I Admit It. I Was Wrong.

[webmdave]

By Dave, the WM

 

We human beings like to think we are right, all the time.

 

Why is this?

 

Is it:

• ⇒ An insatiable need to be right which masks a deep fear of being wrong?
  
• ⇒ A high need to expect others to see it our way?
  
• ⇒ An inability to say, "I don't know." and "I was wrong"?
  
• ⇒ A feeling of being threatened from new ideas from other people?
  
• ⇒ A fear of hearing new information that threatens our beliefs?
  
• ⇒ A preoccupation with winning approval from a god or other people?
  
• ⇒ The need to always be seen as tough, powerful and strong?
  
• ⇒ A belief that others who disagree with us are wrong and should change?
  

It could be any of these things, a combination of these things, or something similar, because this issue affects human beings the world over, and not just when it comes to religion, but politics and nearly every subject.

 

What we human beings don’t like to admit is that we are frequently wrong.

 

I am quite aware of my ability to be wrong. I believed for decades that being a Christian was the right thing to be. I was sure that studying to show myself approved was the highest of callings, and that sharing my discoveries with others was the greatest good a person could do. I was convinced of my position in all matters religious. No one could argue me out of anything. If someone brought up a question I couldn’t answer, I dove into the masses of commentaries and apologetics until I found an answer that quieted my mind and gave me the assurance that, after all, I was still right. I pacified my ego and pride by telling myself that the Holy Spirit had promised to lead me into all truth, and therefore, it was unlikely that I was wrong. Anyone who insisted on arguing with me I easily dismissed as either mislead or under the oppression of the devil. And of course I did all this with a humble and prayerful heart.

 

As a Christian, I refused to accept the possibility that I might be wrong when it came to Christianity. Christianity was the truth, and any contradictions or inconsistencies I found in the Bible or the lives of other Christians, I excused as human frailty and the inability to completely comprehend or grasp the will of the Almighty. On top of that, I had the witness of the Spirit. I "felt" that Christianity was the truth. It gave me great comfort to believe in Christ, to walk with HIM and talk with HIM along life’s weary way.

 

In essence, I stopped questioning anything that would cast doubt on my faith, consumed massive amounts of literature supporting my faith, and made a dogmatic decision to believe, regardless of what anyone, anywhere might say, ever.

 

I’ve been humbled since that time. Age, experience, and finally, honest, open investigation into the history and development of Christian belief through the last 20 centuries forced me to admit the possibility that no magical ghost was leading or teaching Christians, and that my unshakeable faith in Christianity was more akin to stubbornness and the need to be right, than anything else. Christianity has changed and mutated so much in 2,000 years, and yet, every generation of Christians believes that they, and perhaps they alone, have the best and most true version of the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

 

Benjamin Franklin once said:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."

Being right is something that people value. Who wants to be wrong about anything? Who wants to admit to being wrong?

 

Non-believers and believers alike are equally prone to stubbornly refusing to admit to the possibility of being wrong. But what Christians too frequently fail to understand is that ex-Christians have already admitted to being wrong. Ex-Christians were once Christians who whole-heartedly embraced a cult that claimed to hold all the answers to the universe, and later, sometimes much later, for any number of reasons, came to the realization that they were wrong.

 

Most people become Christians early in life, before they really have the experience or knowledge to make a well-thought-out decision. Childhood conversions may be sincere, but are bereft of thorough investigation. Adult conversions are often emotional, occurring during times of personal stress or problems, and equally without probing research. The well paraded testimonies of reformed alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, et al., rather than confirming the truth of Christianity, illustrate something else entirely: a desire for change. Religions and philosophies do offer change, especially for the person who feels out of control. If a person finds the strength to limit or avoid self-destructive behaviors by becoming immersed in a cult, more power to that person, I suppose. However, ultimately, these stories of redemption from self-destruction speak less to the efficaciousness of religion and more to the natural human instinct for personal survival. Most people understand that a lifestyle of self-destruction will eventually destroy a person if nothing changes. And once the person is free of a dangerous addiction, he or she may equate leaving the cult as a guarantee of returning to the abandoned lifestyle. Christianity reinforces this pattern of thought by teaching that a person must abide in Christ or risk being cast aside. At no time will a person be told it is possible to live a clean life outside of Christianity.

 

Of course there may be other reasons for conversion, but can there be any question that childhood conversions and adult conversions during difficult times comprise the bulk of conversion stories? I was a Christian for 30 years. These two types of personal testimonials filled my ears during those decades.

 

Now, many years later, I am an ex-Christian. I didn’t become an ex-Christian because someone hurt my feelings. I became an ex-Christian after studiously endeavoring to learn all I could about my God, my faith, Christianity, history, theology, and other closely related topics. Little by little I discovered that Christianity is just another magical cult that captured the imaginations and satisfied the emotional needs of enough people over the years to gather a strong following. I found out that it is not truth, it is not even unique, and that I had been wrong.

 

No doubt, Christians will continue to insist that the ex-Christian is closed minded — that the ex-Christian hasn’t closely considered all the facts — that the ex-Christian is stubborn and refuses to admit to being wrong. But in reality, it is the Christian who is calling the kettle black. Most Christians are afraid to analyze their religion from a position of neutrality, from outside of the approved list of authors and books. When I was a Christian, I was discouraged from reading anything written by non-Christian authors. Such materials could damage faith, I was told.

 

Those prophets were correct. Once I finally broke taboo and started reading materials less apologetic in nature, not to just argue with the materials, but to actually listen to what the authors had to say, my faith started to show cracks.

 

When it comes to religion, few people read things to test their faith. Most read things that confirm their faith. They like to read things that tell them they are right. If they do read an opposing view, it is with the intention of finding flaws in the argument, and once again, confirming the position of faith.

 

It is a difficult thing to admit being wrong. I know.

 

So, Christian, when you come here and post, please be aware that ex-Christians have already agonized over being wrong. We know we can be wrong. We admit to having been wrong in the past, and admit that the possibility to be wrong again still exists in the future.

 

Be honest with yourself, Christian. Are you willing to admit you might be wrong?

[The Paineful Truth]

Admitting the possibility of being wrong, is really a restatement of agnosticism, which should be applied to any belief which is short of certain knowledge--especially the emotion based foundation for faith or other philosophical assertions. Agnosticism is sort of a CYA for being wrong, giving us a less ego-stressing out than total recantation of a position in which we've invested our total heart, soul and credibility into.

[webmdave]

Admitting the possibility of being wrong, is really a restatement of agnosticism, which should be applied to any belief which is short of certain knowledge--especially the emotion based foundation for faith or other philosophical assertions. Agnosticism is sort of a CYA for being wrong, giving us a less ego-stressing out than total recantation of a position in which we've invested our total heart, soul and credibility into.

 

Perhaps. However, are you saying that holding to a position of agnosticism is right, while labeling oneself as an atheist is wrong?

 

Plainly, an uncompromising "I am right and you are wrong" mentality can entrap anyone. My point with the article was to give the constant barage of Christian apologists who post on the blog section of the site some pause for thought. They accuse us of being unwilling to examine our position of rejecting Christianity, of being stubborn, of thinking we are intellectually superior and over-confident that we are right.

 

But, the reality is, ex-Christians have already admitted to error. That's why we are now ex-Christians. We were in error while in Christianity. Christians generally convert without much investigation into Christianity. Therefore, when they come to the conclusion that non-belief is "wrong" and belief is "right" it is based on very little.

 

Those who de-convert frequently go through long months and years of agonizing struggles before finally cutting the cord of Christianity. Comparatively speaking, Christians have no idea what it is like to come to the realization that something they once believed in with complete abandon is false.

 

That was my point.

 

I am not agnostic about UFOs, Bigfoot, Santa, Leprechans, or flying fiery chariots. I don't believe in any of those things.

 

Non-belief is not agnosticism. I could be wrong about Bigfoot, but I don't think so. And ethier way, I'm not basing my life on the reality of those things.

 

Get it?

[Dhampir]

Since virtually everyone is agnostic, regardless of how hard they believe whatever it is they believe about god, I find the term to be rather pointless.

[The Paineful Truth]

Perhaps. However, are you saying that holding to a position of agnosticism is right, while labeling oneself as an atheist is wrong?

Agnosticism is compatible with any belief, including atheism. It's wrong (erroneous) to claim certain knowledge about any position without proof--which I don't belief anyone has.

They accuse us of being unwilling to examine our position of rejecting Christianity, of being stubborn, of thinking we are intellectually superior and over-confident that we are right.

 

But, the reality is, ex-Christians have already admitted to error.

 

Admitting an error doesn't mean one can't still be erroneous. I agree with your point of the original post, but the parameters of Truth apply no matter how much or how often one is wrong. Truth can emanate from the mouths of babes, or idiots. It speaks for itself.

 

I am not agnostic about UFOs, Bigfoot, Santa, Leprechans, or flying fiery chariots.

Me neither. But then the universe came from somewhere. Neither a God nor no god is a reasonable explanation.

 

And ethier way, I'm not basing my life on the reality of those things.

 

Get it?

 

Yes. I base my life on the equivalence of Truth as my God (an ultimate ideal)--which I follow even if the ultimate ideal isn't a supernatural being. What is your ultimate ideal, the most important thing to you?

 

Since virtually everyone is agnostic, regardless of how hard they believe whatever it is they believe about god, I find the term to be rather pointless.

 

There are many revealed religionsists and atheists who claim that their positions represent certain "knowledge"--some of the latter even on this board. I could only wish that "virtually everyone" was agnostic.

[Dhampir]

There are many revealed religionsists and atheists who claim that their positions represent certain "knowledge"--some of the latter even on this board. I could only wish that "virtually everyone" was agnostic.

A claim that is always knocked down whenever anyone says they believe anything about their particular revelation.

[The Paineful Truth]

A claim that is always knocked down whenever anyone says they believe anything about their particular revelation.

 

Which is why belief MUST be differentiated from knowledge.

[The Sage Nabooru]

You know I often chuckle about how otherwise sane people, are absolutely fucking neurotic about being wrong or having made a mistake. My own mother is an example. She has put her own health, financial well-being, and family stability on the line, in the name of "I can never, ever, ever, ever admit to being wrong or having been wrong." It is simply incredible. My mother is so mental about it, that she has actually altered her own memories from the actual, historical facts, so that while everybody else knows it's the time Mom screwed up, she remembers it having an entirely different storyline - including a different script and often different characters - that involved her getting innocently victimized due to everyone else's fault.

 

The human neurotic phobia of being wrong results in fundyism of all flavors, and is often the reason people do not really change even as their beliefs do, i.e. they slip simply from one fundyism to another. The need to be absolutely and supremely certain and faultless, to have all the answers, is often overbearing. I admit that I myself often find it difficult to say, "I'm sorry," or "I don't know," or even allow myself to recognize that I have a particular annoying habit.

 

It really doesn't make much sense evolutionally. If we allowed ourselves to know our faults and to consider all possibilities - rather than focus on a singular one, and force it into dogma - we would be able to improve our own personal selves better, and be better to attract a mate. Much better for the early ape-man to realize he has a limp and then allowing the leg to heal, then to stagger around pretending it's not there. Or maybe not.

[Dhampir]

Which is why belief MUST be differentiated from knowledge.

That's just what I mean. People tend to think of their beliefs as being substantiated by fact, or that their beliefs are valid, because there's something that makes them absolutely true. But no one, except psychos like that trading spouses hag, can get away without admitting at least once that the don't know, so much as believe whatever it is the believe in regarding god. Hence, whether a person states their beliefs as acutal knowledge or not, they are agnostic--it's not a position you have to admit to, or even acknowledge, and almost everyone falls under that description, which is why I find it a pointless label. It's like describing someone simply as a person; okay, so its true, but what does it actually tell you about them?

[Mongo]

Dave,

 

As time passes, like a school or track record, for me, the high bar of fresh ideas, well phrased gets harder and harder to jump.

 

Today you jumped it.

 

These very thoughts have lingered in my mind but it took your fingers to give words to them. Thank-you.

 

People are not inclined to admit they are wrong. If they were I would not have wasted 10 years thrashing about emotionally, trying to keep the spirit of god burning hot in my heart each time I was able to pray long enough for him to send his spirit to me.

 

I did not want to admit that it was my own emotional contrivance. I did not want to admit that I was spending my life with other people who were also contriving displays of the spirit of god.

 

I was well aware that many of them, usually older christians, had lost the spirit and had adopted histrionic displays but I was still drinking up the fresh water of conversion albeit less and less frequently and each time to drink of that spirit I had to sacrifice more and more of myself.

 

One day I hit the wall. I could sacrifice no more of my mind, my life, my money, my prayers or my heart and so I was unable to earn the reward of sacrifice... the temporary emotional sensation of freedom from being human.

 

After all of that, God was not walking with me and I was still empty.

 

At that point, I confronted my doubts front and centre. From there I plotted my escape.

 

For me... I took a transfer to another city. Escaping and running because I could not face the shame that is handed to the backslidden. I couldn't stay and admit to them that I was wrong. They would never understand.

 

For many of us, admitting we were wrong has been expensive. For some of us, it was a bridge that charged a toll on entry and exit.

 

It was certainly worth the price of exit!

 

 

************

Sage,

 

There is something psychological going on in your mom that is difficult to explain.

 

My 8 yr old displays behaviours of fundies in the way she says things that are wrong and believes them whole heartedly. She will recall events in error and insist they are true.

 

This morning she said my wife told her that she could have gingerbread for breakfast. My wife did say yesterday that she could have some the next day. I can't figure out whether she thought my wife meant breakfast or even worse, thought that when the clock passed midnight, it was up to her when to eat the gingerbread.

 

It would be easy to chalk it up to creative young minds but this is no different from a cousin of mine who is very difficult to talk to on any serious level because she mis-construes many things and mis-reads people based on an illogical association similar to my daughters. Yikes!

 

Once my daughter has formed a belief that she is right about a situation, she begins to form conclusions that are very hard to replace with a correct conclusion.

 

I think people rethink their view only when consequences clearly outweigh the benefits. That is a tough way to find the truth and is the stuff of movies.

 

Good luck with your Mom!

 

Mongo

[The Paineful Truth]

Dhampir wrote:

Hence, whether a person states their beliefs as acutal knowledge or not, they are agnostic

 

At the risk of seeming obsessive, someone who states that their "beliefs" are actual knowledge, is not an agnostic, but merely misusing the word belief. As a minimum, fundies of all flavors fit this category and aren't agnostic.

 

On the other hand, those who admit, even if only to themselves, that their beliefs are not certain, are by definition agnostic--even if they don't like being so labeled, which I think is the real problem. It starts with an "a" so it must be the same thing as being an atheist (no offense).

[webmdave]

Thanks for the kudos, Mongo!

 

Painful,

 

However you want to define it, to be agnostic is functionally identical to being an atheist.

 

I mean, you can't be an agnostic Christian, can you? You can't be an agnostic Muslim, either.

 

Believers, however, like to use the word agnosticism as a witnessing wedge. In other words, they don't view agnosticism as a disbelief in Christianity, but as a possibility of belief in Christianity. If I tell a Christian I'm agnostic, they won't see me quite the same way as they do if I tell them I'm atheist, because the word atheist has been demonized in Christian literature since at least the 1600s. (ex.: "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan where the character Atheist, a mocker of characters CHRISTIAN and HOPEFUL, goes the opposite way on the "King's Highway," boasting that he knows that God and the Celestial City do not exist. This was one of my favorite books during my fundie years.)

 

Anyway, if using the label "agnostic" fits better with the deist position, that's fine with me. Either way, we both (I assume) have rejected Christianity, so as concerns Christianity we are for all intents and purposes a-Christian-theists. We are functionally atheists. Surely if a Christian were to ask you point blank if you believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God who came from heaven and died on a cross for the sins of those who might believe on HIM, and then asked you if you believe this too, you'd answer with a resounding, "Ah, no." This would likely make the Christian think, "Uh-oh, I've got an atheist here." But, if you were to answer, "Uhm, I'm not sure. I don't know, and neither do you," the Christian would wipe his brow and think, "Oh, good. I've got an agnostic here. He's not totally lost, and if I can just give him enough informational evidence, and the Holy Ghost chimes in at just the right moment, there'll be another pew warmed this Sunday. Whoo-hoo!"

 

Atheism is not a bad word. In my mind, all "atheist" means when applied to me is that "I don't believe in a supernatural deity of any kind, and even if there is such a creature or creatures out there that we might consider beyond our understanding or supernatural, this being has no direct interaction with humans and nothing to do with my life or life on Earth, so this thing has the same relevance to my life as something non-existent, like visiting space aliens."

 

Now, there may be other intelligent life in the universe, but we have no evidence of intelligent life out there, and no one has come knocking on any of our doors yet, so saying there is no such thing as UFOs is functionally the same as saying maybe somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, there are UFOs. There is no difference in that position. Even Christians are a-somegodorother-theists. Christians disbelieve in every other god out there, including the gods of some Christians. Historically, Christians have generally considered Trinitarianism the Orthodox faith. Those believing in Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the three separate beings in Mormonism's Godhead , or the Oneness movement's Modalism are considered to be heretical , and those who follow one of those versions of Christianity have been and still are thought by fundies to be un-saved, non-Christians that need to be evangelized.

 

Now, if you view all those who wear the label atheist as dogmatic extremists who insist at all costs that there is absolute surety that there is nothing in the universe that could fit the label of being outside our understanding of nature (supernatural), then I agree with you. Absolute dogmatism from anyone in any philosophical camp is rather annoying and reflects immature or inexperienced thinking.

 

As Mongol suggested, the older we get, the more we realize how little we know.

 

I have no quarrel with those who prefer the title "agnostic" over "atheist." They're just words that help us communicate ideas to each other and ourselves. Robert Ingersoll called himself an agnostic, but if you read his stuff, he sure sounds like an atheist.

 

When it comes to speaking with Christians, I'm an atheist. I do not believe in the magical, flying, un-dead, god-man, savior/messiah of Christianity. I don't. I used to. I've examined the religion from a thousand different angles and more. I no longer believe in it. I am thoroughly convinced that Christianity is bunk. I also think Bigfoot is bunk. I think Islam is bunk. And until someone can present some absolute evidence that Christianity is true, I will say with authority that Jesus, if he ever lived, is dead, just like everyone else. If you tell me Elvis is still alive, I'll tell you you're wrong. I'll ask you to show me. I ask the Christian the same thing: Show me.

 

I've personally considered the deist position and rejected it simply because I don't know what I'd do with it. However, I have no quarrel with anyone who holds to the deist view. In fact, there are quite a few deists that participate in one way or another with this site. I'm not interested in arguing with deists. I just don't lean that way.

 

Obviously, at least in our lifetimes, we will never be able to scour the entire universe and absorb all knowledge of all things, so we will all always be agnostic about something or another. But to live, we have to make decisions based on available information. For instance, there may be a science that we haven't discovered that allows us to materialize anywhere in the universe on command. I don't know if there is, and you don't know that there isn't such a science. But, I've still got to drive to work today. So, today, I'm an a-materializist.

[Vigile]

Not only is it difficult to admit being wrong, often times society comes down on you for not sticking to your guns. Look at Bush. Many of his supporters like the fact that he does not change his mind.

[Legion]

I think that was a fine article Dave.

 

I was wrong too. I admit it. I once thought that Christianity was the only way. It wasn't even to be considered a religion because that would have placed it on par with other religions. Now I think that Christianity is a religion among many others.

 

Atheism is not a bad word.

Perhaps it's not a bad word to you, but I think in the minds of many it is viewed with considerable prejudice.

[Dhampir]

At the risk of seeming obsessive, someone who states that their "beliefs" are actual knowledge, is not an agnostic, but merely misusing the word belief. As a minimum, fundies of all flavors fit this category and aren't agnostic.

well... It's like this. No one has ever been given irrefutable proof of the existence of a particular deity, because none such exists. Everyone that believes in god believes because of warm and fuzzy feelings, anecdotes, indoctrination, and apologia. Those things to them equate with certain knowledge, but if you do ANY digging, you will find that they always backpedal away from their previous certainty. They probably don't see saying things like 'my faith is unshakeable', or 'my life is greatly enriched since becoming a believer in whatever', or 'the number of prophesies coming true these days etc.,etc.' as backpedaling, but it is. If they believe, but lack the evidence (and they do), then they don't know for certain, no matter how strong their convictions.

 

On the other hand, I know there is not, nor can there be any sort of anthropomorphic being of, to borrow a term from Asimov, maximal power, which created and sustains us, and who has some vested interest in not only our survival, but our happiness. I know this. But-- there is the chance I am factoring without some knowledge that I require to complete this scenario. I may only be thinking it complete. Hence, I am agnostic, like Dave just said, pretty much the same as Atheist, in this context. I mean, I'm as certain as I can be about the existence of said god, yet I'm not.

 

I know the definition pretty much extends to those who acknowledge a deficit in their understanding, but that everyone eventually says either "believe" or "faith", to me at least, means virtually everyone falls under that category, which is why it's such a useless label. I'd say the term apatheist is probably more apt for those people who claim agnosticism.

[The Paineful Truth]

Webmaster wrote

However you want to define it, to be agnostic is functionally identical to being an atheist.

 

I mean, you can't be an agnostic Christian, can you? You can't be an agnostic Muslim, either.

There could be a form of agnostic Christian I suppose, but agnosticism implies reason where Christian and Muslim do not. It'd be just a statement of doubt. Someone on the verge of becoming an exchristian would be an agnostic Christian, for instance.

 

I agree that deists are functional atheists in that our morality is internal and derived through reason; specifically enlightened self-interest. I've often said that atheism and deism are the only two reasonable postitions on the existance of God.

 

What I'm trying to say is to think of agnostic as a modifier, not a noun. If you're not dogmatic, you're an agnostic--or you just don't give a damn about any of this.

 

Dhampir wrote:

well... It's like this. No one has ever been given irrefutable proof of the existence of a particular deity, because none such exists.

 

But there are millions of myrmidons who think they have. Also, I would have added "yet" to your statement. I like the word, apatheist, that you coined. It would fit with my definition given about of those who just don't give a damn--but none would be found on boards like this.

[Dhampir]

But there are millions of myrmidons who think they have. Also, I would have added "yet" to your statement. I like the word, apatheist, that you coined. It would fit with my definition given about of those who just don't give a damn--but none would be found on boards like this.

There are plenty. Those who reject christianity, but who don't care to assert a certainty regarding their current belief in god. Just read a few people's answers to the any gods question.

 

Absolute knowledge is something no one can contest, at least not for very long. that no one has come across such regarding any god makes it pointless to say 'yet'.

 

Also, I didn't coin the term apatheist. When I first identified myself as one, I thought I did, but it existed prior to my percieved cleverness.

[The Paineful Truth]

There are plenty. Those who reject christianity, but who don't care to assert a certainty regarding their current belief in god.

 

Having a "current belief in god", one way or the other (whether you assert it or not), implies concern or the application of a level of importance to the subject. The ones I'm talking about reject any such considerations as a total waste of time. They are the hard core materialists.

[woodsmoke]

That would be me.

 

Don't mistake a person's interactions with and concerns about theistic people's actions for concern about the deity they purport to worship. I don't give a flying fuck about the possible (non)existence of any deity; I've lived on both sides of the divide and haven't seen the slightest modicum of difference between the two within the context of the "supernatural." It's simply not an issue.

 

Would that I could extend that apathy to the physical world, but the actions and behaviors of those who still embrace the concept of a magical sky daddy, regardless of its flavor, prevent me from being practically able to do so.

 

Edit: Also, I still contend that deism is not fundamentally reasonable. Moreso than most other "supernatural" philosophies (especially "revealed" religions), to be sure, but still ultimately based on faith and emotion.

 

I don't mean this as an attack on deism. I'm with Dave; I don't necessarily agree with their conclusion, but I've no interest in picking a fight with them. You're simply the only individual I've ever met who adamantly insists deism is fully reasonable with no illogical components, despite the deist concept of the Creator (whether a conscious entity, some ambiguous "force" or otherwise) is quite obviously a declaration of faith, however minor.

[The Paineful Truth]

I don't mean this as an attack on deism. I'm with Dave; I don't necessarily agree with their conclusion, but I've no interest in picking a fight with them. You're simply the only individual I've ever met who adamantly insists deism is fully reasonable with no illogical components, despite the deist concept of the Creator (whether a conscious entity, some ambiguous "force" or otherwise) is quite obviously a declaration of faith, however minor.

 

Speaking for myself, I see God and no-god as equal propositions from the start. I see slight evidence for God in the universe's desing and lean toward deism, but none of that negates the primacy of reason. What are the illogical components of deism?

 

I'm only one step removed from atheism.

 

God as a sentient supernatural being is not a faith, it is a question, at least for me. Faith, as it should be seen, is the engine that supports and drives one toward a reasoned world view.

[woodsmoke]

What are the illogical components of deism?

 

There's just one, really. The belief in a creator for which there exists no objective, empirical evidence. Semantic arguments aside, the simple truth is the deist's belief in the creator is irrational and based solely on conclusions drawn from the subjective interpretation of information.

 

Even Heimdall has never argued the fact that his deistic leanings are illogical. The difference is he has no trouble admitting it.