I agree with the first part, though the second begs me to ponder: "Has there ever been a God(s) that was not believed to be the creator of everything?" Answer: I don't know.

My understanding regarding theism vs. deism:

Monotheism is based on the belief in (and usually, worship thereof) a specific single God who exhibits control over everything in existence. Polytheism is the same, with the obvious difference that there are multiple Gods believed to exist ... each usually controlling different aspects of all existence.

These specifics determine a religion (the God(s) involved, what they control, how to worship/appease them and the boons or consequences expected of one's actions). The practice of religion is not necessarily limited to--or inclusive of--church attendance and rituals (sacrifices, hymnals, baptisms, etc), but can also be attributed to simple acknowledgment and the resultant structuring of one's daily life in regards to them.

Basically, religion is based on "knowledge" of the deity/deities and the practitioner's relationship to them (theism). This separates it from the simple belief in a God that is unknown or indefinable and does not intervene in human affairs (deism).



If everyone had the same outlook as this statemtn, then no word would ever have been defined and no idea would have ever gained ground. Maybe earth would still be considered the center of the universe and the ancient Gods would still be worshipped. Interesting ...

I've always found irksome the greater inconsistencies and oft imprecision of the English language ... note your discussion with massagetrade (should I capitalize the name even though you don't? LOL It feels really odd not to) above debating the finer details of how any one statement can be defined from various perspectives. If the small group of us here can come to a consensus and flesh out a more comprehensive set of terms, even by more appropriately defining existing terms ... why not adjust your own understanding of terms despite the rest of the world? Who is to say we cannot start a better understanding of the various levels of religiosity?

I'll make an example by recapping a Mythbusters segment ... "bull in a china shop". Yes, I know its not a single word, but the idiom does say something about commonly accepted definitions. To most people, this phrase means that someone is clumsy and involuntarily destructive based on the idea that if a bull were let loose in a room full of hundreds of fragile objects, then chaos would ensue. However, because of their size and demeanor, bovines can be more graceful than they are given credit ... as proven in that particular episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Who is talking about absolute anything, why is that necessary? Seems to me requiring absolute certainty on any topic is a non-starter.

well, it's me that's talking about absolute something. i require no absolute certainty in anything. why would i require something i don't think exists???

Yeah, that's what I said ... :)

Well and really no one does. If we where to try to be absolutely certain before establishing belief, no one would believe anything, perhaps we would all be paralyzed and could not operate without blind faith, IMHO a terrible place to be. Solipsism at its most fundamental.

So really knowledge is about establishing an acceptable level of certainty based on a set of criteria. What that criteria is, and how it is structured makes all the difference and is really what I have been focusing on in this thread.

I know many skeptics, atheists ect will say that they do not believe something, but that they accept it as true based on the evidence. This distinction was used to establish that common beliefs do not conform to the same level of rigorous criteria that the acceptance of a scientific theory conforms with. I however feel no need to change the word usage from belief, to acceptance, I just make sure its clear that the criteria by which I establish beliefs are typically more rigorous and that science informs my beliefs. I also try to make clear the distinction between knowledge and beliefs, and how a scientific accounting of knowledge allows me to freely reject non-scientific, pseudo-scientific, or supernatural explanations.

By reject I mean, believe not to be true. Beliefs can be held to many degrees, some beliefs are more certain than others, and we must acknowledge that some beliefs are held more firmly than others. The most important thing to focus on however is not what words we use, but the methods, or structure that we use to form beliefs.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_shermer_the_believing_brain/

wasn't too many years ago that newton's laws of momentum, motion and gravity were the gold standard in science KNOWLEDGE. accepted as fact for more than three centuries. then one moring old al einstein was sipping his morning coffee and thought, "damn, sir isaac was full of crap!! gravity doesn't work like that. gravity works because a mass warps space. the stuff bends around big things like planets and stars and such." not exactly those words but you get the point. now hawking and others are questioning the great one's ideas. there really is no knowledge. science is not about what we know as much as what the latest findings appear to suggest the most PLAUSIBLE conclusion as the following quote suggests.

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."

Stephen Hawking, the universe in a nutshell.


so if even the best theory can never be proved, how can anything ever be really known?

and i never form beliefs which like absolute knowledge likewise doesn't exist in my thinking. but you've heard all this before and i understand quite well that you have a different position on the topic. it's unlikely we'll ever agree and i find myself repeating old themes and as i've not alot of time to spend on the internet i'll likely bypass your posts on the topic unless you have something new to add. hope you take no offence in my doing so.

Your misrepresenting how the scientific community views Newtons additions to the body of modern knowledge.

Nothing Newton discovered has been over turned, he worked out the mathematics of gravity to a very accurate degree for macro interactions. These same equations are taught to ALL modern physicists. Einstein added to the body of knowledge by giving us additional mathematics to explore gravity at a finer scale, he also provided a theory which explains why gravity acts in the way it does, Newton never made any claims as to why gravity acts in the way it acts.

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."

Proof is a mathematical concept and should only be used in that context, again we have made clear that absolute certainty is not needed to examine knowledge as accurate and assign a belief that its accurate enough to represent true dependent on the context of the assignment.

None of your points have made even a scratch in the theme that knowledge builds, we gain greater and greater certainty, and beliefs can be based on science, and in my opinion should be where it can be. (and its clear we agree on this point, which leads me to my own understanding of Gnosis)

The fact that this is true reveals to me that gods are a byproduct of magic thinking, and via the absence of evidence for certain definitions of god, I can outright declare them to not exist within a rational framework. Certainty is not needed for me to hold this belief rationally. If evidence comes to light that I am incorrect I will treat it like any other topic science could reveal truth about and change my opinion when the evidence reaches a level of credibility that meets or exceeds scientific rigor, this however does not make my agnostic about such an idea, I believe supernatural explanations for gods can be assigned to non-existence with a high level of certainty. This makes me Gnostic in regards to the absence of the existence of these types of gods.

I am agnostic in regards to Deistic gods however becuase they can be explained within a natural framework, and apart of the concept is that they do not engage with the natural world after having created it, thus explaining the absence of evidence.

This I feel explains how I can be Gnostic about some definitions of god, and agnostic about other definitions of gods.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "free thinker." Right from birth, the clean slate of a baby's mind is shaped by others, if not by religions, then by parents and their philosophies. So in actuality everyone in the world is brainwashed and bases his or her beliefs on the brainwashing received as a child. The way I see it, even an atheist is not a free thinker. He too learned from influence around him to be an atheist, so he isn't any less brainwashed than anyone else.

a religious person.. in anither type of religion

I thought it was hilarious when my friend told me he was a Pastafarian and worshipped the great, flying spaghetti monster of the sky. I thought he'd made it up until he linked me to it... XD

I thought the same thing when I first heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was like what??? But it's actually a thing, has a page on Wikipedia and everything.

I know! It's all very official. I think a few of that group of friends actually planned to put it on those census documents when they ask about religions. Isn't that what people planned to do to make 'Jedi' an official religion too?

I haven't heard of the "Jedi" religion, but I've known a few guys that would love to partake in that.

It's amazing the lengths people go to make up and validate stuff, but I guess the same could be said for Christianity, among those who don't believe in it.

I do believe all religions started out as a man with an idea, and they grew from there. Maybe they all started with the best intentions (and I do hope that's the case), it's just unfortunate that that vision hasn't been realised.