Is there anyway to get out of Deism? I've tried hard but I just can't

Is there anyway to get out of Deism? I've tried hard but I just can't

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, read atheist philosophers? That's the only advice I can give you. Though I'm not sure why you want to "get out of it" if you believe it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I mean move towards actual religions

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you want to be religious?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Deism is a waste because you lose all the benefits of atheism and gain none of the benefits of religion. Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Mainly having a place in Heaven
            Well, if you don't already believe in heaven, then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained. Becoming religious isn't going to make heaven real if it isn't. Anyway, most of the historical deists believed in heaven.
            >an objective moral system
            Why can't you have that without religion?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Why can't you have that without religion?
            Religion is really cozy

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained.
            Depends on the religion and the goal is to actually believe in the religion.
            >Why can't you have that without religion?
            There is no objectivity without God. Just like there is no objective answer on whether Beethoven is better than Mozart or chicken is better than beef.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no objectivity without God
            Why not?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you. How can you proof chicken objectively tastes better than beef or Mozart is objectively better than Beethoven. You can't

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
            And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
            Isn't that subjectivity?

            >And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?
            If it comes from God is it objective.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Isn't that subjectivity?
            Yes, whether chicken is better than beef is an inherently subjective question.
            >If it comes from God is it objective.
            If God says chicken is better than beef then all this tells you is God subjectively prefers chicken.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            God is perfect though.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But that question literally does not have a wrong answer, it's a matter of preference. Unless God has knowledge that beef is poison, in which case it would be an objective fact that it's worse than chicken regardless of if God existed

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Shit could be better than chicken and God has the right answer and we have the wrong tastebuds. Anything God says is objectively correct. He is beyond logic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            homie youre moronic.
            Stop kissing Gods ass so much.
            If she thinks shits tastes better, thats just like.. her subjective opinion.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but how can God prove shit is better than chicken? He can't, unless he miraculously made these two substances different.
            >He'll send you to hell if you disagree
            Then God's morality is subordinate to utilitarianism and bases itself on pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >If it comes from God is it objective.
            everything comes from God, therefore everything is objective. A chicken is a chicken and it taste like? Chicken.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you can do that, but I don't see any reason to think that moral claims are similar to those kinds of things.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Moral claims are similar though. It's why no Moral Realist has shown us a moral fact. They act like they exist but they're delusional. There is no way to say objectively prove that something is morally wrong or morally good.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Here is a moral fact: Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
            Now give me some good reason to doubt this intuition that would not also compel me to doubt the existence of the external world and all of the rest of common sense.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
            How do you prove that without appealing to emotion?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How do you prove the existence of the external world?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Without going into that question how is this different from me saying

            >Torturing babies for fun is right based on my intuition and if you disagree you disagree with the existence of the external world

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I would doubt that such a claim could really feature as part of a coherent moral system. Of course people are going to have differing intuitions, and our intuitions are not flawless, but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism, you're going to have to put with reliance on intuitions in philosophy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This is literally the problem. You can have moral systems which sound good but you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree. Intuition is useless when everyone has completely different beliefs. Morals are really no different than the concept of beauty.

            >but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism,
            How to best run a society is different than stating that you have objective proof of a moral fact. I agree with moral realists that we need a rational moral system.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree
            Moral philosophers agree on lots of things. Moral disagreement is overrated.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you prove that without appealing to emotion?
            >appealing to emotion
            Appealing to humanity.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Appealing to humanity.
            lmao that doesn’t mean anything

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            beca

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you don't need to make an appeal to not torture babies. The burden of proof is on them who do. Most people have a natural instinct on right and wrong. Logically or emotionally.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The burden of proof is not on you to tell him why it's wrong?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So if someone didn’t have emotions, you couldn’t convince them that torturing babies was immoral. Got it

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            200 years ago the popular intuition was that slavery was okay. You have to be mentally moronic to think your intuition is objective moral fact.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So morality doesn't come from God then. Because the Bible is cool with having slaves.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why you try to bring two separate argument conversations together lol

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How are they separate? He has a point.
            God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers, doesnt seem moral to me.
            Where do you
            get the idea that objective morality comes from God, which God are you referring to?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >How are they separate? He has a point.
            The intuition argument hads nothing to do with religion. It's strictly atheistic moral philosophy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it wrong to offer babies as a sacrifice to gods? This was common practice throughout ancient history.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            murder is bad

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >murder is bad because..IT JUST IS OK?!

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. There's no reason why you need to appeal to the commands of some supernatural being as a further explanation for why murder is bad.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            And what further explanation do you have, exactly? Society? Subjective feeling? Those things change in time and space, and in intrinsic ways. Therefore, they can never be consistent and will contradict themselves as a rule.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            There is no explanation for the fundamental moral facts. They're necessary truths, like logical and mathematical truths.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Very well. Necessary based on what principle?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This guy is just trolling. Leave the thread and save your time

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Logical necessity is based on validity. Then, what would moral necessity be based on? It must presume some kind of principle which applies to instantiated cases.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The moral facts are necessary in the sense of metaphysical necessity, i.e., they're true in all possible worlds. They're not logically necessary.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So moral facts are necessary based on metaphysics. That is, reality is such that these moral truths must necessarily be the case.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I guess you could say that.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If that's the case, there must be some aspect of reality which moral facts necessarily find their source. Wouldn't this be 'the good?'

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why? I mean, lots of philosophers believe in moral properties. So, they would say that the "source" of moral facts is just the fact that certain moral properties necessarily attach to certain states of affairs, whether these moral properties are natural properties or non-natural properties. Said moral properties would not be anything like God because God is not a property. Personally, I have strong nominalist leanings and I'm sympathetic toward the deflationary theory of truth, so I don't think that believing in moral truths commits you to any moral ontology. I think you can make true predications even if there are, strictly speaking, no properties.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >evolved monkeys thinks his desires are transcendent absolute laws, episode #632893427

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How are they separate? He has a point.
            God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers, doesnt seem moral to me.
            Where do you
            get the idea that objective morality comes from God, which God are you referring to?

            Hating gays and sorcerers is based. There's nothing intrinsically evil about slavery, but how it happens matters.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no objectivity without God.
            You mean there is no enforcement of moral rules without God. But that doesn't mean the moral rules are justified. Power does not equal morality. (Apart from the trivial "Whatever the powerful do is by definition good".)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system
            The only way to level up from deism is by inventing your own religion. Instead of joining something you don't believe, you can mash everything you believe together into a new religion and shill it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're too autistic to have any kind of faith at all

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Become a Unitarian Universalist?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not a fan of gays though

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >God created gays
            >God created humans im his own image
            Therefore God is gay.
            Ya done goofed .
            See you in hell.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            In the Bible he says gays are an abomination from Satan

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >he says gays are an abomination from Satan
            So what is God gonna do about it?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Send them to hell if they continue to have gay sex and not repent

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I know you root for the Nordcucks, but Medshits look like they have your back and they appreciate you more.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think gays get aids and monkeypox? Just a coincidence?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Unfortunately there's no demand for a "rational" religion like there was in the 18th and 19th century. Stuff like deism, unitarianism and Freemasonry evolved as an alternative to atheism or agnosticism for rationalists. There's not as much need for them nowadays so more liberal churches end up only appealing to far left weirdos.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I also cant escape Deism.
    My personality has aspects of mysticism. I call it rational mysticism.
    I know its moronic, but deep down I know theres a God out there. Something at the quantum level.
    I understand evolution, im not a religious nutjob or whatever, maybe im just moronic.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Step 1: Don't assume God's self-evidence.

    That's it. It's literally just one step.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Causality isn’t real, base reality is pure Chaos and unlimited freedom, the true God. Everything is just an illusion, a coincidence. Many worlds exist without laws, others exist with the appearance of laws, but they are just appearances. Everything is evolution and natural selection. Universes are selected, then stars, then planets, then life. Order from disorder. This is the simplest explanation for everything, Occam’s razor to the extreme. Everything is unnecessary, including your idea of God

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The core of Cnristianity is, of course, the Incarnation. God becoming man and dealing with all the crap we have to deal with, and triumphing over it all in the end. Isn't that better than a generic deism?

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Shestov

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *