Dishonest Apologetics

[Church_Militant]

I’m not having much success.

http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/11.gif Ya has to BELIEVE boy!

PM me and I’ll help you get it down.

 

[jargon631]

Yeah, I think it’s a cultural barrier that we’re unsuccessfully trying to overcome. Suffice it to say, when a theist says “God”, it is presumed it is THEIR notion of God that is being described. Being a Catholic site, we would also presume it is the Catholic idea of God being presented. We are all well aware that the Judeo Christian (and Muslim!) God are one and the same. The pantheist God, the ancient Greek God, the deist God, the omg! are different entities!
(See how friendly I am?)

and i, my friend, am a believer in the deist god…

cordially
frederick

 

[jargon631]

secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369

have you ever heard of committed christians who are now atheists?..fd

 

[jargon631]

Deism means one who recognises the existence of a god but not religion. Probably new age stuff and some other religions.

God bless you
Cinette

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

 

[Surfmeister]

Deism means one who recognises the existence of a god but not religion. Probably new age stuff and some other religions.

God bless you
Cinette

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

This is why it’s so hard to discuss faith and religion. Everybody seems to be working with different definitions. I define deism as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

By the way, if you feel like sharing, I’m curious about what led you to deism instead of atheism or agnosticism. I don’t think that any of the arguments that there must have been a creator really work.

 

[jargon631]

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

This is why it’s so hard to discuss faith and religion. Everybody seems to be working with different definitions. I define deism as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”

lol…you make a solid point…i dont believe that the creator abandoned the universe…he spent too much time working on it…i also feel that a being that had enough interest in creating said universe, would control life and give supernatural revelation as it pleased him…i agree with the use of reason, but my understanding also comes from the immersion in, and rejection of, christianity…but dont be surprised at my personal conceptions…i’m also a libertarian and we cant agree on anything…chortle…fd

 

[jargon631]

By the way, if you feel like sharing, I’m curious about what led you to deism instead of atheism or agnosticism. I don’t think that any of the arguments that there must have been a creator really work.

honestly?..i’m sure that a healthy part of my belief comes from my sda background, and subsequent inability to entirely reject the idea of a creator…i also feel that the universe(or multiverse if you like)is far too complex to simply have evolved…of course i have no evidence either way which is why my posts are laden with terms like “feel” and “believe”…the fact that i grew up fairly close to nature and live as eco-friendly as possible also play a partial role…fd

 

[anEvilAtheist]

honestly?..i’m sure that a healthy part of my belief comes from my sda background, and subsequent inability to entirely reject the idea of a creator…i also feel that the universe(or multiverse if you like)is far too complex to simply have evolved…of course i have no evidence either way which is why my posts are laden with terms like “feel” and “believe”…the fact that i grew up fairly close to nature and live as eco-friendly as possible also play a partial role…fd

Thanks for being so honest about it. I think a lot of people believe what they do merely because it feels right, but then say the reason for their belief is some flawed apologetic argument. I obviously disagree with you about the universe having been too complicated to have evolved, but I do think that there’s a chance there is some sort of God. My problem is that if there is a God, I think we know absolutely nothing about him. So when religions try to attribute a long list of properties to him, it becomes incredibly unlikely that such a god exists. If you only believe a couple things about God, it seems a lot more likely that you’d be right.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Surfmeister,

There are multiple problems (as we are all seeing) in trying to discuss an item without an appropriate definition. Not many problems are solved by one of the parties beginning with, "…I define ‘x’ as … ". There really are objective sources out there and we really do not have to invent the wheel…

Try this and see if is up to the task. If not, find another objective source and offer it. First the definition(s) and then the discussion… Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

This is why it’s so hard to discuss faith and religion. Everybody seems to be working with different definitions. I define deism as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”

God bless

 

[Surfmeister]

Sorry 'bout that. I should have cited my source.
answers.com/topic/deism
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

[French déisme, from Latin deus, god.]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jargon631,

I guess I missed something here … but, why would you want to “…reject the idea of a creator…”?

honestly?..i’m sure that a healthy part of my belief comes from my sda background, and subsequent inability to entirely reject the idea of a creator…i also feel that the universe(or multiverse if you like)is far too complex to simply have evolved…of course i have no evidence either way which is why my posts are laden with terms like “feel” and “believe”…the fact that i grew up fairly close to nature and live as eco-friendly as possible also play a partial role…fd

The idea of all of this order - from the way the planets form our solar system to the way our cells take in nutrients and produce energy - just can not be an accident. The picture of Newton sitting under an apple tree and watching the apple fall as an application of the universal principle of gravity is a good example. Order - not chaos - is the rule. Now, this does not mean that chaos does not exist and there are tremendously destructive forces in the universe (recent tornadoes in the US are proof of that! - and we are in hurricane season until December!) but, just look at the order in this so there are real elements that are quite predictable.

The natural man using his reason alone can come to a knowledge that God exists.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

I’m going to be blunt, here, Cinette. Do you have a hard time admitting you’re wrong?

No.

 

[Cinette]

Deism means one who recognises the existence of a god but not religion. Probably new age stuff and some other religions.

God bless you
Cinette

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

I have never given much thought to this at all. I am been engaged in seeking to know my faith better. I am interested in God not gods.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Surfmeister,

OK, if you like this definition … it is fine with me. Please understand that there is NO question in the mind of the Diest that THERE IS A GOD… Now, this makes a real and quite clear distinction between this belief and the belief of the Atheist - who claims that there IS NO GOD. In brief, both of you guy can not be on the same side of the argument… Now, afterwards you can go out for a beer … but, that is after the discussion! After all, we can disagree … but, not disagreeably, eh?

Sorry 'bout that. I should have cited my source.
answers.com/topic/deism
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

[French déisme, from Latin deus, god.]

Now, that we have a working definition in place, where do you want to go from here? Oh, and just so there is no confusion in this matter: I believe that Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True man, suffered, died and rose from the dead for the salvation of each of us. And, that is where I am coming from…

God bless

 

[Cinette]

hi cinette…as a deist, i tend to agree with your partial definition as to god and religion…i dont understand the new age reference, though…is it connected or disconected to your deist definition?..…thanks…frederick

This is why it’s so hard to discuss faith and religion. Everybody seems to be working with different definitions. I define deism as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”

This sounds like a belief in nothing! Never interested me at all.

To me God is very real. I feel God and his great love. I want to get to know Him better. I am interested in other people’s experience of God. God makes me happy. If I believed as you believe I would feel very empty.

Cinette

 

[Surfmeister]

Hi, Surfmeister,

OK, if you like this definition … it is fine with me. Please understand that there is NO question in the mind of the Diest that THERE IS A GOD… Now, this makes a real and quite clear distinction between this belief and the belief of the Atheist - who claims that there IS NO GOD. In brief, both of you guy can not be on the same side of the argument… Now, afterwards you can go out for a beer … but, that is after the discussion! After all, we can disagree … but, not disagreeably, eh?

Now, that we have a working definition in place, where do you want to go from here? Oh, and just so there is no confusion in this matter: I believe that Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True man, suffered, died and rose from the dead for the salvation of each of us. And, that is where I am coming from…

God bless

It’s not that I like this definition, it’s the one I’ve always used and much more concise than the wiki article. The deist basically believes in a creator…full stop. The theist believes in an involved God with a bunch of attributes. An atheist does not believe in that kind of God, but it’s possible to be atheist AND deist, I suppose.
Correction: No wait. Theists believe in a god/gods, not necessarily the God of the Judeo Christian mindset, so does that make all god belief, including deism, theism? Oy, my head hurts.
Where do I want to go from here? I don’t know. Disneyland?

 

[Cinette]

It’s not that I like this definition, it’s the one I’ve always used and much more concise than the wiki article. The deist basically believes in a creator…full stop. The theist believes in an involved God with a bunch of attributes. An atheist does not believe in that kind of God, but it’s possible to be atheist AND deist, I suppose.
Correction: No wait. Theists believe in a god/gods, not necessarily the God of the Judeo Christian mindset, so does that make all god belief, including deism, theism? Oy, my head hurts.
Where do I want to go from here? I don’t know. Disneyland?

ACCORDING TO THE OXFORD DICTIONARY

Deism - The doctrine or belief of a Diest, usually, belief in the existance of a God, with rejection of revelation; ‘natural religion’.

Deist - One who acknowledges the existance of a God upon the testimony of reason, but rejects revealed religion.

I don’t think you can say a god with a capital G. There is a distinction between God and a god.

Would you say that a Deist says “God exists and created the universe - so what?” That’s it?

Cinette

 

[Surfmeister]

ACCORDING TO THE OXFORD DICTIONARY

Deism - The doctrine or belief of a Diest, usually, belief in the existance of a God, with rejection of revelation; ‘natural religion’.

Deist - One who acknowledges the existance of a God upon the testimony of reason, but rejects revealed religion.

I don’t think you can say a god with a capital G. There is a distinction between God and a god.

Would you say that a Deist says “God exists and created the universe - so what?” That’s it?

Cinette

Yes, that’s what I think a Deist would say. I, too, think that the Deist believes in a small ‘g’ god. The god is not a personal god but a force or an event or whatever. Which is why you CAN’T say that Einstein believed in God. If Einstein believed in a god, it was definitely a small ‘g’ god.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting Pascal’s position (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager).

His argument has nothing to do with Catholicism - rather: God either exists or He doesn’t. The very term: Atheist means No God… and, on this we must be clear.

Okay fine, but if that’s the case then his argument is false. If the God could be any god, then the statement that God will reward belief with infinite happiness is false. By the way Pascal set things up, he presumes that the choice is between atheism and a Christian-like conception of God.

This statement admits to another ‘reason’ for the existence of God - you have actually added one to mine… You really can not have it ‘both ways’. God does not exist as a convience for flip-flopping arugments. I expect you to argue that there is No God and then simply to defend this statement. If you add that, “…there’s a different God…” you have materially altered the argument in that you are saying THERE IS A GOD - it is just that you do not believe in the One that I believe in.

I do not argue that I know with 100% certainty that there is no God. I do not think I can know anything other than my own existence with absolute certainty. I do not think there is a God, but even if there was, I believe it is almost certainly not the Catholic conception of God. Pascal’s wager is intended for people like myself, who do not believe in God, but think it is possible that he exists. It is supposed to show that even if you think it is unlikely that God exists, you should believe in him. You have not shown that my rebuttal is flawed in any way.

This is where you have misunderstood Pascal’s wager. I would recommend that you read the link I provided. We are talking about two elements in Pascal’s wager:

1.) God’s existence and,

2.) man’s living his life in reference to God’s exisence.

I understand that. I do not understand how you think this contradicts my statements.

There are some real contradictions in this statement. You have added the adjective “personal” and that is not part of Pascal’s wager.

Okay, I could say the same thing without the personal. I was actually saying that even if you assume a God even closer to the Catholic conception of God (in that God is a personal one), you still don’t know enough about what he would want to have any idea how you should act.

And, this truly seems to admit that you have not closed the door on the distinct possibility of the existence of God… at least an ‘impersonal’ God… Having said that - please re-read this link on the wager, because, in my opinion, Pascal gives a pretty convincing argument for modifying one’s life. Just look what it is you are ‘wagering’. The very concept of eternity is without boundaries… and this is a concept we can only guess at - nothing in our knowledge or experiences prepares us for this. And, while astronomy does get ‘close’ … this in itself would be a contradiction… So, we have to settle for the fact that the universe that we have so far charted is much bigger the we are.

I know the argument quite well. My point is that without any evidence that certain behaviors would make you better off, you have no reason to change your behavior based on the wager.

Where I feel you left the intelledtual plane and move into the emotional plane is in your statement about refusing to modify your behavior to conform to your belief…even if there is a God. To my way of thinking this is the essence of intellectual honesty - or, the lack thereof. This is no different from the “believer in God” who acts as though there is no God. In the last analysis - unless there is a profound mental illness present - a person’s actions will conform to a person’s real (as opposed to merely stated) beliefs.

The devils in Hell believe in God - but, it does not change their behavior.

God bless

If there is a God and I know something about what he would want then I would definitely change my behavior (assuming it’s not already perfect ). But merely knowing that there is a God of some sort gives you no indication of how you should behave (unless you believe that there is strong evidence that God is as described by one particular religion).