Deism?

[Lord Kenneth]

There is no evidence that a God was the "first cause", or even that a God is necessary for the first cause. It seems just as likely as saying the Elves of the Iron Goatee "did it".

I'm saying that atheism is more rational than deism.

I have nothing further to say... I am interested to see what other people have to say about this.

Oh, and Franko, your ideas are not even shared by most (and by most, I mean, MOST) deists, so I'd rather not hear any of your crap.

 

[Guest]

Well of course atheism is more rational; it uses rationality to arrive at its position. Deism relies on emotion and desire, not logic. It's not surprising that many value what emotion and desire tell them more than logic and reason.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

The reason I made this topic was I was browsing the deism.org forums, and it appeared that the common consensus there was that atheism and diesm are equally rational.

 

[Fade]

The reason I made this topic was I was browsing the deism.org forums, and it appeared that the common consensus there was that atheism and diesm are equally rational.

It's a form of straw man. Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.

 

[Checkmite]

I tend to think that any position on God besides agnosticism is equally rational - or, for the purpose of accuracy, equally irrational.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I tend to think that any position on God besides agnosticism is equally rational - or, for the purpose of accuracy, equally irrational.

So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

 

[Checkmite]

So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

Equally irrational, yes. Scientifically, anyway...both the "belief" and "disbelief" set are seriously wanting as far as empirical evidence goes. Philisophically speaking, however, it's another matter entirely.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Equally irrational, yes. Scientifically, anyway...both the "belief" and "disbelief" set are seriously wanting as far as empirical evidence goes. Philisophically speaking, however, it's another matter entirely.

How would one have no evidence of the magical Goat's existence?

 

[SortingItAllOut]

So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

Mmmmm... cheesecake. Very evil of you to mention this whilst I am eating salads and doing situps. :

Take care,
Sort

 

[Checkmite]

How would one have no evidence of the magical Goat's existence?

First...are using the "goat" as a simile for a proposed god?

 

[Guest]

----
Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.
----


So atheism is the Truth, is that your claim?

 

[Fade]

----
Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.
----


So atheism is the Truth, is that your claim?

Your attempt to troll has been noted. Thanks, honey pie sweetie bunches.

 

[Guest]

Your attempt to troll has been noted. Thanks, honey pie sweetie bunches.

Fade, why can't you answer my question?

You are saying everything that you don't believe in, of course, is wishful thinking.

How do you know that that isn't wishful thinking on your part?

 

[Lord Kenneth]

He means that as far as we know, with the given evidence, it is the truth.

 

[wraith]

There is no evidence that a God was the "first cause", or even that a God is necessary for the first cause. It seems just as likely as saying the Elves of the Iron Goatee "did it".

I'm saying that atheism is more rational than deism.

I have nothing further to say... I am interested to see what other people have to say about this.

Oh, and Franko, your ideas are not even shared by most (and by most, I mean, MOST) deists, so I'd rather not hear any of your crap.

hahaha
I really do enjoy watching an atheist proclaim that their religion is the one true faith....

the preaching of free-willy gods and double standards...haha and you call atheism rational? ...you really are the religious fanatics

 

[Checkmite]

Well I didn't get an answer...so I'm guessing that we're using the Goat as a synonym for the common notion of "God". Very well then...

The way I look at this entire problem is thus: it's a philisophical problem. Most concepts of "God" require that god to be necessarily seperate from the universe. The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe. Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls. In other words, it is an unscientific question - therefore, even trying to approach it in a scientific (i.e. "based on empirical evidence" ) way is, itself, irrational. It follows then that any conclusion one reaches regarding the God Question that uses "scientific evidence" as an arguing point will be irrational, plain and simple - whether that conclusion is one of belief or disbelief. Science stops at the edge of the observable universe. What happens outside that line is strictly within the realm of philosophy - which simply isn't subject to the same rules as science. This is frustrating to many people, and understandably so.

Approaching the God Problem from a philisophical standpoint - well, we can argue about that till we're blue in the face, because everybody has his own approach to philisophical matters.

 

[wraith]

Well of course atheism is more rational; it uses rationality to arrive at its position.

You have got to be kidding me!
Name one thing that is rational brought about by atheism

Deism relies on emotion and desire, not logic.

I take it that the desire for Truth isnt logical?

It's not surprising that many value what emotion and desire tell them more than logic and reason.

Someone please save this guy before he hurts himself

 

[thaiboxerken]

The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe.

This is not a weakness though, it is the strength of science.

Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls.

Yes, to believe in the unobservable is irrational.

In other words, it is an unscientific question - therefore, even trying to approach it in a scientific (i.e. "based on empirical evidence" ) way is, itself, irrational.

Only in your small opinion. To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.

It follows then that any conclusion one reaches regarding the God Question that uses "scientific evidence" as an arguing point will be irrational, plain and simple - whether that conclusion is one of belief or disbelief.

Oh yes, it follows, but only if one accepts your false premise that science is irrational.

Approaching the God Problem from a philisophical standpoint - well, we can argue about that till we're blue in the face, because everybody has his own approach to philisophical matters.

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

 

[Checkmite]

This is not a weakness though, it is the strength of science.

Of course it isn't a weakness - but it's also why science and philosophy are two different things.

Yes, to believe in the unobservable is irrational.

The same could be said of any emotion.

Only in your small opinion. To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.

It's also the kind of thing that gets people to donate money to the homeless, send get-well cards, propose marriage, and overthrow tyranny.

Oh yes, it follows, but only if one accepts your false premise that science is irrational.

I never said science was irrational - don't be silly.

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

Only when applied to what it was meant for. My point is, the scientific method was not designed to be applied to philosophy. Right tool for the right job, and all that.

 

[c4ts]

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

I think the scientific method has been considered kind of philosophy in itself since the Age of Enlightenment, in order to distinguish it from natural philosophy.