Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Besides, you have moved the goal posts. You have gone from theism vs deism (which came first) to specifics about an interventionist deity vs a non-interventionist.

The deistic deity is non-interventionist. This is the defining characteristic of deism.

Didn't they cover this in any of the courses for your Doctor of Theology?

The belief in God came first (deism) and the trappings of all that God does or does not do came later (theism).

Generic belief in a god or gods is theism, not deism. Deism is a specific subset of theism.

It's only when you lost the argument that you tried to throw a curve ball and change the game. That is why I used the analogy of which came first, a tree or wooden furniture. Your position supports the wooden furniture theory.

Ciao!

You're the one who invented his own unique definition for "deism" that's shared with - AFAICT - nobody else, but you think I'm throwing curveballs? You can't be serious.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes sure.

On evolution we believe man was always a distinct species not evolved from any other species. And that no one has the ability to create a human being not even nature. We believe that man is a Divine Creation not just a result of the combination of elements as we cannot create a human being simply by combining elements with all our science.

There is one other option - to consult Divine Guidance on the topic from a Manifestation of God.

There is so much information in the Baha'i Writings on this subject it is too extensive to post here but is available to all to research.

Some Answered Questions goes deeply into the creation of man, the universe, about the existence of God and other deep subjects that baffle people.

It is another option rather than just saying we don't know.

What evidence is there that man did not evolve from common ancestors with modern apes that contradicts what the ToE claims on the subject? Is man being yet another evolved species just something you refuse to believe? If so, why?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What evidence is there that man did not evolve from common ancestors with modern apes that contradicts what the ToE claims on the subject? Is man being yet another evolved species just something you refuse to believe? If so, why?

Man and the ape are two distinct species. That is clear. We see no sign that monkeys are developing into human beings at all or evolving in that direction.

As far back as recorded history goes man worshipped God. We have no records of animals performing worship or being virtuous. Only man seems to have that quality which distinguishes him from all other species. Animals are not kind, loving, just, merciful, compassionate and there is no proof in history of apes or any other species than man having had these qualities of mind and spirit.

 

[leibowde84]

Man and the ape are two distinct species. That is clear. We see no sign that monkeys are developing into human beings at all or evolving in that direction.

The ToE does not suggest that monkeys would ever evolve into human beings. In fact, it suggests the opposite. We have a common ancestor which we split from millions of years ago.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We have no records of animals performing worship

Actually, we have examples of chimpanzees engaging in what could be ritual behaviour. Take a look if you're interested. Admittedly it's still speculation at this point, but it could show that religious behaviour is not unique to humans, and could shed light on how our Pleistocene ancestors behaved thousands of years ago.

 

[Willamena]

Deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god...

The deistic deity is non-interventionist. This is the defining characteristic of deism.

...Generic belief in a god or gods is theism, not deism. Deism is a specific subset of theism.

Deism is contrasted with theism, non-interventionalist with interventionalist. The contrasting term is as much a "subset" as strong atheism is a "subset" of weak atheism (as some have claimed). In other words, it can't be.

The point is that in some circles, especially since the devise of deism, "theism" is specifically the interventionist god image.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/deism

 

[loverofhumanity]

Actually, we have examples of chimpanzees engaging in what could be ritual behaviour. Take a look if you're interested. Admittedly it's still speculation at this point, but it could show that religious behaviour is not unique to humans, and could shed light on how our Pleistocene ancestors behaved thousands of years ago.

It is a huge gap between man and the animals that we can receive Revelations from God and fly planes as well as study sciences and travel to outer space.

 

[Muffled]

It is totally irrational if one knows God.

 

[Willamena]

Man and the ape are two distinct species. That is clear. We see no sign that monkeys are developing into human beings at all or evolving in that direction.

Evolution isn't directional. Neither is social development, for the most part. We wanted to go to the moon and explore; chimpanzees may have loftier goals someday.

 

[Neo Deist]

Generic belief in a god or gods is theism, not deism. Deism is a specific subset of theism.

Repeating something continuously does not make it true. It only makes you a broken record. It seems you suffer from the illusory truth effect.



Edit: Look at it this way, and if you still don't get it, that's your problem...

Ancient man, prior to written language, looked out into the sky and saw the sun, moon or perhaps a comet. They thought that said object was a god/goddess and started worshiping it.

STOP.

The above is the very definition of deism. One's personal observation of nature or the cosmos leads to the belief in god(s). That comes first.

CONTINUE.

Once ancient man starts adding rituals, traditions, prayers to be answered, etc. to the belief in god(s), you move into theism.

I am done with this conversation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Evolution isn't directional. Neither is social development, for the most part. We wanted to go to the moon and explore; chimpanzees may have loftier goals someday.

For now they do put us humans to shame with our wars.

 

[viole]

All life is precious. None is worthless. Our whole aim is the betterment of the world through pure and goodly deeds and the happiness of its peoples.

Do you think we should protect the life of bacteria inducing things like Tuberculosis?

Ciao

- viole

 

[loverofhumanity]

The ToE does not suggest that monkeys would ever evolve into human beings. In fact, it suggests the opposite. We have a common ancestor which we split from millions of years ago.

We understand that man has always been man. A very interesting piece of logic below.

“For so long as it is acknowledged that these different beings have appeared in time, it is possible that man simply came into existence after the animal. Thus we observe in the vegetable kingdom that the fruits of different trees do not appear all at once; on the con-trary, some appear earlier in the season and others later. This priority is not a proof that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another."

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

 

[loverofhumanity]

Do you think we should protect the life of bacteria inducing things like Tuberculosis?

Ciao

- viole

We must respect all life but of course also protect ourselves from things like harmful bacteria.

 

[viole]

We must respect all life but of course also protect ourselves from things like bacteria which are harmful to life.

They are not harmful to life. Being alive themselves. They are harmful to our life.

So, if you had to choose between complete extermination of those bacteria or letting tubercolosis to be rampant, what would you do?

Ciao

- viole

 

[loverofhumanity]

They are not harmful to life. Being alive themselves. They are harmful to our life.

So, if you had to choose between complete extermination of those bacteria or letting tubercolosis to be rampant, what would you do?

Ciao

- viole

That's one for scientists to decide how to best handle.

 

[viole]

That's one for scientists to decide how to best handle.

And if they say "exterminate", would you be happy with it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

We understand that man has always been man. A very interesting piece of logic below.

“For so long as it is acknowledged that these different beings have appeared in time, it is possible that man simply came into existence after the animal. Thus we observe in the vegetable kingdom that the fruits of different trees do not appear all at once; on the con-trary, some appear earlier in the season and others later. This priority is not a proof that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another."

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

This has nothing to do with evolution, as the ToE speaks to speciation via extremely subtle mutations over millions of years. What would different vegetables appearing at different seasons have to do with the subject at hand? It seems ludicrous to even draw a comparison.

 

[leibowde84]

We understand that man has always been man. A very interesting piece of logic below.

“For so long as it is acknowledged that these different beings have appeared in time, it is possible that man simply came into existence after the animal. Thus we observe in the vegetable kingdom that the fruits of different trees do not appear all at once; on the con-trary, some appear earlier in the season and others later. This priority is not a proof that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another."

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

How do you explain the various "missing links" or transitional species that show the gradual evolutionary changes that brought us to modern humans?

 

[loverofhumanity]

And if they say "exterminate", would you be happy with it?

Ciao

- viole

My understanding is we need certain bacteria so we only need to be protected from bacteria which is deadly but we should not interfere with life to the point of trying to exterminate bacteria needed for life. In nature and man there needs to always be equilibrium or balance.