for atheists/agnostics

A deist is one who believes in God, but does not subscribe to a particular denomination.

Here's an excerpt from his second inaugural address:

 

Why would a religious person not believe in a particular denomination?

 

Maybe because he knows that people in general tend to be narrow-minded & see what they want to see. And he isn't convinced any of them have the whole truth. People can sense (or believe they sense) something beyond themselves, beyond the obvious, without deciding to agree with what any other people say about it.

Some scientists probably do the same sort of thing when there are several schools of thought on some phenomenon, but no real proof that any are correct.

 

That could very well be true. But interestingly, a good number of the posters here claim they have objective "proof" of God's existence. Of course, none have offered up this proof publicly. So, either they are sadly ignorant or are willfully lying. Or maybe a little of both.

But in essence, I do agree with you that belief in God is just a "feeling" some people have. And feelings are easily created through physical manipulation of the brain material; chemical or electrical.

I do agree that some of our greatest scientists, Einstein, Hawking, are extremely visual and often operate on theories based on initial imaginings. The difference between science and religion is that the visualizations are then put to test and refined or discarded if necessary. There are many many imaginings that have been discarded once experiment has shown that reality is otherwise, and one only needs to peruse the works of ancient cartographers or early astronomers to see this to be the case.

Religion clings to these ideas and imaginings even when they are shown to be nonsensical because religion is at its core function not a logical endeavor, but rather an attempt for the human brain to reward itself via the release of endogenous opioid polypeptide compounds produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus. It gives a feeling of well being, completeness, and attachment, currently reproduceable anytime in a lab setting. Several common street drugs and drug mixtures, as well as an entire school of pharmaceuticals, approach this same affect.

 

I challenge you to repost where anyone on this board has claimed to have objective irrefutable proof of the existence of God. Many have claimed God's existence can be proven as satisfactorily as it can be disproven, therefore belief is a step of faith. Of course disbelief is a step of faith as well.

 

Deism is much more than that, HB. It's a belief in reason over revelation. Natural law over divine intervention.

Classical deism generally holds that there is a Supreme Creator but that He is simply that, the Creator and not involved in the affairs of humans.

Another facet of deism is the view of scriptural texts as not being divinely inspired but man's attempt to explain the supernatural. When it comes down to it, reason rules above all, not salavation, not revelation, just reason as it is the true blessing bestowed by our Creator.

 

Golden Hammer, it is growing old repeating the same thing to you over and over again. I understand that it is your last resort to validity, but really "proving a negative" is an entirely fallacious premise that cannot be supported. It is the purpose of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot prove it to NOT exist as well as you cannot prove that space dragons from the Andromeda Galaxy who fly on comets equipped with X-ray lasers between galaxies do *NOT exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

*edit*
*NOT

 

NIce attempt to sidestep. But your attempt to mold what people say to fit some argument you read about in your "Dummies guide to debate" is very transparent.
Life in the universe exists, something caused it to exist. You believe it was some cosmic accident, I believe it was created by a creator. My creator is a provable as your 'cosmic accident'. So faith is what makes either choose a road.

Either do so, or admit you just made that up to try to suit your argument.....again.

 

My sidestep? It is basic logic and has nothing to do with "me." This YOUR attempt at sidestep.

haha, I am at work, so I am not going to peruse your posts in R&S, but you have done it on more than one occasion. In fact, I never named you in my original, but you sure jumped in the conversation quick to defend yourself, didn't you? You know you have claimed it and now you are just hoping I won't make the effort to find your posts.

I'll make a deal with you. I'l make the effort later today and prove you are the very one who has done this if you promise to concede publicly that you are a weak, emotional liar clinging to some semblance of objective meaning for his puny little life. Deal?

 

Thanks for clearing that up.