Okay so don't vote, because I am going for that definition in particular
Which is what I voted No on.
You are contradicting yourself, heavily.
Hmmm... Well I can see where you got your point from, but still, you are abusing it by applying full "honesty" while being dishonest. I was hoping that if you applied common sense and logic, you would see that by voting to be atheist while believing in God is dishonest.
But it's done. I will just have to add one to religion then.
If you are going to post in this thread, I want you provide reasoning behind your beliefs, whether it is for atheism or religion. If you want to post your honest opinion without any reasoning behind your decision, please only vote on the poll and don't post. This is a serious discussion, and I don't want people to say "Yes I believe in it! Yay!". It's not fair, anti-social, and stops the progression of this heated topic and leaves in only unwilling ignorance.
I know I can't report this, but I really wished you could read my entire post before you posted. So please post some reasoning...
Looks like another slaughterfest on personal beliefs is about to start...
Did I actually troll? Because I thought I was merely asking for proof of what she thought. If that's not allowed then let me know so I don't do it again...
You should really change the title of this thread or clarify what you are looking for. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, agnostic is. Atheism is a part of a religion. The same way monotheism(belief in one god) and polytheism (belief in many gods) are a part of a religion. If you strictly want to no if I am a monotheist (a singular god) then no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
You should really change the title of this thread or clarify what you are looking for. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, agnostic is. Atheism is a part of a religion. The same way monotheism(belief in one god) and polytheism (belief in many gods) are a part of a religion. If you strictly want to no if I am a monotheist (a singular god) then no.
Okay, let's get this straight. Atheism is not the same as religion. Please don't say it is, because I thought everyone was over that a long time ago.
Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe. It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God or to gods or spirits.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
"or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe."
this can exist without a god. Trust me, it does in my religion. I never said atheism is the same as religion. I said it is a part of religion. Just as monotheism is a part of Christianity/catholicism. And polytheism is to older roman and Greek religions. All the word means is you do not believe in a god. Not that you don't believe in a origin and purpose to the universe. Agnostic is someone who does not believe in any sort of purpose and origin. That is the word you should be using.
I don't mean to be so picky bu it upsets me when people think atheists (myself included) have no religion or belief in anything.
From wiki:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
I'm not trying to troll. I am trying tohelp you with this survey. Dependig on what you are actually looking for, it should either be:
A. Agnosticism vs. Religion Do you have a religion?
B. Atheism vs. Theism(monothesim) Do you believe in A God?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Just read through this thread, I love how easily it was changed from
debate>heated argument>porn>more porn>polygamy>debate again
XD, well I'll put my view on here in response to the OP.
I was Baptized/Raised/Confirmed Catholic but I always beleive myself a Deist with a bit of Pantheism involved. I do believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God', however as with the Deist ideology I do not believe in holy books/scriptures/passages/writings, those are done by humanity's need of order.
Now for my actually belief in Deism, I beleive that there is a 'God' but this 'God' will not intervene with mortal affairs and I see for him/her/it no reason to do so. 'God' wanted creation, he/she/it created universe, be it the Big Bang, 7 days, or a large bathroom break, everything as we know it was made.
Now putting Pantheism into the picture, I also believe that 'God' created the universe but also is the universe, or at least controls every aspect of it. Why do atoms attract in the first place, why does matter exist, why does space/time exist, because it was set in place by who? The Grand Architect, or 'God'.
The thing I love about Deism, that it allows Religion and Rational thinking coexist with one another. It fulfills spiritual need and at the same time allows rational thinking of math/science/logic/etc.
Yes I do beleive in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God'. But i don't worship him/her/it.
I'm a Deist, and as a Deist I don't believe in holy books/scriptures/passages/writings, I do beleive the universe was created by a higher being however, but in this I beleive that this higher being does not and will not intervene with mortal affairs.
I think I finally got what you are trying to say. You believe in science, but you just believe that existence came from a deity?
Why would believing in a deity mean you didn't believe in science? I'm pretty sure most people who have posted in this thread believe in science.
Deism at it's most SIMPLE form(to me) is nothing more than "Idk about all that scripture stuff, but from how I rationalize the world around me, it makes pretty good sense to think that a life force of some kind is responsible for all of this."
Deism doesn't even speculate on what the deity would even be. For all we know, "God" could literally be everything and everywhere all at once. Meaning the universe WAS God. It could be any number of things, but yet, Deism doesn't speculate on that. A deist might, but deism itself is simply rationalizing that believing in the existence of a deity is rational.
Speaking of...I finally looked up Deism in wikipedia to see what they had to say about it. Easy to read with good info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I see. I completely misunderstood what you were saying then. I thought you mean that the deity created the universal existence, meaning that it created the universe itself in the pre-Big Bang era. If you are talking about Deism that the existence of space and existence came from a deity, I can understand that.
I guess you can call scientific naturalism different. Scientific Naturalism believes in what science tells us, but we are willing to change and we are constantly challenging our own beliefs to stay congruent with reality. It's a "religion" on pure science.
To me, science is the light shined at the clouds of reality. Religion uses imagination to think what's in the fog, while science works to uncover the fog. I know most of you believe in science (which is good) but I wish that more people would believe in civilization more rather than bash at it. Also, don't say (not saying it's you) that atheists don't have morals, because that is both false and offensive.
Probably one of the most heated debates of all time, and it's still continuing today. So I, being a scientific naturalist (I believe in science), have decided to open this controversial and heated argument into the forums for open discussion. Probably most of you are going to scientifically naturalistic (a.k.a. the Gay Marriage thread) so I don't think that things should be too crazy here, but still, if there is someone who doesn't agree with you, saying that they should go kill themselves should not be your go to response.
Personally, I believe that the belief of deities are in the past. Science, in the end, is the final judge. What really is science? Science is a mixture of using common sense and mathematics. A fact is not a fact until it is proven mathematically, or is so trivial that you can observe it with your own eyes. However, when a fact is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is when you try to apply common sense on an issue using previous knowledge on that current subject.
For example, hundreds of years ago, people thought that the Earth was flat. This was based on observations that Earth did not look spherical in any way, and in that case, it was a logical and fair hypothesis. However, when Christopher Columbus came around, he noticed that when sailed on the sea, they slowly disappeared into the horizon, instead of staying level and then falling off the endless abyss which would be the edge of the flat Earth. Then came the "final" conclusive evidence that the Earth was round, when people could finally fly up high enough to see the spherical outline of our planet, thus concluding that the hypothesis that the Earth was flat was not true, and the fact that the Earth was round was true.
Then we get to mathematical proofs. Mathematics (calculus, geometry, algebra, abstract algebra, infinity theories, etc) all derive from the simplest of tools: addition. As it turns out, almost all of math starts from 1+1=2, and that algebra and calculus were founded upon that simple equation (geometry has its own set of proofs that are used visually or use algebra and calculus to prove). So to question a mathematical theory, or fact, is to really question the simple use of addition.
Any questions? And also post your own views as well.
No option for both?
As I see it, Science is the search for useful information. Something that, when tested, has reasonably consistent results and is relevant to the issue you wish to address. That doesn't mean it can't be disproven, it just means no one has done it yet. They've failed to prove the null hypothosis. Still, it's useful information. For instance, Einsteinian physics supersedes Newtonian Physics, yet Newtonian Physics are not obsolete. They are quite useful in architecture, among other things. Yet if you were to try to build a building according to Einsteinian Physics, or better yet, the newer quantum physics, you wouldn't have a good building. Hence, we still have and use Newtonian physics.
On the other hand Science is not the search for truth. Philosophy is the search for truth, and religion is one of the paths used in philosophy. There is no information that can really be applied to advancement, unless it's on a personal philosophic level. You aren't looking for proof of what you believe, and quite frankly, it is my experience that anyone and everyone chooses to believe what they want, regardless of what evidence they have access to.
As long as I keep the two in separate boxes, I'm fine as both a religious person and as someone who learns the knowledge of men. Scientists will always look for the answers to forever questions, constantly finding new answers to some of the same questions and getting new information and benefits therefrom. Individuals can always find answers to their personal questions from religion that will benefit them personally.
I honestly hope that a scientist doesn't halt their research or their theories because they believe the answer to their question is already given by their God. If so, they will never try to find out anything for themselves, and will reap no benefit from their expectations.
On the other hand, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see little value in applying scientific process to religion. Faith is the operating factor in that particular world. If salvation comes from Faith, than it would be pretty stupid for God to allow himself to be proven to people who don't have it. They'd never have the opportunity to develop faith, and as such, would be damned. That and they'd no longer have a choice in the matter, and quite frankly, what good is faith, love, or devotion if it isn't given by choice.
Probably one of the most heated debates of all time, and it's still continuing today. So I, being a scientific naturalist (I believe in science), have decided to open this controversial and heated argument into the forums for open discussion. Probably most of you are going to scientifically naturalistic (a.k.a. the Gay Marriage thread) so I don't think that things should be too crazy here, but still, if there is someone who doesn't agree with you, saying that they should go kill themselves should not be your go to response.
Personally, I believe that the belief of deities are in the past. Science, in the end, is the final judge. What really is science? Science is a mixture of using common sense and mathematics. A fact is not a fact until it is proven mathematically, or is so trivial that you can observe it with your own eyes. However, when a fact is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is when you try to apply common sense on an issue using previous knowledge on that current subject.
For example, hundreds of years ago, people thought that the Earth was flat. This was based on observations that Earth did not look spherical in any way, and in that case, it was a logical and fair hypothesis. However, when Christopher Columbus came around, he noticed that when sailed on the sea, they slowly disappeared into the horizon, instead of staying level and then falling off the endless abyss which would be the edge of the flat Earth. Then came the "final" conclusive evidence that the Earth was round, when people could finally fly up high enough to see the spherical outline of our planet, thus concluding that the hypothesis that the Earth was flat was not true, and the fact that the Earth was round was true.
Then we get to mathematical proofs. Mathematics (calculus, geometry, algebra, abstract algebra, infinity theories, etc) all derive from the simplest of tools: addition. As it turns out, almost all of math starts from 1+1=2, and that algebra and calculus were founded upon that simple equation (geometry has its own set of proofs that are used visually or use algebra and calculus to prove). So to question a mathematical theory, or fact, is to really question the simple use of addition.
Any questions? And also post your own views as well.
No option for both?
As I see it, Science is the search for useful information. Something that, when tested, has reasonably consistent results and is relevant to the issue you wish to address. That doesn't mean it can't be disproven, it just means no one has done it yet. They've failed to prove the null hypothosis. Still, it's useful information. For instance, Einsteinian physics supersedes Newtonian Physics, yet Newtonian Physics are not obsolete. They are quite useful in architecture, among other things. Yet if you were to try to build a building according to Einsteinian Physics, or better yet, the newer quantum physics, you wouldn't have a good building. Hence, we still have and use Newtonian physics.
On the other hand Science is not the search for truth. Philosophy is the search for truth, and religion is one of the paths used in philosophy. There is no information that can really be applied to advancement, unless it's on a personal philosophic level. You aren't looking for proof of what you believe, and quite frankly, it is my experience that anyone and everyone chooses to believe what they want, regardless of what evidence they have access to.
As long as I keep the two in separate boxes, I'm fine as both a religious person and as someone who learns the knowledge of men. Scientists will always look for the answers to forever questions, constantly finding new answers to some of the same questions and getting new information and benefits therefrom. Individuals can always find answers to their personal questions from religion that will benefit them personally.
I honestly hope that a scientist doesn't halt their research or their theories because they believe the answer to their question is already given by their God. If so, they will never try to find out anything for themselves, and will reap no benefit from their expectations.
On the other hand, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see little value in applying scientific process to religion. Faith is the operating factor in that particular world. If salvation comes from Faith, than it would be pretty stupid for God to allow himself to be proven to people who don't have it. They'd never have the opportunity to develop faith, and as such, would be damned. That and they'd no longer have a choice in the matter, and quite frankly, what good is faith, love, or devotion if it isn't given by choice.
That's just me though.
Dude, I totally agree with what you just said and can't say it any better. People are going to believe what they want.
On a sidenote here is what I believe and a short explanation to why...
I believe in God and Jesus as the son of God. I believe the bible and live by it the best I can.
Why?
C.S. Lewis made a statement about Jesus that went something like this... Either he is a liar, lunatic, or Lord.
Saying Jesus was just a good moral teacher is the easy way out of answering who Jesus really was. Either you believe he was a liar (one who perpetuated a lie/hoax through beatings and eventually to his death on a cross), a lunatic (who taught morals that most human beings live by today in a general sense), or Lord. Now I don't know about you, but it I don't know many people who would be willing to take a lie to the point of being killed for it, knowingly. Jesus as a lunatic doesn't make much since either, his teachings would not line up with a madman.
How many religions serve a risen Savior? There is enough evidence to prove that Jesus grave was found empty, but to make this short... you have to decide whether it's because he was who he said he is or if it was some kind of hoax.
Also, our universal time system is based on this one lowly, poor man. Even if "BC" and "AD" are under attack, "BCE" and "CE" are still based on the same starting point from his life, funny huh?
I also find it ironic that people question the existence of Jesus in general, to whether he was even a real man, given the fact there is more evidence for his existence compared to Socrates.
At some point a hoax, and esp. one of this grand exposure would be solved, but millions believe and the reason why is because the evidence for Jesus being who he said he was outweighs a hoax.
That's my opinion.
EDIT: (from wikipedia)
C. S. Lewis was an Oxbridge medieval historian, popular writer and Christian apologist. He popularised the argument outlined above in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." [5]
Lewis's trilemma is based on the view that, in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God. For example, in Mere Christianity, Lewis refers to what he says are Jesus' claims:
* to have authority to forgive sins—behaving as if he really was "the person chiefly offended in all offences."[6][7][8]
* to have always existed,[9] and
* to intend to come back to judge the world at the end of time.[10]
Lewis argues that these claims logically exclude the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher" because he believes that no one making such claims could possibly be rationally or morally reliable, unless he were God. Elsewhere, Lewis refers to this argument as "the aut Deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man"),[11] a reference to an earlier version of the argument used by Henry Parry Liddon in his 1866 Bampton Lectures in which he argued for the divinity of Jesus based on a number of grounds, including the claims he believed Jesus made.[12]
[edit] Formal structure
The premises are as follows.
(P): Jesus claimed to be God.[citation needed]
(Q): One of the following must be true.
1. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but believed that he was.
2. Liar: Jesus did not believe he was God, but spoke as if he did.
3. Lord: Jesus is God.
From these premises, it is argued, it follows that,[citation needed]
(C): If not God, Jesus is not great and not moral.
I just had a debate on this topic on Friday. I have to say that the ignorance of religion has really opened my eyes to the path of scientific naturalism, atheistic agnosticism, and pearlism. It's truly incredible how people could create the world around them that is completely not congruent with the reality around them.
As for the ignorance of religion, there is none. Religion is deeply incorporated with human society, there is no denying it, so keeping with the status quo or more say the 'religious quo' is more socially acceptable.
And how is it hard to believe things outside of reality? It's basic human nature. As humans, social beings, we all want to know outside our current boundaries, these boundaries were at first a local village, then a country, then a continent, then the sea, then multiple continents, then the sky, then space, so on a so forth. Without this drive, this initiative to know which first began with arguably the concept of life (which religion is heavily incorporated in) there would be no modern science or at least delay it further than we have already.
Summarized, religion (the broad category which derived from imagination, thought, and ponder) birthed what we call modern science today.
As for the ignorance of religion, there is none. Religion is deeply incorporated with human society, there is no denying it, so keeping with the status quo or more say the 'religious quo' is more socially acceptable.
And how is it hard to believe things outside of reality? It's basic human nature. As humans, social beings, we all want to know outside our current boundaries, these boundaries were at first a local village, then a country, then a continent, then the sea, then multiple continents, then the sky, then space, so on a so forth. Without this drive, this initiative to know which first began with arguably the concept of life (which religion is heavily incorporated in) there would be no modern science or at least delay it further than we have already.
Summarized, religion (the broad category which derived from imagination, thought, and ponder) birthed what we call modern science today.
Yes, but we live in the 21st Century. There's no need for religion anymore(as there ever was) so we can throw it out the window because it just holds back the potential of humanity.
Irrational: Religion is dumb!!!!
Other people: Na uh!!!
Can we be done with this now?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
As for the ignorance of religion, there is none. Religion is deeply incorporated with human society, there is no denying it, so keeping with the status quo or more say the 'religious quo' is more socially acceptable.
And how is it hard to believe things outside of reality? It's basic human nature. As humans, social beings, we all want to know outside our current boundaries, these boundaries were at first a local village, then a country, then a continent, then the sea, then multiple continents, then the sky, then space, so on a so forth. Without this drive, this initiative to know which first began with arguably the concept of life (which religion is heavily incorporated in) there would be no modern science or at least delay it further than we have already.
Summarized, religion (the broad category which derived from imagination, thought, and ponder) birthed what we call modern science today.
Yes, but we live in the 21st Century. There's no need for religion anymore(as there ever was) so we can throw it out the window because it just holds back the potential of humanity.
And how do you come to the assumption of religion holding back scientific pursuit? It is true that some religions (particularly that of Christianity) held back scientific pursuit but at the same time advanced it, if you ban something you just make it more noticeable and desired right?
I bring up one of favorite quotes from Albert Einstien:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Here Einstien states the relation, the link of religion and science. One cannot prosper fully without the other. Religion plays a heavy role in scientific pursuit as science plays a heavy role in the evolution of religion, both have the potential to help and advance one other. So us as a society must understand that there is no reason for this strenuous (and hated) boundary between the two to exist in the first place and posting threads for the sole purpose of maintaining this double-edged boundary is ironic no?
Einstein also said, "Cosmology without Atomic Theory is lame, and Atomic Theory without Cosmology is blind, and Evolution without either of these is only a third of what you need to know." Paraphrased of course.
Einstein was in no sense a religious man. He might, possibly, of been a deist, but he held no belief in a god that kept the busses running on time, or a god that helped with your spelling test.
As for the usefulness of religion, well, let's just say it's about as useful as a wool coat while swimming. And, to quote a great philosopher, it is a tragedy, either people will die believing this stuff, or they will wake up and realize what they have been taught, and it will be so painful to them when they learn the truth that many would not be able to cope.
I mean none of this to any offense to any religious person. When I say this, I say it with the utmost hope that one day you all will be able to learn and grow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmmm... Well I can see where you got your point from, but still, you are abusing it by applying full "honesty" while being dishonest. I was hoping that if you applied common sense and logic, you would see that by voting to be atheist while believing in God is dishonest.
But it's done. I will just have to add one to religion then.
I know I can't report this, but I really wished you could read my entire post before you posted. So please post some reasoning...
Did I actually troll? Because I thought I was merely asking for proof of what she thought. If that's not allowed then let me know so I don't do it again...
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Okay, let's get this straight. Atheism is not the same as religion. Please don't say it is, because I thought everyone was over that a long time ago.
Taken from wikipedia.
this can exist without a god. Trust me, it does in my religion. I never said atheism is the same as religion. I said it is a part of religion. Just as monotheism is a part of Christianity/catholicism. And polytheism is to older roman and Greek religions. All the word means is you do not believe in a god. Not that you don't believe in a origin and purpose to the universe. Agnostic is someone who does not believe in any sort of purpose and origin. That is the word you should be using.
I don't mean to be so picky bu it upsets me when people think atheists (myself included) have no religion or belief in anything.
From wiki:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
I'm not trying to troll. I am trying tohelp you with this survey. Dependig on what you are actually looking for, it should either be:
A. Agnosticism vs. Religion Do you have a religion?
B. Atheism vs. Theism(monothesim) Do you believe in A God?
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
However, your life views are philosophical if you are atheist. There is no code for atheism. There is just a simple "I don't believe in God."
debate>heated argument>porn>more porn>polygamy>debate again
XD, well I'll put my view on here in response to the OP.
I was Baptized/Raised/Confirmed Catholic but I always beleive myself a Deist with a bit of Pantheism involved. I do believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God', however as with the Deist ideology I do not believe in holy books/scriptures/passages/writings, those are done by humanity's need of order.
Now for my actually belief in Deism, I beleive that there is a 'God' but this 'God' will not intervene with mortal affairs and I see for him/her/it no reason to do so. 'God' wanted creation, he/she/it created universe, be it the Big Bang, 7 days, or a large bathroom break, everything as we know it was made.
Now putting Pantheism into the picture, I also believe that 'God' created the universe but also is the universe, or at least controls every aspect of it. Why do atoms attract in the first place, why does matter exist, why does space/time exist, because it was set in place by who? The Grand Architect, or 'God'.
The thing I love about Deism, that it allows Religion and Rational thinking coexist with one another. It fulfills spiritual need and at the same time allows rational thinking of math/science/logic/etc.
I'm a Deist, and as a Deist I don't believe in holy books/scriptures/passages/writings, I do beleive the universe was created by a higher being however, but in this I beleive that this higher being does not and will not intervene with mortal affairs.
Yes you got it. :thumbsup:
Why would believing in a deity mean you didn't believe in science? I'm pretty sure most people who have posted in this thread believe in science.
Deism at it's most SIMPLE form(to me) is nothing more than "Idk about all that scripture stuff, but from how I rationalize the world around me, it makes pretty good sense to think that a life force of some kind is responsible for all of this."
Deism doesn't even speculate on what the deity would even be. For all we know, "God" could literally be everything and everywhere all at once. Meaning the universe WAS God. It could be any number of things, but yet, Deism doesn't speculate on that. A deist might, but deism itself is simply rationalizing that believing in the existence of a deity is rational.
Speaking of...I finally looked up Deism in wikipedia to see what they had to say about it. Easy to read with good info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I guess you can call scientific naturalism different. Scientific Naturalism believes in what science tells us, but we are willing to change and we are constantly challenging our own beliefs to stay congruent with reality. It's a "religion" on pure science.
To me, science is the light shined at the clouds of reality. Religion uses imagination to think what's in the fog, while science works to uncover the fog. I know most of you believe in science (which is good) but I wish that more people would believe in civilization more rather than bash at it. Also, don't say (not saying it's you) that atheists don't have morals, because that is both false and offensive.
No option for both?
As I see it, Science is the search for useful information. Something that, when tested, has reasonably consistent results and is relevant to the issue you wish to address. That doesn't mean it can't be disproven, it just means no one has done it yet. They've failed to prove the null hypothosis. Still, it's useful information. For instance, Einsteinian physics supersedes Newtonian Physics, yet Newtonian Physics are not obsolete. They are quite useful in architecture, among other things. Yet if you were to try to build a building according to Einsteinian Physics, or better yet, the newer quantum physics, you wouldn't have a good building. Hence, we still have and use Newtonian physics.
On the other hand Science is not the search for truth. Philosophy is the search for truth, and religion is one of the paths used in philosophy. There is no information that can really be applied to advancement, unless it's on a personal philosophic level. You aren't looking for proof of what you believe, and quite frankly, it is my experience that anyone and everyone chooses to believe what they want, regardless of what evidence they have access to.
As long as I keep the two in separate boxes, I'm fine as both a religious person and as someone who learns the knowledge of men. Scientists will always look for the answers to forever questions, constantly finding new answers to some of the same questions and getting new information and benefits therefrom. Individuals can always find answers to their personal questions from religion that will benefit them personally.
I honestly hope that a scientist doesn't halt their research or their theories because they believe the answer to their question is already given by their God. If so, they will never try to find out anything for themselves, and will reap no benefit from their expectations.
On the other hand, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see little value in applying scientific process to religion. Faith is the operating factor in that particular world. If salvation comes from Faith, than it would be pretty stupid for God to allow himself to be proven to people who don't have it. They'd never have the opportunity to develop faith, and as such, would be damned. That and they'd no longer have a choice in the matter, and quite frankly, what good is faith, love, or devotion if it isn't given by choice.
That's just me though.
Dude, I totally agree with what you just said and can't say it any better. People are going to believe what they want.
On a sidenote here is what I believe and a short explanation to why...
I believe in God and Jesus as the son of God. I believe the bible and live by it the best I can.
Why?
C.S. Lewis made a statement about Jesus that went something like this... Either he is a liar, lunatic, or Lord.
Saying Jesus was just a good moral teacher is the easy way out of answering who Jesus really was. Either you believe he was a liar (one who perpetuated a lie/hoax through beatings and eventually to his death on a cross), a lunatic (who taught morals that most human beings live by today in a general sense), or Lord. Now I don't know about you, but it I don't know many people who would be willing to take a lie to the point of being killed for it, knowingly. Jesus as a lunatic doesn't make much since either, his teachings would not line up with a madman.
How many religions serve a risen Savior? There is enough evidence to prove that Jesus grave was found empty, but to make this short... you have to decide whether it's because he was who he said he is or if it was some kind of hoax.
Also, our universal time system is based on this one lowly, poor man. Even if "BC" and "AD" are under attack, "BCE" and "CE" are still based on the same starting point from his life, funny huh?
I also find it ironic that people question the existence of Jesus in general, to whether he was even a real man, given the fact there is more evidence for his existence compared to Socrates.
At some point a hoax, and esp. one of this grand exposure would be solved, but millions believe and the reason why is because the evidence for Jesus being who he said he was outweighs a hoax.
That's my opinion.
EDIT: (from wikipedia)
C. S. Lewis was an Oxbridge medieval historian, popular writer and Christian apologist. He popularised the argument outlined above in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." [5]
Lewis's trilemma is based on the view that, in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God. For example, in Mere Christianity, Lewis refers to what he says are Jesus' claims:
* to have authority to forgive sins—behaving as if he really was "the person chiefly offended in all offences."[6][7][8]
* to have always existed,[9] and
* to intend to come back to judge the world at the end of time.[10]
Lewis argues that these claims logically exclude the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher" because he believes that no one making such claims could possibly be rationally or morally reliable, unless he were God. Elsewhere, Lewis refers to this argument as "the aut Deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man"),[11] a reference to an earlier version of the argument used by Henry Parry Liddon in his 1866 Bampton Lectures in which he argued for the divinity of Jesus based on a number of grounds, including the claims he believed Jesus made.[12]
[edit] Formal structure
The premises are as follows.
(P): Jesus claimed to be God.[citation needed]
(Q): One of the following must be true.
1. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but believed that he was.
2. Liar: Jesus did not believe he was God, but spoke as if he did.
3. Lord: Jesus is God.
From these premises, it is argued, it follows that,[citation needed]
(C): If not God, Jesus is not great and not moral.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
As for the ignorance of religion, there is none. Religion is deeply incorporated with human society, there is no denying it, so keeping with the status quo or more say the 'religious quo' is more socially acceptable.
And how is it hard to believe things outside of reality? It's basic human nature. As humans, social beings, we all want to know outside our current boundaries, these boundaries were at first a local village, then a country, then a continent, then the sea, then multiple continents, then the sky, then space, so on a so forth. Without this drive, this initiative to know which first began with arguably the concept of life (which religion is heavily incorporated in) there would be no modern science or at least delay it further than we have already.
Summarized, religion (the broad category which derived from imagination, thought, and ponder) birthed what we call modern science today.
Yes, but we live in the 21st Century. There's no need for religion anymore(as there ever was) so we can throw it out the window because it just holds back the potential of humanity.
Irrational: Religion is dumb!!!!
Other people: Na uh!!!
Can we be done with this now?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
And how do you come to the assumption of religion holding back scientific pursuit? It is true that some religions (particularly that of Christianity) held back scientific pursuit but at the same time advanced it, if you ban something you just make it more noticeable and desired right?
I bring up one of favorite quotes from Albert Einstien:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Here Einstien states the relation, the link of religion and science. One cannot prosper fully without the other. Religion plays a heavy role in scientific pursuit as science plays a heavy role in the evolution of religion, both have the potential to help and advance one other. So us as a society must understand that there is no reason for this strenuous (and hated) boundary between the two to exist in the first place and posting threads for the sole purpose of maintaining this double-edged boundary is ironic no?
Einstein was in no sense a religious man. He might, possibly, of been a deist, but he held no belief in a god that kept the busses running on time, or a god that helped with your spelling test.
As for the usefulness of religion, well, let's just say it's about as useful as a wool coat while swimming. And, to quote a great philosopher, it is a tragedy, either people will die believing this stuff, or they will wake up and realize what they have been taught, and it will be so painful to them when they learn the truth that many would not be able to cope.
I mean none of this to any offense to any religious person. When I say this, I say it with the utmost hope that one day you all will be able to learn and grow.