Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What type of theist are you? By definition, or what?
atheist say I am not a real atheist (or in name only) and theist say I am not a real theist, so I was wondering what do you mean when you say " ... some theist like me ..."
btw, good post.
I am a Christian in the liberal portion of the evangelical spectrum. I know, I know, the fundie southern Baptists have hijacked the evangelical movement for political power and given the whole thing a bad name. But originally is it was like a second reformation trying to move away from denominational-ism and the overemphasis upon dogmatic theological details to embrace the more experiential and life-changing aspects of Christian. For this reason most of the Quakers (one of my most favorite historical religions) flocked to this movement. Like John Polkinghorne I am an open theist and on some theological issues (atonement, original sin) I reject the western view in favor of the views of the Eastern Orthodox.
Also like Shrek I am onion with layers and if you peel back the Christian outer wrapping you will find an existentialist and beneath that a child raised by two liberal psychology majors and thus someone who takes the scientific worldview pretty much for granted. So skepticism and reason is first nature to me I would say. But then I turned that skepticism and reason upon science (and skepticism) itself and found reason to reject presumptions that scientific worldview defined the limits of reality. I realized that life simply cannot be reduced objective observation but REQUIRES subjective participation, where what you want cannot be excluded from your perception of yourself and the world.
I am a Christian in the liberal portion of the evangelical spectrum. I know, I know, the fundie southern Baptists have hijacked the evangelical movement for political power and given the whole thing a bad name. But originally is it was like a second reformation trying to move away from denominational-ism and the overemphasis upon dogmatic theological details to embrace the more experiential and life-changing aspects of Christian. For this reason most of the Quakers (one of my most favorite historical religions) flocked to this movement. Like John Polkinghorne I am an open theist and on some theological issues (atonement, original sin) I reject the western view in favor of the views of the Eastern Orthodox.
Also like Shrek I am onion with layers and if you peel back the Christian outer wrapping you will find an existentialist and beneath that a child raised by two liberal psychology majors and thus someone who takes the scientific worldview pretty much for granted. So skepticism and reason is first nature to me I would say. But then I turned that skepticism and reason upon science (and skepticism) itself and found reason to reject presumptions that scientific worldview defined the limits of reality. I realized that life simply cannot be reduced objective observation but REQUIRES subjective participation, where what you want cannot be excluded from your perception of yourself and the world.
yup, I am good with that so far. Anybody that agrees with everything the "ruling class" try to push on us is a fool anyway.
two questions fer ya.
"Christian". How do you see, or describe, the claim "he died, rose, and went to heaven?".
And, where did you learn that science defined the limits of reality? I never heard that from a science person. We do not know enough to make that claim?
yup, I am good with that so far. Anybody that agrees with everything the "ruling class" try to push on us is a fool anyway.
two questions fer ya.
"Christian". How do you see, or describe, the claim "he died, rose, and went to heaven?".
And, where did you learn that science defined the limits of reality? I never heard that from a science person. We do not know enough to make that claim?
Thank you. You said what I was inclined to. Nobody claims that science defines the extent of any reality. It is just not tenable or rational to make claims about what science itself does not claim to know anything about. And that is the stance of rational skepticism.
Yes. It is heartening that the usual God-claims and religious claims seem to be increasingly understood as without substance. It is the more cosmic mind sorta god that is becoming more evident all the time. And since it is sinking in argument from design has has failed to make its case, argument from human feelings (and Good Old "Consciousness") is showing up more and more.
That is a logically untenable position at the outset, because human feeling may as well just be that and may be seriously unreliable. Just the alternative explanation make the use of feelings as evidence of a "god" without merit. Moreover, the other thing I notice more of is a growing understanding that Human feelings can in some cases be identified as an evolved survival instinct.
That is overlaid by centuries of human thinking, just as an instinctive basis of what is good for us as individuals, a group and as a species, has become an increasingly complex and sophisticated code of morals and ethics. But that is becoming more and more the better explanations of our human feelings than any god -claim.
When that goes, there will be virtually nothing left as a valid argument for any god -claim but Faith - which is no valid argument at all.
Is that a way of saying those who have faith in God and don't worry about others faith/non faith have no validity?
Is that a way of saying those who have faith in God and don't worry about others faith/non faith have no validity?
I will let TP answer for himself but I think you should clarify your question a bit. It sounds like you think TP is suggesting that a live-and-let-live theist has no validity as a person. I think he's merely suggesting that arguments based in religious faith have no validity to a skeptic.
Is that a way of saying those who have faith in God and don't worry about others faith/non faith have no validity?
Validity as what?..Ah Mordant anticipated. They are as valid as human entities as any. Their right to believe what they want is also valid as a social concensus (amongst rational people,anyway), but the claim that what they believe is is true, supported by the evidence and a good thing for others to believe is not valid (or so we would argue and are open to any question - no really valid argument has yet been advanced) and we maintain that reasons not to believe are valid,supported by the evidence (correctly understood)and by sound reasoning. And where faith -claims are made, we contest them, accordingly.
TeePee. I like it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-28-2016 at 04:36 PM..
It's pretty simple:
If you believe that a supreme being created our universe and is the source of all existence, then you're a theist.
If you don't believe that, then you're an atheist.
What if you only ascribe to the bold in that sentence and not the creation nonsense? Still a theist. right?
"Christian". How do you see, or describe, the claim "he died, rose, and went to heaven?".
I believe according to the teaching of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection of Jesus and others is a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body. "Heaven" is a simple man's way of referring to what Jesus talked about using the words "eternal life" and "kingdom of God", the essence of which is a relationship with God which offers the elements of life (growth, excitement , creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, learning) without end -- that which makes an eternal existence worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
And, where did you learn that science defined the limits of reality? I never heard that from a science person. We do not know enough to make that claim?
Reality is not a subject which science concerns itself with. This claim is basically the premise of naturalism, which is presumed by many scientists and atheists in particular. But you are correct to think this is not science. It is a philosophical position.
I am a Christian in the liberal portion of the evangelical spectrum.
Ah ... so ... Christianity Today would be on your subscription list? Theologically conservative, socially liberal?
I used to be an evangelical who was a bit right of middle. Left the faith in the early 1990s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Also like Shrek I am onion with layers and if you peel back the Christian outer wrapping you will find an existentialist and beneath that a child raised by two liberal psychology majors and thus someone who takes the scientific worldview pretty much for granted. So skepticism and reason is first nature to me I would say. But then I turned that skepticism and reason upon science (and skepticism) itself and found reason to reject presumptions that scientific worldview defined the limits of reality. I realized that life simply cannot be reduced objective observation but REQUIRES subjective participation, where what you want cannot be excluded from your perception of yourself and the world.
I briefly went through that phase myself, but I really could never trust subjective personal experience as a source of reliable information. I tend to think more in terms of probabilities. There is really nothing that's truly 0% or 100% likely to be true, but many things approach those extremes. I personally think it very likely that naturalism is essentially correct, and find invisible, personal interventionist gods highly unlikely. Since adopting those views, I have found them far more descriptive and predictive of my experienced reality than evangelical Christianity was. I now regard religious faith as a failed epistemology that does not lead toward truth.
You seem to be arguing for subjective personal experience as providing some missing aspect of your understanding of reality. I certainly have subjective experiences but tend to regard them as getting in the way of what's real. How does that work for you exactly?
I believe according to the teaching of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection of Jesus and others is a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body.
Clearly, the lifelong conditioning to life in a physical body is determinate. Far too many seem completely unable to divorce their existence from a physical body despite the utter absurdity that a spiritual body would actually BE a physical body. 1 Cor 15:35-58 should utterly disabuse anyone of the silly idea that anything spiritual has anything to do with the physical. I despair of the impossible task of deconditioning anyone from their classical and operant conditioning to a physical body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
