Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"Obviously you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.
Mopac: This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.Religion practically invented "legalistic".This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.Thinks like what? [...]Plisken: Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
I think we agree.I'd say there's no big difference between deism and atheism. Both suppose there is no god now. The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process. Beyond that there is no difference.I'm sure many deists of the past would be full-on atheists if they had access to modern cosmology and biology.
This opens a can of worms for me. Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.This appears to be an appeal to ignorance.I only need one example of a natural law that requires human enforcement.Do you have time for one example?
Edited, and I don't have a point. I have a question that hasn't been answered
This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.Religion practically invented "legalistic".This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.Thinks like what? Blame the child?
That's not exactly how I would frame the ramifications of "under God"
Based on what evidence exactly?Orthodoxy teaches that we have a personal, synergistic relationship with God.
How do you personally imagine it informs the concept of "natural law"?It is not legally binding. It is however, constitutional
Just so you know, private, personal, internal experiences are not considered proper evidence to anyone except the individual who remembers the experience itself.The experience of the church.
Gravity is natural law.How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law? That may be helpful
Well, I can't experience things for you.
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?
The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.
Because of the way religious groups , well " that i know about " have painted God , really , really thick like.It would stop half the atheists when they catch a glimpse of the God word , their out.I'd say most people that can fathom this " Deism " would make the god thing a " bright white light god "And of course this deisms ex god doesn't / didn't have a voice , No rules , and definitely no opinions.It didn't get guys to do a book for it.I've always been a big fan of the ( BBWLG blinding bright white light god )
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?A Deistic being does not require any sort of "pledge".And "The YHWH" explicitly tells its followers not to make oaths. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.Is that necessarily the case? Is an atheist also an adeist by definition?
