|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 14:21:07 GMT
The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps "Deists.") They believed that would impair their ability to dictate to others. It probably would make them depend more on persuasion than force, and that would require skills they don't have. Historical evidence for this? In fact momentous events like the Reformation and their participants were those more predicated on arguing about which competing religious group should dictate their correct ways to others. It is certainly true that some of modern science is counter intuitive and, as one might expect, at its frontiers it is necessarily speculative. It is a good job some of Christianity, by way of contrast, offers clarity of logical intellectual thought such as with ideas of The Trinity. Would you like some historical evidence? Do I need to finish picking the cotton first? Might you find the historical evidence yourself? If you do not know what a deist is yet there might not be much I can do to help. A problem of highly speculative "science" is that it is not attached to any tradition of moral exercise whatsoever. While it might be true that Trump and his base have no tradition of moral exercise, many religious traditions do exist with successful exercises, even if they escape your full attention. I found this exercise useful in today's times. Another old story with value today is the Greek "myth" of Tithonus. I'll give you credit for being able to tell us why.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 14, 2023 17:52:17 GMT
What the fuck is the point with comments like this?
Nobody cares if you did not read it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 19:39:36 GMT
Would you like some historical evidence? That would be nice, if unexpected should it ever come. It was you who made a striking assertion so one might reasonably expect you to provide substantiation. If I ever ask for historical evidence for the existence of deists, let alone be unable to tell what they are, be sure and raise this point again. This is hardly surprising, since science has nothing to say about morality. I am not sure what you are on about here, or why it is relevant to what I said. Thank you for the opportunity but I will just stick with the point in hand.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 21:31:21 GMT
Would you like some historical evidence? That would be nice, if unexpected should it ever come. It was you who made a striking assertion so one might reasonably expect you to provide substantiation. If I ever ask for historical evidence for the existence of deists, let alone be unable to tell what they are, be sure and raise this point again. This is hardly surprising, since science has nothing to say about morality. I am not sure what you are on about here, or why it is relevant to what I said. Thank you for the opportunity but I will just stick with the point in hand. It might be best if you made your own arguments since it is obvious you cannot follow mine.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 15, 2023 20:21:00 GMT
That would be nice, if unexpected should it ever come. It was you who made a striking assertion so one might reasonably expect you to provide substantiation. If I ever ask for historical evidence for the existence of deists, let alone be unable to tell what they are, be sure and raise this point again. This is hardly surprising, since science has nothing to say about morality. I am not sure what you are on about here, or why it is relevant to what I said. Thank you for the opportunity but I will just stick with the point in hand. It might be best if you made your own arguments since it is obvious you cannot follow mine. That substantiation is still lacking. It is hard to follow anything without a path.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 15, 2023 23:56:25 GMT
It might be best if you made your own arguments since it is obvious you cannot follow mine. That substantiation is still lacking. It is hard to follow anything without a path. I tried to make the point much earlier in this thread that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps 'Deists.')" Then you, having failed history, asked, "Historical evidence for this?" I was most annoyed because people familiar with history know there were many Deists in those times. Since you probably have no idea I can tell you that a Deist is a person who believes in a god that must have created the universe and life, but does not further involve itself in what goes on in it. Many people today might not identify as Deists but also do not like the idea of some possibly capricious god intervening at every turn in mundane human events. I know such people, that's my evidence. You probably know such people, that should be your evidence. Next in line would be Wikipedia with an article on Deism. Your attitude is most annoying and unqualified that you would have any idea what "evidence" is. Whoever told you that you are an expert on evidence lied to you. The proper way to ask is, "I fail to see your evidence," not, "Have you any evidence?," or any other insinuation that I am some sort of problem and you are not. I studied history. Maybe you should too. Let me show you how it is done. I fail to see your evidence that there are no large numbers of people, past or present, who would prefer there were no capricious god intervening in mundane human business. After all this time I am certain that you will and concede that I was in fact right that there are such people. The "point at hand" is that you made the existence of people with strongly "Deist" attitudes an issue. You incur a burden thereby. It was not an issue before you made it one. It happens to be historical fact available to anyone, and obvious to most people who consider the question today. If you don't believe it, then it is your responsibility to show why. I am not the unruly schoolboy making trouble with ignorance of history. Guess who is?
You said, "The substantiation is still lacking." That is most rude in addition to being incorrect. The proper way to ask the question is, "I fail to see the substantiation." Got it now?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 16, 2023 20:24:40 GMT
That substantiation is still lacking. It is hard to follow anything without a path. I tried to make the point much earlier in this thread that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps 'Deists.')" Then you, having failed history, asked, "Historical evidence for this?" I was most annoyed because people familiar with history know there were many Deists in those times. Since you probably have no idea I can tell you that a Deist is a person who believes in a god that must have created the universe and life, but does not further involve itself in what goes on in it. Many people today might not identify as Deists but also do not like the idea of some possibly capricious god intervening at every turn in mundane human events. I know such people, that's my evidence. You probably know such people, that should be your evidence. Next in line would be Wikipedia with an article on Deism. Your attitude is most annoying and unqualified that you would have any idea what "evidence" is. Whoever told you that you are an expert on evidence lied to you. The proper way to ask is, "I fail to see your evidence," not, "Have you any evidence?," or any other insinuation that I am some sort of problem and you are not. I studied history. Maybe you should too. Let me show you how it is done. I fail to see your evidence that there are no large numbers of people, past or present, who would prefer there were no capricious god intervening in mundane human business. After all this time I am certain that you will and concede that I was in fact right that there are such people. The "point at hand" is that you made the existence of people with strongly "Deist" attitudes an issue. You incur a burden thereby. It was not an issue before you made it one. It happens to be historical fact available to anyone, and obvious to most people who consider the question today. If you don't believe it, then it is your responsibility to show why. I am not the unruly schoolboy making trouble with ignorance of history. Guess who is? You said, "The substantiation is still lacking." That is most rude in addition to being incorrect. The proper way to ask the question is, "I fail to see the substantiation." Got it now? So, still no substantiation then?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 17, 2023 0:54:12 GMT
I tried to make the point much earlier in this thread that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps 'Deists.')" Then you, having failed history, asked, "Historical evidence for this?" I was most annoyed because people familiar with history know there were many Deists in those times. Since you probably have no idea I can tell you that a Deist is a person who believes in a god that must have created the universe and life, but does not further involve itself in what goes on in it. Many people today might not identify as Deists but also do not like the idea of some possibly capricious god intervening at every turn in mundane human events. I know such people, that's my evidence. You probably know such people, that should be your evidence. Next in line would be Wikipedia with an article on Deism. Your attitude is most annoying and unqualified that you would have any idea what "evidence" is. Whoever told you that you are an expert on evidence lied to you. The proper way to ask is, "I fail to see your evidence," not, "Have you any evidence?," or any other insinuation that I am some sort of problem and you are not. I studied history. Maybe you should too. Let me show you how it is done. I fail to see your evidence that there are no large numbers of people, past or present, who would prefer there were no capricious god intervening in mundane human business. After all this time I am certain that you will and concede that I was in fact right that there are such people. The "point at hand" is that you made the existence of people with strongly "Deist" attitudes an issue. You incur a burden thereby. It was not an issue before you made it one. It happens to be historical fact available to anyone, and obvious to most people who consider the question today. If you don't believe it, then it is your responsibility to show why. I am not the unruly schoolboy making trouble with ignorance of history. Guess who is? You said, "The substantiation is still lacking." That is most rude in addition to being incorrect. The proper way to ask the question is, "I fail to see the substantiation." Got it now? So, still no substantiation then? I merely made the point that Deists existed. I do not need to substantiate it because everyone knows and it is not disputed that deists existed, and may exist today.
Everyone knows and it is universally accepted that there was a war in Vietnam. Should I have to "substantiate" that there was a war? Disputes remain which side was "right," but there is no dispute that there were two sides at least.
If you want to dispute that Deists existed that is your problem, not mine. And there it is again, your terrible record of providing substantiation where it is actually needed, your condescension toward people whose record is much better than yours.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 17, 2023 10:34:14 GMT
So, still no substantiation then? I merely made the point that Deists existed. I do not need to substantiate it because everyone knows and it is not disputed that deists existed, and may exist today. No, this is incorrect. You actually said that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time.". Evasion noted. If you really feel it necessary to point out to us on a religious discussion board merely that deists exist(ed) then I think you misjudge your audience. I love the smell of irony in the morning. And ... still no substantiation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 17, 2023 12:57:25 GMT
I merely made the point that Deists existed. I do not need to substantiate it because everyone knows and it is not disputed that deists existed, and may exist today. No, this is incorrect. You actually said that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time.". Evasion noted. If you really feel it necessary to point out to us on a religious discussion board merely that deists exist(ed) then I think you misjudge your audience. I love the smell of irony in the morning. And ... still no substantiation. You have an intriguing if terrible habit of failing to see the obvious when you are caught being mistaken. If a "Deist" is a person who does not accept frequent interventions by a deity, how do you believe such a person might react to news of an unlimited number of troublesome interventions? A disorderly universe? What is it about interventions makes them "troublesome" to Deists? My assumption is that they are Deists because they want to believe in a human ability to predict which effects will follow which known causes. It is the nature of a Deist. If I ever again expect you to recognize the obvious, please remind me that you have no ability for it. Perhaps now it will be clear to you that the "original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly." No? You did not realize the reason for being a Deist might be the desire for a more orderly universe? It should be obvious. As logical people often say, "It follows." Your burden of proof here is to explain why a person who does not accept capricious interventions would welcome a disorderly universe. Also if the universe were indeed disorderly, with constant and obvious interventions by the unknown, what would be the point of being a Deist? You are the one here making no sense so far. That is the necessary "substantiation" here, yours. I do not however expect you to substantiate anything since I do not expect you to understand what anyone is saying ever including yourself.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 18, 2023 18:53:40 GMT
There's that smell of irony again... You are the one who 'doesn't judge', right? Fascinating I am sure, but you said "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time.". So I am still unsure why you are talking about deists, a group you only mention or imply in passing, more than atheists - who were the main focus of your claim. Perhaps because the logic is even more vexed there. It was more likely to be the fact that for a long period of tine it was unwise, even dangerous, to be an explicit atheist. Hume for instance, the arch sceptic made sure he did not actually deny the existence of a god in his works, he just made the notion very uncomfortable for traditionalists. And what does not "follow" with your argument is, still, a lack of substantiation. I have no burden of proof with this since I have made no assertions about this; it is all your own work, I merely ask for historical evidence from you for an original, rather sweeping, statement. In vain as it turns out. This problem is something you need to raise with a Deist. However since you seem desperate to have an answer: as we know Deism is the belief in the existence of God, specifically in a creator who does not intervene in the universe after creating it. Since traditional faith is less common the higher one goes up the physical sciences, www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ deists certainly exist within those disciplines, perhaps comfortably accepting the discovered essential nature of the quantum realm, the base of all things, where indeterminism and randomness are a major characteristic. This of course does not mean there is no element of cognitive dissonance involved. It is of course not a huge step from thinking that God does not intervene in things and considering that any deity has never been around.. Gosh: still wrong and still going.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 19, 2023 13:41:34 GMT
It was more likely to be the fact that for a long period of tine it was unwise, even dangerous, to be an explicit atheist. Probably was a factor, but deism seems to have been at its height pre-Darwin. I think a lot of learned types saw no reason to believe God interacts with the world but they were hard-pressed to explain the apparent design in nature and so opted for deism. Once Darwin came up with a credible alternative to 'God did it', deism seems to have died off pretty rapidly. Theism, on the other hand, held out to some extent after Darwin because it offers an emotional element that deism lacks and atheism cannot provide.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jun 19, 2023 14:37:30 GMT
I love how theists take the flimsiest of evidence and call it "proof". Sherlock Holmes, TV show "Elementary"
Design: Let's take the watchmaker's argument. You're walking across the desert and you see a gold pocket watch. You pick it up , but there is no one withing miles. Still, you say, there must have been a designer. How many theists think that designer was Jehoveh? No, we all think that designer was a jeweler in Bakersfield.
No two snowflakes are identical. Doesn't God have better things to do that to sculpture each and every f***ing snowflake that falls to earth?
Were the craters of the moon designed? They look pretty random to me. Did Yahweh design the Black Plague of 1347 c.e. that killed more people than the (alleged) great flood? What a nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 14:46:59 GMT
I love how theists take the flimsiest of evidence and call it "proof". Sherlock Holmes, TV shoe "Elementary"
Design: Let's take the watchmaker's argument. You're walking across the desert and you see a gold pocket watch. You pick it up , but there is no one withing miles. Still, you say, there must have been a designer. How many theists think that designer was Jehoveh? No, we all think that designer was a jeweler in Bakersfield.
No two snowflakes are identical. Doesn't God have better things to do that to sculpture each and every f***ing snowflake that falls to earth?
Were the craters of the moon designed? They look pretty random to me. Did Yahweh design the Black Plague of 1347 c.e. that killed more people than the (alleged) great flood? What a nice guy.
Wow, are you ever behind the dialogue! No, it is this simple, how does "RNA soup" advance? We know it does not. We now thoroughly understand why it does not. You need to find how it might -- or find something else as promising of random assembly. Otherwise face the truth, disturbing as it might be to you, that you will never explain the origin of life. There are no more new elements. There are no more new agencies. There is nowhere science can go to find an answer. The god-of-the-gaps excuse is expired.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 14:52:24 GMT
It was more likely to be the fact that for a long period of tine it was unwise, even dangerous, to be an explicit atheist. Probably was a factor, but deism seems to have been at its height pre-Darwin. I think a lot of learned types saw no reason to believe God interacts with the world but they were hard-pressed to explain the apparent design in nature and so opted for deism. Once Darwin came up with a credible alternative to 'God did it', deism seems to have died off pretty rapidly. Theism, on the other hand, held out to some extent after Darwin because it offers an emotional element that deism lacks and atheism cannot provide. I believe you are correct that things changed after Darwin. I suspect most of the change though was with people at lower levels of reading. The "Creationism versus Evolution" debate was not among the top intellectuals in the world. It involved people who took the Bible too literally on the one hand and people without any "spiritual" development or experiences on the other who were annoyed by spirituality. Somebody thinks I need to prove that. Do I? People had been breeding plants and animals more or less wittingly for centuries. Darwin had nothing new there. "Fixity of species" is not found in the Bible, but a story of gene pool modification is. I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist. People had developed religion into quite a parlor game and atheists were just people who couldn't play it. That's all. Although I suppose there were stupid people getting into almost everything, including "religion." I agree that after Darwin many people who disliked interventions by any deity could be "satisfied" by the theory of evolution. At that time it was by no means obvious how crazy the world of science would get.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2023 17:08:33 GMT
I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist. "How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of Étienne Dolet, who was strangled and burned in 1546. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was also accused of atheism, but he denied it. His theism was unusual, in that he held god to be material. Even earlier, the British playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe (1563–1593) was accused of atheism when a tract denying the divinity of Christ was found in his home. Before he could finish defending himself against the charge, Marlowe was murdered. Giulio Cesare Vanini, also accused of being an atheist, was burned at the stake in 1619.... During the Inquisition, several of those who were accused of atheism or blasphemy, or both, were tortured or executed. These included the priest Giulio Cesare Vanini who was strangled and burned in 1619 and the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński who was executed in Warsaw, as well as Etienne Dolet, a Frenchman executed in 1546 " [Wiki] It is also, it is fair to say, pretty dangerous to be openly atheist today in some modern theocracies.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 19:30:48 GMT
I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist. "How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of Étienne Dolet, who was strangled and burned in 1546. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was also accused of atheism, but he denied it. His theism was unusual, in that he held god to be material. Even earlier, the British playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe (1563–1593) was accused of atheism when a tract denying the divinity of Christ was found in his home. Before he could finish defending himself against the charge, Marlowe was murdered. Giulio Cesare Vanini, also accused of being an atheist, was burned at the stake in 1619.... During the Inquisition, several of those who were accused of atheism or blasphemy, or both, were tortured or executed. These included the priest Giulio Cesare Vanini who was strangled and burned in 1619 and the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński who was executed in Warsaw, as well as Etienne Dolet, a Frenchman executed in 1546 " [Wiki] It is also, it is fair to say, pretty dangerous to be openly atheist today in some modern theocracies. You have an annoying habit of assuming that people categorize themselves the same way everyone in society would categorize them. It is obvious you are not capable of defining well or maintaining any categories yourself. Where that can become extremely problematic is that with 500 people you might find 500 different categories. Your assumption that there is some "correct" category that exists outside our arbitrary constructions of categories causes you to lose your way through it all. You also never understood that all dictionary definitions are arbitrary. They also do not exist outside our arbitrary construction of them. What you just listed are what happens when people have the same mental disorder you have. I did qualify myself thus, " ... I suppose there were stupid people getting into almost everything, including 'religion.'" I would assume that, much like today, people then sat in church who were raging atheists. I know, and we all know, and it is not contested, and there is no point of you denying it, that in those times there were sharp disagreements about religion, wars were fought. But neither side claimed to be atheist. Elsewhere today atheists often claim that if you deny any of the several gods you are an atheist. Will you tell them not to do that anymore? Were people dying because they were merely such "atheists" as to question some mere point of religion? They were only denying some people's peculiar notion of god, and they were killed for it. Yes. Now look how many examples of atheists dying you have! Thousands more than you considered! How embarrassed am I? I am not at all embarrassed because I already explained that those wars were not really about religion. They were about territorial ambitions of the aristocracy. I am certain some people were intelligent enough to understand that, but only some. And there is your mental disorder again, assuming that if one person says the war is about religion, it must be. While I cannot begin to imagine why the several people you mentioned were killed, I would concede that it is possible they were killed for being an "atheist" by someone's definition or other. I stand by my claim though that there were numerous disagreements over scripture that never resulted in wars, for example if you were not a member of the aristocracy, or not an officer of some sort. What has probably been true from time immemorial is that it is dangerous to be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2023 19:33:18 GMT
"How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of Étienne Dolet, who was strangled and burned in 1546. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was also accused of atheism, but he denied it. His theism was unusual, in that he held god to be material. Even earlier, the British playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe (1563–1593) was accused of atheism when a tract denying the divinity of Christ was found in his home. Before he could finish defending himself against the charge, Marlowe was murdered. Giulio Cesare Vanini, also accused of being an atheist, was burned at the stake in 1619.... During the Inquisition, several of those who were accused of atheism or blasphemy, or both, were tortured or executed. These included the priest Giulio Cesare Vanini who was strangled and burned in 1619 and the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński who was executed in Warsaw, as well as Etienne Dolet, a Frenchman executed in 1546 " [Wiki] It is also, it is fair to say, pretty dangerous to be openly atheist today in some modern theocracies. You have an annoying habit of assuming that people categorize themselves the same way everyone in society would categorize them. It is obvious you are not capable [blah] "I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist." You said. I showed that, at least for some it was. You're welcome. I know I am doomed to disappointment with this, but by any chance do you have substantiation for this latest striking claim?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 21:51:24 GMT
You have an annoying habit of assuming that people categorize themselves the same way everyone in society would categorize them. It is obvious you are not capable [blah] "I do not believe it was "dangerous" to be an atheist." You said. I showed that, at least for some it was. You're welcome. I know I am doomed to disappointment with this, but by any chance do you have substantiation for this latest striking claim? You went back further in time than I consider fair. Who was killed for being an atheist in the United States before or after Darwin? Now you know why it's not called the United States of England, huh? Nope, we're not part of the United Kingdom. Thanks anyway. It was the case that some people did not like interventions in human business by possibly capricious gods whether you can see that or not. It is not important what they called themselves, but I am sure some of them called themselves Deists. Another person on this board (still not real life, pshaw!) noticed that after Darwin many people quit calling themselves Deists. Why not? The order of the universe was less challenged. As I said, they did not like a disorderly universe. Once it seemed put in order, what's to do? Remember that they had no idea how crazy science would get later. What I found especially humorous is that much later science did get very crazy talking about multiverses and whatever in the lame hopes of denying there is a god. Do you see what happened? They ceased to care how disorderly things became as long as they could continue believing in science! What a riot, huh? A minor point, you have not been excused for your maniacal laughter at people who believe it is at least possible that Mary was indeed a virgin. That you later clarified you believe the same thing is not sufficient apology.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 20, 2023 2:37:03 GMT
Good for you. Then you can finish your cereal before it gets soggy. Putz.
|
|