But seriously . . . atheism?

[FTL_Ian]

For any "closeted" atheists who might be reading this:
http://www.atheists.org/comingout/othercloset.html

[Rocketman]

This thoughtful tidbit from deism.com:

http://deism.com/deism_vs.htm

Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently.

[David]

Reply to esques critique of my post.   
Opps, advanced cells have mitocondria, been a while since science class.   
Today the funtions of cells are in place, but for life to originally happen, the cellular structure, functions, and processes have to be ironed out immiediantly or the cell will die.  If a cell lacks any major (or minor ) function, at the moment of accidental creation, it will die.  Then the process which is statistically incredibly difficult, must accidentally repeat. 
How does a cell increase its order of magnitude of working parts?  The most common cell change is cancer, and it destroys, not creat.  The evolutionary approach in theory is slow and gradual, but the fossil evidenct does not show a slow and gradual change.  It does show change, but very quick change. 
The destructive natural protein creation is 50% I think. 
Most of my info is from a book written by Ralph O. Muncaster in his A Skeptic's Search for God. 
I don't buy into his later research in the book, regarding the bible, because he ignores the major inconsistancies that the bible was likely altered at some point or points. 

I personaly believe Jesus was a human, not God, whom was a nonviolent resister to the Roman empire, and to the puppet rulers of Isreal.  He was deified later due to his spirituality, and what was then radical nonviolent approach. 

[Rocketman]

Cell structure is just one aspect of reality which blows my mind and causes me to be persuaded (somewhat, as I'm an agnostic sort of deist) by the Argument from Design, or "Watchmaker Argument."  When you realize something is that complicated, you figure some intelligent force must have been behind it.  At least some of us do, at least sometimes.   

[eques]

Reply to esques critique of my post.   
Opps, advanced cells have mitocondria, been a while since science class.   
Today the funtions of cells are in place, but for life to originally happen, the cellular structure, functions, and processes have to be ironed out immiediantly or the cell will die.  If a cell lacks any major (or minor ) function, at the moment of accidental creation, it will die.  Then the process which is statistically incredibly difficult, must accidentally repeat. 
How does a cell increase its order of magnitude of working parts?  The most common cell change is cancer, and it destroys, not creat.  The evolutionary approach in theory is slow and gradual, but the fossil evidenct does not show a slow and gradual change.  It does show change, but very quick change. 
The destructive natural protein creation is 50% I think. 
Most of my info is from a book written by Ralph O. Muncaster in his A Skeptic's Search for God. 
I don't buy into his later research in the book, regarding the bible, because he ignores the major inconsistancies that the bible was likely altered at some point or points. 

I personaly believe Jesus was a human, not God, whom was a nonviolent resister to the Roman empire, and to the puppet rulers of Isreal.  He was deified later due to his spirituality, and what was then radical nonviolent approach. 

Evolution is not always slow and gradual, though.  Look at some of the results of the supposed overprescription of antibiotics.  The bacteria that survive end up being more resistant to antibiotics.

Evolution in larger organisms also doesn't need to be slow or gradual.  This can be observed in the domestication of animals, especially in the experiments domesticating wild foxes (or whatever they were, I forget).

Furthermore, cellular evolution is something that probably did take a relatively long time because of all the intricate systems involved.  However, once those systems stabilized, not much needed to be changed.  Pontificating on exactly how the evolution occurred is probably going to be counterfactual coming from me as I'm not aware of all the intricacies (i.e., I am not a microbiologist).

As for cancer, however, that is an indication of something that went wrong with the cell.  The fact that most present-day mutations are harmful does not rule out the possibility that a beneficial mutation might occur or that a beneficial mutation might survive.  I wouldn't think that we're likely to see many beneficial mutations in cellular evolution today.  The primary reason for this is that, long ago, cells evolved to the point where they were stable enough to serve as the building blocks for larger organisms.

In any case, I agree that it is definitely marvelous and wonderful... I think where we differ is that you're coming from a standpoint of belief in a god whereas I am not.  I find that this underlying assumption tends to color "proofs" for or against diety.  That is to say, I don't think either of us stand much chance of convincing the other, at least by discussing this particular topic.

I have other reasons for my stance that run somewhat deeper than "evolution does explain quite a lot."  I'm not really prepared to write them all up, and I don't know that it would be very helpful, anyway.

[Caleb]

I don't buy into his later research in the book, regarding the bible, because he ignores the major inconsistancies that the bible was likely altered at some point or points.

Actually, the New Testament is the single most authenticated work of antiquity.  For whatever else you might think of some of the arguments therein, there is no substantive reason to doubt that the works have been received as written.  This is due to the enormous number of agreeing manuscripts (literally thousands of early manuscripts) from different traditions, regions, and even languages!

Just a few points on other issues:  Ian's link, which I read, seems to me only to attack a particular brand of Christianity (that which assumes that Scripture is infallible).  I'll leave my comments at that, although more could be commented (the writer appears, for instance, not to understand that the Christian teaching is that Christ's coming abrogated the OT ... but I digress).

But pure experience is made of sensory data, before you get to conceptualizing and identifying it.
What was the sensory data that made your experience?  It had to be something tangible, a sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch.  At least a change in the amplitude or frequency of sensation.  Can you describe your experience, like Mike did?

First, I didn't see where Mike actually described his experience; he described how he achieved it, but didn't describe it.  Describing an experience of this sort is always difficult, though two people who have had it can compare, no doubt, as they both understand somewhat of the flavor of the experience.  It is difficult to explain, and must be experienced, which is sort of my point.  If I had to describe it, I would best describe it as:   thoughts not my own - yet not spoken.  Will not my own, yet not in control.  Other words I would use:  A call, subtle yet overpowering.  Does this help? 

I think I would disagree with your main point:  "Pure experience is made of sensory data. It had to be something tangible, a sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch."

I've never really been a big fan of sensism. I have no idea how it became entrenched in scientific circles, but it most assuredly has, and the fact that scientists universally approach their science through the philosophical lens of sensism is undoubtedly the reason there is so much rampant atheism in the scientific community.  (Theistic scientists are faced with what I can only imagine is a grievous case of cognitive dissonance - forced to approach science from one perspective, and the rest of their lives from another. No wonder so many scientists embrace atheism so as to relieve the cognitive dissonance.)  This is tragic!  It seems to me that the philosophy of sensism has achieved its prominence through what I call the "Kermit the Frog philosophy":  "Somebody thought of that [Aristotle], and someone believed it [Aquinas], And look what it's done so far."

I subscribe to some of Whitehead's philosophical system.  Whitehead stated that the senses are not our sole means of knowing, in fact they are not even the primary means.  The senses compose a part of what Whitehead called "prehension".  I don't recommend Whitehead's work Process and Reality, because it's very detailed, technical, boring, and frankly written poorly.  But David Ray Griffin's works explaining the process perspective are excellent, for those who are interested.

[TackleTheWorld]

If I had to describe it, I would best describe it as:   thoughts not my own - yet not spoken.  Will not my own, yet not in control.  Other words I would use:  A call, subtle yet overpowering.  Does this help? 

Yeeks!  If I ever felt that I would want it to stop immediately, then forget I ever had such a unpleasant halucination.
So maybe I have experienced it many times.

[FTL_Ian]

Caleb,

If you are suggesting god revealed himself to you in an undeniable way - why would he not reveal himself to prominent atheists?

[Rocketman]

Evolution does not contradict Deism in the slightest, Eques.  We're talking about a very different notion of God, one who gave man reason and expects him to use it to make sense of creation.  Evolution only offends (some) Christians because it throws a major wrench in their doctrine.

[Pat McCotter]

If I had to describe it, I would best describe it as:   thoughts not my own - yet not spoken.  Will not my own, yet not in control.  Other words I would use:  A call, subtle yet overpowering.  Does this help? 

Yeeks!  If I ever felt that I would want it to stop immediately, then forget I ever had such a unpleasant halucination.
So maybe I have experienced it many times.

Sounds like Gloria and me. Happens all the time with us. We answer questions without the other asking them out loud.

[Caleb]

Yeeks!  If I ever felt that I would want it to stop immediately, then forget I ever had such a unpleasant halucination.
So maybe I have experienced it many times.

It was not pleasant or unpleasant, tackle, (I speak of my own conversion experience, primarily, at this time, and nothing subsequent.)  I think part of the problem, though, is that people are expecting meeting their Creator to always be euphoric.  But that isn't always the case, particularly as you resist the calling.  In my case, the stronger I resisted, the stronger the calling became.  I insist that God is never coercive.  This gets me into a lot of trouble with fellow Christians, many of whom ask me, "Why?  Why must God never be violent?  What if he is taking a stand for justice."  I can only say that my conviction from my own experience is that he is not, which is why I view hell differently than most Christians do.  Michael says he felt love primarily.  For me, love and peace were there, and not a hint of condemnation, but I would characterize that as the backdrop, not the essence.  The essence was an expectation.

If you are suggesting god revealed himself to you in an undeniable way - why would he not reveal himself to prominent atheists?

Michael hit on a good point earlier when he talked about sincerity.  First, God has revealed himself to atheists.  I know several atheists personally who have had a conversion experience. Others have written books on the subject. But I would not want to worship a God who was so insecure that he felt threatened by those men who disbelieve.  I don't believe that God is interested in scoring points in a debate, or the petty thrill that humans get in proving someone else wrong.  God reveals himself to those who sincerely want him to be a part of their lives.  If they have doubts about him, but are still seeking him, he will reveal himself to those people. (John 20:25-29) But he will not force himself on those who do not want him.  You must invite God into your life.

[eques]

Evolution does not contradict Deism in the slightest, Eques.  We're talking about a very different notion of God, one who gave man reason and expects him to use it to make sense of creation.  Evolution only offends (some) Christians because it throws a major wrench in their doctrine.

Does Deism really include "God gave man his reason"?  I was under the impression that Deism merely was a belief that "God made the watch, set it ticking, and has left it alone ever since."

Also, I don't know if fsp-ohio was describing deism or not.  It sounded to me like fsp-ohio was describing a god that was far more involved in the world than the rational theory of evolution permits, which is what I was attempting to illustrate via my limited knowledge on the subject.

I know very well about how evolution offends some Christians.  It is almost entirely because they refuse to entertain any understanding of the theory.

[Rocketman]

Evolution does not contradict Deism in the slightest, Eques.  We're talking about a very different notion of God, one who gave man reason and expects him to use it to make sense of creation.  Evolution only offends (some) Christians because it throws a major wrench in their doctrine.

Does Deism really include "God gave man his reason"?  I was under the impression that Deism merely was a belief that "God made the watch, set it ticking, and has left it alone ever since."

Some Deists believe God never "touches the watch."  Others, like Paine, take a much more involved view of the deity.  Deists have no dogma, so there's obviously a lot of latitude, but reason is definitely supreme, but not usually as exclusively supreme as with objectivism.  I very strongly recommend a good reading of Thomas Paine:

http://deism.com/paine_essay01.htm

OF THE RELIGION OF DEISM
COMPARED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.

It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.

The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon.

But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.

The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?

There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.

It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.

Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory.

The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.

..........................

[eques]

Evolution does not contradict Deism in the slightest, Eques.  We're talking about a very different notion of God, one who gave man reason and expects him to use it to make sense of creation.  Evolution only offends (some) Christians because it throws a major wrench in their doctrine.

Does Deism really include "God gave man his reason"?  I was under the impression that Deism merely was a belief that "God made the watch, set it ticking, and has left it alone ever since."

Some Deists believe God never "touches the watch."  Others, like Paine, take a much more involved view of the deity.  Deists have no dogma, so there's obviously a lot of latitude, but reason is definitely supreme, but not usually as exclusively supreme as with objectivism.  I very strongly recommend a good reading of Thomas Paine:

http://deism.com/paine_essay01.htm

Well, I read what you quoted, anyway...

I tend to agree with most of what he says about revealed religion.  However, when he begins to talk about the "divine gift of reason," that's where I start to shift uneasily in my seat.  I think that Paine may be as much of a bellwether of enlightened thought regarding god and religion more than he is describing how deism ought to operate.  I realize that deism has no dogma, so I'm kind of seeing Paine's "divine gift of reason" as "Paineism." 

However, setting aside the accidents of Paine's language, he is advocating, by and large, naturalism.  I definitely have no problem with that.

Something else to consider, however, is that Paine is pre-Darwinian.  The ideas of Darwin didn't come up overnight, no, but The Age of Reason still precedes The Origin of Species by a good 70 years.  Also, the many discoveries and advances in science since Paine's time show that there is as much chaos as there is order in the universe, if not more so.  So Paine's sense of the universe as structured is appropriate for his time, but somewhat of a quaint view to hold today.

When I was in school, I never took one class that taught evolution.  Not one.  (I attended a christian school from sixth grade to high school and never took biology in college.)  I decided I needed to learn what evolution was when I was a senior in college in order to "combat" it (yes, I was that naive at the time).  When I saw evolution for what it was (scientific, rational, logical) and how it didn't require faith (a lie I had been told numerous times), I needed to learn more.  I've read so much, and I know there's so much more I could know... there are so many intricacies and... well, it's a beautiful theory... beautiful in its simplicity and power.

I told you that in order to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.  I came to the point in my personal life where I simply no longer needed god in any way.  This standpoint has been solidified through my studies.  If there's something we can't explain, I think we do ourselves a disservice by ascribing it to god.  That's because that is where the majority of people stop.  I think that if there's something we don't know, we ought to be honest and yet bold enough to say, "We don't know... yet."

[Michael Fisher]

Call me whatever you want, but I believe that the NASB Bible is the most accurate translation of the actual Word of God, slightly imperfect due to various human errors. The Word of God is at times literally true, metaphorical, poetic, parabolic, revelatory, or even subjectively editorialized by some writers. Regardless of the type of speech used throughout, this is what I believe He wants me to read and follow.

To the best of my ability and knowledge, I try to follow the entire Bible in heart, thought, and deed.

I also believe that evolution is real, and that the creation story is literally true. The perceived modern conflict between these two theories (such as the belief in dinosaurs on Noah's Ark) is based upon flawed extra-Biblical human deduction and most fundamentalist Christian theorists' apparent inability to consider God's true power?that all of the history of the universe can change with the utterance of a single word, and that such is the meaning of Genesis.

If you are a deist, it is good to consider what properties a God would have if He exists: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence; true justice in His omniscience; unchanging truth, ways, and purposes; majesty, extreme mercy, wisdom, truth, love, grace, goodness, severity toward evil; purity and thus judgement and wrath against evil; uniqueness, adequacy, and jealousy ("Knowing God," 1973, Packer, J. I.).

Being completely pure, knowing all things, and judging perfectly, could He tolerate unrepentant evil?

Would He judge good and evil by pitiful human standards? Being perfect and knowing the heart, would He hold His creation to the same pitiful standards to which His creation holds itself?

Would He, instead of being jealous of His unique ability to judge justly, want humans to judge each other by their own pitiful human standards?

Further, would He make it difficult to be judged as good in His eyes? Would He, in His exceeding mercy, make it difficult to align oneself with Him? Would He really make it any harder than trusting Him?

Creating with pure love, and forgiving freely, could He tolerate denial and hatred of Him?

Could a deed that is subjectively "good" by filthy human standards, rather than God's standards, impress Him?

Would He allow anyone to be with Him in heaven who hates, distrusts, or ignores Him, for whatever lame excuse they may have?

If the vast majority of His creation became evil through the gift of free will, would He then, in His mercy and love, decide to create nothing for fear of offending those who would choose evil and be eternally punished for it?