But seriously . . . atheism?

[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

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."

Heh, "Paineism" is about right.  Judging from some of his other writings, he's probably more of a pantheist than a true Deist.  It's his critique of revealed religion that has the rare and welcome ring of self-evident truth.

I'm far more agnostic than Paine, and I suppose evolution and/or chaos theory might have something to do with that, but I call myself a Deist because that outlook best explains my motivations.  I have a gut feeling that if we can't find a way to preserve liberty, the human experiment will result in failure.  I used to call myself an atheist, but atheism never explained why I feel so strongly about stopping the human race from enslaving itself.  Either I believe in some sort of god or I've read too many comic books.   

Superstition (churches) and fear (governments) are the natural enemies of human flourishing.  We've got to stop them, Batman!   

[eques]

Heh, "Paineism" is about right.  Judging from some of his other writings, he's probably more of a pantheist than a true Deist.  It's his critique of revealed religion that has the rare and welcome ring of self-evident truth.

I'm far more agnostic than Paine, and I suppose evolution and/or chaos theory might have something to do with that, but I call myself a Deist because that outlook best explains my motivations.  I have a gut feeling that if we can't find a way to preserve liberty, the human experiment will result in failure.  I used to call myself an atheist, but atheism never explained why I feel so strongly about stopping the human race from enslaving itself.  Either I believe in some sort of god or I've read too many comic books.   

Superstition (churches) and fear (governments) are the natural enemies of human flourishing.  We've got to stop them, Batman!   

I haven't really examined my motivations very closely... though I know that there's a bit of a tug to be "famous" (though I suppose "infamous" could work as well), but that's more a delusion of grandeur than anything else.

For me, it comes down to, "if I'm not going to do it, then who will?"

As for the derivation of natural rights, that operates in the same sphere as the derivation of morality relating to the question of needing god.  That is to say, I think the case is made much more powerful if all of my data points reside in what is observable rather than making appeals to god.

[David]

The statistical likelyhood of a cell fully and accidentaly forming is astranomically low.  I don't remember how low the ratio is, but I recall it being in the billions to one chance.  It would be like flipping a coin and landing on heads several thousand times in a row. 
That takes a bit of faith to believe life originated accidentally.   

Caleb, the bible has been faithfully trancribed for certain.  But the accounts are not acurately written down.  Where were the disciples the day of Jesus rising from the dead?  How many generations were there between Jesus and king David using both Mary's linage, and Josephs' linage?  Who wrote in the book of Moses, that to the day, noone knows where he was buried.  Or the second book of Moses that he stayed behind watching the promised land and the Isrealites walk into it.  Where was Jesus, immediantly after the baptism from John, at the wedding in cana, or in the desert forty days and nights? 
That is why I am not a christian.  I like what Jesus is reported to say, but I read with a grain of salt the supposed historical accuracy of much of the bible. 

One of the biggest reasons I continue to believe in God, (yes I've had doubts in the past 2 years) is the concept that if a God created man(kind), then surely He would want him to behave in a certain way.  This way is Gods law.  Why do people who trade peacefully live better in every way that those who steal from others?  Why did and how does altruism develope?  In nature, life is dog eat dog, and in much of the human world.  But why do humans prosper when they don't do dog eat dog? 
If God created Law, then it would be universal.  Free trade works every where, no matter how much gov't tries to stifle it. 
In every society and in virtually all religions, there are very basic rules to not steal from others, and to not encroach or hurt others.  These are about the only concepts that are universally taught. 
Unfortunately not universally practiced in all situations.  A hard core nazi would not brazenly steal from a fellow nazi, but wouldn't think twice about stealing from a jew.  A politician would never go to you and directly steal 50% of your wallet, but would wholeheartedly tax you of 50% of your wealth.  But the priciple of the  laws to not steal, and to not encroach or hurt others remains universal until the exceptions creep in. 
Richard Maybury rightfully claims that the expectation that others will follow their own agreements is a natural law also. 
What is interesting is that in the societies that follow these laws more consistantly life is better, than those that don't follow those laws.  Societies that have virtually no respect for the laws, (too many exceptions crept in) they are full of war and chaos, and violence. 
God made rules for man to live by, he doesn't have to follow them, but he will pay the price at some point for his decision.  Man reaps what he first sows.   

[Braddogg]

The statistical likelyhood of a cell fully and accidentaly forming is astranomically low.  I don't remember how low the ratio is, but I recall it being in the billions to one chance.  It would be like flipping a coin and landing on heads several thousand times in a row. 
That takes a bit of faith to believe life originated accidentally.   

The most famous calculations about how "astronomically low" the probability of life being created on earth were, that I have seen, done by a physicist, not a biologist.  It's like eating an apple and talking about how good the orange tasted.  I'm no expert in biology, and I won't pretend to be by commenting further on the issue, other than to say that "improbable" does not equal "impossible" -- someone's going to win the lottery, especially if they buy a lot of tickets (remember that earth is not the only planet in the universe . . . ).

One of the biggest reasons I continue to believe in God, (yes I've had doubts in the past 2 years) is the concept that if a God created man(kind), then surely He would want him to behave in a certain way.  This way is Gods law.  Why do people who trade peacefully live better in every way that those who steal from others?

It would have been nice if God spent less time advocating the death of homosexuals and sons who disobeyed their fathers or people who disobeyed priests.  He could have spent that time developing the free market system, and less time advocating war, destruction, and slavery.

Why did and how does altruism develope?  In nature, life is dog eat dog, and in much of the human world.  But why do humans prosper when they don't do dog eat dog? 

Nature is NOT ALWAYS dog eat dog, it's dogs forming collectives, hunting in packs, etc., so long as there is enough food to go around.  When the food becomes scarce, then the dogs will do what it takes to survive.  Same thing with humans.  And where altruism truly does develop, it is because of an ability to empathize combined with a trade-off of physical goods for emotional goods.  Plus, you seem to be contradicting yourself: Those who obey God's law (free market) do better, yet for altruism to be altruism, there must be a sacrifice.

In every society and in virtually all religions, there are very basic rules to not steal from others, and to not encroach or hurt others.  These are about the only concepts that are universally taught.

Which is an argument for their utility, not their divinity.

Richard Maybury rightfully claims that the expectation that others will follow their own agreements is a natural law also.

No, it's an observation gained from experience, and if the experiences change, that expectation will change as well.

God made rules for man to live by, he doesn't have to follow them, but he will pay the price at some point for his decision.  Man reaps what he first sows.   

If God is omnipotent, then He has the power to make us obey these moral laws.  Obeying the moral laws would, you say, make us happy and would still allow for an infinite number of choices for us to make.  Since there is theft, God chooses to not make us happy.  How hypocritical is it for God to tell us to make each other happy (altruism) but not do that Himself?

[error]

If it's even a 100 billion to one chance that life as we know it would form out of primordial soup, then based solely on the odds, it probably happened sometime over the space of billions of years that we're talking about.

[Braddogg]

If it's even a 100 billion to one chance that life as we know it would form out of primordial soup, then based solely on the odds, it probably happened sometime over the space of billions of years that we're talking about.

But error, the universe was only created 6,000 years ago when God spoke it into being 

[FTL_Ian]

I like this:

Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

[Rocketman]

As for the derivation of natural rights, that operates in the same sphere as the derivation of morality relating to the question of needing god.  That is to say, I think the case is made much more powerful if all of my data points reside in what is observable rather than making appeals to god.

I'd say all the necessary data points to derive human rights are observable -- remember, there are no "leaps of faith" in Deism.  If you don't see it, and nobody can prove it, don't believe it. 

Again, I'm not talking about the God of the Bible, or the God of any other document.  I'm talking about "nature's God," the one referred to in the Declaration of Independence as the source of our rights.  Very different concept, one that's tough for survivors of "revealed religion" to grasp.  Took me many years of atheism/agnosticism to formulate an idea of God I could possibly believe in, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that idea of God coincide with some of America's truly great thinkers and freedom-lovers.

[Russell Kanning]

wow those bible contradictions were lame. The most obvious one is where Jesus changed eye for and eye to turn the other cheek .... the whole point was that he was changing things..... he even quotes the old idea.

Tolstoy does a very good job explaning those things from a perspective inside and outside Christianity.

[Caleb]

The statistical likelyhood of a cell fully and accidentaly forming is astranomically low.  I don't remember how low the ratio is, but I recall it being in the billions to one chance.  It would be like flipping a coin and landing on heads several thousand times in a row.
That takes a bit of faith to believe life originated accidentally.

As I recall, the statistical liklihood of a cell forming from Fred Hoyle's calculations were one in 10 to the 243,000 power.  That number is greater than the total estimated number of atoms in the universe.  Hoyle actually wrote a book (along with another gal named Chandra something or other) that I found pretty humorous wherein he uses these figures to draw the conclusion that life must not have formed on earth, but instead came from outer space ... the fact that he has merely moved the problem to a different locale seems to have eluded him.

Where were the disciples the day of Jesus rising from the dead?  How many generations were there between Jesus and king David using both Mary's linage, and Josephs' linage?  Who wrote in the book of Moses, that to the day, noone knows where he was buried.  Or the second book of Moses that he stayed behind watching the promised land and the Isrealites walk into it.  Where was Jesus, immediantly after the baptism from John, at the wedding in cana, or in the desert forty days and nights?
That is why I am not a christian.  I like what Jesus is reported to say, but I read with a grain of salt the supposed historical accuracy of much of the bible.

Take it with a grain of salt.  I don't recommend blind swallowing of everything.  I understand the scriptural advice to test the inspired words to make sure they originate with God to be sage advice. 

That having been said, particularly with respect to the gospel writers, there is no doubt in my mind that what was written was accurate, as best as the writers could recall.  So I see no reason to ascribe massive deviations to them.  Since we know that the books have been preserved as written, I take them as mostly historically accurate.

Judged by the same standards as other historical writings of antiquity, the gospels and Acts measure up quite well.  You won't get the Greek historians to agree on absolutely every point either.  But judged by historical standards, the gospels come out quite well.  The problem is, (as I see it at least), since the claim of divine infallibility has been so often made on their behalf, then it leads to the feeling that if even one little error can be found, that means that they worthless.  We don't judge any other historical work by this standard.

Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

For two reasons:  First, the scientific data does not support the supposition that matter and energy have always been here.  Second, matter and energy exist within space/time.  This cannot be said of God.  So even the assertion "God has always existed" is a little misleading, because it implies that he also exists within space/time, whereas the traditional Christian teaching has been that He transcends space and time. 

A better way of phrasing the argument is this:  Everything that has a beginning has a cause. And I think it is pretty self-evident that everything that exists within time must have a beginning.  Therefore, the cause of space, time, matter and energy must be something different from each of these things.

[eques]

The statistical likelyhood of a cell fully and accidentaly forming is astranomically low.  I don't remember how low the ratio is, but I recall it being in the billions to one chance.  It would be like flipping a coin and landing on heads several thousand times in a row. 
That takes a bit of faith to believe life originated accidentally.   

You misunderstand.  I'm not claiming that it happened accidentally, and it is an error to do so.  That's like comparing the evolution of life to a tornado that whips through a junkyard and assembles a Boeing 747.  That's just simply not what happens.

The question of the initial stages of the evolution of life is a sticky one, because we are left with the end product.  Microbiologists can do a little reverse engineering and come up with some pretty good theories as to how certain parts arranged themselves to operate, especially as understanding of gene expression increases.

DNA is an incredibly wonderful and rich roadmap that helps scientists understand with ever-increasing degrees of accuracy just how things came to be the way they are.

Cellular life is amazing, but something more amazing still is how the replicators even came to be in existence in the first place.  Proteins themselves are incredibly amazing: a protein is nothing more than a one-dimensional string of amino acids that folds itself into a three-dimensional shape.  The shape of the proteins are dicatated by the chemistry of amino acids, but that doesn't make them any less amazing.

Anyway, I'm going to lay this to rest for now... I hope that you are able to set aside the time to study these things in more detail, because they truly are incredibly interesting (to me, anyway) and I'm really not doing justice to the subject.

[eques]

As for the derivation of natural rights, that operates in the same sphere as the derivation of morality relating to the question of needing god.  That is to say, I think the case is made much more powerful if all of my data points reside in what is observable rather than making appeals to god.

I'd say all the necessary data points to derive human rights are observable -- remember, there are no "leaps of faith" in Deism.  If you don't see it, and nobody can prove it, don't believe it. 

Again, I'm not talking about the God of the Bible, or the God of any other document.  I'm talking about "nature's God," the one referred to in the Declaration of Independence as the source of our rights.  Very different concept, one that's tough for survivors of "revealed religion" to grasp.  Took me many years of atheism/agnosticism to formulate an idea of God I could possibly believe in, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that idea of God coincide with some of America's truly great thinkers and freedom-lovers.

I like how you say "survivor"... because it does feel like that at times. 

I understand that you, as a deist, aren't speaking about any god described in the revealed religions, and I don't think atheism necessarily takes exception to your definition of god.  I mean, there are definitely people who would disagree with me, saying that atheism means absolutely no god or gods... but I'm looking at this from the practical standpoint of how I live my life.

That is to say, if there is some god that exists "beyond the pale"--beyond all that which we can detect--and is not involved in our lives or in creation in any way except for perhaps kicking things off, then that god does not exist for me for all intents and purposes in my everyday life.

[eques]

As I recall, the statistical liklihood of a cell forming from Fred Hoyle's calculations were one in 10 to the 243,000 power.  That number is greater than the total estimated number of atoms in the universe.  Hoyle actually wrote a book (along with another gal named Chandra something or other) that I found pretty humorous wherein he uses these figures to draw the conclusion that life must not have formed on earth, but instead came from outer space ... the fact that he has merely moved the problem to a different locale seems to have eluded him.

Ah yes, the "seed" theory.  Of course, Hoyle is coming from the point of view that 4.6-odd billion years isn't enough time for evolution to happen as we see it.  His conclusion relies on the assumption that evolution is painstakingly slow... perhaps he used or depended on some sort of average mutation rate?  I dunno for sure.

That having been said, particularly with respect to the gospel writers, there is no doubt in my mind that what was written was accurate, as best as the writers could recall.  So I see no reason to ascribe massive deviations to them.  Since we know that the books have been preserved as written, I take them as mostly historically accurate.

There were a significant number of other gospels, too.  These particular books were chosen by the early church to reflect a certain point of view of Jesus.  (But I'm probably not telling you anything you don't know.)

Judged by the same standards as other historical writings of antiquity, the gospels and Acts measure up quite well.  You won't get the Greek historians to agree on absolutely every point either.  But judged by historical standards, the gospels come out quite well.  The problem is, (as I see it at least), since the claim of divine infallibility has been so often made on their behalf, then it leads to the feeling that if even one little error can be found, that means that they worthless.  We don't judge any other historical work by this standard.

Is there any other historical work that is claimed to be entirely infallible?

I would say that the historical value of the gospels should be judged in light of other contemporary works, taking cultural influences and attitudes into account.  I would say that it's inappropriate at best to lift a passage out of the gospel without at least considering the differences in ancient and modern attitudes.

Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

For two reasons:  First, the scientific data does not support the supposition that matter and energy have always been here.  Second, matter and energy exist within space/time.  This cannot be said of God.  So even the assertion "God has always existed" is a little misleading, because it implies that he also exists within space/time, whereas the traditional Christian teaching has been that He transcends space and time. 

A better way of phrasing the argument is this:  Everything that has a beginning has a cause. And I think it is pretty self-evident that everything that exists within time must have a beginning.  Therefore, the cause of space, time, matter and energy must be something different from each of these things.

There's something that comes to mind... I don't know if it's a theory or a hypothesis or what exactly its status is scientifically, but there's a line of thought that goes something like, the universe was brought forth from a singularity.  "Inside" the singularity, space and time have almost no meaning as we consider them today.  There really is no "before" the singularity, though there is certainly a point at which the singularity no longer exists.

I doubt I can continue to explain it very well... it has something to do with the way spacetime folds and how time operates... also, the expansion of the universe and galaxies moving away from us at astronomical speeds such that they create a noticeable shift in their light waves!

I certainly wouldn't mind understanding all of this, but my guess is that scientists are still working most of this stuff out.

[David]

   My goofy belief of where God comes from is:  (I should mention that I have absolutely no science to back this one up) God lives or exists in one of the dimensions theorized in string theory.  Some physicists believe string theory is the theory of everything, the one that finally ties up the loose ends.  But one of the unexpected result of the math, is that up to 11 dimensions exist, if the theory is right.  It also states that the laws of nature, (the speed of light, gravity, ect) act different in the other dimensions. 
How's that for a highly simplified explanation of an incredibly comlplex, but widely supported theory?      

[Braddogg]

  My goofy belief of where God comes from is:  (I should mention that I have absolutely no science to back this one up) God lives or exists in one of the dimensions theorized in string theory.  Some physicists believe string theory is the theory of everything, the one that finally ties up the loose ends.  But one of the unexpected result of the math, is that up to 11 dimensions exist, if the theory is right.  It also states that the laws of nature, (the speed of light, gravity, ect) act different in the other dimensions. 
How's that for a highly simplified explanation of an incredibly comlplex, but widely supported theory?      

String theory, due to lack of credible physical evidence, is finally being questioned.  There are two books, both written in 2006, that come to mind:  Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit and The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin.  I don't know enough about string theory to read and understand the books, but since you think it helps explain the origins and whereabouts of God, I assume you know a few things about it.  Have you had a chance to read the books?  And what do you think of them?