Originally posted by FMF Well despite my own theism - some would say deism - I don't accept the idea that subscribing to a faith or pinning hopes on immortality [and adjusting one's actions during our actual real life accordingly] is somehow "bigger" or "broader". Not at all.
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.
The above is the definition of Deism as elaborated by World Union of Deists,copied from the Wikipedia.
Are you a follower of the above kind of Deism? This a very friendly request for clarifying your stand.Please do not take it otherwise.Apologies in advance for any offence felt.
Originally posted by FMF As I suggest? Er, no. Perhaps you mean "insinuate" or "imply"? They'd be words we could debate, but not "suggest". I have revealed enough, I think - and clearly enough too - for you to tackle what I have actually said rather than what you say I have "suggested". "Door-to-door salesman" and "peddle" are words far too loaded for me to accept them as being in any way attributable to me! 😀
"I suspect that you and Divegeester are thinking in terms of a "god" that has interacted with humans, issued instructions, and is perceived to be offering some form of everlasting life - "big" stuff".
This is your post of today timed 10:38.
Since you are suspecting me to be thinking of a God who is perceived by me to be "offering some form of everlasting life",I had to reply,that,I do not think of God as a door to door salesman peddling his wares,as you have suggested.
Was I wrong ? Let us understand and respect each other's views before we can debate.Semantics can come in later.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo This a very friendly request for clarifying your stand.Please do not take it otherwise.Apologies in advance for any offence felt.
No possibility of offence is in play here! Perhaps my posting style is a bit direct but I do not really get "offended", not even on the Debates Forum when it gets lively there. I do take offence to the kind of trolling innuendo about me being a child rapist/sex tourist that FreakyKBH has indulged in [in conjunction with someone who was subsequently banned for trolling me] - and his phoney apology has not cleared up the matter at all. In fact it's probably made him look even more brazen. I am a longstanding member of the RHP community and FreakyKBH's animosity and smearing seems to me to be totally uncalled for. So, no offence is possible really in a discussion like this, rvsakhadeo!
"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."
Yes, maybe. But I wonder if those of us who don't think we are going to live forever and don't think we have had any communication with "God" might not give up the word 'theist' so easily. Next thing we know is that Theists are saying Deists are not qualified to propound upon religion and spirituality, and the attempted intellectual exclusion zone will consist of vocabulary and will be policed by Dasa and RJHinds!
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo "I suspect that you and Divegeester are thinking in terms of a "god" that has interacted with humans, issued instructions, and is perceived to be offering some form of everlasting life - "big" stuff".
This is your post of today timed 10:38.
Since you are suspecting me to be thinking of a God who is perceived by me to be "offering some form of everlastin ...[text shortened]... rstand and respect each other's views before we can debate.Semantics can come in later.
I think there are many religionists who "peddle" stuff, I suppose, but I have no perception of any "God" who is a door-to-door salesman.
Originally posted by FMF I think there are many religionists who "peddle" stuff, I suppose, but I have no perception of any "God" who is a door-to-door salesman.
It is great to know that you are a theist. But why do you say that Life does not have any more" meaning" than what is already perceived and felt.Why are you saying that this view of life is complete by itself? Are you not curious about going deeper into the matter? You are aware that Human Thought has always progressed and has become deeper and wider in scope from ages till date. So why this self imposed restriction on imagination and thinking?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo Are you not curious about going deeper into the matter?
Why do you assume that (1) I am not curious, that (2) I have not gone deeper into the matter, and that (3) I have imposed some restrictions upon my own capacities?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo But why do you say that Life does not have any more" meaning" than what is already perceived and felt.
I don't think that life has insufficient meaning. It does not need any more meaning than it already has and, besides, I have not come across any persuasive arguments that there is "more".
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo It is great to know that you are a theist. But why do you say that Life does not have any more" meaning" than what is already perceived and felt.Why are you saying that this view of life is complete by itself? Are you not curious about going deeper into the matter? You are aware that Human Thought has always progressed and has become deeper and wider in scope from ages till date. So why this self imposed restriction on imagination and thinking?
So to pick out a few ideas and phrases from the above, and paraphrase, you're saying...
I have a different belief system from you, so... I perhaps lack curiosity... I am content with shallowness... am I unaware of progress... I am narrow... I am restricted... I lack imagination... I am not thinking...
You're a polite chap, I'll grant you - but why does discussing spirituality need so often to revolve around attempted put downs?
I did not volunteer to sit at your feet and sift through the shortcomings you suggest I might have, so you bailed out of our discussion. 😀
Originally posted by FMF So to pick out a few ideas and phrases from the above, and paraphrase, you're saying...
I have a different belief system from you, so... I perhaps lack curiosity... I am content with shallowness... am I unaware of progress... I am narrow... I am restricted... I lack imagination... I am not thinking...
You're a polite chap, I'll grant you - but why does dis ...[text shortened]... ft through the shortcomings you suggest I might have, so you bailed out of our discussion. 😀
Sorry for my late reply! I am somewhat busy now but will come back soon. I do not want anyone to pay any obeisance to me or learn anything from me,as I do not deserve any high stature such things imply.
Originally posted by FMF Why do you assume that (1) I am not curious, that (2) I have not gone deeper into the matter, and that (3) I have imposed some restrictions upon my own capacities?
You are a fellow chess player who ,I have no doubt,gone deep( as far as possible ) into positions on the board.Imagination and intellectual curiosity is a prerequisite for any chess lover.So I thought,what is that makes you not to go deeper in the meaning of life.Of course,it is your prerogative as to how deep you should go into the meaning of life,your belief systems and your life.I am sorry,if I sounded as if I was trying to beliitle you or to to tell you how superior is my thinking etc.Each one to his own.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo You are a fellow chess player who ,I have no doubt,gone deep( as far as possible ) into positions on the board.Imagination and intellectual curiosity is a prerequisite for any chess lover.So I thought,what is that makes you not to go deeper in the meaning of life.Of course,it is your prerogative as to how deep you should go into the meaning of life,your b ...[text shortened]... as trying to beliitle you or to to tell you how superior is my thinking etc.Each one to his own.
His rating should tell you that he is not interested in going as deep into
a chess position as you are. Consequentually, he may not be interested
in going as deep into other things as you might.
Originally posted by RJHinds His rating should tell you that he is not interested in going as deep into
a chess position as you are. Consequentually, he may not be interested
in going as deep into other things as you might.
I would say that you are living proof that a good rating doesn't equate to depth of thought.
Originally posted by RJHinds His rating should tell you that he is not interested in going as deep into
a chess position as you are. Consequentually, he may not be interested
in going as deep into other things as you might.
Originally posted by RJHinds His rating should tell you that he is not interested in going as deep into
a chess position as you are. Consequentually, he may not be interested
in going as deep into other things as you might.
By bringing up the rating and comparing it to other forms of thought you reveal yourself as an elitist. I often run into that at chess clubs, people who think because they have a 2300 rating or so they get to run around thumping their chests but in the real world they are 500 points off the top players so they have an ego problem, one that would be quickly cured by playing a real player, a Watson or any other IM or above.
I have a decent rating but nothing to brag about and I know it. You have a pretty good rating here and would no doubt trash me on the chessboard but you should not bandy your rating about, even implied like that.
Sonhouse
15 Aug '11 12:20
Back to Top