Is the problem faith itself or the imposition of faith?

[kx000]

You're misunderstanding Deism if you think this is a doctrine that can't be disputed. There are many Deists who believe that God might choose to intervene in creation occasionally, or even often. The idea that God doesn't is simply one that springs from "reason and observation of the natural world". In other words, because there is no real evidence to suggest that this happens, Deists simply tend to default to the most likely explanation. There is room in Deism for divine intervention, but there is also a stark contrast between the sort of intervention that is consistent with what is observed (and is therefore consistent with the Deist view), and the sort that many other theists like to imagine into existence.

So you observe what this unknown God does with his powers we don't know about yet?

Personally I believe God will not intervene with life until the end. Of course he could have just manipulate that bird to fly by, but how could I tell?

[kx000]

I agree that there probably is.



I disagree with that part.

What makes both of them instances of faith is that they both are examples of belief in things whose truth can't be logically demonstrated.

Faith is the absolute same thing as belief. Any faith's truth can be logically demonstrated. Faith in God. Logic: We do not know if God exist. People have believed in him since the beginning. There is nothing that can possibly suggest he is absent, and never was. As he is for learned by billions upon billions of years than any of us.

Someone share the differences between, faith, science, and knowledge, please. We seem to be at an impasse over the definition of faith. Are you guys trying to say faith is belief in something silly?

[Rav]

So you observe what this unknown God does with his powers we don't know about yet?

I don't see how that follows from my comments. I was simply correcting your assertion that in order to be a Deist one necessarily has to reject the possibility that God can intervene in the natural order of things. Deists don't have a holy book that provides details about what God supposedly is. Rather, it's all something of a mystery.

[kx000]

I don't see how that follows from my comments. I was simply correcting your assertion that in order to be a Deist one necessarily has to reject the possibility that God can intervene in the natural order of things. Deists don't have a holy book that provides details about what God supposedly is. Rather, it's all something of a mystery.

I never stated that. I said deist are silly to say God has never intervened as a definitive part of their stance. I do agree, but there is no way to tell.

[Rav]

I never stated that. I said deist are silly to say God has never intervened as a definitive part of their stance. I do agree, but there is no way to tell.

How is that essentially different from what I said you said? Anyway, once again, there is no definitive Deist stance on the issue of intervention, except so far as they tend to reject the sort of intervention that other theists ascribe to God (such as the act of authoring religion), for much the same reason(s) that atheists do.

[kx000]

How is that essentially different from what I said you said? Anyway, once again, there is no definitive Deist stance on the issue of intervention, except so far as they tend to reject the sort of intervention that other theists ascribe to God (such as the act of authoring religion), for much the same reason(s) that atheists do.

So God left out a anti-rape doctrine? Very odd considering he's God.

[Rav]

So God left out a anti-rape doctrine? Very odd considering he's God.

Errr, what? Would you mind doing me the courtesy of remaining on this planet while we're conversing?

[wynn]

It's hard to take seriously and worship a god who put the Universe into existence, but then just sits back and lets awful things happen to people.

[Balerion]

It's hard to take seriously and worship a god who put the Universe into existence, but then just sits back and lets awful things happen to people.

One reason to dismiss the Abrahamic notion of God.

[kx000]

It's hard to take seriously and worship a god who put the Universe into existence, but then just sits back and lets awful things happen to people.

Unless this is not the last stop on our journey through the universe. People do awful things...

Errr, what? Would you mind doing me the courtesy of remaining on this planet while we're conversing?

Clarification?

I was responding to the religionist notion that God authored religions. Thats silly. He made a lot of different religions to fuck with us, and left out all the important stuff? LOL

[wynn]

One reason to dismiss the Abrahamic notion of God.

How?
Just because one doesn't worship the Abrahamic god, doesn't mean the Abrahamic god doesn't exist.

Unless this is not the last stop on our journey through the universe.

That is easy enough to say, but it certainly isn't easy to live with, nor is it much of a basis for a faith that all will be well in the end.

[Balerion]

How?
Just because one doesn't worship the Abrahamic god, doesn't mean the Abrahamic god doesn't exist.

I didn't say that. I said the absurdity of the claims of its followers are one reason to dismiss the notion of their god.

[wynn]

I didn't say that. I said the absurdity of the claims of its followers are one reason to dismiss the notion of their god.

If the Abrahamic God is The One, such dismissal as above won't help you on Judgment Day.

IOW, you haven't yet solved the problem of the evil god.

[Balerion]

If the Abrahamic God is The One, such dismissal as above won't help you on Judgment Day.

IOW, you haven't yet solved the problem of the evil god.

The absurdity of the claims makes the likelihood of the Abrahamic God existing unlikely.

The very concept of the Abrahamic God is simply a Frankenstein's Monster of older and contemporary gods and traditions, so there's no reason to even consider the validity of said claims until one can explain why this mash-up of other faiths is worth believing.

And as for "not helping me on Judgment Day," I'm not overly concerned. The idea of eternal mindless submission and worship appeals to me no more than roasting eternally in fire.

[wynn]

The absurdity of the claims makes the likelihood of the Abrahamic God existing unlikely.

The very concept of the Abrahamic God is simply a Frankenstein's Monster of older and contemporary gods and traditions, so there's no reason to even consider the validity of said claims until one can explain why this mash-up of other faiths is worth believing.

And as for "not helping me on Judgment Day," I'm not overly concerned. The idea of eternal mindless submission and worship appeals to me no more than roasting eternally in fire.

The standard mainstream Christian reply is that it doesn't matter whether it appeals to you or not.

IOW, some theists are making the same kind of argument as some people who favor science:
"It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it doesn't matter whether it appeals to you or not: it is simply the truth, whether you like it or not. And since it is the truth, you ought to accept it and live by it."

[Balerion]

The standard mainstream Christian reply is that it doesn't matter whether it appeals to you or not.

IOW, some theists are making the same kind of argument as some people who favor science:
"It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it doesn't matter whether it appeals to you or not: it is simply the truth, whether you like it or not. And since it is the truth, you ought to accept it and live by it."

You'd have a point if I were simply saying that "Let's not believe in it because it's unpleasant" but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the image of God being presented by Christians is absurd, and therefore unlikely to exist. Of course, I do not limit myself to just this argument; I recently explained to another poster that studying the origin of the Abrahamic faiths will show you empirical evidence that the claims made by them are false. But the abject absurdity of the Abrahamic God is a compelling argument against its existence.

But supposing that this god did exist, I would be no more compelled to live by its decrees than I am now. Most of its injunctions are immoral and short-sighted, and modern western culture is morally superior. I'll stick by that, thank you very much. And as I said before, if my "reward" is eternal submission and worship, give me the fire. At least I can express myself by screaming.