And the number one sign that you are a Deist:

1- You (still) can't really define "Deism"

================================================


Kal Nasser


source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PositiveDeism/message/9625

-Richard

Let me know if you like these :)

=================================
Top ten signs you're a Deist:

10- You don't know anyone in real life who shares your beliefs

9- You think about God more than most Christians

8- You are more blasphemous than most Atheists

7- You are the only member of your Deist "school of thought"

6- You attack God when debating with Christians

5- You defend God when debating with Atheists

4- You know more about the Founding Fathers' private religious
thoughts than their public political views

3- You sometimes hate God, sometimes love God, and you don't even
know for sure what God is like

2- You use upper-case "R" in "Reason"





And the number one sign that you are a Deist:

1- You (still) can't really define "Deism"

================================================


Kal Nasser


source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PositiveDeism/message/9625

-Richard

On Fri, 30 May 2003 11:32:37 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:



And the number one sign that you are a Deist:

1- You (still) can't really define "Deism"

Deism sounds a lot like Daoism.

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

--
Saluton, Knut

TTT norvegia: http://home.online.no/~knklaveh/index.cfm
Retposxto: heidelberg@operamail.com (legota cxiumonata)

Nifonov no longer possessed a left leg, but he only
discovered it on the following day. (V. Panova: The Train.)

"man_mars" <man_mars@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3ed764f2.2589498@news1.news.adelphia.net...
On Fri, 30 May 2003 11:32:37 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:



And the number one sign that you are a Deist:

1- You (still) can't really define "Deism"

Deism sounds a lot like Daoism.

Daoism -- philosophical system developed by of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu
advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of
natural events [syn: Taoism, Daoism]

Deism -- The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no
influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

-Richard

On Sat, 31 May 2003 02:33:23 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:


"man_mars" <man_mars@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3ed764f2.2589498@news1.news.adelphia.net...
On Fri, 30 May 2003 11:32:37 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:



And the number one sign that you are a Deist:

1- You (still) can't really define "Deism"

Deism sounds a lot like Daoism.

Daoism -- philosophical system developed by of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu
advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of
natural events [syn: Taoism, Daoism]

Deism -- The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting
no
influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

-Richard

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? It doesn't resemble anything
you've just described.

On Sat, 31 May 2003 11:39:06 +0200, Knut KlavenessHeidelberg
heidelbergNOSPAM@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

It just strikes me as rather peculiar to believe in a god who leaves
everything alone. What would a deologian practice? What kind of
deology?

This isn't what I consider a serious issue because I'm not a believer.
But it doesn't strike me that a deologian could have any first hand
knowledge of the subject.
--
Saluton, Knut

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ed8be22.12544935@netnews.att.net...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 11:39:06 +0200, Knut KlavenessHeidelberg
heidelbergNOSPAM@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

It just strikes me as rather peculiar to believe in a god who leaves
everything alone. What would a deologian practice? What kind of
deology?

This isn't what I consider a serious issue because I'm not a believer.
But it doesn't strike me that a deologian could have any first hand
knowledge of the subject.
--
Saluton, Knut


Actually, Deism is more of a "philosophy" than a religion. It is a
"belief" in the existence of a creator God based on logic and
reason, and an observation of nature, but not based on divine
inspiration, holy books, or any other kind of supernatural revelation.

-Richard

On Sat, 31 May 2003 20:24:49 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ed8be22.12544935@netnews.att.net...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 11:39:06 +0200, Knut KlavenessHeidelberg
heidelbergNOSPAM@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

It just strikes me as rather peculiar to believe in a god who leaves
everything alone. What would a deologian practice? What kind of
deology?

This isn't what I consider a serious issue because I'm not a believer.
But it doesn't strike me that a deologian could have any first hand
knowledge of the subject.
--
Saluton, Knut


Actually, Deism is more of a "philosophy" than a religion. It is a
"belief" in the existence of a creator God based on logic and
reason, and an observation of nature, but not based on divine
inspiration, holy books, or any other kind of supernatural revelation.

-Richard

Well, I can respect that without believing in it nor seeing how
anyone could believe in it without the precedence of theism. No one I
know has any belief in deism based on logic, reason, or observation of
nature. Rather their beliefs stem from an unwillingness to accept
theism from which they appeal to logic, reason, and observation of
nature for justification of their rejection.

Regards - Lester

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ed92087.24022734@netnews.att.net...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 20:24:49 GMT, "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com
wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ed8be22.12544935@netnews.att.net...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 11:39:06 +0200, Knut KlavenessHeidelberg
heidelbergNOSPAM@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:41:14 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a deologian?

There is something called deology so surely there must be deologians
out there )

It just strikes me as rather peculiar to believe in a god who leaves
everything alone. What would a deologian practice? What kind of
deology?

This isn't what I consider a serious issue because I'm not a believer.
But it doesn't strike me that a deologian could have any first hand
knowledge of the subject.
--
Saluton, Knut


Actually, Deism is more of a "philosophy" than a religion. It is a
"belief" in the existence of a creator God based on logic and
reason, and an observation of nature, but not based on divine
inspiration, holy books, or any other kind of supernatural revelation.

-Richard

Well, I can respect that without believing in it nor seeing how
anyone could believe in it without the precedence of theism. No one I
know has any belief in deism based on logic, reason, or observation of
nature. Rather their beliefs stem from an unwillingness to accept
theism from which they appeal to logic, reason, and observation of
nature for justification of their rejection.

Regards - Lester

This is certainly a good point, Lester. Of all the many possible
creation scenarios, one might ask why it is more logical or
reasonable to believe in a "creator God" theory than any other
creation "cause" except for the obvious influence of other
theistic-related creation theories.

The scientific evidence suggests that our universe had an origin
in the Big Bang, although many experts suggest that our universe
could be just one of many incarnations of an infinite number
of prior Big Bangs. But the question for Deists, Theists and
Non-Theists or Atheists is whether it is more logical, given all
the other evidence and philosophical considerations, to postulate
a Big Bang creation by some kind of intelligent designer entity
or consciousness, or to postualte a universe which has always
existed, and therefore, had no beginning or need for a creator.

-Richard

This is certainly a good point, Lester. Of all the many possible
creation scenarios, one might ask why it is more logical or
reasonable to believe in a "creator God" theory than any other
creation "cause" except for the obvious influence of other
theistic-related creation theories.

The scientific evidence suggests that our universe had an origin
in the Big Bang, although many experts suggest that our universe
could be just one of many incarnations of an infinite number
of prior Big Bangs. But the question for Deists, Theists and
Non-Theists or Atheists is whether it is more logical, given all
the other evidence and philosophical considerations, to postulate
a Big Bang creation by some kind of intelligent designer entity
or consciousness, or to postualte a universe which has always
existed, and therefore, had no beginning or need for a creator.

-Richard

I am frankly in the latter category. The Big Bang never happened the
way they tell it. A lot of little bangs, perhaps. I think what you are
looking at are the preferences people would like to make of things
they can't yet control and have very little understanding of.

I can see how theism got started in the ontological suppositions of
people and their ability to act but not control. And I can see how
deism got started in the rejection of theism. But it's a little
difficult to see how these kinds of doctrines survive in the face of
science unless they are fostered by scientists. And to this extent at
least, I believe the fault lies with scientists and their creationist
preferences and fantasies rather than those who in their credulity
choose to believe.

It seems we've almost come full circle - from theism to deism to
science all the way back to theism in a quasi scientific form.

Regards - Lester

[...]

This is certainly a good point, Lester. Of all the many possible
creation scenarios, one might ask why it is more logical or
reasonable to believe in a "creator God" theory than any other
creation "cause" except for the obvious influence of other
theistic-related creation theories.

The scientific evidence suggests that our universe had an origin
in the Big Bang, although many experts suggest that our universe
could be just one of many incarnations of an infinite number
of prior Big Bangs. But the question for Deists, Theists and
Non-Theists or Atheists is whether it is more logical, given all
the other evidence and philosophical considerations, to postulate
a Big Bang creation by some kind of intelligent designer entity
or consciousness, or to postualte a universe which has always
existed, and therefore, had no beginning or need for a creator.

-Richard

I am frankly in the latter category. The Big Bang never happened the
way they tell it. A lot of little bangs, perhaps. I think what you are
looking at are the preferences people would like to make of things
they can't yet control and have very little understanding of.

I can see how theism got started in the ontological suppositions of
people and their ability to act but not control. And I can see how
deism got started in the rejection of theism. But it's a little
difficult to see how these kinds of doctrines survive in the face of
science unless they are fostered by scientists. And to this extent at
least, I believe the fault lies with scientists and their creationist
preferences and fantasies rather than those who in their credulity
choose to believe.

It seems we've almost come full circle - from theism to deism to
science all the way back to theism in a quasi scientific form.

Regards - Lester


You are quite right, Lester. I have recently finished reading a book
titled :

"God in the Equation: How Einstein Became the
Prophet of the New Religious Era"
by Corey Powell

Here is an editor's review of the book which talks about
how scientists have become the new religious prophets
of "sci-religion":

For thousands of years, science and religion have occupied separate rooms in
the house of culture. As science writer Powell points out, though, such a
separation is hardly warranted in the modern world, where a new faith that
he calls sci/religion captures both the mystical and the empirical. The
prophet of sci/religion, Powell claims, is Einstein, whose search for a
unifying factor in his relativity theory brought together the elements of
physics and metaphysics. Einstein believed that a spirit vastly superior to
the spirit of man is manifest in the laws of the universe, and he named this
spirit Lamda. His Lamda principle became known as the cosmological constant,
a force that dominated the universe and mitigated the inward pull of
gravity. In this lively story, Powell traces the rise of the scientific
community's tendency to explain the workings of the universe in mystical
ways, as they search for the forces dark energy, dark matter that unify and
bring order to the universe. Powell argues that sci/religion offers a
religion of rational hope as an alternative to what he calls old-time
religion. He also contends that sci/religion can offer a theory of human
consciousness rooted in the interactions of subatomic particles and fields.
Powell's view of religion is decidedly outdated, as he has missed the
resurgence of religion and spirituality in the late 20th century. Despite
this, he convincingly shows the ways that science has molded itself into a
new faith, and his book will surely generate controversy and skepticism
among scientists and religionists.

source: amazon.com

It's true but truly unfortunate that fine minds have no idea of the