Can a Case be Made for a Deistic Christian God?

[Dr. Dread]

Actually, I think the most peaceful attitude we can have is: let everyone have his religious faith or lack thereof; there is no reason I, as a Christian, can't have a drink with an agnostic or an atheist, as long as he does not ridicule my own faith --- bottom line, we shall die and we shall see.  

Someone should post that bottom line across the top of the Diner.

[DavidRoss]

...bottom line, we shall die and we shall see.  

Of course, as you well know, that suggests one of the major category errors that derails many: religions are no more about death than they are about the stuff of physics, but rather about life and guidance in living it. 

[Dr. Dread]

Of course, as you well know, that suggests one of the major category errors that derails many: religions are no more about death than they are about the stuff of physics, but rather about life and guidance in living it. 

Too many are in it only for the afterlife benefits.

[Florestan]

Of course, as you well know, that suggests one of the major category errors that derails many: religions are no more about death than they are about the stuff of physics, but rather about life and guidance in living it. 

Say it again! Maybe this time those who confound religion with science will pay attention.

You can look at it this way: had the world needed a scientist, God would have sent Newton long before He actually did; but the world needed a saviour, so He sent His son Jesus Christ.

[DavidRoss]

Too many are in it only for the afterlife benefits.

And you know this...how?

[Elgarian]

Too many are in it only for the afterlife benefits.

Yeah, but there's worse. Some of those awaiting the Coming of the Great Cheese at the End of All Things are really only in it for the extra large helpings of Welsh rarebit that are promised.

[Dr. Dread]

And you know this...how?

Experience.

[greg]

I'm sure you realize my point is in jest, but I know that you are passionate about these things, and I was just pointing out (sarcastically, mind you) that this might make you more defensive with respect to DR's indictments. For the record, I agree with you: GTA rocks!

Ha, gotcha! 

[greg]

Whoa, did I just see a Cioran quote on that last page?! 
I've never gotten around to reading his stuff, but I've read again and again lots of his amazing quotes:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/emile_m_cioran.html

[Fëanor]

...
A personal apology would be nice, as well as a sincere apology to all the members of various faiths--as well as those of us with no religious faith at all--whom you have persistently maligned throughout these discussions.  Based on the pattern of behavior illustrated above, I will not expect that, but I can keep my mind open to hope!    I will also hope that we can all stop judging one another so harshly, stick to the cognitive content of our posts instead of the character of other posters, and strive to keep our minds open to to perspectives different from our own--otherwise we cannot learn anything...and instead of interesting discussions we will have only childish taunts and ongoing belligerence.

The following is the extent of an apology that I am prepared to offer.

All my criticism, snide and mocking remarks are directed a ideas, not individuals.  So if you took personal offence, sorry folks, I only meant to ridicule your ideas not your persons.

By the way, you have no basis to call me "closed-minded" on account of my ideas when you offer absolutely nothing coherent by way of refutation of those ideas.  It becomes me, not you, who deserves an apology.  But incidently I neither expect nor care about getting one.

The current situation involves two logical fallacies, as I see it.

First, what I call the "Appeal to Politness" fallacy:

• Mr. A makes presents propostion X
• Messrs B, C, D take offence at the implications of X
• Therefore X is wrong and Mr. A is a rude boor who owes B, C, D an apology.

Second, the "Religious Pleading" fallacy (which is a variation of the "Special Pleading" fallacy):

• Mr. A applies normal, rigorous standards of logic to the topic at hand
• But that topic is religion or faith
• Religion and faith to not permit normal, rigorous logic, therefore Mr. A is wrong and a closed-minded bigot -- and owes everyone an apology.

Oh, and there is yet another fallacy from DR, the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy:

• Bad information about Mr. A is presented, viz. he makes various typos and spelling errors
• Therefore everything that Mr. A says ought to be discounted.

[Bulldog]

You can look at it this way: had the world needed a scientist, God would have sent Newton long before He actually did; but the world needed a saviour, so He sent His son Jesus Christ.

That's a very neat way to tie up loose ends, but it's just speculation on your part.

[Bulldog]

The following is the extent of an apology that I am prepared to offer.

All my criticism, snide and mocking remarks are directed a ideas, not individuals.  So if you took personal offence, sorry folks, I only meant to ridicule your ideas not your persons.

There's a very thin line between ridiculing a person's idea and the acutal person.  For those on the receiving end, the difference between the two can appear negligible.  So I think you can reasonably assume that attacking the idea is an attack on the person, no matter how you would like to view the matter.

[Elgarian]

All my criticism, snide and mocking remarks are directed a ideas, not individuals.  So if you took personal offence, sorry folks, I only meant to ridicule your ideas not your persons.

I didn't take personal offence at any stage of this discussion, and I'm not sure if you're including me in these remarks. But to ridicule and mock the ideas of others who disagree with you seems unwise. Are you sure you understand them? I haven't seen evidence of any understanding, let alone any refutation, of the philosophical arguments I've put forward in posts such as #54, #61, #65, and #67.

But enough. I can see no further progress can be made. Back to Handel.

[greg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/z4iiyRv_NrQ

[DavidRoss]

My comments are in red.  I'm done.

The following is the extent of an apology that I am prepared to offer.

All my criticism, snide and mocking remarks are directed a ideas, not individuals.  So if you took personal offence, sorry folks, I only meant to ridicule your ideas not your persons. [This is disingenuous at best.  You cannot call people "incapable of coping with the material universe," "pigs" incapable of learning your 'higher truth,' overly sensitive (for taking offense at being called a pig), undeserving of respect, self-righteous, and condescending, and then claim that you're only addressing ideas and not persons.  Your own words, quoted here, betray you.] 

By the way, you have no basis to call me "closed-minded" on account of my ideas when you offer absolutely nothing coherent by way of refutation of those ideas.  [This, too, is false.  Elgarian and I have both made several attempts to discuss the errors in your reasoning.  It is precisely by your repeated refusal to engage these criticisms of your flawed logic that you have betrayed a willfully closed mind.  No one is projecting that onto you, your behavior proclaims it.] It becomes me, not you, who deserves an apology.  But incidently I neither expect nor care about getting one.

The current situation involves two logical fallacies, as I see it.

First, what I call the "Appeal to Politness" fallacy:

• Mr. A makes presents propostion X
• Messrs B, C, D take offence at the implications of X
• Therefore X is wrong and Mr. A is a rude boor who owes B, C, D an apology.

Second, the "Religious Pleading" fallacy (which is a variation of the "Special Pleading" fallacy):

• Mr. A applies normal, rigorous standards of logic to the topic at hand
• But that topic is religion or faith
• Religion and faith to not permit normal, rigorous logic, therefore Mr. A is wrong and a closed-minded bigot -- and owes everyone an apology.

Oh, and there is yet another fallacy from DR, the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy:

• Bad information about Mr. A is presented, viz. he makes various typos and spelling errors
• Therefore everything that Mr. A says ought to be discounted.

[What you call "examples of fallacies" are additional examples of your own disingenuousness.  They all grossly mischaracterize the interactions on these threads, further betraying your pettiness and your intellectual dishonesty.  Your tactics here as throughout these discussions discredit both you and your cause.  If you cannot engage others in good faith, there is no point in continuing this discussion.]

[Fëanor]

My comments are in red.  I'm done.

Thank goodness.

One thing however: you misjudge me went you call me "disingenuous", the meaning of which is "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity".  I can assure you I have been certainly frank and definitely sincere.

And just one more thing.  I called nobody a pig: bad choice on my part because eagle or lion would worked as well in what was a metaphor of a person who is not amenable to be enlightened.  Granted: as to whether it is you or me who is not amenable to being enlightened is a matter of opinion.  

[Fëanor]

I didn't take personal offence at any stage of this discussion, and I'm not sure if you're including me in these remarks. But to ridicule and mock the ideas of others who disagree with you seems unwise. Are you sure you understand them? I haven't seen evidence of any understanding, let alone any refutation, of the philosophical arguments I've put forward in posts such as #54, #61, #65, and #67.

But enough. I can see no further progress can be made. Back to Handel.

Definitely not so much you, Elgarian, as one other in particular.

[Fëanor]

There's a very thin line between ridiculing a person's idea and the acutal person.  For those on the receiving end, the difference between the two can appear negligible.  So I think you can reasonably assume that attacking the idea is an attack on the person, no matter how you would like to view the matter.

Nevertheless my apology was sincere -- if not necessarily compelling.

[Florestan]

That's a very neat way to tie up loose ends, but it's just speculation on your part.

0:)