Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Christianity: The retarded son of Deism

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 11:53:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

What if the religion in question believes life, humans, or societies to be gods?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

Deism: the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator.

How does Christianity claim that reason alone would determine the existence of god?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:43:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theism came before deism so it's hard to see how deism is it's progenitor. It was virtually unthinkable to have a non-interactive God(s) until the last few hundred years.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:58:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:21:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

Deism: the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator.

How does Christianity claim that reason alone would determine the existence of god?

Look, deism states: There is a creator because I have deduced so.
Christianity and whatnot states: There is a creator who has a beard and a son and who has feelings and smites people and stuff because my holy text says so.

Fundamentally the same, but very different.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:59:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:43:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Theism came before deism so it's hard to see how deism is it's progenitor. It was virtually unthinkable to have a non-interactive God(s) until the last few hundred years.

I'm not saying that theism was "born" from deism, (though my title would seem that way). I'm stating that Theism is a skewed version of theism that is overburdened with dogma and tradition.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 1:16:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

I agree 99%, I was once briefly Deist too, but why believe that something created the Universe at all? Deism ultimately destroys itself in that if a personal God that interacts with the Conscious world does not exist, then there is no proof for which to assume the existence of a Non-personal God. If there is no proof nor command that compels one to believe, then belief in a Deistic God is ultimately a blind faith.

In short, if God does not need us to believe (which Deism implies), and there is no proof for belief, then why should we believe?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 1:34:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:58:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:21:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

Deism: the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator.

How does Christianity claim that reason alone would determine the existence of god?

Look, deism states: There is a creator because I have deduced so.
Christianity and whatnot states: There is a creator who has a beard and a son and who has feelings and smites people and stuff because my holy text says so.

Fundamentally the same, but very different.

Deduction=/=faith in an authoritative source.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 1:16:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

I agree 99%, I was once briefly Deist too, but why believe that something created the Universe at all? Deism ultimately destroys itself in that if a personal God that interacts with the Conscious world does not exist, then there is no proof for which to assume the existence of a Non-personal God. If there is no proof nor command that compels one to believe, then belief in a Deistic God is ultimately a blind faith.

In short, if God does not need us to believe (which Deism implies), and there is no proof for belief, then why should we believe?

Everything is a blind faith to some extent.
Deism (maybe just my brand of deism?) is stating:
There is a higher level of existence, which is the level on which this "god" figure(s) is.
Creation was more than an arbitrary scientific event, and while science can explain how it happened, it can't explain why.
Our knowledge is limited, therefore there are things we cannot understand.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 2:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 1:34:06 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:58:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:21:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/15/2012 11:35:32 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
All organized religions are fundamentally deist, but are overcumbered by the weight of their dogma.
It's fine to believe that someone or something created the universe that is beyond our explanation, but giving him a beard, a son, and human emotions is taking a crap on the core beliefs of the religion.

Next time you argue with a theist, ask them why they're not a deist.

Deism: the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator.

How does Christianity claim that reason alone would determine the existence of god?

Look, deism states: There is a creator because I have deduced so.
Christianity and whatnot states: There is a creator who has a beard and a son and who has feelings and smites people and stuff because my holy text says so.

Fundamentally the same, but very different.

Deduction=/=faith in an authoritative source.

1. Deduction=/= faith.
2. Deduction can lead to the conclusion that a god exists.
3. Ergo, deism=/=faith
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.
-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.
-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him. The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator. If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.

The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.

Circular Reasoning.
God proves faith
Faith proves god?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 11:37:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:51:35 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.

Circular Reasoning.
God proves faith
Faith proves god?

You will have to explain what you viewed as circular.
evidence =/= faith.
evidence = foundation of a reasonable faith.

Evidentiary process validates evidence.
evidence proves God.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 11:46:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 11:37:16 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:51:35 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.

Circular Reasoning.
God proves faith
Faith proves god?

You will have to explain what you viewed as circular.
evidence =/= faith.
evidence = foundation of a reasonable faith.

Evidentiary process validates evidence.
evidence proves God.

Name one piece of evidence that proves God's existence. Anybody can write a book that says whatever he or she wishes.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 12:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 11:46:35 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/17/2012 11:37:16 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:51:35 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.

Circular Reasoning.
God proves faith
Faith proves god?

You will have to explain what you viewed as circular.
evidence =/= faith.
evidence = foundation of a reasonable faith.

Evidentiary process validates evidence.
evidence proves God.

Name one piece of evidence that proves God's existence. Anybody can write a book that says whatever he or she wishes.

Do you really believe that millions of scholars throughout history are just morons? They run around with zero evidence and make wild claims?
What atheistic indoctrination process have you gone through?
Were you brainwashed?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 9:37:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 12:27:33 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 11:46:35 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/17/2012 11:37:16 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:51:35 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 9:46:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 8:23:45 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/16/2012 12:31:00 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 3:02:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 2:48:13 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 1:20:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:59:40 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/15/2012 12:23:08 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I fail to understand.
Are you deliberately confusing definitions to be a contrarian and not an intellectual?

Deism = unrevealed god
Theism = revealed god
Christianity = Revealed God through the advent of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can explain more fully.

Perhaps you could explain your implications.

Christianity asserts a Virtuous God that is revealed.
Deism asserts a reasoned god through general revelation.

This appears to be the implications of your first post.

P1) Rocky does not like Christian God.
P2) Rocky believes a god must exist
P3) Rocky does not believe the Christian God exists.
C) All Christains are deists.

You post does not allow for or imply such a conclusion should logically follow.

1. I do not believe a Christian God Exists.
2. By god I mean some creating force, but I'll call it a god for now. A driver behind the big bang.
3. Affirmative.
C. Christianity has deism at its core (a belief in a creating force) but is overburdened by dogma, therefore confusing the matter at hand, the creation.

That is changing from the original post, but I thank you for the clarity.
In the original post you seemed to imply that the reason you did not believe in the Christian God was because you did not "like" him.

To make this work you would need
- a reason for the belief that the Christian God does not exist, especially as hundreds of million of Christians, Pastors, Priest theologians and even monks claim they have interacted with him.
- you would need to show how God is not a fundamental of both deism and theism.
- and the contrary of the both that deism is a fundamental of theism despite the rest of the world's alternate classification and affirmation these two concepts are distinct.


Thank you for your response.

You're welcome

-I'm not going to go through the whole process, but personifying a God to our likeness makes it irrational to accept it as truth.

The Christian claim is that God became personified and revealed Himself to us. They do not claim they designed him.

They don't claim that, but that's what happened. The christian god is taking a rational theory about where we came from and giving him a human face. Any "interactions" had with him are placebo.

The evidence for this is born out in the fact millions of claims show a consistent :Christian God among Christians.

-Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism: belief in a creator....plus a ton of dogma and scripture and tradition etc.

Deism: Belief in a creator. Theism belief in a SPECIFIC creator.

That would be the distinction.

Sorry, what I meant so say: Deism: Belief in a creator. Christianity: Belief in a specific creator plus a ton of dogma etc


The dogma is asserted DUE to the revelation FROM that specific creator.
If you deny the Dogma you would have to provide strong evidence against 2000+ years of reasonable and shared experienced that provided the groundwork for the Dogma.

Number of books that account for the miracle of a man returning from the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine......1.


The dogma is asserted due to literature being taken literally and people believing it. You have just as much proof for a specific creator as I do for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not at all.
The preponderance of the evidence for Christianity extremely outweighs a made up concept of a Spaghetti monster.

The Biblical documents themselves have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks.
Quality of Source must be accounted for when the strength of the evidence is weighed.

The claims of interaction from quality sources also have been vetted by countless millions of Theologians, Priest, pastors and monks. The scholars affirm the common experiences of the other scholars.

All claims of the supernatural is also vetted by the institution of the Church and its scholars.
The Christian church has been using peer review for 2 millenia before 20th century science.

To ignore these evidences is tantamount to ignoring the vetted nature of evidence used in history and even today.

Circular Reasoning.
God proves faith
Faith proves god?

You will have to explain what you viewed as circular.
evidence =/= faith.
evidence = foundation of a reasonable faith.

Evidentiary process validates evidence.
evidence proves God.

Name one piece of evidence that proves God's existence. Anybody can write a book that says whatever he or she wishes.

Do you really believe that millions of scholars throughout history are just morons? They run around with zero evidence and make wild claims?
What atheistic indoctrination process have you gone through?
Were you brainwashed?

I came to my own concusions.
Speaking of brainwashing....

That's not the point. Can you restate your argument with less Ad Hominems?

Anyways, a doctrine, no matter how absurd, can stick through generations.