EPTI don't see how anything or anyone can be greater than what is already out there and the monumental forces it takes for these things to occur.
I believe the universe is fucking incredible.
Are you a deist? - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
I don't see how anything or anyone can be greater than what is already out there and the monumental forces it takes for these things to occur. I believe the universe is fucking incredible. | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: I believe that everything that is in the Universe, and all of the pieces that tie it together to make it what it is (physics, evolution, etc.), was created by something greater than the Universe, some higher power or being or something. My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from. It seems like that is a question that very few scientists are even trying to answer. To me that just feels like saying "I don't know so instead of saying I don't know I'll make something up" which just doesn't satisfy me in anyway. I've seen no evidence ever that anything supernatural or god like in any fashion has ever existed or could ever exist, and until I do I think sugesting something along those lines as an explanation for anything is intellectually dishonest personally. I guess in short, no I'm not a deist. | ||
|
naggerNZ
New Zealand708 Posts
It's every possible compromise you could make when analyzing and forming beliefs about the cosmos and spirituality. Deism was the position that, 200+ years ago, those with scientific minds formulated in absence of adequate scientific understanding. What invalidates this kind of thinking is not that we now know more, but rather we understand better the depths of exactly how much we cannot understand with our current science. It rejects faith based upon science, but then rejects science when it makes completely un-evidenced observations about things we could not possibly understand short of scientific methods that do not yet exist. TL:DR, Deism = "derp, I know about the Big Bang and Evolution, and I believe it, but WHO WAS THE WIZARD THAT INVENTED IT?" | ||
|
Linkirvana
Netherlands365 Posts
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well. Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way. I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with. Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" Copied off of wikipedia. As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all. Which brings me back to my post you quoted. | ||
|
S.O.U.L
Latvia149 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:49 arbitrageur wrote: I saw the first one and it was the guy making claims about things but not attempting to provide any evidence for them or telling people where they can find any evidence. He just said things as fact and added interviewees who were saying the same things, and adding quotes of historical figures who agreed with him. Is this one any different? it is differennt every zeitgeist is better then the last one i would say, but this one convinced me that there is no god or anything 120% more than i didnt believe it before! | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from. It seems like that is a question that very few scientists are even trying to answer. It's because scientists only care about verifiable knowledge. They don't give a fuck about retarded questions that cannot be answered since we cannot have data about them. Science is productive in it's nature, it won't dabble into something that isn't guaranteed to eventually produce some data. And since according to the modern theories all the Universe appeared from a single point (therefore, storing exactly 0 information about it's previous state had there been any), any question about what came "before" should be readressed to religion, charlatans and your grandmother, while real scientists keep working on something useful. I demand that any mention of science in later posts should lead to closing the thread, there's been enough bullshit 'science' discrediting serious research already. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: I believe that everything that is in the Universe, and all of the pieces that tie it together to make it what it is (physics, evolution, etc.), was created by something greater than the Universe, some higher power or being or something. My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from. It seems like that is a question that very few scientists are even trying to answer. I actually think that Deism (unlike most forms of theism) is a rationally tenable position, in the sense that it can be supported by "good" arguments. However, in order to find out what you "really" believe, you should check your views for internal consistency. For me, a defeater of Deism is the fact that I don't think that "minds" can be immaterial substances floating somewhere in a timeless aether. I think, mind-matter dualism has been thoroughly discredited by what we know about the human brain. Now, I don't say that everybody has to come to this conclusion, but if you do, then an immaterial god concept that can somehow have a mind and a will and even control matter with it completely loses its basis. | ||
|
Demonace34
United States2493 Posts
On July 14 2011 19:41 Linkirvana wrote: I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with. Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" Copied off of wikipedia. As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all. Which brings me back to my post you quoted. Rewatch 1:45 onward, lack of belief isn't a belief. More reading if you wish. http://atheism.about.com/od/mythdefiningatheism/a/LackBelief.htm | ||
|
Earll
Norway847 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:59 Kickboxer wrote: I also believe "God" is a construct of evil, manipulative men who themselves do not believe in one but are in essence just corporate executives. Do you really believe that? I might be wrong here but I am pretty sure the concept of some god has been around pretty much as long as humans were able to comunicate\think. And even though atheism might be an accepted belief now, go back a couple of hundred or thousand years, and I am reasonably sure that pretty much everyone believe\worships something, because there is so much stuff they can't explain and don't believe is explainable in any other way. That is not to say that religion has not been exploited by manipulative men though, but i do not believe that it is constructed by them. As for what I believe in i guess i'll take the approach of a few others in this thread, that currently we don't know, and your guess is as good as mine and anyone elses, and worrying about it seems rather unproductive. I would be pretty surprised if it turns out that there is some sort of all mighty being that cares whether or not we have sex before we put rings on eachothers fingers though. | ||
|
phyren
United States1067 Posts
On July 14 2011 19:18 ryanAnger wrote: That's actually what I meant by "who created him." I'm just too tired to properly sort my words, right now, lol. The hardest thing for me to accept is the "if it began" thing. Everything we know thus far tells us that things begin. The concept of "no beginning" just doesn't seem possible to me. I guess what I've done is apply complete speculation to something simply because I don't and can't understand. It actually seems like a rather weak thing to do, now that I think about it. This. Though I would add that the intuition that everything must have a beginning is neither correct according to what we know of, nor is it enough to base such a strong claim off of even if it was consistent with our experience. You mentioned the obvious example of anything cyclic: can a circle be shown to have a beginning? There is more though; time is not so simple. In fact, it can be shown that one observer can view two events as happening in a certain order, while another observer sees them happening at the same time. This relativistic example doesn't actually violate causality, so you could argue that causality must be respected; however, the notion of space-time as a manifold makes it exactly like the circle. How can you point to the beginning of a manifold? With certain shapes it is possible, a cone perhaps, with others it isn't. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On July 14 2011 19:41 Linkirvana wrote: As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all. ... that's your wording. 'fact'. Is that used in wikipedia? Also, it's your assumption that there are 'legit reasoning' leading to the belief that there is a God. Many would question that statement as well. I don't see it as proven to be true. Also, you should have continued with the next sentence that sums up what most atheists believe: Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On July 14 2011 19:41 Linkirvana wrote: I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with. Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" Copied off of wikipedia. As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all. Which brings me back to my post you quoted. Rejection of a specific claim is not the same as positing that claim's opposite. That is, rejecting claims of gods does not mean you're claiming that there definitely isn't a God. You reject the claim based on lack of evidence, false premises, or logical flaws. This is a subtle, but very important, distinction. The result is a lack of belief. It's unusual to think of a "lack of belief," because it's not a phrase you hear often. However, it's the default position for absolutely everything. Lets put it this way. Suppose you support supply side economics. Your economic belief system has specific, testable claims. If those claims don't stand up to scrutiny (I'm not looking to argue economics here. This is a Hypothetical), I can reject them. You have failed to prove your case. That doesn't mean I have to support a different school of economic thought. It just means I'm unpersuaded by the one you've proposed. This is atheism. Most atheists make no positive claim about gods at all (ie, that there definitely is no god). They simply haven't been persuaded that a God/gods exist, and therefore lack a belief in one/many. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
The big bang makes a lot of sense. If you don't question it. Like religion I suppose. It's weird being both a christian and an aspiring human biologist. It's like its impossible to explain that you believe in most of both sides. | ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
On July 14 2011 19:31 Aruno wrote: That argument or "question" is flawed on both sides of 'religious' and 'scientific' domains. Religion cannot explain "who" or "how" god was created Just like science cannot explain "what" or "how" there is existence Not sure what you mean with flawed on both domains. Obviously the question only applies to religion cause science doesn't say there is a creator. And even then it only applies to those religious people who forward "there has to be a creator" as a reason for their belief in God rather than, say, those people who believe in God because of voices in their head or a willingness to accept the four-thousand year old ramblings of illiterate desert dwelling illiterate Palestinian goatherds. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: For a long time I walked the tight rope between Atheist and Agnostic, and I've never been a fan of organized religion of any kind (but that's not what this is about.) I've always done my research on religions and all that kind of stuff, because I'm not the kind of person who likes to be against something I know nothing about. Despite this, I had never heard of "deism" until a couple months ago, and I just attributed my beliefs to Agnosticism. Basically, what I actually believe is this: + Show Spoiler + I believe that everything that is in the Universe, and all of the pieces that tie it together to make it what it is (physics, evolution, etc.), was created by something greater than the Universe, some higher power or being or something. My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from. It seems like that is a question that very few scientists are even trying to answer. Assuming a linear understanding of "time" as opposed to a circular one, you are always forced to question what was before whatever is commonly accepted as "the beginning." This is a question I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer to, and that is where I've decided to fill in the gaps with my own beliefs. I believe that whoever or whatever was responsible for the creation of our Universe did JUST that, and then left it alone. No divine intervention, no divine miracles. That is not to say I'm entirely opposed to the supernatural (things such as ghosts) but I think if such things were real, there would be a valid scientific explanation for it, maybe something that we just haven't quite figured out yet. I've been thinking along the same lines but as others have said the lack of explanation isn't the same as proof for some sort of god. Even if there was *something* before the big bang that doesn't make it a god, just something we don't know about. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On July 14 2011 20:11 Pholon wrote: Not sure what you mean with flawed on both domains. Obviously the question only applies to religion cause science doesn't say there is a creator. And even then it only applies to those religious people who forward "there has to be a creator" as a reason for their belief in God rather than, say, those people who believe in God because of voices in their head or a willingness to accept the four-thousand year old ramblings of illiterate desert dwelling illiterate Palestinian goatherds. Where did the "material" and energy come from for the Big Bang? Science is flawed. So is religion. Perhaps equally so. If you go back far enough, and question every step of the way, you'll see all theories rely on belief without proof. | ||
|
Demonace34
United States2493 Posts
On July 14 2011 20:15 Chargelot wrote: Where did the material and energy come from for the Big Bang? Science is flawed. So is religion. Perhaps equally so. If you go back far enough, and question every step of the way, you'll see all theories rely on belief without proof. The difference is that religion says it HAS the answer but science say they DON'T KNOW. Theories are unproven possibilities, not absolute truths. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On July 14 2011 20:17 Demonace34 wrote: The difference is that religion says it HAS the answer but science say they DON'T KNOW. Theories are unproven possibilities, not absolute truths. Enter deism. A belief that a being probably had something to do with our belief of how the universe may have been created. When you put it like that, the religion vs. atheism argument doesn't make sense. Everyone sounds stupid. | ||
|
Pyrrhus
60 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:38 Linkirvana wrote: In my opinion, being a deist is as "bad" as being an atheist, or a christian etc. The arrogance of attributing truth to these ->theories<- has always baffled me. There is simply no way of knowing whether or not we were created by a God. That is in my opinion the only proper stance you can take on this subject. There are proper arguments for both the existence of a God (In the broadest sense of the word) and the non-existence of a God. Faith only has meaning, when there are grounds for that faith. Without ->solid<- ground to base your faith upon, your faith has no meaning, and is just a random guess. Which should be acknowledged as such. that means it is valid to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible teapot. your argument is completely invalid. | ||
| ||
