Read the short article "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russel... it was written decades ago and it destroys Christianity permanently if you've ever read it... it obliterates it with cold logic, evidence and reasoning.
While I carry no brief for D'Souza,I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
@hobatu I feel bad for the French in that they are compelled to purchase private health insurance just to stay ahead of mediocrity because government drives up costs in the marketplace through unnatural competition. Same thing happens in the US when the State gets involved w/ people's private health concerns. In spite of this, some 80% + of new health care advances come from the US. It's a tradition should should be proud. But then again, it's always hard to forgive a favor.
@hobatu Are you serious? My wife is a nurse and she treats people from all soci-economic levels, including many Canadians who come down to get treatments to avoid the wait times that plague many in socialist systems. The Americans who do travel overseas for treatment are usually those hopeless cancer cases looking for pie-in-the-sky remedies offered by greedy quak physicians in 3rd World countries. Americans are not begging for treatment. They are getting here, in droves. Socialism sux.
Theists always run to their little charity arguments and shout WHERE's YOU GODLESS CHARITIES HUH!!!! *red neck voice*. Hmm, wonder why the Union of Concerned Scientist, American Civil Liberties Union, United Nations Children's Fund, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam International, The Nature Conservancy, Population Connection, The SEED Foundation. Man I'm stopping a lot to name.
@hobatu Too bad you don't know what you're talking about at all.
Every single emergency room in the United States of America has been legally bound for quite some time to treat any and every person that comes to their doors, ability to pay is entirely irrelevant in those cases.
@Jelperman Right. "They" fly from 3 rd world nations to stay in an over priced hotels somewhere in LA or NY. I sees it all the time. 37th ranked? The US leads the world in basic medical science, diagnostics and therapeutics. We put the "advanced" in advanced nations. Yes, the system need fixing. No, Preznit Unicorn and the Donks won't be the ones who accomplish that.
@alphecca2539 Well said! But for one who has a blind, almost religious faith, in socialism, all the logic in the world one dissuade them. They have been brainwashed since childhood to think America sucks and there exists pure virtue in 3rd World garbage dump systems. There is nothing harder to forgive than a favor.
That's why rich people from all over the world come to the US to get treated. Regular people have to go Europe where health care is offered to non-citizens free of charge.
That is unfortunate. I disagree with him on religion and a lot of other things. I quite like him, and I know punching someone does not win an argument.
If you feel the need to restrict someone's right to free speech, then maybe you're the sick one. So my answer is no, I'm not sick. But you might need help.
So your idea of free speech is threatening people? If you slander, libel, or threaten someone you will in fact find that your concept of free speech is rather inaccurate.
The inability to articulate ideas and your choice to express a desire for physical violence I believe is a sign of you being rather ill, or at least stupid.
Let me see. I threatened a guy in a video that will never hear me and not even with severe violence but with a punch. Yeah, maybe you should seek help, because for some reason you think you've been assigned to police the internet. And yes, free speech does entail me saying what I'll do, until I've done it I'm innocent especially if the threat was not made directly at the person nor am I conspiring to commit said act of violence. I can say whatever I want.
I'm not offended. I just don't like being told what to do or people speculating who I am. He acts as though he has the authority to silence me. He doesn't. I let him spew his garbage, he should return the courtesy. I never addressed him directly, but he felt the need to belittle me.
What I find cute is the fact that you actually think you're an intellectual. Yet most of your time is spent on commenting on comments on youtube that weren't even intended for you.
No one whined. You just perceived it as whining. The comment was never about you, but you felt you had to get involved in it. That tells me that you're a narcissist and the fact that you like to police the internets tells me that you're a pseudo intellectual and a total pedo.
I think you took what I said the wrong way... how is a god logical? If he exists, he is obviously the most complex being ever. How could the most complex thing ever.... be the first to exist?
Everything works because life on earth is resilient and even the smallest microorganisms adapt to survive. Life on earth is not perfect, it tends to be adequate for survival, but never perfect. Species evolved in long round about ways because that is how evolution works, hardly divinely inspired. Just ask a woman who is giving birth. There is no evidence of a creator.
To speculate that there MIGHT be a god from the complications of science is plausible however, to say that you know "his" name and all these other details requires PROOF. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove that their god exists. Just because i cannot disprove one's god, does not mean that god exists. The proof of faith is pure speculation and forever will be.
No, belief is the opposite of non belief. There are many things that we do not know absolutely but still believe. And these things are not necessarily opposed to logic or evidence. There has been a lot of evidence that have lead me to my beliefs, but not solid proof. And neither has yours.
Belief is what you need in the absence of knowledge. I know what I know, you believe what you believe. My knowledge has accumulated over time in the presence of logic and evidence. Your belief has accumulated over time in opposition of logic and evidence.
semantically the words couldn't be more antonymous.
You said it yourself, "the opposite of belief is non-belief". So, what are you doing if you don't believe? Your entire experience is from knowing things and not believing things.......... So, no belief and what else do you have? Knowledge is the answer.
You can quote me.
The absence of belief is the presence of knowledge. - Andrew Wiebusch
I swear it's not me being obtuse. Yes, I am affirmatively a non-believer. I do not use belief, ever.
For instance, you may require belief of gravity or evolution, considering they are only theories, whereas I have knowledge about the theories and their validity. You seem to fail to realize that even theology is only a theory. It's a theory with 0 evidence but nonetheless a theory.
No. Your wrong. No human knowledge is 100 percent certain. There is an element of belief involved in our most trusted scientific theorys and beliefs are typically formed out of consideration of more basic facts. Most of the ideas you and I discuss fall somewhere in between these extremes.
The entire scientific process works on doubt, not belief. A scientist doesn't ever say "I believe X to be the solution", they say "X may be the solution, let me test it".
There is a HUGE difference between belief and theory.
If there is a God behind any of this it surely isn't one that is being worshipped on earth right now. None of the stories tell a tale like the one scientists are unravelling daily. It disgusts me that religion spends so much time trying to impede science and then once all the pieces are put together, religion, tries to take credit for it. I assure you that your jealous, angry, and hate filled God had nothing to do with the beautiful planet, galaxy or universe that I live in.
Well at least you admit it's a beautiful planet, galaxy and universe. I acknowledged a source for that beauty. i suppose you think it comes from nothing. To me at least my approach is more logical.
I never said "nothing", I just said it wasn't any God being worshipped on earth now.
And yes i am overwhelmed with appreciation for not only the vast size and age of the universe, but all the diverse beauty that is contained with in it. I look forward to every new discovery made whether its on the bottom of the ocean or in a far off galaxy.
There are many reasons but the simplest answer is that I have read Genesis, and I have also read the New Testament where Jesus makes clear that he stands behind the OT and Genesis. Which is what you would expect since Jesus was created by men who still had no grasp of any of this "order and symmetry".
Actually, no I didn't necessarily say that. But science actually gives an explanation of how simple life forms gradually turned into more complex ones over billions of years. The bible says God created earth in 6 days, which would require God to be much more complex then the earth. Logic and Religion are like oil and water.
When dealing with extremely naive and unintelligent people, sadly yes.
I have no answers for you, your inability to understand them has left you hopelessly inept.
Start reading more, put down the TV remote and get off the internet for a day, read a book that deals with complex ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with theism and MAYBE, just maybe you might one day grow a brain capable of comprehending and distinguishing between fact and fiction.
Deism - a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe.
And that's what Einstien believed. He defined God in an impersonal, deistic fashion, but he deeply believed that Gods handiwork was reflected in the harmony of natures laws and the beauty of all that exists.
Deism - a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe. That's what Einstein believed.. and he talked about it frequently.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
DISTINGUISHED FROM THEISM.
It's a belief that nature created the universe, or that the creation of the universe was natural. Which is basically what you have left if you don't believe in theism.
If you are an atheist in regards to Zeus and Thor, Yahweh etc. all you have left is NATURE, if you choose to label NATURE god, you are a deist.
Science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, My religion consists of an admiration of the superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our feeble minds. That emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
You misconceive EVERYTHING he says. It's sad too, he says a great deal more when you can understand it and it's worthy of much more awe and humility than anything Theism would ever produce.
"amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superioty that, compared with it, all the thinking and acting of humans is insignificant"
In the case of Einstein He believed that there was an Intelligent force behind all of nature. This is different then pure Atheism that accepts the Universe as a given. My point is that My belief in similar to Einsteins in the respect that it starts with an intelligent force behind all of nature. My point is merely that belief in God is or can be a very rational belief.
"He believed that there was an Intelligent force behind all of nature."
NO HE DID NOT. Concede this point or I'm done arguing with you. I have no problem ignoring another person who has no grip on reality and tries to make things up to suit them.
Your belief is nothing similar to Einstein's.
You keep sneaking in terms like 'intelligent force', which Einstein never even came close to using.
You are extremely delusional.
Einstein explained all of this, I suggest you read it more carefully.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
DISTINGUISHED FROM THEISM.
It's a belief that nature created the universe, or that the creation of the universe was natural. Which is basically what you have left if you don't believe in theism.
If you are an atheist in regards to Zeus and Thor, Yahweh etc. all you have left is NATURE, if you choose to label NATURE god, you are a deist.
I think your confusing an educated idea or belief with religious faith, they are not equal as you seem to be sneakily trying to suggest.
A religious idea or faith does not require any evidence at all and is often held despite the facts.
Someone making up an idea they like and convincing themselves it's true is VERY different to people all over the world conducting reproducible experiments building up bodies of knowledge and theories based on this, applying it to new experiments and so on
Yes there is a difference but there is still a relationship between the two but the my point is that scientific knowledge is never 100 percent certain.
And just because there are extreem faiths that depart from commonly accepted science, there are alot of beliefs that are perfectly consistent with the facts as we known them.
So do wizards and goblins. They have been documented throughout time. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of wizards and goblins written down in history. They certainly exist!
Try again.
Deism and theism have no supporting facts or evidence. The theories contradict every known fact.
I guess it depends on your definition of a fact.
If you define fact as being complete and utter wild speculation then, OK, god exists, wizards and goblins too though.
Science finds that the deeper it looks at a question the more symmetry and order it finds inherent in nature. I believe the ultimate source of that order must be an All-Intelligent Being. There is nothing condradictory to science in this belief.
Intelligent design, creationism, theology of which you speak is completely unaccepted by all science.
To propose a designer is no more logical than to pose magic for any other phenomena. You are inserting magic in the place of what you are failing to understand.
The argument of design has been posed many times and completely lost the debate every time.
"I believe the ultimate source of that order must be an All-Intelligent Being."
What I'm talking about is a vast amount of order underlying all phenomena. There are plenty of believing scientists who regonize the probable source of this order as an infinite Intelligent Being.
Are you suggestion that no scientist are believers? Or if they are, are they ignorant or wrong?
You are mistaken, you misconceive just about everything I say, no wonder why you don't understand the facts.
I'm well aware of the order of the cosmos, it is complex but does not point to a creator.
Again, you are saying that there are scientists who BELIEVE something. I don't disagree with you but that is my point, they believe that but they KNOW science has every answer they have ever learned.
I can bare being lame, yet I can't bring myself to be willfully blind. As you do.
Besides, you are using that quote for a different intention than the author.
Einstein had nothing but contempt for organized religion. His idea of religion was wonder and awe. We cannot due without wonder and awe in science, that is true. But it has nothing to do with doctrines and miracles.
Einstein was a deist and therefore had absolutely no religious conviction and even said "religion is childish".
The fact of the matter is, if Einstein were alive today he would probably be writing books like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.
He had NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT for religion.
Still, he lived in a time (like most geniuses from our past) where affirming anti-religious ideas was akin to being a Satan worshiper, making it extremely difficult to find work. So, there is no doubt, in these times, he would probably be an outspoken anti-theist.
Trying to quote Einstein for pro religious motives was dumb.
Actually no it wasn't really dumb. Your not getting the point. Einstein was one of greatest scientist in the world and he believed that there was a God. And many scientist do today. So to say "faith in a creator" is illogical or irrational then you have no idea what your talking about. Your just to stubborn to stay on the point.
Were not talking about religion anyways. That shouldn't be the point. Were talking about believing in a creator of this universe. And thats what Einsteins quote means. He was Deists, therefor he believed in one.
No your wrong. He believed that an Intelligence created the Universe. He believed in a Creator. He was Deist..that's the point. You believe in nothing, He believes, that's a huge difference.
He never used the word intelligence and he would definitely say that term is extremely misleading.
Deism, in his time was more of a nice way of saying "I DON'T BELIEVE". Most didn't want to espouse atheism because it would be professional suicide.
He did not believe in an intelligent creator, as you say and that is the point. You are purposely distorting the facts to serve your agenda and it's quite annoying and rude.
Your the one purposing bad facts. Deism is not a nice way of saying "I DONT BELIEVE" Look up the meaning of the word bud. You also can't account for what "most" peope didn't want to espouse Atheism..you can't speak for them so you don't know. Its quite annoying and rude.
Anyone who knows what Deism is knows that it does not denote intelligence. In fact, it is the difference between all other theistic gods. Deism would be a god who is not there basically.
That I can agree with, but it is fairly clear that Jefferson at least was not this sort of Deist and that his strong belief in natural laws being given by a creator suggest that he believed the creator was intelligent.I even thing that he may have believed that God was personal, just not specifically Christian and instead more of the Masonic model of what God might be.
Jefferson was not an atheist, at least not when he penned the Declaration of Independence.
Deism i most certainly not atheism. The American founding fathers who were deistic certainly were not atheist, unless you include Thomas Payne but he was a British man who was just as involved in the French Revolution as the American one. Jefferson was very much informed by religion, the belief that there was a creator who granted natural rights through natural law, and even though was no orthodox was hardly an Atheist.
None of the founding fathers were so stupid as to say there was no god.
Ben Franklin was an atheist, as well as, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson was indeed an atheist.
Research the Virginia statute of religious freedom.
There is a wall between church and state because we had just liberated ourselves from one theology, we knew it was the majority of the problem. Which is why America is as great as it is, it has a secular constitution. The only secular constitution ever made.
You aren't thinking in context, this was hundreds of years ago.
It is more non denominational than secular. If protects religion from government, but it certainly does not force official swearing by the constitution to be secular or leave their faith values at the door.
I think you lose all credibility when you say that Thomas Jefferson was an Atheist. Paine, possibly even by today's standards. Franklin was the least interested in a personal God for sure, but he was pretty clearly a deist.
"You have been reading your information out of books written by people who NEED you to believe that kind of drivel about our founders."
Deists back in that time were closer to the religious right of today than atheists. With exception to Thomas Paine who I do believe was an atheist (and he was not an American I might ad).
Einstein referred to his religion as being that of nature and reality. If you had to slap a religion on his ideology he said, it would most closely resemble that of Spinoza.
Einstein had nothing but contempt for religion and said it was an expression of human weakness.
If he was religious in the sense that you would like to believe then he would have obviously said so.
A deistic god is hardly a god at all, DEFINITELY not in the sense that you understand it.
Nihilism has grown out of naturalism. It would be, if possible, the only logical outcome of a universe that coincidentally generated itself and coincidentally has humanity exist in one of its distant corners all without the direction, involvement, or even cause originating from a supernatural source.
Existentialism is the idea (and I believe the self generated delusion) of human meaning through self actualization on that individuals terms based on their subjective viewpoint.
Deism does imply a certain amount of atheism considering you are discounting all of the theistic gods.
You are an atheist actually, you don't believe in Thor, Zeus or Wotan.
This makes you an atheist in regards to those gods.
If you are a Deist, you are an atheist in regards to every other god.
Deism really was a way of saying you aren't affiliated with any particular religion. You see nature and natural events and nothing of god, if god is there, it is completely indifferent.
That has to be the dumbest smart comment I have seen on youtube in a while.
How can a rejection of the concept of their being no God but instead an impersonal deity imply a certain amount of atheism? The two are separate views of the universe. Certainly a Spinozan Deist can have their belief in God so stripped down that it is virtually impossible to tell the difference, but that more illustrates the semantic dishonesty of the term atheist.
It's only a rejection of a theistic god. You must not know that atheism only refutes theistic gods, not deistic gods.
Atheism doesn't mean anti god. It means non theism.
You are an atheist, unless you believe in gods like Thor, as I stated.
Deists say, "no, I don't believe in any of the theistic gods(atheism), my interpretation of god is that of nature and energy in the physical realm as far as science can reveal it."
It's the same as, "no gods interpreted by any religion, only nature."
I respectfully disagree. If they were the same thing, if they really rejected the same thing and had indistinguishable differences then there would not have to be two words for the respective philosophies.
Deists believe that the universe is a clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer and then left on a shelf undisturbed by its maker. Atheists do not believe this, they recognize naturalism alone and what they deem to be in the realm of the rational. They accept nothing fantastic.
"Deists believe that the universe is a clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer and then left on a shelf undisturbed by its maker."
However, comforting this may be to you, it is not factual. Deism has none of that language attached to it. No clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer. What you are describing is something more like theism.
Read the short article "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russel... it was written decades ago and it destroys Christianity permanently if you've ever read it... it obliterates it with cold logic, evidence and reasoning.
huwrj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While I carry no brief for D'Souza,I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
@hobatu I feel bad for the French in that they are compelled to purchase private health insurance just to stay ahead of mediocrity because government drives up costs in the marketplace through unnatural competition. Same thing happens in the US when the State gets involved w/ people's private health concerns. In spite of this, some 80% + of new health care advances come from the US. It's a tradition should should be proud. But then again, it's always hard to forgive a favor.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@hobatu Are you serious? My wife is a nurse and she treats people from all soci-economic levels, including many Canadians who come down to get treatments to avoid the wait times that plague many in socialist systems. The Americans who do travel overseas for treatment are usually those hopeless cancer cases looking for pie-in-the-sky remedies offered by greedy quak physicians in 3rd World countries. Americans are not begging for treatment. They are getting here, in droves. Socialism sux.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Theists always run to their little charity arguments and shout WHERE's YOU GODLESS CHARITIES HUH!!!! *red neck voice*. Hmm, wonder why the Union of Concerned Scientist, American Civil Liberties Union, United Nations Children's Fund, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam International, The Nature Conservancy, Population Connection, The SEED Foundation. Man I'm stopping a lot to name.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 I wonder why they aren't talked about, guess if it isn't Jesus related, the media can care less.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@hobatu Hey you're funny you should take your schtick on the road.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@hobatu Too bad you don't know what you're talking about at all.
Every single emergency room in the United States of America has been legally bound for quite some time to treat any and every person that comes to their doors, ability to pay is entirely irrelevant in those cases.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
Greatest nation... it sounds so cheap and shallow that I don't think that many people attribute any value to a statement like that anymore.
Even if there is such a thing as "the greatest nation" I can assure you it's not located on this planet.
S0chan 1 year ago
Bullshit--that's why people from all over the world come to the U.S. to get treated.
jeepersfreepers 2 years ago
From Third World countries, jackass. You don't see Norwegians coming over for our 37th-ranked medicine.
Jelperman 2 years ago
@Jelperman Right. "They" fly from 3 rd world nations to stay in an over priced hotels somewhere in LA or NY. I sees it all the time. 37th ranked? The US leads the world in basic medical science, diagnostics and therapeutics. We put the "advanced" in advanced nations. Yes, the system need fixing. No, Preznit Unicorn and the Donks won't be the ones who accomplish that.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 Well said! But for one who has a blind, almost religious faith, in socialism, all the logic in the world one dissuade them. They have been brainwashed since childhood to think America sucks and there exists pure virtue in 3rd World garbage dump systems. There is nothing harder to forgive than a favor.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@Jelperman Ummm, yes you do. Need to get off those rose colored glasses, boy.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@jeepersfreepers
That's why rich people from all over the world come to the US to get treated. Regular people have to go Europe where health care is offered to non-citizens free of charge.
dudev 2 years ago
Says who?
Icarusdecending82 2 years ago
Dinesh is a cunt
thefragile900 2 years ago 16
@thefragile900 Those of us who have cunts resent that designation.
He's a dick.
ciaochowbella 3 months ago
@ciaochowbella He's still a cunt.
superarmysoldier12 3 months ago
@superarmysoldier12 So you dislike 'cunt' enough to tag D'Souza with the moniker?
It's wonderful to see gays in the military.
ciaochowbella 3 months ago
@ciaochowbella Yes. And I am gay.
superarmysoldier12 3 months ago
@superarmysoldier12 So your comment makes all sorts of sense.
You hate women so the most repulsive thing you can think to call someone is cunt. I get it.
ciaochowbella 3 months ago
@ciaochowbella Insult fail. I'm not in the army either, it's just a quote from the tv series 'extras'.
superarmysoldier12 3 months ago
@superarmysoldier12 You think calling someone gay is an insult?
Gracious! That's an unpleasant thing for YOU, isn't it?
ciaochowbella 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ciaochowbella You were the one saying it, not me. By the way, you're a cunt.
superarmysoldier12 3 months ago
God, I hate Hitchens. If I see him IRL I'll punch him in the face.
wong561 2 years ago
hmm...
highlife66 2 years ago
That is unfortunate. I disagree with him on religion and a lot of other things. I quite like him, and I know punching someone does not win an argument.
Are you sick?
chukmaty 2 years ago
If you feel the need to restrict someone's right to free speech, then maybe you're the sick one. So my answer is no, I'm not sick. But you might need help.
wong561 2 years ago
So your idea of free speech is threatening people? If you slander, libel, or threaten someone you will in fact find that your concept of free speech is rather inaccurate.
The inability to articulate ideas and your choice to express a desire for physical violence I believe is a sign of you being rather ill, or at least stupid.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Let me see. I threatened a guy in a video that will never hear me and not even with severe violence but with a punch. Yeah, maybe you should seek help, because for some reason you think you've been assigned to police the internet. And yes, free speech does entail me saying what I'll do, until I've done it I'm innocent especially if the threat was not made directly at the person nor am I conspiring to commit said act of violence. I can say whatever I want.
wong561 2 years ago
And so can he so don't get to offended now.
goxjr41 2 years ago
I'm not offended. I just don't like being told what to do or people speculating who I am. He acts as though he has the authority to silence me. He doesn't. I let him spew his garbage, he should return the courtesy. I never addressed him directly, but he felt the need to belittle me.
wong561 2 years ago
Or maybe its not really a big deal. Its just youtube.
goxjr41 2 years ago
But you think me challenging you on it is suppressing your freedom of speech? Cute.
chukmaty 2 years ago
What I find cute is the fact that you actually think you're an intellectual. Yet most of your time is spent on commenting on comments on youtube that weren't even intended for you.
wong561 2 years ago
I am not the one whining about my speech being squelched on a youtube board hahahaha.
lol, so funny.
chukmaty 2 years ago
No one whined. You just perceived it as whining. The comment was never about you, but you felt you had to get involved in it. That tells me that you're a narcissist and the fact that you like to police the internets tells me that you're a pseudo intellectual and a total pedo.
wong561 2 years ago
Comment removed
chukmaty 2 years ago
religion deserves to die
Blackwater578 2 years ago
I agree, I would think God feels the same way.
goxjr41 2 years ago
goxjr41 and rangerider
I think you took what I said the wrong way... how is a god logical? If he exists, he is obviously the most complex being ever. How could the most complex thing ever.... be the first to exist?
reznor1985 2 years ago
How is God logical? How is He not?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Which God?
rangerider79 2 years ago
The creator of the Universe.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Even if the universe had a creator who said it is a "God".
rangerider79 2 years ago
Okay my bad.. I meant to say Creator.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Jeez, your like a broken record.
Everything works because life on earth is resilient and even the smallest microorganisms adapt to survive. Life on earth is not perfect, it tends to be adequate for survival, but never perfect. Species evolved in long round about ways because that is how evolution works, hardly divinely inspired. Just ask a woman who is giving birth. There is no evidence of a creator.
rangerider79 2 years ago
To speculate that there MIGHT be a god from the complications of science is plausible however, to say that you know "his" name and all these other details requires PROOF. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove that their god exists. Just because i cannot disprove one's god, does not mean that god exists. The proof of faith is pure speculation and forever will be.
Stewayben 2 years ago
Your correct, and there's nothing wrong with faith based on reason and logic.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You cannot base faith in reason and logic. Faith is antonymous with reason and logic.
Faith is the word for the absence of reason and logic.
Surely you aren't aware of the irony of your statement. Which is why I consider you a fool.
niginit 2 years ago
medved is retarded.
ldhablo666 2 years ago
Is it just me or do theist just believe whatever they WANT to believe without excuse?
akinadownhillace 2 years ago 5
Welcome to anti theism. The snacks are bad and the coffee stale but there is hope, you get to keep your sanity!
niginit 2 years ago
No not me. I believe because of logic and evidence. But I can't speak for others..
goxjr41 2 years ago
You believe what exactly?
Belief is the opposite of logic and evidence. So, I'm wondering what you are rambling on about.
niginit 2 years ago
No, belief is the opposite of non belief. There are many things that we do not know absolutely but still believe. And these things are not necessarily opposed to logic or evidence. There has been a lot of evidence that have lead me to my beliefs, but not solid proof. And neither has yours.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Belief is what you need in the absence of knowledge. I know what I know, you believe what you believe. My knowledge has accumulated over time in the presence of logic and evidence. Your belief has accumulated over time in opposition of logic and evidence.
semantically the words couldn't be more antonymous.
niginit 2 years ago
What you know is what you believe. And my beliefs are accumulated over time by logic and evidence.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You said it yourself, "the opposite of belief is non-belief". So, what are you doing if you don't believe? Your entire experience is from knowing things and not believing things.......... So, no belief and what else do you have? Knowledge is the answer.
You can quote me.
The absence of belief is the presence of knowledge. - Andrew Wiebusch
niginit 2 years ago
So what do you believe? Nothing?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Now you're starting to get it.
In my understanding of the word, I lack the ability to believe. I am always critical and skeptical. It is my nature.
niginit 2 years ago
So you don't believe in anything?
goxjr41 2 years ago
I swear it's not me being obtuse. Yes, I am affirmatively a non-believer. I do not use belief, ever.
For instance, you may require belief of gravity or evolution, considering they are only theories, whereas I have knowledge about the theories and their validity. You seem to fail to realize that even theology is only a theory. It's a theory with 0 evidence but nonetheless a theory.
niginit 2 years ago
Again so you don't believe in anything?
What If I said gravity and evolution are both evidence for what I believe too?
goxjr41 2 years ago
If you believe in evolution, you don't fully understand it. It doesn't require belief to have full knowledge of it.
When someone asks. "do you know how to play chess?", you don't say, "I believe so", if you knew how to play you would simply say, "Yes, I do".
This is universally true.
niginit 2 years ago
So you believe in universal truth?
goxjr41 2 years ago
No, I know that it is true in every situation involving belief and knowledge that knowledge is what we know and belief is what we do not know.
It's a truth which is valid in every situation involving epistemology.
Belief is what you have in the absence of knowledge.
niginit 2 years ago
No. Your wrong. No human knowledge is 100 percent certain. There is an element of belief involved in our most trusted scientific theorys and beliefs are typically formed out of consideration of more basic facts. Most of the ideas you and I discuss fall somewhere in between these extremes.
goxjr41 2 years ago
No, YOU'RE wrong.
There is no element of belief, that is incorrect.
The entire scientific process works on doubt, not belief. A scientist doesn't ever say "I believe X to be the solution", they say "X may be the solution, let me test it".
There is a HUGE difference between belief and theory.
niginit 2 years ago
You still have not given me one fact that contradicts my belief in God. And isn't that what we are discussing? Stay on track..
goxjr41 2 years ago
You don't know what a fact is.
niginit 2 years ago
And you do? I'm just asking for one..
goxjr41 2 years ago
If there is a God behind any of this it surely isn't one that is being worshipped on earth right now. None of the stories tell a tale like the one scientists are unravelling daily. It disgusts me that religion spends so much time trying to impede science and then once all the pieces are put together, religion, tries to take credit for it. I assure you that your jealous, angry, and hate filled God had nothing to do with the beautiful planet, galaxy or universe that I live in.
rangerider79 2 years ago
Well at least you admit it's a beautiful planet, galaxy and universe. I acknowledged a source for that beauty. i suppose you think it comes from nothing. To me at least my approach is more logical.
goxjr41 2 years ago
I never said "nothing", I just said it wasn't any God being worshipped on earth now.
And yes i am overwhelmed with appreciation for not only the vast size and age of the universe, but all the diverse beauty that is contained with in it. I look forward to every new discovery made whether its on the bottom of the ocean or in a far off galaxy.
rangerider79 2 years ago 2
Every deeper science looks into a question the more order and symmetry it finds. And I believe the source to that order is God.
Why is it you don't believe its the God being worshipped?
goxjr41 2 years ago
There are many reasons but the simplest answer is that I have read Genesis, and I have also read the New Testament where Jesus makes clear that he stands behind the OT and Genesis. Which is what you would expect since Jesus was created by men who still had no grasp of any of this "order and symmetry".
rangerider79 2 years ago
But isn't it funny how the order of things is in PERFECT sequence with what science says to today.
goxjr41 2 years ago
To go from isn't it funny, to knowing god's desires, name and sexual preferences is a very large leap of "faith".
Stewayben 2 years ago
how is your theory logical? You believe the most complex thing ever was the first to exist!
reznor1985 2 years ago
Actually, no I didn't necessarily say that. But science actually gives an explanation of how simple life forms gradually turned into more complex ones over billions of years. The bible says God created earth in 6 days, which would require God to be much more complex then the earth. Logic and Religion are like oil and water.
rangerider79 2 years ago
How is yours logical?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Why do you care? Your God had nothing to do with it anyways.
rangerider79 2 years ago
The Creator did though, correct?
goxjr41 2 years ago
There is no evidence of a creator, I do know that it was not the God of the OT.
rangerider79 2 years ago
Not the beautiful planet, galaxy or universe that you live in?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Not according to Genesis which is supported by Jesus as being truthful and the reliable word of God.
rangerider79 2 years ago
But wait, were not talking about Jesus. Were talking about a creator.
goxjr41 2 years ago
exactly.
"OH my belief is logical because it has no chance of being true"
UMMM????
niginit 2 years ago
There is no end to how stupid you are.
BIG SIGH.
Read more.
niginit 2 years ago
Haha is that your answer to everything?
goxjr41 2 years ago
When dealing with extremely naive and unintelligent people, sadly yes.
I have no answers for you, your inability to understand them has left you hopelessly inept.
Start reading more, put down the TV remote and get off the internet for a day, read a book that deals with complex ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with theism and MAYBE, just maybe you might one day grow a brain capable of comprehending and distinguishing between fact and fiction.
Till then.....
niginit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't answer the simple question?
goxjr41 2 years ago
I've answered all of your silly questions.
niginit 2 years ago
No you didn't . Was Einstein a Deist? It's either a yes or no.. no explaining.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Yes, in the sense that I have already conceded.
No, in the context of your understanding of the word.
Deism does not associate itself with an intelligent creator who is sentient and conscious.
Deism is like a religion based on the big bang and how wonderful it is from a completely scientific point of view.
You are trying to argue that Einstein was a believer in a conscious, intelligent creator, when even he himself stated the contrary.
To settle this, you just have to read him.
niginit 2 years ago
Where did he state the contrary?
Deism - a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe.
And that's what Einstien believed. He defined God in an impersonal, deistic fashion, but he deeply believed that Gods handiwork was reflected in the harmony of natures laws and the beauty of all that exists.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Where did he state the contrary?
Deism - a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe. That's what Einstein believed.. and he talked about it frequently.
goxjr41 2 years ago
And again no matter how we perceive his beliefs, his beliefs are closer to the Christian Theists then they are to the Atheists beliefs.
goxjr41 2 years ago
DEISM-
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
DISTINGUISHED FROM THEISM.
It's a belief that nature created the universe, or that the creation of the universe was natural. Which is basically what you have left if you don't believe in theism.
If you are an atheist in regards to Zeus and Thor, Yahweh etc. all you have left is NATURE, if you choose to label NATURE god, you are a deist.
niginit 2 years ago
You just said it. Belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only. Just not a personal one.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Okay, you need to just go read now, stay off the internet or try to use it to educate yourself because you are in dire need of it.
You are confused and dumbfounded and thus misconceive everything.
Reason- meaning order of the universe
Nature- reality, non-supernatural
His god was literally the universe and nature. NOTHING MORE. NO INTELLIGENCE, NO DESIGN.
God was a word he used to describe the universe and nature so that everyone would understand him in context.
END OF DISCUSSION
niginit 2 years ago
No Intelligence? Then why did he say it?
goxjr41 2 years ago
That is the problem. He didn't and you are so delusional that you actually convince yourself he did.
niginit 2 years ago
Science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, My religion consists of an admiration of the superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our feeble minds. That emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
goxjr41 2 years ago
Where does he say intelligent creator god??
You misconceive EVERYTHING he says. It's sad too, he says a great deal more when you can understand it and it's worthy of much more awe and humility than anything Theism would ever produce.
niginit 2 years ago
"a Superior spirit" "Superior reasoning power" "himself" an "intelligence".... how am I misconveiving EVERYTHING he says?
goxjr41 2 years ago
"amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superioty that, compared with it, all the thinking and acting of humans is insignificant"
goxjr41 2 years ago
And your telling me he didn't believe in an Intelligence. I'm just quoting the man himself.. not making my own assumptions.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You are not.
He never said he believed in an intelligent creator god.
niginit 2 years ago
No. It is not a belief that only nature created the universe. Your making up your own definition.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Read the definition, it's plain and simple.
niginit 2 years ago
Exactly.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You are stupid.
niginit 2 years ago
In the case of Einstein He believed that there was an Intelligent force behind all of nature. This is different then pure Atheism that accepts the Universe as a given. My point is that My belief in similar to Einsteins in the respect that it starts with an intelligent force behind all of nature. My point is merely that belief in God is or can be a very rational belief.
goxjr41 2 years ago
"He believed that there was an Intelligent force behind all of nature."
NO HE DID NOT. Concede this point or I'm done arguing with you. I have no problem ignoring another person who has no grip on reality and tries to make things up to suit them.
Your belief is nothing similar to Einstein's.
You keep sneaking in terms like 'intelligent force', which Einstein never even came close to using.
You are extremely delusional.
Einstein explained all of this, I suggest you read it more carefully.
niginit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEISM-
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
DISTINGUISHED FROM THEISM.
It's a belief that nature created the universe, or that the creation of the universe was natural. Which is basically what you have left if you don't believe in theism.
If you are an atheist in regards to Zeus and Thor, Yahweh etc. all you have left is NATURE, if you choose to label NATURE god, you are a deist.
niginit 2 years ago
I think your confusing an educated idea or belief with religious faith, they are not equal as you seem to be sneakily trying to suggest.
A religious idea or faith does not require any evidence at all and is often held despite the facts.
Someone making up an idea they like and convincing themselves it's true is VERY different to people all over the world conducting reproducible experiments building up bodies of knowledge and theories based on this, applying it to new experiments and so on
bcmalloy 2 years ago
Yes there is a difference but there is still a relationship between the two but the my point is that scientific knowledge is never 100 percent certain.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You seem pretty certain about that. What makes you so certain as to say, NEVER but science is less certain?
Trust me, you are confused.
Most science, especially the stuff that has been around a while and is still being confirmed is as close to certain that you can possibly get.
niginit 2 years ago
And just because there are extreem faiths that depart from commonly accepted science, there are alot of beliefs that are perfectly consistent with the facts as we known them.
goxjr41 2 years ago
"there are alot of beliefs that are perfectly consistent with the facts as we known them. "
Like what?
Give me an example, or several, of these beliefs which don't challenge "the facts as we know them".
niginit 2 years ago
That God exists. Thats an example.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Yes, "god exists". Great example.
So do wizards and goblins. They have been documented throughout time. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of wizards and goblins written down in history. They certainly exist!
Try again.
Deism and theism have no supporting facts or evidence. The theories contradict every known fact.
I guess it depends on your definition of a fact.
If you define fact as being complete and utter wild speculation then, OK, god exists, wizards and goblins too though.
niginit 2 years ago
Really? Which facts contradict my belief in God?
Give me an example.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Science finds that the deeper it looks at a question the more symmetry and order it finds inherent in nature. I believe the ultimate source of that order must be an All-Intelligent Being. There is nothing condradictory to science in this belief.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Intelligent design, creationism, theology of which you speak is completely unaccepted by all science.
To propose a designer is no more logical than to pose magic for any other phenomena. You are inserting magic in the place of what you are failing to understand.
The argument of design has been posed many times and completely lost the debate every time.
"I believe the ultimate source of that order must be an All-Intelligent Being."
"I believe", well, I don't and for good reason.
niginit 2 years ago
What I'm talking about is a vast amount of order underlying all phenomena. There are plenty of believing scientists who regonize the probable source of this order as an infinite Intelligent Being.
Are you suggestion that no scientist are believers? Or if they are, are they ignorant or wrong?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Science is not those who practice it.
You are mistaken, you misconceive just about everything I say, no wonder why you don't understand the facts.
I'm well aware of the order of the cosmos, it is complex but does not point to a creator.
Again, you are saying that there are scientists who BELIEVE something. I don't disagree with you but that is my point, they believe that but they KNOW science has every answer they have ever learned.
You are ignorant and wrong.
niginit 2 years ago
My hole point is that certain beliefs are not incomapatible with science. And that is a point that you are unable to logically refude.
Stay on track..
goxjr41 2 years ago
Yes, they are incompatible.
No, I am not unable to REFUTE anything.
niginit 2 years ago
"it is complex but does not point to a creator" How would you know?
goxjr41 2 years ago
Because I've read more than one book, unlike yourself.
Because I am obviously more intelligent.
Because I don't try to emulate dumbfounded Priests who don't have a clue about what it is they are bantering on about.
Because I understand the words; FACT, THEORY, EVIDENCE, EVOLUTION, TRUTH, LOGIC, REASON, FAITH and probably many more, much, MUCH better than you.
Because I don't claim %100 infallible knowledge of a creator.
Because I don't make claims from belief.
The list goes on and on.
niginit 2 years ago 2
I had hoped to have a reasonable discussion however it seems your incapable.
Look faith can be informed by reason and logic. Your definition of faith is wrong.
goxjr41 2 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
Okay don't take my word for it.. here someone a little bit smarter then me.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Comment removed
rangerider79 2 years ago
I can bare being lame, yet I can't bring myself to be willfully blind. As you do.
Besides, you are using that quote for a different intention than the author.
Einstein had nothing but contempt for organized religion. His idea of religion was wonder and awe. We cannot due without wonder and awe in science, that is true. But it has nothing to do with doctrines and miracles.
Einstein was a deist and therefore had absolutely no religious conviction and even said "religion is childish".
niginit 2 years ago 2
The fact of the matter is, if Einstein were alive today he would probably be writing books like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.
He had NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT for religion.
Still, he lived in a time (like most geniuses from our past) where affirming anti-religious ideas was akin to being a Satan worshiper, making it extremely difficult to find work. So, there is no doubt, in these times, he would probably be an outspoken anti-theist.
Trying to quote Einstein for pro religious motives was dumb.
niginit 2 years ago 2
Actually no it wasn't really dumb. Your not getting the point. Einstein was one of greatest scientist in the world and he believed that there was a God. And many scientist do today. So to say "faith in a creator" is illogical or irrational then you have no idea what your talking about. Your just to stubborn to stay on the point.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Were not talking about religion anyways. That shouldn't be the point. Were talking about believing in a creator of this universe. And thats what Einsteins quote means. He was Deists, therefor he believed in one.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Granted Einsteins and my beliefs have many difference but his beliefs are much closer to mine then they are to yours. Thats the point.
goxjr41 2 years ago
"Granted Einsteins and my beliefs have many difference but his beliefs are much closer to mine then they are to yours. Thats the point."
No, in fact, it's the difference between the ideologies (deism, theism) which makes them so distinct.
He believed in reality and nature and that the two are based in non-supernatural phenomena, certainly an atheist in regards to all religions.
His position is VERY far from theism and he had contempt for believers like you, that's the point.
niginit 2 years ago
No your wrong. He believed that an Intelligence created the Universe. He believed in a Creator. He was Deist..that's the point. You believe in nothing, He believes, that's a huge difference.
goxjr41 2 years ago
No, sorry, you are mistaken.
He never used the word intelligence and he would definitely say that term is extremely misleading.
Deism, in his time was more of a nice way of saying "I DON'T BELIEVE". Most didn't want to espouse atheism because it would be professional suicide.
He did not believe in an intelligent creator, as you say and that is the point. You are purposely distorting the facts to serve your agenda and it's quite annoying and rude.
I suggest you read more.
niginit 2 years ago
Hmm so if I found the quote you will take that back? It's pretty straight forward..
Ill post it next post.
goxjr41 2 years ago
I don't see it.
Idiot.
niginit 2 years ago
Your stupid. You dont see what?
goxjr41 2 years ago
It's YOU'RE = YOU ARE, not YOUR, jackarse!
nickstoli 2 years ago 2
lol
goxjr41 2 years ago
Your the one purposing bad facts. Deism is not a nice way of saying "I DONT BELIEVE" Look up the meaning of the word bud. You also can't account for what "most" peope didn't want to espouse Atheism..you can't speak for them so you don't know. Its quite annoying and rude.
goxjr41 2 years ago
You're obviously an idiot and this conversation is over. You can't even articulate the jumbled mess that is your thoughts.
No, I suspect you are the one PROPOSING bad information.
You can't even speak for yourself.
bye
niginit 2 years ago
Hmm what have I said that was wrong? All i said was Einstein's beliefs were closer to mine then they are to yours. Why so angry?
Seems like you can't speak for yourself or even stay on topic for that matter.
goxjr41 2 years ago
I have no trouble, at all, in thinking of you as completely oblivious.
You can't even spell.
You don't know the arguments, which you put forth are completely non sequitur.
You think Einstein's "belief" is congruent with your own ignorant beliefs, which it is not.
You have no idea what a valid point sounds like.
You have a child's understanding of science.
As I said before, I suggest you do a great deal more reading.
niginit 2 years ago
What? All I said was Einstien believed in God or believed in an Intelligence. Simple . You can't even admitt that.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Anyone who knows what Deism is knows that it does not denote intelligence. In fact, it is the difference between all other theistic gods. Deism would be a god who is not there basically.
niginit 2 years ago
That I can agree with, but it is fairly clear that Jefferson at least was not this sort of Deist and that his strong belief in natural laws being given by a creator suggest that he believed the creator was intelligent.I even thing that he may have believed that God was personal, just not specifically Christian and instead more of the Masonic model of what God might be.
Jefferson was not an atheist, at least not when he penned the Declaration of Independence.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Deism i most certainly not atheism. The American founding fathers who were deistic certainly were not atheist, unless you include Thomas Payne but he was a British man who was just as involved in the French Revolution as the American one. Jefferson was very much informed by religion, the belief that there was a creator who granted natural rights through natural law, and even though was no orthodox was hardly an Atheist.
None of the founding fathers were so stupid as to say there was no god.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Ben Franklin was an atheist, as well as, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson was indeed an atheist.
Research the Virginia statute of religious freedom.
There is a wall between church and state because we had just liberated ourselves from one theology, we knew it was the majority of the problem. Which is why America is as great as it is, it has a secular constitution. The only secular constitution ever made.
You aren't thinking in context, this was hundreds of years ago.
niginit 2 years ago
But Einstein wasn't..
goxjr41 2 years ago
It is more non denominational than secular. If protects religion from government, but it certainly does not force official swearing by the constitution to be secular or leave their faith values at the door.
I think you lose all credibility when you say that Thomas Jefferson was an Atheist. Paine, possibly even by today's standards. Franklin was the least interested in a personal God for sure, but he was pretty clearly a deist.
chukmaty 2 years ago
You have been reading your information out of books written by people who NEED you to believe that kind of drivel about our founders.
Read Christopher Hitchens,Thomas Jefferson, Author of America.
Paine was an atheist and so was Franklin. Either way, they were not deeply religious and there is a reason for that.
They saw religion as the means to tyranny and to liberate themselves from it would mean freedom.
You are clearly confused.
Deism was a way of being atheist in that time.
niginit 2 years ago
"You have been reading your information out of books written by people who NEED you to believe that kind of drivel about our founders."
Deists back in that time were closer to the religious right of today than atheists. With exception to Thomas Paine who I do believe was an atheist (and he was not an American I might ad).
chukmaty 2 years ago
Well, if you can believe that, I guess you can believe just about anything. Oh, wait, you do.
niginit 2 years ago
I mean its simple. Einstein was a Deist right? We can both agree on that? That means he believed in a Creator God.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Einstein referred to his religion as being that of nature and reality. If you had to slap a religion on his ideology he said, it would most closely resemble that of Spinoza.
Einstein had nothing but contempt for religion and said it was an expression of human weakness.
If he was religious in the sense that you would like to believe then he would have obviously said so.
A deistic god is hardly a god at all, DEFINITELY not in the sense that you understand it.
niginit 2 years ago
Deism implies a great deal of possible belief systems, just like theism and atheism.
Atheism for example is expressed in terms of both nihilism or existentialism.
chukmaty 2 years ago
No, atheism has nothing to do with nihilism, except, in the context of misconception that people seem to have with the two words.
niginit 2 years ago
Nihilism has grown out of naturalism. It would be, if possible, the only logical outcome of a universe that coincidentally generated itself and coincidentally has humanity exist in one of its distant corners all without the direction, involvement, or even cause originating from a supernatural source.
Existentialism is the idea (and I believe the self generated delusion) of human meaning through self actualization on that individuals terms based on their subjective viewpoint.
chukmaty 2 years ago
mmm, not really.
Einstein believed in a Spinozan god, just enough to explain the unexplainable existence of natural law and existence itself and nothing more.
chukmaty 2 years ago
Thank you. Some of these people are trying to mix the two together when there not even close.
goxjr41 2 years ago
Deism does imply a certain amount of atheism considering you are discounting all of the theistic gods.
You are an atheist actually, you don't believe in Thor, Zeus or Wotan.
This makes you an atheist in regards to those gods.
If you are a Deist, you are an atheist in regards to every other god.
Deism really was a way of saying you aren't affiliated with any particular religion. You see nature and natural events and nothing of god, if god is there, it is completely indifferent.
niginit 2 years ago
"Deism does imply a certain amount of atheism"
That has to be the dumbest smart comment I have seen on youtube in a while.
How can a rejection of the concept of their being no God but instead an impersonal deity imply a certain amount of atheism? The two are separate views of the universe. Certainly a Spinozan Deist can have their belief in God so stripped down that it is virtually impossible to tell the difference, but that more illustrates the semantic dishonesty of the term atheist.
chukmaty 2 years ago
It's only a rejection of a theistic god. You must not know that atheism only refutes theistic gods, not deistic gods.
Atheism doesn't mean anti god. It means non theism.
You are an atheist, unless you believe in gods like Thor, as I stated.
Deists say, "no, I don't believe in any of the theistic gods(atheism), my interpretation of god is that of nature and energy in the physical realm as far as science can reveal it."
It's the same as, "no gods interpreted by any religion, only nature."
niginit 2 years ago
I respectfully disagree. If they were the same thing, if they really rejected the same thing and had indistinguishable differences then there would not have to be two words for the respective philosophies.
Deists believe that the universe is a clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer and then left on a shelf undisturbed by its maker. Atheists do not believe this, they recognize naturalism alone and what they deem to be in the realm of the rational. They accept nothing fantastic.
chukmaty 2 years ago
"Deists believe that the universe is a clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer and then left on a shelf undisturbed by its maker."
However, comforting this may be to you, it is not factual. Deism has none of that language attached to it. No clock, crafted intelligently by a creative designer. What you are describing is something more like theism.
niginit 2 years ago