Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

But there is a 'controlling force' that 'rules' here, within this universe, this tiny part of everything, and you, me and everyone, everything is governed by that controller.

Great. Prove it.
Another unsupported assertion.
You have no evidence that there is any such force. You assert ir, (preacher men), and expect us to but this rubbish.
Why is it what we observe is 100 % what one would observe if nothing was in control, and probability is in total control, and not a cooked-up "controller" ?
You're desperately attempting to justify the notion of a deity in charge.
There is no need to posit such rubbish. There is no need to invoke such nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Isn't there a woo site you can post your rubbish on ?
Since you know nothing about the actual topic of this thread, how about you start on called the "Made-up Gospel of eider" ?

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla

My Deism recognizes that everything all together is 'one', but not aware of or involves with us.
But there is a 'controlling force' that 'rules' here, within this universe, this tiny part of everything, and you, me and everyone, everything is governed by that controller.  It's not bothered with us but we should be bothered about it.

Prove it, and support your ignorant assertions with evidence. It's not so because you say so.
You definition of Deism is incoherent, and undefined, and you have no evidence for it.
Let's have 10 examples where something is "controlling" anything.
Surely you have examples of this controlling.
A "controlling force" is not deism. In fact it's theism. In deism, the creator is uninterested and aloof and UNinvolved, the OPPOSITE of "controlling".
"Controlling" it the very opposite of deism. In deism the deity controls nothing.
Seems you are dishonest, unaware of definitions, and are trying desperately to justify your bullshit to yourself.

Now let's see you apply your iq or your insults to that one.  Take care..... you don't want to look daft again, like when you didn't understand what a deposition is.

There's nothing to apply it to, and all you did is assert some rubbish with no support.
You are the one with all the unsupported assertions.
You do know what your Jebus said about the beam in your own eye. LOL

Still waiting for ANY evidence that the temple priests were corrupt or that they took more than the traditional Jewish culture allotted to the Levites.
I would imagine that 10 examples would be good. So far eider, you're batting ZERO, and you have provided none.

[Rhythmcs]

There is a need, in the context of any belief in a natural theology. Even novel natural theologies such as those that can be found in pantheism or panentheism. Justice, beauty, freedom, truth, relationships, and power...the narrativization of existence. To a person that holds to a natural theology these things require the agent that the qualifier designates or it's equivalent. It is because this world is that way, that this agent must be.

Understanding things like this, I think, is more important to understanding the contents of any magic book, than any assertion of the historicity of it's central characters could ever be. It has been believed, at least in part..for example... that there must have been a real man jesus - because the adherents of some sects felt that this was a necessity to the efficacy of his sacrifice in vicarious redemption to our natural states of sin. His later (asserted) resurrection just as much a necessity and demonstration of a natural theology that centers his alleged divinity. This, ultimately, is why the wandering wise man does not satisfy the mantle of christ. Why the character of jesus christ in magic book is not a story about a wandering wise man, or even loosely based on one in it's narrative thrust.

[jimhabegger]

… eider's deism is what other people call "panentheism."

It looks to me like "spiritual but not religious."

Do you mean eider’s deism, or deism in general? What eider has told us about his beliefs looks religious but not spiritual to me.

(later) I give up. I did a search for the meanings of “spiritual.” I keep forgetting, in public discussions, any word can mean anything.

[Minimalist]

But there is a 'controlling force' that 'rules' here, within this universe, this tiny part of everything, and you, me and everyone, everything is governed by that controller.

Perhaps he means "gravity," Buck?

[Bucky Ball]

But there is a 'controlling force' that 'rules' here, within this universe, this tiny part of everything, and you, me and everyone, everything is governed by that controller.

Perhaps he means "gravity," Buck?

Great. Then he can define his terms and prove his assertions.
He also qualifies it, ("rules here, within this universe") and makes claims he has no way of knowing about, (implying that reality is larger than this universe).
He's just simply full of shit.

[Dom]

Perhaps he means "gravity," Buck?

Great. Then he can define his terms and prove his assertions.
He also qualifies it, ("rules here, within this universe") and makes claims he has no way of knowing  about, (implying that reality is larger than this universe).
He's just simply full of shit.

I think it is entirely possible that reality is larger than our universe. That possibility doesn't necessitate any deity though.

[Rhythmcs]

Would you mind if I mined? If we found something outside of our currently known universe, would that then be another thing in our universe, or would it forever remain outside of The Universe?

[airportkid]

... If we found something outside of our currently known universe ...

You're gonna have to describe how we would even know some phenomenon is "outside" the universe.  The fact that we can discern it, however discerned, makes it part of the discernable universe.  What would we see that we'd say it cannot possibly be part of the universe, and say it confident of being right?  Provide an example.

[Cavebear]

Deism just means you think there is a deity "somewhere, vaguely".  By definition, that isn't "atheist".  So stop trying to continue that drivel.

He isn’t claiming to be an atheist. (bolding mine)

The only idea that makes me a deist rather than an atheist …

He says himself that he is not an atheist, so I don’t understand why he thinks that he should be able to join an atheist club.

I agree, but sometimes I have my doubts that you are really an atheist either. I know you say you are. But I will also say you sure skate along the edges. You write well and carefully. I suspect you are mostly enjoying pokibng sleeping bears (and I don't mean me just of because of my handle).

And not that I am immune to that myself. When I was younger, there was a very annoying woman at work. About as friendly as a snake, and very religious. She could hardly speak a sentence without a religious reference.

So one day in the lunch room, I asked her about Adam&Eve. The only humans at first, right? She said yes. They had 3 sons I asked? She said yes. No other humans on Earth, right? She said yes.

I'm sure many of you understand where this was going. And I'm sure many theists have some explanation that satisfy them...

Well, I found it amazing that this question disturbed her. She could not figure that out. I would have thought this question had occurred to her before. Well, I've never thought theists engaged in logic much, so maybre I shouldn't have been surprised too greatly.

She replied a week later that there must have been later creations that involved other women. I don't know whether she asked her preacher about it (I gather that she came from one of those 10-person Protestant congregations with weird names (something like "The Jesus Eternal Prayer Associates" or other strange names they choose) or decided on her own.

Personally, in her shoes, I would have said "Lilith", and I would have asked her more questions about that, but maybe her beliefs didn't include her.

She didn't like me much before; she hated me after that! I loved it.

[Cavebear]

If there is a deity involved, it is a theism.  But it is not atheism.

And over the event horizon they all go....... all those deists, pretending to be non-theists..... all saying prayers to an involvced god..... ha ha ha! ........ the event horizon of extremism? 

Never claimed to be a Brit.  I live in the US. 

yes....... that was obvious to me as well......
I have a theory about extreme feminism and extreme atheism in the USA, but if you like you can make up what my theory is and answer it in a future post.......  you might be good at guessing what others think..... spiritualism almost? 

Yes to all.  Do you consider those weaknesses or negative values?  Please tell us why.

Hang on........ I didn't give an answer yet, another clear example of you guessing at other people's answers. That suggests a driven agenda. 

Yes I have.  Mostly on discussion sites, but over dinners a few times.  I shared a family Thanksgiving Dinner with the Chair of a State University Anthropology College once and after an hour of discussion, he assumed I had a PhD in the subject (I don't).  I just read a lot.  

Not within the HJ debates, though.  That stuff is essentially nonsense.

So you haven't studied HJ or taken part in HJ debates but you've decided that HJ is essentially nonsense...?  
I luv this stuff! 
You've actually made me laugh, which is good.

I note that you refused to print out "I am not a theist.  There isn't and never was a deity of any sort in the universe at any time".  I'll print that out and post it on my computer wall, to remind you of that, LOL!  That pretty much proves you are a theist.

I am not a theist. But I am a deist and my opinion is that everything all together is part of a whole, and that is a kind of deism, but your reference to 'the universe' is very weak because 'the universe' might be a tiny part of the whole. 

Happy Useless Prayers...

Cavebear

Wonderful........ so Carebear thinks that deists pray. 
In to the Black Hole of theism (and theocracy)  with deism!

I think you earlier thought I was a Brit.

"I have a theory about extreme feminism and extreme atheism in the USA".

Ok, why don't you just explain your views of that to us?

"you might be good at guessing what others think".

I am.

You are cherry-picking quotes from me. That is not a good habit. I have better things to do than to go find the posts they all came from.

A deist is not an atheist...

[Cavebear]

Deism just means you think there is a deity "somewhere, vaguely".  By definition, that isn't "atheist".  So stop trying to continue that drivel.  I already think that (on a score of thinkers 1-100) you are probably about a 5.  Don't make me lower it.

We were writing about 'Presentism' and you come up with that rubbish. 

Deism is about everything, and you write 'somewhere'. 

At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, deism is no more about "everything" so much as a deity that acts and leaves. Deism involves a deity, so it is theistic. There being no deity of any sort (by any evidence) deism is just a vaguer form of theism than most.

[jimhabegger]

... I have my doubts that you are really an atheist ...

I'm not claiming to be one. I don't believe in the reality or existence of any of the gods of religions and mythologies, but sometimes I think of the universe and talk about it metaphorically as being created by someone that I call "God," and I'm practicing and promoting the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the power and authority of the God of Abraham.

[eider]

Do you think that there is anyone in the world who is not a deist? How would it be possible for a person not to be a deist?

I think that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Zoroastrians etc.... are theists, not deists.
Agnostics are not deists.
Atheists are not deists.
etc.....

Some Buddhists are deists, some are theists and some are atheists....how's that for you?

[eider]

A lot of them refer to themselves as "spiritual."

Let's have a source for that, can we?
I would love to read about that, Minimalist, but somehow I don't think I'll get an answer......

| Deism 101 Spirituality | Spiritual But Not Religious | SBNR

Spiritual Deist | Deism Wikia | Fandom

Thank you for that.   In the introduction I read that:- 
Spiritual Deists, Deists who consider themselves spiritual but not religious, have not as yet formally established a separate branch of Deism. Any Deist from any branch of Deism might consider himself or herself a Spiritual Deist."

That's interesting.......

[eider]

Let's have a source for that, can we?
I would love to read about that, Minimalist, but somehow I don't think I'll get an answer......

| Deism 101 Spirituality | Spiritual But Not Religious | SBNR

Spiritual Deist | Deism Wikia | Fandom

You can find spiritual atheists as well, it seems.......  the things folks say, eh?

link:- 
What Is a Spiritual Atheist and What It Means to Be One
[url=https://www.learning-mind.com/spiritual-atheist-meaning/][/url]https://www.learning-mind.com › Self-Improvement
6 Feb 2020 — A spiritual atheist is someone who, unlike a religious person, does not believe in any “God”. Instead, they believe in a higher ...

[eider]

Deism doesn't recognise the existence of any deity that is aware of us, or this planet, or the universe.

Can you give me a link to one other deist besides you who makes that part of their definition of "Deism,"

Jim, Deists don't believe in an interested or involved God.....  I'm not here to prove anything to you, if you believe in an involved God or no God at all, that's fine with me. OK?

and excludes anyone from being a deist who believes in a God who is aware of us, or of this planet, or of the universe?

I don't exclude anyone at all whatever they believe in or whatever their opinions. 
I expect that deism has thousands of differing opinions and ideas, the basic one being that there is no aware or involved god.  If you find that difficult to believe it may help if I tell you that there are many many differing kinds of Christian creed and church and they don't all agree that Jesus is God, or the son of God. 

Question:-  What do you believe or not?

[Cavebear]

... I have my doubts that you are really an atheist ...

I'm not claiming to be one. I don't believe in the reality or existence of any of the gods of religions and mythologies, but sometimes I think of the universe and talk about it metaphorically as being created by someone that I call "God," and I'm practicing and promoting the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the power and authority of the God of Abraham.

I don't think I have ever read you saying that so directly. Thank you, that settled my mind about you.

[eider]

That controlling force, when applied to living things, is called evolution. It is the force that fine tunes everything with everything else. It is an awesome force!

Yes!  I was thinking more generally.......  Nature!
We might not all bow down to Nature but I think we had better take notice of it and very soon.   Any cultures that think we are beyond or above Nature are dwindling very quickly, I think.

And so, maybe the resident power in this universe might be 'Nature'..... in the UK we do tend to give it the title of 'Mother Nature' which might irritate some 'Me-Man!' types.  

[jimhabegger]

You can find spiritual atheists as well, it seems ...

What Is a Spiritual Atheist and What It Means to Be One

A spiritual atheist is someone who, unlike a religious person, does not believe in any “God”. Instead, they believe in a higher ...

Waking Up - A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion (Sam Harris)

[eider]

That answers one of my questions: what makes it a deity. Thank you.

@Dom answered that with 'evolution' and I was thinking of 'nature'.  Anybody can believe in and have respect for those, I think

I'm ready for the next part. 

That's it, Jim.......  There's more detail, but once the gospels have been stripped of the additions, editions, fiddles, fibs, lies and exaggerations......  that's all that's left imo.

(later) Maybe you're thinking that your view is not the kind of view that atheists despise. It isn't as simple as that. Sometimes atheists rise up in wrath against all beliefs in any kind of god or gods, and sometimes they don't. There's a difference between not believing something and crusading against other people believing it. Maybe sometimes belief in the kind of deity that you believe in is the kind that alarms them, and maybe sometimes it isn't. You can't tell just from the label "atheist" how a person will feel about your beliefs.

Anybody who despises others because of their views doesn't interest me at all, whoever they are.
I don't have a belief about deism I have an idea. Does your atheism need a belief? No?  You see?

But, yes, I know that subjects like atheism and feminism etc can be very very heated depending upon where you live. I don't live in a country where religion has deprived women of free-choice or where a majority of politicians are strongly religious and so I find that on average people around here (Kent UK) are more moderate about these subjects....... even our women are less heated about feminism because they don't need to be, they are mostly very confident and would put a chauvinist down very quickly but don't rant about their rights so much.

[eider]

Carrier's Jesus Historicity Probability Theory

He uses a theorem called "Bayes' Theorem" in a form called "Odds Form." It says that "posterior odds" equals "prior odds" times "likelyhood ratio." Carrier uses it repeatly to multiply the prior odds by a series of likelyhood ratios. The prior and posterior odds are ratios between the probability of "minimal historicity" and the probability of "minimal mythicism." "Minimal" means with the least possible amount of conditions that would make it less likely. The prior odds are strictly his own personal opinion, which is exactly what they should be according to everything I've read about Bayesian ways of thinking. It's all about using Bayes' Theorem to calculate a prescription for how much confidence a person should have in some way of thinking, based on how much confidence they have before the calculation. The likelyhood ratios that he uses are what he says are the ratios between the probability of something happening if minimal historicity is true and the probability of it happening if minimal mythicism is true. That's using his own personal opinions, and his own definition of "likelyhood ratio," which is different from how it's defined in proving Bayes' Theorem. He considers four categories of something happening: other writings besides the Bible, and the writings in the book of Acts, in the Gospels, and in the Epistles. "Probability of it happening" meaning the probability of those being written the way they are, not the probability of anything in them being true. He says that we need to use a range of values for each term, to allow for possible errors, and that he's using the values that give the best possible results for historicity. He interprets the result of the calculation as "almost a 33% chance Jesus existed -- at best," which is also different from the ways that any other probability theory interprets the results of calculations using Bayes' Theorem.

Thank you for that.
Carrier is a waffler..... He needs to learn a lesson from Einstein:-
Albert Einstein   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein 

Carrier couldn't figure out what really happened in a car-crash.

[eider]

The romans would make a similar mistake with respect to early christians.  On account of how they asserted a different kind of god, they were deemed atheists.

The Romans were the first atheists to be so called.
That is amusing because Christianity wanted to reverse itself in to one or two Roman Gods.

Christianity has many many varying creeds and churches, and some of these even deny that Jesus is a god, or even the son of a god.   I can think of several but I have read that there are thousands.

I expect that there are many ideas about deism, and this morning I discovered that there are spiritual atheists out there which I linked Jim to.  I can only present my own opinions, and like most atheists I don't have beliefs, but I do have ideas....and they are mine.

[eider]

To further your education, an attempt at reducing your ignorance:-

My Deism recognises that everything all together is 'one', but not aware of or involves with us.
But there is a 'controlling force' that 'rules' here, within this universe, this tiny part of everything, and you, me and everyone, everything is governed by that controller.  It's not bothered with us but we should be bothered about it.

Now let's see you apply your iq or your insults to that one.  Take care..... you don't want to look daft again, like when you didn't understand what a deposition is.

Hence panentheism.  The universe + considered together as a whole amounts to something mappable to the personal and intervening gods of theism proper.

Well you got that wrong, Rhythmics....
Any title with 'theism' in it is all about an aware, involved god, so that's a fail on your part.

The controlling force that rules in this universe is Nature and you had better belief that......  in fact we all better had give much more attention to Nature or it will be smacking us in the mouth quite soon, I reckon.

[eider]

Any word which includes 'theism' in it defines a belief in an aware, interested, involved God.
So every time you write that, it doesn't apply to me.

I can see why you would think that, both pantheism and panentheism are unfortunately named terms - but, it's not the case.  Neither pantheism or panentheism asserts the kinds of gods that you reject.  Both assert exactly what you have described as your own beliefs, as mentioned before the difference between them (and which would more accurately apply to your stated beliefs) turns on whether a person believes there's more than the universe in that accounting.  While both sets of beliefs are technically open to atheists, atheists commonly reject them as well.

This isn't a criticism, mind you.  I believe something similar...but without any of the personal or intervening whatsit, and just the universe.  Without god, gods, or animating spirits of any kind.  Nature as metaphysically ultimate and the proper focus of religion.  Ultimately, the specific terms we use for these beliefs (or any belief) is irrelevant - we could call it fleeflarpism - but, there is utility in being able to accurately communicate our beliefs to each other - not the least of which..being that we could avoid any arguments or disagreements such as the one the thread has been locked into for the past few pages.

In your first paragraph you explain that pantheism is not linked to theism, and in your next para you mention that you believe in something similar 'without the personal or intervening whatsit.   
That is what pandeism is. 

Theism ....involved god
deism.......uninvolved god.