Not exact matches
Much of your argument such
as I've seen, for your sky fairy (and I really think that is an appropriate term for your obviously fictional
deity with all the self - contradictory tales
about it in the bible), really seems to consist of a combination of willed ignorance and arguments from ignorance.
If this
deity formed the stars and the space and actually cares
about me, then
as I abandon myself to Him, there's a hope greater than some form of hope I'm going to drum up within myself.
Most I know are humanists; people who care
about the rest of humanity regardless of their faith and who adhere to a moral code just
as noble
as anyone, just without a
deity as the center of their life.
But they try to make it look like it is
about «belief» in the sense of faith (in a
deity or non faith in a
deity) and
as often
as not it is
about political views (beliefs) and elections and politicians (and nothing to do with
deity).
Unproven stories
about mystical
deities such
as the Christian god are not a valid foundation for morals, especially when so much of Christian doctrine is so bigoted and violent.
If the stories told
about the era are true, the Christians» greatest shortcoming was that they thought their strict monotheism prevented them from making the token offering to the emperor, who at the time was viewed
as a
deity.
As someone who does not believe in a
deity, I spent a lot of time thinking
about what it means to «pray».
So what is it
about you that makes you see yourself
as a lowly worm,
as a sinning evil creature in need of saving from something,
as someone who needs a
deity to make all the rules for their lives?
I am weaning myself off a relationship with a
deity that only talks to me sometimes, helps me only when I'm perfect, sinless or contrite
about my sisns, reminds me that I am originally defiled and sinful and should be really happy for his love -
as I am not unconditionally deserving of it.
We talk
about The Goddess
as being real even if there are those around us who have a more pantheistic view of
deity.
There is nothing off - handed
about a non-belief in a
deity, just
as there is nothing off - handed
about not believing that giant invisible dragons live amongst us that eat our poop after we flush it down the toilet.
The unplausibility of theism without creaturely freedom4 and the absurdity of
deity, or any actuality,
as wholly timeless was apparent to Plato, who in late dialogues said that in God was «being and becoming» that God cares
about the creatures, and is soul and therefore self - changing For him a changeless soul is a contradiction.
Agnosticism — the view that the truth of certain claims — especially claims
about the existence or non-existence of any
deity,
as well
as other religious and metaphysical claims — are unknowable.
I'm not keen on the cartoon,
as I don't think there's something
about not believing in
deities that magically leads to more rational thinking in general.
Tell your loved one — we have something in common — I don't see Jesus
as deity neither — and yet I still persist
about being a Christ (meaning Messiah — not God)- ian.
If our most basic beliefs
about the stuff of which nature is made preclude the existence of some other, radically different metaphysical stuff from which a transcendent
deity might be made, then we must admit,
as an inescapable consequence, that no such transcendent being exists.
They said they have made «a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today,» that their faith is very important in their life today; believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ
as their Savior; strongly believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs
about Christ with non-Christians; firmly believe that Satan exists; strongly believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; strong agree that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; strong assert that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches; and describe God
as the all - knowing, all - powerful, perfect
deity who created the universe and still rules it today.
Even an appeal to the Bible
as a source of information
about God is not the solution, because the writers of Scripture faced the same problem
as secular thinkers when it came to putting on paper the way in which the
deity manifested itself to them.
You may not WANT it to be this way, simply because it labels athiest in the same manner
as thiests, but that's not going to change the fact that an athiest has a BELIEF
about something dealing with a
deity just
as much
as a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc. has a BELIEF
about something dealing with a
deity.
A program
about the
deity and history of Christ could just
as easily have tried to whip up conspiracy theorists with a format where the most extreme «experts» the network could find screaming at each other for a solid hour.
Do we think that only matter is the near end of him and that all the God there is is simply physical, or do we think that in spiritual life at its best we have touched the near end of
Deity, and that when we start with that and think out through that
as far
as we can go, we are thinking most truly
about him?
If God did impress himself to you
as a Athiest... I mean showed up at your doorstep, knew things
about you that no one else did, and did some sorta of miracle or
deity type of act... some set things that would crumble and vanquish your doubt that he or she is God... could you deny such a presence?
But even they show that the contrary is the case,
as Altizer himself demonstrates when he claims that he is talking
about the absolute immanence or «presence - in - this - world» of the Word or Spirit, in consequence of the radical kenosis or self - emptying of the transcendent
deity usually denoted by the word «God».
If a large group of people meet in a building, talk
about deities, organize in a function, use member money to sponser an event to spread their word in order to disuade another religious group and prove their god does nt exist... Well, im sorry bub, but thats
about as religious
as it gets.
If Plato is interested in anything, it is the multiplicity of human individuals in their relations to one another and to
deity as concerned
about and aware of them.
Being a moderate when it comes to owning a religion that believes in an all holy and righteous
deity is
about as foolish
as it gets.
Second, I suggest that the talk
about «resurrection of the body» is an assertion that the totality of the material world and of human history,
as well
as of every man in that history who, with his brethren, has achieved good in his existence in the world, is usable by God who through it has been enriched in His own experience without changing in His supremely worshipful
deity — the God unsurpassable by anything not Himself, but open to enrichment in being what He is and in terms of what He does.
In answering this question
about relative power among the
deities, the early writing prophets moved out into practical monotheism, for they ascribed to Yahweh the successes and disasters even of their foes, and thought of him
as in commanding control of all mankind.
You are right
about one thing though, the surveys you quote mean absolutely nothing
as to the validity of any
Deities existence.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims — especially claims
about the existence or non-existence of any
deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims — are unknown and (so far
as can be judged) unknowable.
We are nowhere informed
about the
deity to whose service
as priest he is consecrated.
One can not affirm less
about Mary and still believe in the full
deity of her son,
as orthodox Christians of all traditions have always taught.
He regarded himself
as a loyal member of the Church of England and was a zealous attendant at Divine Service; yet with his views
about the impersonality of the
deity and the mere surpassing human goodness of Christ, he can hardly have taken the Apostles» Creed literally.
Many of them had definite ideas
about the so - called essence of each religion, such
as its concepts of
deity, of the nature and destiny of man and of the world, which have been handed down to us through manuals and handbooks that are abundant in the European tradition of Religionswissenschaft.
e ¯ bha ¯ h is even used
as synonymous with «idol» or heathen
deity, yeah tom and the rest are terrorists and do nt care
about lying or who they hurt
as long
as they get their way
Other concerns are potty humor, name - calling and terms of
deity used
as expletives, cracks
about puberty, some mild sexual innuendo,
as well
as a beer drinking young adult and a cough syrup swigging authority figure.
General Lee (Robert Duvall) and «Stonewall» Jackson (Stephen Lang) may
as well be talking marble busts in some Disney Hall of Greek
Deities attraction, rooted in place while spouting on endlessly
about their manifest right to defend their homes from marauding Yankees.
Lest there be confusion
about the usage of the word «avatar» in an internet - happy era of sci - fi movies and video games, Oxford Dictionaries defines it
as a Hindu term meaning «a manifestation of a
deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher; an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person or idea.»
Richard, I give you this quote from your comment on the Christmas thread at December 29, 2012 at 10:50 am, talking
about rgbatduke: «And,
as do most atheists, he fails to recognise that his religion is
as faith - based
as any other: agnosticism rejects faith but belief that no
deity exists (i.e.atheism) is a religious faith of identical kind to belief in the existence of one or more
deities (i.e. theism).»