How do I classify my beliefs?

[Unveiled Artist]

So the evidence in court can't be true or false, ONLY the conclusions reached by that evidence. How silly. And I notice that originally you claimed all feelings are TRUE... but NOW it's that feeling can't be true or false. At least you've finally agreed that all feelings aren't true. It's a step in the right direction.

Tone your posts down. I have better things to do than to be worked up over conversation. I'll get back to your posts in a bit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So the evidence in court can't be true or false, only the conclusions reached by that evidence. How silly. And I notice that originally you claimed all feelings are true... but nowit's that feeling can't be true or false. At least you've finally agreed that all feelings aren't true. It's a step in the right direction.

What in the, um, world, are you talking about???? Cut it with the insults. Ask for clarification or get an Advil.

That's what it is... silly head.

I can only say my feelings are quote on quote right or wrong if my interpretations are right or wrong. Our feelings are controlled by our brain and mind not the other way around.

It is my choice to say "my interpretation is wrong". However, you can say "your feelings are wrong" does not matter either way. It's English not rocket science.

If my interpretation is true, my feelings are true. If my interpretation is false, my feelings are false.

Again, I find it weird to refer to feelings being true or false. Since feelings don't do anything in and of themselves, it is my interpretation that is true or false.

Others can blame or scapegoat their feelings for their being right or wrong all they want. It lets them know they aren't in control of their decisions. It's based on "inherited sin" not on on me. I'm never wrong with god at my side. Type of thing.

You are arguing preferences in word choice.

Now that is silly.

Cut it with the remarks.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So the evidence in court can't be true or false, only the conclusions reached by that evidence. How silly. And I notice that originally you claimed all feelings are true... but nowit's that feeling can't be true or false. At least you've finally agreed that all feelings aren't true. It's a step in the right direction.

What in the, um, world, are you talking about???? Cut it with the insults. Ask for clarification or get an Advil.

That's what it is... silly head.

I can only say my feelings are quote on quote right or wrong if my interpretations are right or wrong. Our feelings are controlled by our brain and mind not the other way around.

It is my choice to say "my interpretation is wrong". However, you can say "your feelings are wrong" does not matter either way. It's English not rocket science.

If my interpretation is true, my feelings are true. If my interpretation is false, my feelings are false.

Again, I find it weird to refer to feelings being true or false. Since feelings don't do anything in and of themselves, it is my interpretation that is true or false.

Others can blame or scapegoat their feelings for their being right or wrong all they want. It lets them know they aren't in control of their decisions. It's based on "inherited sin" not on on me. I'm never wrong with god at my side. Type of thing.

You are arguing preferences in word choice.

Now that is silly.

Cut it with the remarks.

I got you to finally admit that feelings aren't all true, and that was my only point originally. All this talk about 'scapegoating' your feelings, as if you and your feelings aren't the same just gives me a headache.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I believe the “answers” to “who?”, “what?”, “where? , and “when?” Are so abstract and far beyond our understanding that we’ll never understand the true mechanisms of our universe. All we have is each other, and there’s something amazing about that.

Is there a term for this? Does this make me agnostic? Anyone else feel this way?

Everyone should be a hyphenated agnostic, unless you have proof and thus KNOW instead of believe.

And the question you should be asking is "why?" If the universe was not created by a God, then there's no answer for that. But then why would a God create the universe and then remain hidden? Easy, so that we could exercise our free will unencumbered with divine supervision and judgementalism. I think the only way to view God is to equate It with Truth. That way, no matter what the Truth is, you worship it by its pursuit.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That belief is called "pantheism." "Deism" is God as Newton´s "Blind clockmaker", outside the Universe and watching. "Panentheism" is more of a combination of the two, which pretty much works for me, an interfaith humanist theist.

Why would God make a clock and then walk away? That's 19th Century Christianity argumentation against deism talking. There is a form of deism called pandeism and another called panendeism, but they're both superfluous. The fact that God doesn't intervene is what matters, not what the unknowable irrelevant technicalities of It's nature are.

The reason why God would create the natural, rational universe to spawn self-aware creatures such as us is so that we would have unencumbered free will by having no knowledge that God exists or not. And that we would have a natural, rational stage on which to exercise that free will for making rational moral choices. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly. Why take 14 billion years for this? One answer--free will.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I got you to finally admit that feelings aren't all true, and that was my only point originally. All this talk about 'scapegoating' your feelings, as if you and your feelings aren't the same just gives me a headache.

Feelings are ALWAYS true. They dont stur you wrong. Your interpretations of your feelings are true or false. The interpretation influences how you feel and your perception of how you feel. When you interpret your feelings as wrong, thats your mind thinking that NOT your feelings.

Feelings are always true. Its our interpretations of them we call them true or false.

Feelings are always true

Interpretation/mind says whether our feelings are true or not

Some people say "my feelings made me sin"

Other say, "my mind was stur me astray from my feelings/of god."

Doesnt matter either way. The message gets across the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For example

True:

Feelings one. (Edit)

Your feelings tell you its cold: it is right. It is cold.
Your feelings tell you its cold outside. You go outside its hot. Your interpretation misguided you not your feelings.

Feelings 2.

Your gut feeling tells you its cold outside; its true because that is how your body functions. It doesnt lie. It does what its built to do.

Your interpretation Based On your gut feeling says its cold outside; you go out, its hot. Your gut didnt stear you wrong. It does what it does. Your intepretation of your gut feelings were false.

Feelings 3.

You get mad because you your mind/emotions tell you someone is plotting against you. Your feelings are right in itself. Its surival.

You get mad because you Think someone is plotting against you. You find out your thoughts/interpretations are false Not your feelings.

Feelings 4.

God told me I am loved; what I feel is true because thats how the brain functions. Its like meditation or excercise. You can control your feelings to make you actually experience a religious feeling. It is not wrong.

God loves be because the bible says so.

I experience love because I am going off my interpretation of what god wants me to feel. The feeling is true. The criteria for true and false is by scripture. So it cant be false unless its a bad feeling they interpret it from sin or satan

You gotta tell me what do you mean by feeling @QuestioningMind . I asked before because it sounds like you are talking about gut feeling




I dont know which feeling you are refering to.

 

[tayla]

Everyone should be a hyphenated agnostic, unless you have proof and thus KNOW instead of believe.

Yes. In my view nothing can be proved about the structure and function of the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

And the question you should be asking is "why?" If the universe was not created by a God, then there's no answer for that. But then why would a God create the universe and then remain hidden? Easy, so that we could exercise our free will unencumbered with divine supervision and judgementalism. I think the only way to view God is to equate It with Truth. That way, no matter what the Truth is, you worship it by its pursuit.

Very insightful observation.

 

[GreenpeaceRECo-operative]

Why would God make a clock and then walk away? That's 19th Century Christianity argumentation against deism talking. There is a form of deism called pandeism and another called panendeism, but they're both superfluous. The fact that God doesn't intervene is what matters, not what the unknowable irrelevant technicalities of It's nature are.

The reason why God would create the natural, rational universe to spawn self-aware creatures such as us is so that we would have unencumbered free will by having no knowledge that God exists or not. And that we would have a natural, rational stage on which to exercise that free will for making rational moral choices. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly. Why take 14 billion years for this? One answer--free will.

Yes, yes, Free will to be subjugated by profiteering Businesspeople and consumeristic technophiles, it´s all very noble, this marvelous time we live in. The devastating effects of industrial pollution and degradation on biodiversity, ecosystems, and sources/sinks is delightful to forget in all the small talk. Fortunately, the God of Jesus is not quite so disconnected and the Evangelical Environmental Network gives me hope that my love of Unitarian Universalism and Greenpeace do justify my Buddhist experience of interfaith Christianity. Panentheistically, in which God provides Synchronicity and insight, and as John B Cobb argues, is there to help in the liberation from ignorance and powerlessness. I hope that´s the meaning of Al Gore and Bill McKibben in the face of the twisted "freedoms" of Trump and his ilk.

Maybe one of my kids will be just like Gore and McKibben. Free Willie from Deism!

 

[Thief]

Hello, I have recently joined these forums to try and classify my beliefs, as the title suggests.

This is how I’ve always felt about where I stand religiously and I want to know if and what term is for this.

I believe in a higher power. I believe at some point some thing or moment or event of extreme importance and greatness happened such that the possibility for something and nothing was possible. I don’t, however, believe in a “God”— atleast not one I’m aware of.

I believe the “answers” to “who?”, “what?”, “where? , and “when?” Are so abstract and far beyond our understanding that we’ll never understand the true mechanisms of our universe. All we have is each other, and there’s something amazing about that.

Is there a term for this? Does this make me agnostic? Anyone else feel this way?

Thank you for taking you for reading.

you don't need a classification......

I prefer to say....the Carpenter is my Inspiration

but I often post.....I have no religion

 

[Cary Cook]

Hello, I have recently joined these forums to try and classify my beliefs, as the title suggests.

This is how I’ve always felt about where I stand religiously and I want to know if and what term is for this.

I believe in a higher power. I believe at some point some thing or moment or event of extreme importance and greatness happened such that the possibility for something and nothing was possible. I don’t, however, believe in a “God”— atleast not one I’m aware of.

I believe the “answers” to “who?”, “what?”, “where? , and “when?” Are so abstract and far beyond our understanding that we’ll never understand the true mechanisms of our universe. All we have is each other, and there’s something amazing about that.

Is there a term for this? Does this make me agnostic? Anyone else feel this way?

Thank you for taking you for reading.

Technically everyone is agnostic on the God issue because nobody knows, except that they know impossible things are not true.
People who call themselves agnostic generally mean they refuse to call themselves theist or atheist, because they think those terms imply a knowledge claim beyond what they want to claim.

If you want to know what to call yourself, then...

When you say a higher power, do you mean:
1. power that can affect you and/or the human species, and there is little or nothing you (or we) can do about it?
If not, then what do you mean?
If so, do you think this power is personal or impersonal?
If personal, you're a theist; if impersonal, you're an atheist.
If you're a theist, you may be polytheist, monotheist (including deist), pantheist, or panentheist.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Technically everyone is agnostic on the God issue because nobody knows, except that they know impossible things are not true.
People who call themselves agnostic generally mean they refuse to call themselves theist or atheist, because they think those terms imply a knowledge claim beyond what they want to claim.

If you want to know what to call yourself, then...

When you say a higher power, do you mean:
1. power that can affect you and/or the human species, and there is little or nothing you (or we) can do about it?
If not, then what do you mean?
If so, do you think this power is personal or impersonal?
If personal, you're a theist; if impersonal, you're an atheist.
If you're a theist, you may be polytheist, monotheist (including deist), pantheist, or panentheist.

You believe that a deist is a theist? And that pantheism and panentheism are subsets of theism?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, yes, Free will to be subjugated by profiteering Businesspeople and consumeristic technophiles, it´s all very noble, this marvelous time we live in. The devastating effects of industrial pollution and degradation on biodiversity, ecosystems, and sources/sinks is delightful to forget in all the small talk. Fortunately, the God of Jesus is not quite so disconnected and the Evangelical Environmental Network gives me hope that my love of Unitarian Universalism and Greenpeace do justify my Buddhist experience of interfaith Christianity. Panentheistically, in which God provides Synchronicity and insight, and as John B Cobb argues, is there to help in the liberation from ignorance and powerlessness. I hope that´s the meaning of Al Gore and Bill McKibben in the face of the twisted "freedoms" of Trump and his ilk.

Maybe one of my kids will be just like Gore and McKibben. Free Willie from Deism!

Well, well, well, looks like what we have here is a failuretocummunicate ambush-troll. If'n ya gonna argue your socialist viewpoint, it'd be better if'n ya took it to the politics forum, and especially, be clear up front what you really want to talk about. I don't know where any of that came from but B certainly didn't follow A.

 

[Cary Cook]

You believe that a deist is a theist? And that pantheism and panentheism are subsets of theism?

Deism is a subset of theism.
--------------------------------
Sorry. I should have answered all your questions. They are all subsets of theism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deism is a subset of theism.

I agree, but I have seen Christians that think otherwise. I seriously cannot understand why.

 

[Cary Cook]

I agree, but I have seen Christians that think otherwise. I seriously cannot understand why.

It's because they either don't know how to categorize concepts, or know how and refuse to admit it.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Deism is a subset of theism.

I disagree.

Pardon my freethinking, but see the attached slide before proceeding so you have a visual of what I am saying.

You have the god hypothesis on top, and then below that you've got the various ways in which the god hypothesis has been expressed by humanity, ie deism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, et al. Theism breaks down further into mono and polytheism.

They all have specific claims to them that differentiate them from one another.

1. We have deists who think a god exists who created the universe and leave it at that.
2. We have theists who think a god or gods exists who rule the universe as a king rules it's kingdom issuing edicts and decrees to his creations (his subjects), employing certain individuals to act as his prophets, etc.
...2a. monotheists - people who believe in one god that rules...
...2b. polytheists - people who believe in many gods that rule...
3. We have pantheists who believe that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god., a la the gaia hypothesis
4. We have panentheists who believe yadda yadda yadda...

All that being said, let me address the deism is a subset of theism argument. I am aware that history reports these alternate philosophies as coming from theism, and to an extent they did, but they aren't coming from theism really, they come from the god hypothesis. I contend that pantheism, panentheism and deism are philosophies on the same level as theism itself (as my slide shows), they aren't subsets of it, they are subsets of the god hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

Pardon my freethinking, but see the attached slide before proceeding so you have a visual of what I am saying.

You have the god hypothesis on top, and then below that you've got the various ways in which the god hypothesis has been expressed by humanity, ie deism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, et al. Theism breaks down further into mono and polytheism.

They all have specific claims to them that differentiate them from one another.

1. We have deists who think a god exists who created the universe and leave it at that.
2. We have theists who think a god or gods exists who rule the universe as a king rules it's kingdom issuing edicts and decrees to his creations (his subjects), employing certain individuals to act as his prophets, etc.
...2a. monotheists - people who believe in one god that rules...
...2b. polytheists - people who believe in many gods that rule...
3. We have pantheists who believe that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god., a la the gaia hypothesis
4. We have panentheists who believe yadda yadda yadda...

All that being said, let me address the deism is a subset of theism argument. I am aware that history reports these alternate philosophies as coming from theism, and to an extent they did, but they aren't coming from theism really, they come from the god hypothesis. I contend that pantheism, panentheism and deism are philosophies on the same level as theism itself (as my slide shows), they aren't subsets of it, they are subsets of the god hypothesis.

I hate to refer to dictionaries, but just for kicks let's look at a definition:

"noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, withoutrejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism )."

Looking at both definitions it is clear that theism would fit in your "God hypothesis".

And Wiki is useful:

Theism - Wikipedia

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism. [3][4]

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods.[5] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[6][7]

Think of it this way, you are either a theist or an atheist. That should be rather obvious. Both are huge groups. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not an absolute statement that they do not exist. Theists believe in a god or gods.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I hate to refer to dictionaries, but just for kicks let's look at a definition:

"noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, withoutrejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism )."

Looking at both definitions it is clear that theism would fit in your "God hypothesis".

And Wiki is useful:

Theism - Wikipedia

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism. [3][4]

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods.[5] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[6][7]

Think of it this way, you are either a theist or an atheist. That should be rather obvious. Both are huge groups. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not an absolute statement that they do not exist. Theists believe in a god or gods.

I'm aware of the definitions, but surely you can see the logic in what I'm saying.

Theism just happens to be the most dominant form of god belief ever suggested. It was our first, and being our first it was destined to be our worst. And the atheist was born...

Look, the one thing all of these philosophies have in common is belief in gods. After that, the differences are noticable.

Theism (mono and poly) just happens to be the first out of the gate in our history. So whilst deism is a late to the game philosophy regarding the god hypothesis, meaning that deistic philosophy wasn't allowed to flourish prior to the 1700's due to the theistic oppression of opposing philosophies, it is my contention that they are all on the same level philosophically speaking.

You're free to disagree, but nothing else makes sense to me.