:D

That was amazing.

Deism is non-commital atheism. Kudos to some of the forefathers of America for having the balls to adopt it, but I don't even choose to entertain the idea of God in any meaningful sense. I don't deny it's possible, I just don't think it's any more possible than any other thing I know isn't true.

Even Buddhism I'm not a fan of. I'm not saying that religion has nothing good to offer, I'm saying that everything good religion does have to offer, can be attained without the negative effects of irrational belief. And I hold myself as an example. I don't need God to have morals; I think I have a very good set of ethics, but I'm the one who chooses them. It's called free thought, and it's hard to employ while also confining yourself to religious belief in anything. It's ok to take lessons from religion, it's not ok to take every "lesson" religion has to offer as fact.


edit: realizing now that this reply goes well with the video above.

cardboard adolescent: That video really was great. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a rebuttal, or if you were agreeing with me in some way, or if it's something in the middle, but thanks for sharing. I agree with the message of the video.

I was agreeing, mostly :)

Deism is actually fairly distinct from atheism in a number of ways. And deists in their many forms are in no way 'atheists too scared to admit it' or 'atheists who are scared of Pascal's Wager'. Problem is that the deist god often gets put into the same mould as the magical gods of holy books, whilst actually being nothing like this.

THis is actually a problem I have with Dawkins. I noticed in reading The God Delusion that his entire refutation of God relies on God being actually involved in human affairs, smiting sinners, rewarding believers in the afterlife and so on. All these are characteristics of a Bible or Qur'an god, but not the deist one. In short, he's attacking a Judeo-Christian god, not God as a whole concept.


It's wrong to think that all and any religious belief is irrational. Belief in God does not tie you down to any dogma unless you so decide that your idea of God fits into some religious system such as Islam or Christianity (which is where the absurdities start). But it's perfectly possible to say 'God exists in some form' and not tie yourself to what you term 'irrational beliefs'. Supposed irrrational beliefs aren't a prerequisite to believing in God. They're only characteristic of some set belief systems.

And religious belief (in any sort of higher power) does not mean cutting yourself off from free thought also. Religious belief only cuts yourself off from critical thought if you allow it to do so- many people who hold religious beliefs are also intelligent people capable of independent and critical thought.

Suppose one thinks that belief in God is, itself, irrational?

That's a matter of personal opinion. It would also depend on what you consider to BE God.

Is it though? Suppose we define "rational" as "agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible". What reason do you have to offer for justifying faith in God? Isn't an essential component of defining faith itself that faith cannot be explained through reason or evidence? That it is just an emotion, something you "feel", something you "know"?

I suppose for this scenario, God would be anything supernatural of which cannot be empirically tested or verified through thiswordly means.

What reason do you have to mistrust your emotions/intuitions? You've had no intuitive experience that there is a higher power, fine, you have no reason to believe it. Other people have had this intuitive experience, so they find a reason to believe. Reason and intuition are not at war, they're complementary. Some people rely more on reason, some rely more on intuition. Some believe that their reason is superior to intuition, and that intuitive 'feelings' are anomalies that should be ignored. Some believe that their intuition is superior to reason, and that reason, common sense, or science should be ignored. Ideally, intuition and reason can operate hand in hand, at whatever level they've been developed, and we can keep an open mind toward other people's experiences. After all, we're always growing, always experiencing new things, new depths we didn't imagine were there before.

Oh yeah, and arguing about this stuff is pointless. Still. Never going to stop being pointless. The argument might also never disappear, but individuals will pop in or drop out.