Nerdy Keith

[Nerdy Keith]

@Strega what a perfect answer haha

@TomSarbeck as an ex-Catholic I can relate

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Strega. Reason: my name 🙂
• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Strega.

[Nerdy Keith]

I think people need to acknowledge the difference between lacking faith and activity claim they know no gods exist. This is why I’m on the agnostic spectrum of atheism.

[Nerdy Keith]

Honestly belief is just means accepting something without evidence. It’s really not that loaded at all. No need to think too deeply into the word belief.

[Nerdy Keith]

Dang Martin wrote:

It’s a damned tricky word, which is why I avoid it. Beer is easier.

 

Agreed. It’s better to simply say “I don’t believe in this.” etc.

 

[Nerdy Keith]

This is mere wordplay. Lacking faith is not having faith. Even when I was a deist I would not bother with such an argument. Where is it going anyway?

My impression from this argument is that it is to translate atheism to religious terms. Atheism is without theism and by definition is not a religion or a faith. We can however have additional beliefs separate from atheism.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Nerdy Keith. Reason: typo

[Nerdy Keith]

Thanks @Reg really appreciate that. And thank you everyone else for your excellent insight into this.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Nerdy Keith.

[Nerdy Keith]

Thanks Reg, appreciate it. I signed the petition, shared it on Facebook and Twitter.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Nerdy Keith. Reason: more relevant information

[Nerdy Keith]

erock68la wrote:

Should none of the scripture be taken just as it is written? Or just the “good” parts? Or just the “good” parts that don’t specifically call for action?

I understand not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but in this case the bathwater is a toxic, festering, bubbling, green sludge pool of a bath and the baby is drowning and poisoned beyond any possibility of recovery.

I’ve no idea; as I’m not a Muslim. I suppose a the liberal Muslims might argue that it should be studied in order to understand the Koran correctly. Some of them claim that the Koran is scientific. Now while I don’t accept that claim and regard many Muslims to misunderstand science; this line of thinking for them can influence a more peaceful attitude towards others.

From what I’ve seen with many theists some tend to believe that the stories in their scriptures are basically cautionary tales to be learned from; and not re-inacted. But for them to decide which is symbolic or not symbolic; it is very subjective. At the end of the day; I don’t believe their faith holds water. But if these interpretations influence them to behave more rational, humane and respectful to their fellow humans thats all that matters.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by Nerdy Keith.

[Nerdy Keith]

@umar,

Ah I see; thank you for clarifying that. I kinda figured that you may not have a sufficient server to carry video streaming; thats understandable.

No worries; I’ll use forum threads until everything is ready.

[Nerdy Keith]

erock68la wrote:

By “too far” do you mean they follow the scripture literally, as it is written? What’s too far? To actually kill the people it says to kill? Is it too far to just hate and threaten the people it says to kill? Is it too far to try and use political influence and the power of government to discriminate against the people the scripture says to kill?

It’s difficult to say how deep is too deep into a poisonous ideology.

Well following scripture literally would be one example. Its all got to do with specific interpretations of their scripture. Same with Christians; they pretty much have to interpret their bibles to sort of fit in with modern science (yes arguably it does take a lot of twisting words around and mental summersaults). But regardless to weather we all are persuaded by their belief or interpretation that is the means of diluting their attitudes; injecting reason into their faith; and at least allowing them to behave in a more relatively rational manner.

By too far; I also mean interpreting their faith to mean that they must act upon it. And there are plenty of Muslims who do condemn the violent acts of terrorist groups. They have claimed that such extremists are not following Islam as it is supposed to be a religion of peace.

[Nerdy Keith]

Unseen wrote:

What does “outside space and time” mean? For you to mean something by saying it, it must first mean something, so explain please. By my understanding of time, where there’s no time there’s no activity because activity is how we mark the passage of time. If there were no time, how did God ever get off the mark to start making the universe?

If God can pull a universe out of nothing, he’s a magician by most definitions. What is your definition of “magician”? If he’s not a magician, he’s a miracle-maker, but you don’t seem to believe in miracles, either.

If God can make a universe and he’s not a magician or miracle-maker, then he’s a grand technician. Where and how did he gain this knowledge and from whom?

You say “…most deists believe that the God of nature works in accordance with nature; without deviation from what we have learned about and see in nature.” Did nature pre-exist the universe or even God? Your phrasing suggest so. It would seem that nature was there and God decided to obey its rules.

“At this point I just can’t accept that life is just the physical. I will have to do more research on the topic; but thats where I am at right now.” Why can’t you accept that the world is matter and what happens in matter (an epiphenomenon of matter, in other words). The mind, for example, is an epiphenomenon of the brain. No brain, no mind. By the same token, if God has a mind he needs a body and a brain. Saying, “No he isn’t subject to physical law and he exists beyond space and time” is just a bunch of words with no meaning at all. It’s a non-explanation.

Ok fair enough, outside space and time is generally understood to be a higher plane of existence or rather outside the natural universe. How God went about starting things off from this location? I simply don’t know. Perhaps it doesn’t require to leave its habitat (so to speak) in order to start thing off. Acknowledging that this is a transcendent higher being.

Well a magician to me is a person who performs optical illusions. But I think you mean wizard. A wizard is a being that bends the very core of reality.

Where did God gain its knowledge? I’m not sure exactly. One idea that comes to mind is that the God of Nature being a first cause of life in the universe (possibly many other universes) may have learned from its creations. That is not to say that it interferes, intervenes, or revels itself; which I still reject. But if this deity would require to learn from experience like we do; it stands to reason it would have to observe the natural behaviour of one of its creations. Maybe it did create another universe; with even more imperfections; learned from its mistakes; then repeated the process to reduces the errors.

Now you may be wondering. But if this God doesn’t leave its habitat. How would it observe anything? If I can communicate with you from Ireland to (America is it? Excuse my ignorance if you are from somewhere else). If NASA can communicate with a space shuttle in orbiting the moon or possibly another planet. I would say its reasonable to believe that the God of Nature is able to come up with some means of surveillancing life in other universes. How exactly it does this? I don’t have a specific answer for you. It would be beyond our comprehension I would imagine.

Did nature pre-exist the universe or even God? Well two things here. I don’t believe anything pre-exists the God of Nature. As far as I’m concerned; it is the originator of everything that ever was. Secondly I may have not quite explained myself clearly with some of my explanations regarding nature. I call the deity I believe in the God of Nature; because that is exactly what it is. The God of Nature. The creator of nature, the one who set up the laws of nature, laws of physics, evolution, the big bang etc. But then again; I would also be open the idea that the God of deism and nature being part in parcel. And that nature as we know it; is merely an expansion on what nature was prior to the Milky Way and the rest of the universe existing.

Well I used to have the viewpoint that the universe is just matter and energy and so forth. I just feel that I have not explored all the possibilities and plausibilities. So that is what I am doing; I’m exploring all the options. I still think organised religion is a load of rubbish; but deism is very different from an organised faith. Its a belief system if applied and understood correctly; it can work with science.

Now this idea that if a God exists; it must have a physical body. I don’t accept that. We don’t know the properties of God (not the deistic God anyway). We know quite a bit about the alleged Gods of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam. Because their holy books are very descriptive to what these Gods are like. And we can deduct them out of existence (so to speak). Deism is said to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So nobody can really say; the God of Nature must look like Galdalf from Lord of the Rings or look like Alanis Morissette. We simply do not know. But thats ok. Its the same in science; we don’t know everything. I constantly find my self explaining to theists over on Yahoo that; science is basically a process for seeking out the truth; not quite a system of absolutism. In a way deism as philosophical system functions in a similar way in congestion with science. I suppose one could kind of say the same thing about atheism; but I think most of you would argue that its not really a philosophical view point; just absence of faith.

Anyway thats my two cents

[Nerdy Keith]

Unseen wrote:

And “PK” is what?

I think Umar means “YouTube is banned in Pakistan”. Its been blocked in quite a few coutnries over the years. China did something similar (not sure if thats still the case)

[Nerdy Keith]

Matt wrote:

Hi Keith, glad you decided to come across. FYI Deism != Theism, therefore Deism is aTheism. Therefore you are quite welcome to discuss such things in the correct forums (and personally I look forward to hearing more about it).

Well thank you Matt; I will certainly keep the site and community posted on my thoughts on the deism philosophical view as I educate myself more on it. But I will certainly be discussing my thoughts on organised religion and its affect on secular society.

[Nerdy Keith]

Ok well if you are leaving I suppose that’s your choice Bob. Is it not an option to maybe learn from your mistakes with your approach on how you present certain topics?

Good luck to you either way

[Nerdy Keith]

Unseen wrote:

If God is eternal then he exists in a context which is as eternal as he is. The multiverse? Why not a multiverse which operates on its own with no need of a god?

Also, if you believe in God, you believe in magic. Your God is a cosmic sorcerer who pulls universes out of empty space as a stage magician might pull doves out of his sleeve.

If God exists where exactly it exists is unknown to us. Outside space and time is a possibility I’m open to; as many have claimed to believe. For all I know the God of nature could have its own separate universe within a multiverse; but that would be speculating too much

I don’t agree that believing in God as the same as magic. If I where a Christian who believed in miracles; you’d have a point there. Because miracles are basically a form of witchcraft when you think about it.

I suppose the best way I can explain this to you is would be to say; that the alleged acts of the God of nature may sound like magic to human beings. But to more primitive human beings of the past; the science and technology we have today would seem like magic. If we could travel back in time to the dark ages or even the 1600s and show the common human an iPhone; I think we can both imagine what their reaction might be. Another point is that typically most deists believe that the God of nature works in accordance with nature; without deviation from what we have learned about and see in nature. Something a theistic believer cannot claim (although they dishonesty attempt to)

At this point I just can’t accept that life is just the physical. I will have to do more research on the topic; but thats where I am at right now.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by Nerdy Keith.

[Author]

Posts