Say Anything Blog

Not sure what is your point in this post.  Don’t know much about other religions however Christianity exists as a religion because Jesus Christ commanded the apostles to establish one i.e. on this rock thou shall build my church…

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Interesting HG. I, personally, think ‘God’ has baggage that ‘creator’ alone does not. I wonder if the presence of a ‘creator’, as far back and in as vague a reference that it has among natural theists, provides the same sort of foundational epistemic and metaphysical role as ‘God’, with all his (its) Judeo-Chistian baggage, for the constitution. Interesting juxtaposition of ideas to say the least.

I think that if you believe in an intelligence creator, some entity that created the world on purpose and with a design, then that’s religion.

That’s the only way you can see it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Correct me if I’m wrong, HG, but weren’t you one of the commenters who argued that atheism is a religion? Seems if you think believing in a creator isn’t religion, then atheism shouldn’t be either.

HG: Good post.  IMO, religion is the politics of spirituality.  Religion is also man making God in man’s image.  Sigh.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Not sure what is your point in this post.

Docdave,

The point is that there is a difference between acknowledging a creator based upon logic, and identifying the deity through faith and subsequently worshiping said deity.

Sparkie,

Among the contributors to theism are Plato and Aristotle which pre-date Christianity.

Andrew, yes you would be wrong.  I argued that atheism is a positive declaration of the non-existence of a God.

That’s the only way you can see it.

Rob,

Please explaing how that reason which concludes a creator must be religion.

The point is that there is a difference between acknowledging a creator based upon logic, and identifying the deity through faith and subsequently worshiping said deity

Perhaps, but there is no reason that the two can’t be cojoined or complementary.  For instance, my belief in Christ [God] comes not only from my faith but also by logical scientific reasoning.  I believe that Christ came to the earth as a man to show us the way to salvation but I also believe in a creator and further believe that these elements are closely related.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Thanks R108.

Correct Docdave.  Complimentary, yes, but naturalistic theism needs no religion or revelation as it stands on its own.  The best way to put it is naturalistic theism attempts to prove the existence of a supreme being apart from any faith or worship.  Some religions claim to identify and worship said being.

Seems if you think believing in a creator isn’t religion, then atheism shouldn’t be either.

Andrew,

I agree—which is another reason I am curious about Rob’s statement since he said atheism isn’t religion.  But let me be clear that belief may or may not be faith.  Belief in the conclusion of an investigation through reason (i.e., logic), is not religion otherwise so is atheism, and so is every other philosophy.

The entire topic of this thread about naturalistic Theism, is all sound and fury signifying nothing! These are asinine arguments constructed by finite men being puffed up in their own knowledge, convinced of their own wisdom and only showing themselves to be fools in the process. They invent their own terms, engage in manufactured academic language, and in the process they are unable to communicate outside their own liberal scientific circles.

There is either a Creator of all things, a being ‘other’ than man, having all knowledge and power, having designed an incredibly complex universe down to the tiniest atom; or, everything is the result of random chance and mutations over time, which have produced this incredibly complex design we know as life throughout the universe. I would submit that random chance and mutations over time that would produce even one extremely complex design of anything, is so mathematically remote that it would reside in the realm of the absolutely impossible; or, we muist consider the existence of incredibly complex design at every level of existence demands the existence of a pre-existing Designer, Who must be greater than what is designed.

In the latter case, common sense tell us that such a Being would not only be able to commuicate with His Creation, if He went to all the trouble to create everything, He must desire such communication in a clearly understood manner. If He is either unwilling or unable to engage in such communication and that without error, then you are back to the former, inbelievable evolutionary scenario. It is up to each person to decide if the Judeo-Christian God is that Creator or if is is some frail imitator; or if all life is an innumerable series of accidents that mysteriously now exists without flaw and wherein everything fits together perfectly. Just thinking about earth, the tiniest distance from the Sun, closer or farther away would have made life here as we now it absolutely impossible, but it happened as a cosmic accident? Bulllfeathers!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The entire topic of this thread about naturalistic Theism, is all sound and fury signifying nothing!

Before you make such a statement try following the link and scroll down to read 7 short posts on naturalistic theism.  It is the basis of natural law and our constitutional liberty.  Once you’ve educated yourself on the subject, I think you’ll want to take back your statement.

HG: I am a little tired of your superiority complex. Maybe you and those around you have recognized your deity, but I hope you will forgive me if I do not bow down to the HG altar. I made general comments about Naturalistic Theism and the idiocy of the arguments in its support, if you don’t agree tha is fine with me, but if it is your intent to intimidate me you are pissing up a rather limp rope.

I have studied the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and the papers of our Founding Father’s extensively, and while Nature and Nature’s God were often used; there is overwhleming evidence that not only were the vast majority of our Founding Father’s Christians, even the Deists among them supported teaching the Christian Bible in every school (look at the Northwest Ordinace for one example, it was encouraged in every state) and they were almost exclusively favorable to Christianity over any and all other religions, which other religions they did not consider to be legitimate at all; the Supreme Court and the States Supreme Courts decisons on matters of religion, for over a century after our founding as a nation were decidedly supportive of the Christian faith. Even taking Jesus name in vain in New York was a felony and the SCOTUS did not object.

Yes, over the past 60+ years liberals have twisted the facts out of all proportion, choosing to ignore the truth in favor of the false doctrine of separation of church and state, which words do not occur in the Constitution, and which concept would have been totally foreign to our Foundings Father’s, as virtually all public schools, private colleges and university were at their start Christian, wherein virtually all instructors were Christian ministers, and you will find little of any objections to that mixing of Church and State objected to by our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Father’s even encouraged only nominating and electing Christians to public office.

The Federal government supported Chaplians from our founding, almost every public event was started with CHRISTIAN prayer and no other, and I challenge you to find any of our Founding Father’s that objected, rather they were directly involved therein. Strange if your naturalistic theory were true, our Founding Father’s were almost exclusively supportive of a mixing of the Christian faith with the affairs of state.

I am sorry, but it is you who has cherry picked a few facts to support a theory which by the facts and the historical evidence is wholly unsupportable. Even the friend of Liberals, Thomas Jefferson never supported spearation of Church and state nor was he in any way antagonistic to the Christian Church in our daily affairs.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

I think you have completely missed the point.  I can appreciate some of the points you lecture me about.  I disagree with others.  But to argue with you over these is to obfuscate the point of this post. 

Honestly, if you would take a few moments to read up on naturalistic theism, you would see it is the basis of many of your statments in your previous post.  Your even mentioned in my second to last post on the subject.

Neiman, maybe this will better illustrate my superiority complex.
You are actually using naturalistic theism when you make some of the following statements:

There is either a Creator of all things, a being ‘other’ than man, having all knowledge and power, (cosmological proof)having designed an incredibly complex universe down to the tiniest atom; (teleological proof) or, everything is the result of random chance and mutations over time, which have produced this incredibly complex design we know as life throughout the universe. I would submit that random chance and mutations over time that would produce even one extremely complex design of anything, is so mathematically remote that it would reside in the realm of the absolutely impossible; or, we muist consider the existence of incredibly complex design at every level of existence demands the existence of a pre-existing Designer(teleological proof), Who must be greater than what is designed(cosmological proof).