Non Creationists who still use theism

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pretty much.

The ancient Greeks didn't believe in a creator deity, either. They believed that the universe created itself and that the Gods were born within it. There's many more concepts of theism besides the Abrahamic monotheistic creator god idea.

And you also don't need to be a theist in order to be religious. I find this thread to be very ignorant.

 

[Desert Snake]

The ancient Greeks didn't believe in a creator deity, either. They believed that the universe created itself and that the Gods were born within it. There's many more concepts of theism besides the Abrahamic monotheistic creator god idea.

Already knew that.

And you also don't need to be a theist in order to be religious. I find this thread to be very ignorant.

Good for you.:beach:

 

[chinu]

"Cabbages look exactly like people. They walk like people, they talk like people, they eat like people, they sleep like people, they go to work like people, they see movies like people, they watch tv like people, they read books like people . . . they are the best copies of people you'll ever see. But they are not people, my son, they are most assuredly Cabbages.”

Though you seem more like the epitome of a Greyface.

Just wondering,
Why you tried so hard to prove all this.. loll.

Huhaa..

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Just wondering,
Why you tried so hard to prove all this.. loll.

Huhaa..

Prove? I haven't tried to prove anything.

Explain maybe, though I doubt you understood.

 

[viole]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

If you mean evolutionary theists, or theists who think that evolution is somewhat guided by a deity, then they are, de-facto, creationists, too.

I am not aware of theists that are not creationists in a way or the other.

Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

Yes, if they are honest. Unless, they believe that the competition is true, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sir Doom]

If you mean evolutionary theists, or theists who think that evolution is somewhat guided by a deity, then they are, de-facto, creationists, too.

I am not aware of theists that are not creationists in a way or the other.

That's like saying anyone who doesn't know something is agnostic. It only works if you take the term literally. Creationism is a pretty specific movement centered around a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. I'm definitely not that. Do I think things have been created before? Yeah. We all ought to considering we all have, in fact, created things. I guess we're all creationists! Or maybe it means something else.

Yes, if they are honest. Unless, they believe that the competition is true, too.

Ciao

- viole

I'm pretty sure I don't think of other religions as competition, nor do I expect that I have a monopoly on truth such that I would consider other religions false.

Do you expect that I am lying?

 

[viole]

That's like saying anyone who doesn't know something is agnostic.

But a-gnostic means exactly that. It means: without gnosis = without knowledge.

It only works if you take the term literally. Creationism is a pretty specific movement centered around a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. I'm definitely not that. Do I think things have been created before? Yeah. We all ought to considering we all have, in fact, created things. I guess we're all creationists! Or maybe it means something else.

Well, liberal Christians usually reinterpret as symbolic what is obviously factually false. So, they just move the creation part somewhere else, until it is also dislodged, as it is usually the case, sooner or later.

Which means: all Christians (sorry, it is the religion I know best) are creationists. They just give priority to science and fill science gaps with creation acts: a moving target.

I'm pretty sure I don't think of other religions as competition, nor do I expect that I have a monopoly on truth such that I would consider other religions false.

But how did you choose your religion, then? Why are you not a Hindu (if you are not a Hindu), for instance?

Do you expect that I am lying?

I expect that if you believe that something is true, then you automatically believe that something contradicting your belief is false.

The only way to escape this logical conundrum is to believe everything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

But a-gnostic means exactly that. It means: without gnosis = without knowledge.


...

Ciao

- viole

It only means "without knowledge" of God.


This is the generally accepted meaning.


"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


Obviously this does not mean a person is without knowledge.


*

 

[Nakosis]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

Perhaps not false but imprecise.

I suspect people came up with the best theology they were capable of for their time. As we learn more about the universe theology should evolve as well.

Religion though fear false prophets. So they try to build in safeguards against it. Still you can judge a prophet by the fruit they bear. That means the believer's going to have to take responsibility for their belief.

I'm happy to let a person believe as they will but they need to be responsible for their actions.

 

[thau]

When a child is born he doesn't believe in ANY God.


There is no logical reason to believe - if left alone - as he ponders and considers, - that he won't come up with multiple gods, - or no God at all.



*

I am curious how many ancient cultures or tribes were primarily of an atheistic belief vs. spiritual?

I believe these children unexposed to previous teachings, if they acquire basic knowledge and logic, most would come to the conclusion there is an intelligent force guiding life or nature. Because it makes more sense to them.

 

[Nakosis]

I am curious how many ancient cultures or tribes were primarily of an atheistic belief vs. spiritual?

I believe these children unexposed to previous teachings, if they acquire basic knowledge and logic, most would come to the conclusion there is an intelligent force guiding life or nature. Because it makes more sense to them.

Well, there's visions, dreams, any number of other spiritual experiences that might lead a child to believe in supernatural occurrences.

I'd suspect a person has to be conditioned to approach these kind of events rationally and not jump to a supernatural conclusion.

I'd suspect a child left on their own is more likely to create all kinds of supernatural explanations. They'd have to be conditioned to otherwise think rationally.

For a child to become an atheist they'd first have to be taught to question supernatural explanations.

 

[thau]

I'd suspect a child left on their own is more likely to create all kinds of supernatural explanations. They'd have to be conditioned to otherwise think rationally.

Not sure what you mean by "otherwise think rationally?"

For a child to become an atheist they'd first have to be taught to question supernatural explanations.

And maybe vice versa.

 

[Ingledsva]

When a child is born he doesn't believe in ANY God.


There is no logical reason to believe - if left alone - as he ponders and considers, - that he won't come up with multiple gods, - or no God at all.

I am curious how many ancient cultures or tribes were primarily of an atheistic belief vs. spiritual?

I believe these children unexposed to previous teachings, if they acquire basic knowledge and logic, most would come to the conclusion there is an intelligent force guiding life or nature. Because it makes more sense to them.

"...,if they acquire basic knowledge and logic, most would come to the conclusion there is an intelligent force..."


No, it is fear, mixed with - no knowledge, - that leads some to the idea that rain, or volcanoes, etc, are Gods.

Our neighboring tribe was destroyed by lava - the Lava God must be angry - let us make sacrifice and prayers for safety from the Lava God, (and teach our children to fear, and pray to, the Lava God!)


Over time they get tired of sacrificing and praying to so many Gods - and decide there must be just one Weather God.


One can conclude that original belief in Gods comes from ignorant fear of the natural world, - not some sense of things spiritual.


But it only take a few with these ideas - to start teaching such to the others.


There is no proof that all would come up with this idea.



There could be a smart dude in the group, - "Hummmm! hot stuff wipe out neighbor, move fast away from hot stuff!"




*

 

[thau]

One can conclude that original belief in Gods comes from ignorant fear of the natural world, - not some sense of things spiritual.

That was their best guess at the time, granted. But just because they erred on things later explained does not deny the fact that many other mysteries of nature or life remain unexplained today. Even something as basic as where did matter come from --- has science given anything the least bit provable, even believable, there?

Science’s difficulty to explain many said phenonmena in this highly technical and knowledge-filled age is just as disconcerting it its own right as anything that might have been to a caveman back then, imo.

 

[Ingledsva]

That was their best guess at the time, granted. But just because they erred on things later explained does not deny the fact that many other mysteries of nature or life remain unexplained today. Even something as basic as where did matter come from --- has science given anything the least bit provable, even believable, there?

Science’s difficulty to explain many said phenonmena in this highly technical and knowledge-filled age is just as disconcerting it its own right as anything that might have been to a caveman back then, imo.

Because we haven't figured something out - YET, - does not make it supernatural.


*

 

[Nakosis]

Not sure what you mean by "otherwise think rationally?"

I don't think one is born with rational thinking. However all humans are capable of imagination.

And maybe vice versa.

Imagination is what it is. One has to learn what is natural before they can develop conclusions that fit what is known about nature.

 

[viole]

It only means "without knowledge" of God.


This is the generally accepted meaning.


"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


Obviously this does not mean a person is without knowledge.


*

Ok. But then a theist that lacks knowledge of God is an agnostic theist.

So, i am perfectly entitled to say that if one recognizes that she lacks knowledge about X, then she is agnostic about X.

If the default, at least here, for X is God, then she is agnostic about God, no matter whether she believs in Him or not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

That was their best guess at the time, granted. But just because they erred on things later explained does not deny the fact that many other mysteries of nature or life remain unexplained today. Even something as basic as where did matter come from --- has science given anything the least bit provable, even believable, there?

Science’s difficulty to explain many said phenonmena in this highly technical and knowledge-filled age is just as disconcerting it its own right as anything that might have been to a caveman back then, imo.

I am not aware of any culture that recognizes itself as primitive.

I don't think that Newton would consider himself primitive, althought he knew he had no clue about what really caused gravity. Appealing to God or invisible angels carrying planets around would have been a mistake, as it always was.

After all, the scientific method is only a few centuries old, which is a ridicolously short time span.

For this reason, I think we are extremely primitive. And our current technology, we are so proud about, cannot be used to infer that what we cannot explain today cannot be explained tomorrow, when technology and science will be more advanced. That would be the ultimate display of arrogance and self deception.

If you feel comfy that current science cannot explain what lies beyond our knowledge, be careful. Vikings believed that lighnings are created by Thor for exactly the same reason.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

Ok. But then a theist that lacks knowledge of God is an agnostic theist.

So, i am perfectly entitled to say that if one recognizes that she lacks knowledge about X, then she is agnostic about X.

If the default, at least here, for X is God, then she is agnostic about God, no matter whether she believs in Him or not.

Ciao

- viole

Technically, a Theist never lacks "knowledge" of God.


They have accepted as true, the "knowledge" in their particular religion, religious philosophy, or religious book.


That is why they are called Theists, rather then Agnostics, or Atheists.


*

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Some posts in this thread have been deleted based on staff consensus.

Please keep all forum rules in mind while posting, especially Rule 1 and Rule 3.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."