Deist vs Theist

You could not refute either of the statements. I think most reasonable people would call that a loss of face.

 

Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity

by Bob Johnson

http://deism.com/deism_vs.htm

http://deism.com/deism_defined.htm

 

Well, when we're in human mode we are "separate", or at least we have created the illusion of separation. I use the analogy of taking a cup full of water out of the ocean. You have made the ocean smaller, but not in any measurable way. The contents of the cup are the same as the ocean, but they can be changed while they're out of the ocean. And then, you put it back in the ocean, and it's whole again. It's a flawed analogy, because it does not account for the retention of our individuality once "back in the ocean", but it works for a lot of people.

 

I'm sorry, I never realized you proposed an arguement. What I saw was an opinion, of which I possess also. Now if being unable to refute an unsubstatiated opinion is an ecample of a "loss of face", consider me guilty. Good-day.

 

No what I am saying is looking in the closet to see there's no monster is all the investigating you can do because there is nothing inside. Theists on the other hand don't just investigate the nothing, they describe and define it. Just because you could trick yourself into thinking there is a monster in the closet and then imagine what it might look like and how it may behave doesn't mean there’s actually something to investigate.

Their knowledge of theism came from theism.

I’ve read what you have to say about scripture and the strength of its validity can only exist in the individuals who want it to be so. Scripture is men talking about God talking about man. The order validates my position that you must first put your faith in men before you can put your faith in God. The fact that you associate any experience or revelation you may have had with certain writings of men says more about you than it does about any God.

Being agnostic towards something there is no evidence for is not the same as being agnostic towards someone’s definition of something there is no evidence for. I’m asking if it’s wise to define that which there is no evidence for.

 

Nah...

In order to identify with the divineone must survive and so must his species, by adapting to the ever changing environment that threatens that relationship with pain, early death, or extinction.

The purpose of life is to survive.
The reason for that is to experience a relationship with theever unfolding next frame of existence which is the almighty,

- - - Updated - - -

Nah...

In order to identify with the divineone must survive and so must his species, by adapting to the ever changing environment that threatens that relationship with pain, early death, or extinction.

The purpose of life is to survive.
The reason for that is to experience a relationship with theever unfolding next frame of existence which is the almighty,

 

No. The purpose of life is to learn, experience, and evolve. This entire universe will, one day in a future so far from now we can't really even conceive of it, no longer exist. But that's okay, there are many schools, and if this one is profitable, it can be recreated.

 

If I tell you theres a monster in the closet, to prove me wrong, shouldn't you investigate the claim? If someone calls the authorities to claim there has been a murder, does the investigator, who doesn't see a body, then just say, "theres been no murder", and then end the investigation?

 

.

you have not refuted a single thing

 

well, trying to pick up a conversation that I had over a month ago is a little difficult. But, I'll try.....

Most people when they state something as though it appears as fact usually have data to back their arguement, but what you stated, and then didn't provide data for, amounted to opinion, and I was just stating....."thats fine.....as long as its an opinion, then I have one of those as well, but in the end its just opinion, of which you and I seem to have."