under that conclusion it would be impossible not to think we were created by a theistic god who cared what we ate on what day, who we slept with and in what position, the theistic god.

If we're just on some random rock in a remote corner of an ordinary galaxy, not the center of anything, the theistic model of god takes a major hit, the deistic model is still intact. I didn't say that Galileo or Copernicus disprove god, I said they shattered the reasonable belief in a theistic god.

I am not competent to debate physics. My limited understanding of entropy, the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, requires a closed system. The earth, and life on it, does not live in a closed system. The sun is constantly providing energy, the earth provides some energy with volcanic activity, and the heavens provide stuff with water and perhaps even organic molecules coming from comets and asteroids.

I have never said your belief in a deistic model of creation was irrational. I merely believe that it is less rational than the view that there is no such creative being. Such a being would be incredibly complex, and a natural explanation is more simple. It also begs the question, plunging you into an infinite regress, who created the creator?

 

[Hazy_Nights.DC]

So obsolete..

 

[ColoHead]

Deism is a position that I have relatively few problems with, but the most troubling would be the problem of infinite regress. If the sole reason to suspect the cosmos had a creator is complexity, then we'd have to make the same assumption about the creator itself, as any being capable of creating complexity must itself be equally or exceedingly complex, and therefore requires a creator. If the creator needs a creator, then that creator needs a creator, and so on. Unless you suppose that at some point, one of those creators arose as a natural phenomenon, in which case, why not believe that of the universe itself? Why the need for any creator?

I think the point ThickStemz was making is that we now know that we are but a tiny speck in the universe, which changes the framing around ideas about an intentional and interactive creator. We now have to believe that God made the entire universe, billions upon billions of galaxies each containing billions and billions of planets, just so that they could have a personal relationship with one species of primate on one planet in one solar system. Further, that relationship is qualified by a test, which is, can you believe in me without any indication whatsoever that I exist? Even though I have created the universe in such a way as to give no indication that you are special to me and I refuse to show myself, and although I have imbued you with a logical mind that values evidence, can you believe anyway? If the answer is yes, you can live forever in paradise. If the answer is no, you suffer and burn and get tortured for eternity.

If belief is so important to the creator, why did that creator make it so hard to believe, and why did they offer up our eternal souls as a consequence? If order was imposed with the purpose of supporting life, why is life so often snuffed out by disorder? Why are things like genetic disease and birth defects programmed into our very existence? Why is so much of our environment so absolutely hostile to life? When you factor in questions such as these, the universe doesn't look so very well thought out after all. If God were offering up the universe at a science fair, he'd get an F. If he were an architect presenting a building with such inherent flaws and thoughtlessness, he'd be fired.

The more we learn about the universe the more we realize that, if it had a creator, that creator apparently lacked the foresight and prudence we'd expect from even the most basic engineer. And, as God is supposed to have no limits or flaws, we'd have to believe he did these things on purpose.

When I consider the potential problem of infinite regress, this is the lens through which I am looking:
I believe, along with most scientists that there was a beginning to our universe;
That beginning, wound up, started or created time – the Big Bang;
Much of the problem of infinite regression comes from our concepts of time.

I find that when I have to frame that place without time - there are no bounds, there is no framework that I can apply. In science there is only pure speculation as to what occurred before the Big Bang. This is a conceptual place where I don’t find enough information, not enough to make infinite regress a real problem requiring solution. This place that we can only speculate on - this place that has the potential to create an ever expanding universe, to me, this is God. God, or the energy that caused our universe to begin its expansion, is so outside my framework of understanding that I’m not really able to consider His reality, I can only observe the framework in which He caused me to exist; observe the nature of creation, and thereby, hopefully, it’s Creator.

Regarding the entirety of the second and third paragraphs: In the pursuit of truth, one shouldn’t cloud their view of available evidence with the theologies and institutional dogma created by men to control men. The basis of these ‘invalidated’ theistic belief systems exists in an ancient compilation of Hebrew writings, which have enough distinct similarities with cultural world-views throughout early human history, that we’d be remiss to discount the information therein. Just as we would be to discount any other ancient writings, accepted as originating from a known and accepted ancient people.

I believe that most of what you’re talking about with regard to disorder and chaos being such a factor in our lives, has to do with the entropy that is present in our world. Our most ancient writings tell us that this wasn’t always there. I know these are untrustworthy fairy tales, but they’re also our human history. We do owe them some evaluation. The Hebrew bible does talk about a beginning of entropy or death in our world - In the ‘story’ of the Garden of Eden.

But I don’t find God deserving of an F, I find a beautiful Creation, with some instability. Who knows? Maybe there’s something to our ancient fairy tales, and we indeed messed something up early on...

These ideas of no possibility of error with God are interesting to me, because they’re entirely constructs of theology. In the Hebrew bible, God is described as being beyond our comprehension, having higher ways than our ways. But, in the Hebrew Creation story, when we were made,Elohim, or the God of Gods, said, “Let us make man in our likeness”. Well we’re hardly perfect folks.

 

[ColoHead]

I think it is irrelevant that the two great scientists of Europe's late middle age continued to believe in a god. The point is that if we were created by a theistic god who loved us and we were the pinnacle of his creation, one would expect us to be the center, indeed Jerusalem to be the center of the world and universe. Before them they all thought everything revolved around the world. Under that conclusion it would be impossible not to think we were created by a theistic god who cared what we ate on what day, who we slept with and in what position, the theistic god.

If we're just on some random rock in a remote corner of an ordinary galaxy, not the center of anything, the theistic model of god takes a major hit, the deistic model is still intact. I didn't say that Galileo or Copernicus disprove god, I said they shattered the reasonable belief in a theistic god.

I am not competent to debate physics. My limited understanding of entropy, the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, requires a closed system. The earth, and life on it, does not live in a closed system. The sun is constantly providing energy, the earth provides some energy with volcanic activity, and the heavens provide stuff with water and perhaps even organic molecules coming from comets and asteroids.

I have never said your belief in a deistic model of creation was irrational. I merely believe that it is less rational than the view that there is no such creative being. Such a being would be incredibly complex, and a natural explanation is more simple. It also begs the question, plunging you into an infinite regress, who created the creator?

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your first statement. Discrediting a theologically founded understanding of the earth and its inhabitants nature to God and the universe, doesn't invalidate the basis of the belief.

I still disagree with you on the reasonableness of a theistic belief system. I find a gap beyond our understanding that needs to be filled. Some fill this with belief in a creator and some fill the gap through random chance and chaos. One of the best of these I've read is the progressive quantum anomaly. I don't find it unreasonable at all to lean towards what I find more plausible.

You just need to wade through which systems and beliefs were derived institutionally and which are an honest attempt at rendering actual history. Old religions have historical value that could lead us to answers... Discovering that a bunch of theologians had their heads up their asses and were creating a fictitious theistic institution doesn't invalidate man's early concepts of God.

A bunch of systematic and random events happening in space as a paragraph doesn't mean much to me. What are you saying? Are you arguing for evolution? We're not in disagreement. I may claim far fewer facts than you, but I think we'd mostly agree.

See my response to Heisenberg on infinite regress.

 

[ThickStemz]

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your first statement. Discrediting a theologically founded understanding of the earth and its inhabitants nature to God and the universe, doesn't invalidate the basis of the belief.

I still disagree with you on the reasonableness of a theistic belief system. I find a gap beyond our understanding that needs to be filled. Some fill this with belief in a creator and some fill the gap through random chance and chaos. One of the best of these I've read is the progressive quantum anomaly. I don't find it unreasonable at all to lean towards what I find more plausible.

You just need to wade through which systems and beliefs were derived institutionally and which are an honest attempt at rendering actual history. Old religions have historical value that could lead us to answers... Discovering that a bunch of theologians had their heads up their asses and were creating a fictitious theistic institution doesn't invalidate man's early concepts of God.

A bunch of systematic and random events happening in space as a paragraph doesn't mean much to me. What are you saying? Are you arguing for evolution? We're not in disagreement. I may claim far fewer facts than you, but I think we'd mostly agree.

See my response to Heisenberg on infinite regress.

Might I be wrong or do you not distinguish significantly between a theist God and a deist god?

I didn't intend to imply that what Copernicus and Gallaleo disproved god... My thoughts on that are, if stated sloppy earlier, are that they were the beginning of modern science, which has pushed back God so far that it is now unreasonable to believe in a God. Big G God.

Little g god... Deism, is a different matter.

 

[abalonehx]

All religion is manmade. And God is ridiculous. Reason. Truth, Peace & Love!

 

[Olive Drab Green]

Neither. Spiritual.

 

[abalonehx]

Spiritual. lol.

 

[ColoHead]

Might I be wrong or do you not distinguish significantly between a theist God and a deist god?

I didn't intend to imply that what Copernicus and Gallaleo disproved god... My thoughts on that are, if stated sloppy earlier, are that they were the beginning of modern science, which has pushed back God so far that it is now unreasonable to believe in a God. Big G God.

Little g god... Deism, is a different matter.

I find that theistic philosophy or theology is a man made pursuit or invention derived from deistic beliefs and historical writings. I find no other reasonable foundation for a belief in a creator outside of deism.

I hear what you're saying and absolutely agree that any notion of a preoccupied God should be well shattered in the reasonable mind, but that alone doesn't destroy theism.

 

[ColoHead]

Neither. Spiritual.

I plead the fifth