Greetings

[Descartes]

Salut mes nouveaux copains! As you can tell from my pseudonym, I worship seventeenth century French philosopher, mathematician, scientist and theologian Rene Descartes. The only thing I disagree with Descartes on is his proof for the existence of God, through an ontological argument;but that's for another thread. I am a deist and technically a polytheist, but more pantheist than the latter. Meaning I strongly believe in the existence of spirituality and a higher power (either as a collective source of the universe's infinite patterns, or through the actions of numerous deities), but I find religion to be in most cases tyrannical, discriminating, and anti-progressive. I am a liberal and I despise racists, sexists and homophobes.

 

[Sherman]

I despise ...... and homophobes.

Prepare to be royally hazed.

Keep in mind TOL is a biased forum, leaning very far to the Christian right, and therefore we interpret our rules from OUR perspective. There are many dissenting voices on TOL who have been debating us and fellowshipping with us for years, but those voices understand whose house party they are at and are respectful of that.

 

[Descartes]

Well, that is quite unfortunate. I had not taken the time to regard such introductory statements, so I'm hopes have for now been in a sense crushed. No matter! I'm sure intelligent discussion shall still come about.

 

[Sherman]

Please take your time to review the rules here ----> Rules before you do too much posting. They will keep you out of trouble.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Spitfire]

The only thing I disagree with Descartes on is his proof for the existence of God, through an ontological argument;but that's for another thread.

I mentioned a while ago (as in, years ago...) here that I think the ontological argument for God's existence actually has it backwards. No one here expressed any interest whatsoever in discussing it with me. Which led me to conclude not so many people know about it or understand it in the first place.

I am a liberal and I despise racists, sexists and homophobes.

It's easy to despise whatever society has decided it's currently fashionable to condemn. Historically, societies haven't been right about these things 100% of the time, needless to say, however. What far fewer are cut out for is serious discussion about why there is variance in opinion and learning more about the real reasons why the objects of your derision believe what they do, not to mention learning more about how you came to believe what you do. One would hope it's not simply that people accept whatever's drilled into them, but that's what it usually seems like when they hope their emotional posturing and the loudness of their accusations will circumvent any real discussion which might imply the other side has some kind of point that needs to be considered.

 

[Descartes]

I disagree with the ontological argument because its initial premise (God being perfect) is incorrect in my opinion. Otherwise it's brilliant, but a statement that starts the domino process can either make or break an argument. If God is perfect then that which it/they (whatever) create with the intent of perfection must be perfect. Clearly we along with most things are not perfect, so either God is imperfect or a jerk (maybe both).

My mother is a biologist and my entire family is very progressive, so yes much of my thought has been influenced greatly by them; but I like to figure things out for myself, so I did a crap ton of study and thinking on topics that are intriguing to me. Ultimately I ended up as is.

 

[Descartes]

I don't really like the word Pagan being used to label polytheists, since its original Latin definition is "heretic" or "infidel".

 

[Spitfire]

I disagree with the ontological argument because its initial premise (God being perfect) is incorrect in my opinion. Otherwise it's brilliant, but a statement that starts the domino process can either make or break an argument. If God is perfect then that which it/they (whatever) create with the intent of perfection must be perfect. Clearly we along with most things are not perfect, so either God is imperfect or a jerk (maybe both).

I think the fact that things, generally speaking, are imperfect yet we can nevertheless conceive of perception, was part of his argument, though, wasn't it? (Why would we complain about what is imperfect if we have never experienced perfection anyway, and where would the whole idea of perfection have come from?)

 

[Eeset]

Welcome to TOL.

 

[Descartes]

I think the fact that things, generally speaking, are imperfect yet we can nevertheless conceive of perception, was part of his argument, though, wasn't it? (Why would we complain about what is imperfect if we have never experienced perfection anyway, and where would the whole idea of perfection have come from?)

I agree. Both Anselm and Descartes had a clear idea of what perfection was, but without a doubt we must agree that universality of this even in theory of progressing toward it eventually; is impossible. Concerning my last statement one might argue that God planned for us to work our way to perfection as a species, and that's why we began and still are so flawed. My response is that this is illogical thanks to biology (individualism and tribalism > mutualism). Though I do think that such thinking gives logical stance against the elimination of God from society. If we've something to emulate, and strive to become, we shall always move forward faster.

 

[Descartes]

Welcome to TOL.

Thanks! Nice to meet you.

 

[IMJerusha]

So religion turns you off? Yeah, it does that to a lot of people but God's not about religion. He's about faith and that's a different ballgame. I don't get how someone can be a deist and not believe in God? If you don't like the term "God" you could use HaShem. Well, anyway, welcome to TOL. :wave: