how important to you that the person have religous beliefs?

Re: Religious Beliefs......Deism

Hmmm, so what would be an example of an observed feature of the natural world that asserts the existence of a higher being? I suppose I could go somewhere and look it up - but it's much more fun just to ask you!

 

Religion/Deism

Okay FSP:
Now remember, I am an avowed atheist, so I first have to preface that I don't believe that the existence of natural phenomenon equates to the neccesity of a higher being. I believe that existence is eternal at any level of existence from the most basic level of brute fact on up to the highest metaphysical reality conceivable and beyond.

However.........a deist may assert that because there are consistent patterns in nature like the rotation of the earth, the intricacies of the human body, the complexities of various systems that seem to run like clockwork which would lend itself to an intelligent design by an Intelligent Designer.A deist may say that the odds of things existing such as they are are so slim that a Creator must have been at work to acheive this perfect balance.

I disagree with the above because although you and I may agree that the universe exists;by no means does that prove anyone "created" it, nor that there was a "purpose." for its existence.For instance, if a world wide lottery were created today with a pool of 1 billion people;natural law dictates that someone would have a winning ticket in their possesion.Now, the odds of having such a ticket would be a billion to one.But neverthe less, if someone won the lottery would we attribute this to being rigged by any sort of supernatural being?No, because we knew that though the odds were enormously against a winning ticket-it was still possible for someone to win it. That's the same as this universe.Everything is as it is, and nothing ever couldn't be as it is.
But a Creator needn't exist for this to be so.
Thanks.

 

Re: Religion/Deism

I was wondering about the difference b/t a miracle and a phenomenon. So a miracle is something with a force exerted on it - like a bush catching on fire or waters parting. But a phenomenon is more ongoing but equally unexplainable.

So as an athiest (and of course we are now switching topics from deism and I'm addressing the 2nd part of your past)- you would say that even though the waters parted (just for example and with the assumption that it actually happened! this is not an example of a miracle? It simply happened b/c it happened - and b/c it happened it was meant to be. If it weren't meant to happen then it wouldn't have?

So is there room for fate in your beleifs?

 

Re: Religion/Deism

I would first seek out a natural explanation, and if there were no natural explanations avaliable or known, I'd just call the event unexplained.I have no reason to assign something as "supernatural."Let's take it historically.Before man understood that fire consisted of energy released by rapid oxidation of carbon compounds, man assigned this natural event to a deity named Prometheus.Now, it's obvious that there isn't any deity controlling or causing fire, but merely a natural occurence that mankind now knows how to harness for his own advantage, heating a home for instance. If we were to assign a 'supernatural" status to everything that occurs, no scientific progress would ever be made because we'd be assigning all events to a "God." As an atheist, I submit that the total class of unexplained events is not necesarily the same as that group which is unexplainable within the arena of natural causes.
As for fate, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.I don't think of "fate" as anything outside the course of nature as in a "will." If you and I jump off a 10 story building, we'll fall because of nature, and nature is impersonal.
Thanks.[/quote]

 

To me it's important we have the same values and ethics. I consider myself Christian I guess, but religion isn't important to me, and hence can not be important to my partner either. I like the traditions (going to church etc), but I have no respect for people who live their whole life acording to any religion, rather than using their brains. I myself, studied natural sciences at uni. and have a scientific understanding of the world. Religion works more or less as a back-up, social event etc...I have hardly any religious friends. I get along much better with atheists.

 

It is important to me that she is not religious.

 

Not respecting ppl for their beliefs, for someone who considers herself a Christian, that isn't very Christian now is it?? or maybe Christian mean something else there?

Personally, I get along with anyone who has an open mind...whether they believe in a God, in a religion, a philosophy or in nothing at all...as long as they can accept (even if they don't agree with) other ppl beliefs, they are more than fine with me!!

 

I only just checked back into this thread, and although Wedlock has given a very good explanation, it occurs to me that I actually used the wrong word! I think I meant to say I'm a monotheist. I believe that there is one god/supreme being/etc, but nothing which is in line with any of the orthodox monotheistic religions. I'm quite interested in William Blake's visions of heaven, hell and mysticism. But I believe that the existence of a god (of some kind) makes it important to always maintain a sense of humility and gratitude in the ways you are blessed, and to work towards ways of existing and lifestyles which will help others, to avoid cruelty, insincerity and egotism. My religion doesn't lead me to any particular church to practice, but it pervades my whole life in that sense. Ideally, I would like to end up with someone who also thinks in that way.

 

Religion

Hello:Mistress B, and thanks for the clarification.Indeed, there is a distinction between "monotheist," and "deist." The Argument from Morality" is a classic basis for belief in a "god." I offer a refutation in another thread which basically states that: "If morality is an objective thing, not subject to anyone's opinion or personal fiat, then that means right is right regardless of who says it is so. This also would mean that wrong is wrong regardless of whomever says so."

Therefore, the existence of a god is not necessary for these absolutes to be so.Helping others, kindness, altruism, are all virtues which can be aspired to, achieved , and displayed by mankind naturally without any supernatural intervention of any kind. If it is objectively moral to help someone else in need, then this would be so whether we think "God" commands it or not.The same goes for the wrongness of hurting another.If it's objectively wrong for you to hit your younger sibling, for example, then this should not change just because your parents are not there to mete out a punishment as a consequence of you harming said sibling.
Anyway, I now better understand your views, and while we many not agree, I will respect them.
Thanks.

 

hmmm, extremely clumsy English. Sorry.

Well, to make it clearer: I do respect others people right to believe whatever they will. But I have no respect for the way a lot of people use religion to explain everything, justify wrongdoing, and to opress others. Or people who simply follow the book blindly.

(For instance I have more respect for my 20 year old atheist sister, who don't have sex because she want to make sure the guy is right first, than I have for people who don't have sex simply because "God says it's wrong".)

I've unfortunately had more than enough bad experiences with "extreme-christians" to dislike them a great lot. Maybe that's not very christian-like, but in my view they are the "unchristian" ones.