Reply With Quote
Now you're working on a gradient. You've not called yourself "non-religious", but have said "further down on the religious scale" whatever that means. Doesn't it just mean you believe a god exist but you couldn't care less?
Answer the question, fatty.
Now you're working on a gradient. You've not called yourself "non-religious", but have said "further down on the religious scale" whatever that means. Doesn't it just mean you believe a god exist but you couldn't care less?
That's Mouse's troll. Get your own.
You don't have a clue as to what I embrace or do not embrace. That just shows how truly ignorant and moronic you really are to make such a definitive statement without any proof whatsoever.
You don't know me, or anyone I know, so everything you are telling me about myself is a vain attempt to malign and misrepresent, and is tantamount to a venomous lie.
The author called it a theory and since you seem to hold yourself up to be more qualified than he, a molecular geneticist, then you must be speaking out your ass, Mr. armchair geneticist.
Your not much different than those who say they know more than Pop about basketball, all the while growing fatter and fatter stuffing your face with cheap beer and potato chips in your faded armchairs.
Sort of. I mean that I believe god exists but has no affect on the universe. Clock- maker theory.
As far as religion goes, I am past the antipathy stage you all are stuck in and am firmly in the academic stage. I don't see religion as a poison, but rather just a useful elements for folks who need it.
There's ample evidence here that you don't understand even basic science terminology. It's as if you learned everything you think you know about science from a theology website.
The author has not had his "theory" peer reviewed. If he called it a law, would you have used that term instead? The author has had 10 years to replicate his findings and his peers would have been happy to attempt to replicate them. Instead he capitalized on theist zealotry and published a knee jerk book targeted at the pseudoscience majors.
You can see it for whatever makes you feel better. The watch maker analogy (again, not a theory) is fallacious. The only reason you know a watch was made by anyone at all is because you have the convenience of having seen a watch. Were you walking down the street and passing by forest and weeds, then you come across a manicured lawn and a home, you'd think you just entered an area that was created by someone because it's not like the forest and the weeds, but then you're here saying the forest and the weeds were created by someone because it's not like what... exactly?
You're confusing what I said with the watch analogy for intelligent design. You asked for my mythos, not my reasoning behind having such mythos.
So what "clock maker theory" are you referring to? Surely you're not equating deism with theism, at least not in these discussions. It's evident that the theists here are not deists. If your god is absent, why do you consider it to be a god? By what reasoning do you even allow that a god ever existed? Which god?
A blatant attempt to distort, malign, and misrepresent. Typical of people like you on this site. I won't generalize you with the other atheists on here because you give them a bad name. You reflect the fanatical elements of whoever you represent.
Below was what I said IN THE PROPER CONTEXT that you vainly attempt to distort.
This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.
In bold was the proper reference, and was a description of MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON, thus the "VARYING degrees, since no two of us have the exact SAME degree.
Your hostile at ude neither merits, nor warrants, nor deserves further discussion because you prove you have no idea of the meaning of the word.
The last point I have for you would force me to lower myself to your level to tell you, and that is beneath me.
I've described myself as a deist before, yes. I don't want to be associated with any mythos they're creating now, so I'm reluctant to keep doing so. Deism as I first heard of it best describes my views, but it's not a club I'm part of.
And anyway, if you do understand there is a large sect of nonreligious theist to such an extent that you're trying to hive them out of the discussion, why did you act ao skeptical earlier?
Any talk of "your god" demonstrates the false equivalency between religion and theism you've made in your mind. I have no further mythos outside of that world-view. I don't apply attributes to god or moral guidelines. I don't believe in any causal chain outside the one scientists are piecing together.
I think we have another one here who definitely has some deep rooted issues like the one last night, because he certainly is ranting instead of trying to discuss this in a rational reasonable civil manner.
That is his loss, because I saw it all already last night.
nice trolling attempt in the midst of an actual discussion
If I have to bring out the banana/peanut butter I will.
Seriously though
DMC-Huge racist got.
Blake-Cuck, overall annoying .
RandomGuy-Not too bad but also a .
phyzik-I'm pretty sure this dude has mental problems.
I don't consider deism part of theism. I also consider it to be the last thread of god belief that a person holds to when they are afraid to let go entirely, before they acknowledge to themselves and others that a god isn't required in order to have the universe. Basically if the universe can exist without a god, no god is needed so using parsimony, no god exists. I've never seen a deist even remotely attempt to describe the god they claim to believe exist(ed).
If you believe a god created the universe and set it in motion, you absolutely believe in a causal chain.
Wholeheartedly implies 100%. There are no varying degrees.
You, Mouse, Cosmored (aka Mouse), Avante (aka Mouse 2) and a couple others here have worn out the "misuse of terminology" troll. That's me allowing that you're not as uneducated as you appear to be.
Who here has seen a hydrogen atom drop from an excited state to the ground state.
I have not.
So I don't believe one has any relation to the other.
Excellent logic.
I think Heisenberg did, but I'm no certain about it.
anybody who has ever looked at the sun
ah, but where?
I said no casual chain OTHER than the one scientists are trying to form. We all believe in causal chains, and folks who don't believe in divine intervention are bound to one chain to explain everything. I'm with those people.
Deism is part of theism. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. Theism is the belief that god exists. Deists believe god exists. Therefore, deists are theists.
As far as your judgment of deists go, we just disagree. You believe what you do about it because you still equate religion and theism. Therefore, you see deism as being close to the border of atheism atheism. But I don't think that's the case. Rather, I think it fills one of the four squares in the cross-plot of religion/non-religion and theism/atheism.
That would be the blind clock maker.
Human judgement of biological complexity implies a creator.
Because it's an easy explanation. Even if others that do not require magic exist.
Indeed. The real question is who's actually seeing two plus two equalling four?anybody who has ever looked at the sun
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
