• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Deism

calamity said:
Give science enough time and they will eliminate god from being behind creation just like they did from it being behind lightening, thunder, fire and rain. Gods are a relic of an ignorant past. It's probably ok to cling to one for spiritual purposes, but foolish to attribute anything happening in the physical to it.
Click to expand...


If belief in God explains our ignorant past, and belief in science explains our ignorant present, what is left to explain our ignorant future?
Belief in Progress perhaps?
Progressivism?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The redneck dog picture is a parody of the arguments against evolution. People ignorant of the facts of evolution often ask why there are still monkeys if we evolved from monkeys, and the fact is that we did NOT evolve from monkeys. Modern great apes and humans have a common ancestor, and even among the apes themselves there are other more recent common ancestors.

So, ancient wolves, or wolf-type creatures, is the common ancestor for both modern wolves and dogs. This is really, really simple stuff. The timelines involved is what boggles the minds of some people, since these changes are small and take millions upon millions of years.

It is painfully obvious that you don't understand how this works. Let's start with with the axioms: do you believe the Earth is very old, or is it young?
Click to expand...

Same old hypothetical cliche to peddle macroevolution............nothing new.
 
tosca1 said:
Same old hypothetical cliche to peddle macroevolution............nothing new.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that darned science!

You believe in a young Earth, don't you.
 
ataraxia said:
Don't worry. I think there is equal amount of discrimination and closed mindedness against Zeus and the tooth fairy too. So unfair!
Click to expand...


Irrelevant to the discussion.

The point still remains: if there's anything that forces a believer to be close-minded, it would be atheism.
We see it in this forum.

Atheists don't actually engage the arguments I'd given to support theistic belief. They skirt around them.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Yeah, that darned science!

You believe in a young Earth, don't you.
Click to expand...



Doesn't matter what I believe. I can go wherever the evidence leads, you can't.
 
tosca1 said:
Doesn't matter what I believe. I can go wherever the evidence leads, you can't.
Click to expand...

Like, to an Earth billions of years old? Can you go there?
 
calamity said:
Give science enough time and they will eliminate god from being behind creation just like they did from it being behind lightening, thunder, fire and rain. Gods are a relic of an ignorant past. It's probably ok to cling to one for spiritual purposes, but foolish to attribute anything happening in the physical to it.
Click to expand...


Yeah?
Like they eliminated the Beginning...........and the stretching heavens? :mrgreen:
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Like, to an Earth billions of years old? Can you go there?
Click to expand...

Yeah! Why not?

Nowhere in the Bible gives the actual age of the earth! People are free to believe how old they think
the earth is!

The age of the earth/universe isn't the point of the message in Genesis.
The message given, is to believe that it was created by God.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Yeah! Why not?

Nowhere in the Bible gives the actual age of the earth! People are free to believe how old they think
the earth is!

The age of the earth/universe isn't the point of the message in Genesis.
The message given, is to believe that it was created by God.
Click to expand...

The bible doesn't say anything about NASA. I suppose that means people are free to believe in the moon landings or not?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The bible doesn't say anything about NASA. I suppose that means people are free to believe in the moon landings or not?
Click to expand...

EH? You sound incoherent there. What about moon landings? Care to explain your point?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The bible doesn't say anything about NASA. I suppose that means people are free to believe in the moon landings or not?
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it - think of intelligence!

If mankind had advanced so much that not only have we landed on the moon, but thanks to modern technology, we can even now see and explore far away planets - what other creature even comes halfway close to our intelligence???

It's so touching you guys cheer when a monkey is taught, and finally learns to use a can opener! See?
They're intelligent like us! :lamo
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Now that you mention it - think of intelligence!

If mankind had advanced so much that not only have we landed on the moon, but thanks to modern technology, we can even now see and explore far away planets - what other creature even comes halfway close to our intelligence???

It's so touching you guys cheer when a monkey is taught, and finally learns to use a can opener! See?
They're intelligent like us! :lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah, it almost seems like animal intelligence is on a spectrum, and one animal is on the top. Doesn't it.
 
tosca1 said:
EH? You sound incoherent there. What about moon landings? Care to explain your point?
Click to expand...

Space travel isn't in the bible. Neither is the age of the Earth.
 
tosca1 said:
Doesn't matter what I believe. I can go wherever the evidence leads, you can't.
Click to expand...

Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked among educated circles for over 2 centuries now. It's not because anyone is closed minded. It's not because they don't want to behave. Even among theologians who believe in God, no self respecting one tries to use those arguments anymore. They are trying some newer, more esoteric arguments (which still sound pretty fishy), but not your "evidence".

https://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Co...ywords=dialogues+concerning.+natural+religion
 
tosca1 said:
Now that you mention it - think of intelligence!

If mankind had advanced so much that not only have we landed on the moon, but thanks to modern technology, we can even now see and explore far away planets - what other creature even comes halfway close to our intelligence???

It's so touching you guys cheer when a monkey is taught, and finally learns to use a can opener! See?
They're intelligent like us! :lamo
Click to expand...

So what? We humans can be taught to fly -with a little help. Some of us animals do certain things better than others.
 
ataraxia said:
Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked among educated circles for over 2 centuries now. It's not because anyone is closed minded. It's not because they don't want to behave. Even among theologians who believe in God, no self respecting one tries to use those arguments anymore. They are trying some newer, more esoteric arguments (which still sound pretty fishy), but not your "evidence".

https://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Co...ywords=dialogues+concerning.+natural+religion
Click to expand...

Debunked?

Hahahahaha. Show me where science debunked the "stretching" universe! Or, the Big Bang!

You're the one who's been debunked! Gee, you can't even provide the accurate message from Feyn, whom you quoted! He "debunked" you. :lol: If you don't know the answer, don't make up a conclusion.
 
ataraxia said:
It seems to me to be analogous to how we create language to describe the world, and then wondering why the world so wondrously conforms to our language.
Click to expand...

ataraxia said:
But there is a paradigm you seem to have that I am questioning. Sometimes the chicken and the egg question becomes a difficult one, and I guess this is one of those. Are mathematics and language things pre-existing in the universe which we find, or useful tools that we make up to deal with it? I tend to lean towards the latter. It's like making a bowl to hold your cereal, and then wondering why the bowl so perfectly designed to hold cereal. It seems to me unnecessary self mystification.[Bolding mine]
Click to expand...

Isn't it more like making a bowl to hold cereal, and then wondering why cereal can be held by a bowl? Does the accommodation tell us something about the nature of cereal?
In your analogy the cereal is the world (cosmos, universe, etc.); the bowl, natural language or math. Have I got this straight?

Question to me: In what sense does the accommodation between natural language or mathematics and the world reveal something about the nature of the world?
Question to me: Does Occam's Razor discourage the above question?
Question to me: In what sense, if any, can the world be said to be mathematical or linguistic in nature?

Still thinking....
 
ataraxia said:
Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked among educated circles for over 2 centuries now. It's not because anyone is closed minded. It's not because they don't want to behave. Even among theologians who believe in God, no self respecting one tries to use those arguments anymore. They are trying some newer, more esoteric arguments (which still sound pretty fishy), but not your "evidence".

https://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Co...ywords=dialogues+concerning.+natural+religion
Click to expand...

EH?

What's that you've linked? How is that related to me and my arguments?
You don't understand your own link, don't you? Here's what it's all about, Axataria:


Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a philosophical work by the Scottish philosopher David Hume.

Through dialogue, three philosophers named Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes debate the nature of God's existence.

Whether or not these names reference specific philosophers, ancient or otherwise, remains a topic of scholarly dispute. While all three agree that a god exists, they differ sharply in opinion on God's nature or attributes and how, or if, humankind can come to knowledge of a deity.

In the Dialogues, Hume's characters debate a number of arguments for the existence of God, and arguments whose proponents believe through which we may come to know the nature of God. Such topics debated include the argument from design—for which Hume uses a house—and whether there is more suffering or good in the world (argument from evil).

Hume started writing the Dialogues in 1750 but did not complete them until 1776, shortly before his death. They are based partly on Cicero's De Natura Deorum. The Dialogues were published posthumously in 1779, originally with neither the author's nor the publisher's name.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_Concerning_Natural_Religion



I've got my own arguments, giving evidences....and I'm sure other believers have their own, too!

Who sez no one use my kind of arguments anymore? Will you google, and see? :mrgreen:



You're doing exactly what other atheists do (because they can't fire back, being stumped inside a box and can't set a foot out of it) ........you're making up yarns of stories.

Mind you, with scientists making up yarns of speculations about macroevolution - why shouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Then, answer it. Why shouldn't it be?
Click to expand...

It's the spectrum of animal intelligence. You cannot make a non-religious argument that we should be excepted from the animal kingdom or treated differently in this regard. We are, in fact, animals.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
It's the spectrum of animal intelligence. You cannot make a non-religious argument that we should be excepted from the animal kingdom or treated differently in this regard. We are, in fact, animals.
Click to expand...


What spectrum of animal intelligence?? Do you equate yourself with a monkey?


Haven't you understood anything that was given, non-religious-wise?


You cannot make a non-religious argument that we are animals, since you got nothing to support your
evolutionary claim! All you've got are hypotheses and gross extrapolation!


On the other hand, I can!
Creation by God isn't off the table. At least, science-wise, I can point to the NAS statement for that!



It's kinda hard to accept that we are on the level with all these animals, when it's quite obvious - by leaps and bounds - we are definitely superior to them.

What is clear, WE HAVE DOMINION over them! You don't need science to tell you that!
hahaha....guess where that was written!

Look at the animals at the zoo, at your home, and in the farms.
They even rely on us to save and protect them from extinction!
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
Hey, if it makes you feel better to believe that, knock yerself out. :shrug:

You lefties really need a new schtick though. That Tripoli cherry picked silliness is getting threadbare. ;) ;)
Click to expand...


Believe it as in reading the letters and other writings of our founding fathers?

Footnote as far a being model in large part from the early roman republic take note that the founders when employing pen names commonly used figures from Roman history not the bible to come up with those pen names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates

During the debates over the design and ratification of the United States Constitution, in 1787 and 1788, a large number of writers in the popular press used pseudonyms. This list shows some of the more important commentaries and the (known or presumed) authors responsible for them. Note: the identity of the person behind several of these pseudonyms is not known for certain.
Pseudonym Author Notes
A.B. Francis Hopkinson Federalist.[1]
Agrippa James Winthrop[2] Eighteen essays appeared under this name in the Massachusetts Gazette between November 23, 1787 and February 5, 1788.[3]
Alfredus Samuel Tenney Federalist.[4]
Americanus John Stevens, Jr.[5]
Aristedes Alexander Contee Hanson Federalist.[6]
Aristocrotis William Petrikin Anti-Federalist.[7]
An Assemblyman William Findley
Brutus Robert Yates[2] Anti-Federalist. After Marcus Junius Brutus, a Roman republican involved in the assassination of Caesar. Published sixteen essays in the New York Journal between October 1787 and April 1788.
Caesar Alexander Hamilton?
Candidus Benjamin Austin[2]
Cato George Clinton[2] Anti-Federalist.
Centinel Samuel Bryan Alternately, the author possibly was George Bryan.[2]
Cincinnatus Arthur Lee After Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. Six essays addressed to James Wilson appeared under this name in the New York Journal beginning November 1, 1787.[8]
A Citizen of America Noah Webster
A Citizen of New Haven Roger Sherman
A Columbian Patriot Mercy Warren[2]
A Countryman Roger Sherman
A Country Federalist James Kent
Crito Stephen Hopkins
Examiner Charles McKnight
Federal Farmer Anti-Federalist. The Federal Farmer letters are frequently attributed to Richard Henry Lee, but modern scholarship has challenged Lee's authorship.[9][10]
Foreign Spectator Nicholas Collin[11]
Genuine Information Luther Martin
Harrington Benjamin Rush
Helvidius Priscus James Warren[2]
An Independent Freeholder Alexander White
John DeWitt After Johan de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland.
A Landholder Oliver Ellsworth Thirteen essays, some of the most widely circulated commentary on the proposed Constitution, appeared under this name, with the first publication coming in the Hartford papers. The essays were certainly written by one of the Connecticut delegates to the Convention, and Ellsworth is the only likely possibility.[12]
Marcus James Iredell
Margery George Bryan
An Officer of the Late Continental Army William Findley[2]
A Pennsylvania Farmer John Dickinson
Philadelphiensis Benjamin Workman
Philo-Publius William Duer
Phocion Alexander Hamilton
A Plain Dealer Spencer Roane[2]
A Plebeian Melancton Smith
Publius Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay After Publius Valerius Publicola. Under this name the three men wrote the 85 Federalist Papers. Hamilton had already used the name in 1778.
A Republican Federalist James Warren[2]
Rough Hewer Abraham Yates
Senex Patrick Henry? Published an article in the Virginia Independent Chronicle, August 15, 1787, which was reprinted in four states. James McClurg wrote that the author was "supposed by some to be Mr. H---y."[13]
The State Soldier St. George Tucker
Sydney Robert Yates[2]
Timoleon After Timoleon of Corinth.
Tullius George Turner?
References[edit]
Jump up ^
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom