Mr Spinkles
Mr
Could you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not all do.... That is what is difficult for some to understand about Deism. Deism sets a few basic beliefs and a methodology for determining belief. From that point, Deists follow their own experiences and reasons to all different kinds of conclusions.Faust-- There appears to be much more than the proposal of a First Cause at work here. From my understanding, Deists also propose purpose in the universe endowed by an intelligent entity acting as that First Cause.
And what if I have followed my reason to the point that I equate God with the totality of nature, and therefore discard the term 'god' entirely as it becomes superfluous? Does that make me a deist, and if not, why?Davidium said:In order to freely follow your Reason, you must go where it takes you.
There are Deists who do just that.... many use the term "panendeism" to describe this set of beliefs.Mr_Spinkles said:And what if I have followed my reason to the point that I equate God with the totality of nature, and therefore discard the term 'god' entirely as it becomes superfluous? Does that make me a deist, and if not, why?
So a person can be both an atheist and a deist? If not, how do you distinguish between panendeism and atheism?Davidium said:There are Deists who do just that.... many use the term "panendeism" to describe this set of beliefs.
As a matter of fact, no. And Faust, try being less rude next time.Faust said:You use a lot of big words to say nothing don't you Deut.?
Sorry Deut, I was only trying to say that maybe you could be a little more explicit.In case I was insufficiently clear earlier, I tend to view epistemological relativism as the philosphical equivalent of pond scum - it sticks to everything but is essentially worthless as a transferrable selection criteria.
Whoah there, what on Earth does atheism have to do with perspective--higher or otherwise? Theism is belief in a god. Atheism is not. I see no reason an atheist could not believe in a "higher perspective". Nor do I understand why atheism is not a fitting term for those who equate god with the impersonal forces of nature and therefore discard the term "god" entirely.Davidium said:No, because a true Atheist would not accept a collective nature as a "higher perspective"... as if the universe and nature were God itself... An Athiest would not accept that concept, which is central to panendeism.
The statement could not have been more explicit.Faust said:Sorry Deut, I was only trying to say that maybe you could be a little more explicit.
I missed the rule prohibiting opinion.Faust said:You seem to be painting with a broad brush here and without providing a little more detailed explanation of such a statement it seems to be more of an opinion than a valid argument.
Anyone who rejects belief in a given concept of God is an atheist. That is why atheism depends upon the given definition of "god". Check out this article: http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.htmlDavidium said:Are you putting forth the proposition that Atheists only disbelieve in the common concept of God?
Many atheists do not believe in any higher power than man, but it is perfectly possible for a person to be both an atheist and believe in a higher power than man. For example, I believe that gravity is a higher power than man. If god is defined as "a curvature of spacetime", then I am a theist. If god is defined as an omnipotent omnibenevolent conscious being, then I am an atheist. The label is contingent upon the definition.Davidium said:I had always thought that Atheists did not believe in any higher power than man....
To me, someone who believes in the existence of a higher perspective beyond man is exercising common sense. We don't know everything, therefore our perspective is limited. How does that equate to theism?Davidium said:To me, someone who believes in the existance of a "higher perspective" beyond man is indeed a theist.
That is true, but our perspective being limited does not necessarily mean there is a being able to conceive of a perspective larger than ours. I beleive it is more likely than not, for the reasons already discussed. I would consider anyone who believes that there is a Perspective able to understand the universe as a whole would indeed be a Theist, not an Atheist. I do not believe that defining an Atheist as someone who rejects any given concept of a God. By that defination, were a Christian to reject the known concept of the Greek Gods, (Gods which regularly physically interact with humans, and share all the human faults and frailities), that Christian would then be an Atheist.To me, someone who believes in the existence of a higher perspective beyond man is exercising common sense. We don't know everything, therefore our perspective is limited. How does that equate to theism?
That's a non sequitur. The existence of a higher perspective is not contingent upon whether or not anything can perceive it. Later in your post, you yourself say:Davidium said:Notice the difference between "higher Power" and "higher perspective" ... A power exists, a perspective must be embodied by something that can perceive it.
I'm feeling more and more confident that "higher perspective" is a fancy term for "god" after all.Davidium said:That is true, but our perspective being limited does not necessarily mean there is a being able to conceive of a perspective larger than ours.
Earlier you said "I had always thought that Atheists did not believe in any higher power than man.... " but this is not true. I am an atheist, and I believe in gravity (or more precisely, the approximate accuracy of the scientific model of gravity). Atheists can believe in higher powers than man...do you honestly think atheists reject black holes, earthquakes, tidal waves, and other "acts of God"? No...man isn't the highest power in the universe by a long shot. But I am wary of man's tendency to project himself onto those powers by claiming they constitute a "being" that has conscious thought and/or a moral code and/or a plan for humanity.Davidium said:Gravity, while being a higher power, is not a higher perspective.
By an earlier admission you hold that the existence of a higher perspective does not necessarily constitute the existence of a higher being. Now you state that even if such a being existed, you have no way of understanding it. How, then, do you warrant belief in a being which "perceives the infinite universe" and understands "Universal purpose"? If you have no way of understanding its nature, how do you know the extent of its perception or understanding?Davidium said:I guess you could equate a Trancendental concept of God to my concept of a "higher perspective" .... I wouldnt, but I think the two are very close. I use the term Perspective because I have no way of understanding the being that embodies that perspective.
Precisely. The label of a person's beliefs regarding a deity depends upon which deity we are discussing. Christians actively reject belief in the Greek gods, therefore their stance toward those gods is atheistic.Davidium said:I would consider anyone who believes that there is a Perspective able to understand the universe as a whole would indeed be a Theist, not an Atheist. I do not believe that defining an Atheist as someone who rejects any given concept of a God. By that defination, were a Christian to reject the known concept of the Greek Gods, (Gods which regularly physically interact with humans, and share all the human faults and frailities), that Christian would then be an Atheist.
I used to feel the same way. Unfortunately such a definition would render the term "atheist" useless, as some gods are accepted by virtually everyone (i.e. gods that are synonymous with nature). Additionally, there are concepts of god of which most people are unaware, and a person cannot actively reject a concept of which s/he is unaware. That definition may very well restrict us from calling anyone an atheist.Davidium said:I think that in order to be an Atheist you must reject all concepts of God, including that of a higher universal perspective.
, has thrown me for a loop.I used to feel the same way. Unfortunately such a definition would render the term "atheist" useless, as some gods are accepted by virtually everyone (i.e. gods that are synonymous with nature). Additionally, there are concepts of god of which most people are unaware, and a person cannot actively reject a concept of which s/he is unaware. That definition may very well restrict us from calling anyone an atheist.
I admit I have no idea what that is lol.Faust said:It seems to me that both of you have been debating from some sort of hybrid of the school of logical positivisim.