What do you think of Deism & Pantheism? (believe, people)

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Well, I think of Nature as being inherently intelligent (as do many scientists), and possibly created itself (ie. the Big Bang), not with conscious forethought..but...(this is where I always trail off), but basically, no, outside of considering myself and everything else to be a seamless part of Nature Itself, I don't believe in a god, so I guess by default that makes me an atheist. The problem is, most avowed atheists are close-minded about anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed and proven by science, which I find woefully inadequate. Plenty of things might never be fully explained by science, but I don't automatically discount them. I'm also no hippie, since I find nature (or Nature) to be brutally unforgiving in most cases, and I respect that.

I suppose it depends on what one thinks 'intelligence' is. The material universe has laws, and even snails (who are not that good at crosswords) are smart enough to flinch from a poke in the stalk - like and go after a juicy orchid (much to my annoyance).

I'd say that 'Intelligence' in this context requires forward planning. It isn't enough to say 'universal constants and laws of physics = intelligence'.

I sympathize with the view that
"most avowed atheists are close-minded about anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed and proven by science, which I find woefully inadequate. Plenty of things might never be fully explained by science, but I don't automatically discount them."

The atheist doesn't need to automatically discount them, but those things have to go in the pending tray until they have some adequate support. This is the only way knowledge can have any reliability.

It sounds a bit like the either/or fallacy. - 'Either one believes in Bigfoot or one discounts it utterly'. It is very much like the Theist argument that atheists are illogical for not accepting God because they can't know for certain that it isn't true.

Not just science but logic requires that what isn't shown to be so (to a pretty convincing degree) has to be regarded as unproven and one cannot logically believe in what is unproven.

That is often a problem as the human tendency is to become enchanted with this theory or that theory and a bit of personal street - cred gets invested in it. A pal of mine, on the end of pretty sound evidence that the pyramids were not built by spacemen with lazers moaned plaintively that he 'needed' (such) 'mysteries. Once the line 'This is the preferred conclusion: what evidence can we find to support it?' is taken, the line of sound knowledge - finding is abandoned.

I felt for my friend and even felt a bit of a heel - until I recalled that such poor science, illogic and cult - think had been giving science a pretty hard time. It might seem unfeeling, but it has to be examined and discredited it if doesn't stand up. It's really in all our interests, after all.

Normally it doesn't matter as an intelligent universe (some might say a Pantheist god) is not a problem. It doesn't require us to close the shops on a Sunday or refuse to serve bacon. However, if any preferred theory is made the pretext for fouling up daily life in such a manner, I and many other atheist will come out swingeing.

What's your take on String Theory? I have a feeling the answers might be there, to a large extent.

I gather that it's just a theory at the moment. If it turns out to have validity, it could well transform our ideas of time and dimension.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Normally it doesn't matter as an intelligent universe (some might say a Pantheist god) is not a problem. It doesn't require us to close the shops on a Sunday or refuse to serve bacon. However, if any preferred theory is made the pretext for fouling up daily life in such a manner, I and many other atheist will come out swingeing.

This is precisely my position. Your (or anyone's) beliefs have no bearing on my life until they're forced down my throat. Outside of hinduism and its untouchables, that's mostly confined to the monotheistic religions, and the world would be a much better place without them.

[catman]

The way I see it, the Deists and Pantheists at least show some capacity for independent thought, and that says something positive about them. They are far ahead of the sheeple.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Ok. noted that you call you belief 'irrational' (actually, it can have a rationale) I'm asking out of curious, not so as to refute.

Why do you assume that the 'supreme being' already had prescience? Couldn't it just be 'seeing what happens'?

Well, the basic structure of every living thing seems to be connected in some way.

Complex systems rarely happen without intervention by a superior knowledge of some kind. Fractal patterns occuring randomly throughout nature is just one example of this.

My point is "it" already knows what happens. Does "it" have a motive behind creation, I'm not sure. I hope to find out when I die.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by lkingpinl

sorry about the stupid code in my post....cant' get it to fix, I copied the text from a paper I wrote and Word2007 attached all the formatting code....

Are you the banana guy? Thanks for the laugh....The ideas in your post has been refuted countless times here...Perhaps a little reading would be in order.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

This is precisely my position. Your (or anyone's) beliefs have no bearing on my life until they're forced down my throat. Outside of hinduism and its untouchables, that's mostly confined to the monotheistic religions, and the world would be a much better place without them.

Been busy for a while. I think we are on the same page on this one. Thanks for a thoughtful and useful discussion.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Well, the basic structure of every living thing seems to be connected in some way.

Complex systems rarely happen without intervention by a superior knowledge of some kind. Fractal patterns occuring randomly throughout nature is just one example of this.

My point is "it" already knows what happens. Does "it" have a motive behind creation, I'm not sure. I hope to find out when I die.

Ok. Well I said I was asking, not arguing. The queries of apparent indications of design are easily found. Point is that you don't jump to any conclusion about what 'it' might have designed it, so, like I say, I'm pretty tolerant about such views.

[AREQUIPA]

[quote=lkingpinl;11481293]

(posted the ID package)

I'm not sure this is really the place for yet another ID vs. 'Evilution' debate. The points that you make have been pretty well answered here and there and pretty much everywhere.

[Bluesbabe]

Well, I believe in a hierarchy of God(s) with The One head-honcho; however, I don't feel that Their interaction is as active as a lot of people do. I do believe there is "a plan", but that we're here to pretty much run this planet on our own. (And so far, as a whole, we probably earn a 'D'.)

While I think Deists and Pantheists would certainly make perfect logical sense to someone else, neither works for me.