...I consider deism to be a mistaken belief, as it requires that some form of mind can exist without substance: it is a view that proposes an incorrect 'mind-first' view of reality. This appears to be utterly impossible, in the same way that software running without hardware is impossible: minds only come into existence when information is shuffled around in various ways, and information is these days a distinctly physical concept.

What if the substance has always existed? And with the substance the mind?

Perhaps a deistic God is all that exists. Or rather, everything which exists is the deistic God.

An anthropomorphic analogy might be that the physical cosmos is the body of God, while its thoughts are God's mind.

Don't ask me how a cosmos thinks, but my point is that a deistic belief is not necessarily predicated upon the belief that a mind came before a body, or that anything came before anything.

This is perhaps more a pandeist view, but it 'works' as it were. An eternal, physical cosmos with a super-consciousness - that would be my understanding of a deistic God.

It would also mean that we are all a part of God, rather than said God's 'creation' or playthings.

I'm with you all the way on this. To be fair, I have taught creation stories in primary school as 'creation stories'. An Australian Aboriginal story sits next to the Norse one, which sits next to the biblical one.

I think most children appreciate that these are stories.

Mind you, I also encourage all children I teach to ask questions (I was always a pain for asking questions as a child!), and I've had plenty of opportunity to teach evolution simply because children have asked me about it.

Signed.

Comment 401 by inquisador

Thank you.

I appreciate that. I also respect your honesty and your humility. I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way, too.

Mosque bugging?

A mosque is a public place. It is also a place where, frequently, children are taught and monies are collected (usually for 'charitable' purposes).

For this reason, I would very much support greater transparency with mosques (and indeed almost all relgious institutions for the same reasons).

I don't think mosques should need to be bugged. I think everybody should have access to what goes on in a mosque. Far too often have places of worship been turned into hideouts for criminal activity. I, for one, am quite happy (and consider myself duty-bound) to say that this is a completely unacceptable situation.

As for opinion polls, they're always a bit dodgy to be fair. I don't know how much they ever truly reveal.

This is true of both moderate and extreme (I realise these are currently quite nebulous and troubling epithets) views.

For example, an apparently 'moderate Muslim' might be happy to say to a pollster that he/she supports everyone's equality before the law, and equal opportunity, equal treatment and everybody's freedom to pursue their life choices. However, such a moderate might also be extremely homophobic and be willing to support very extreme religious leaders and groups.

On the other hand, an apparently 'extreme Muslim' might be quite forthcoming in declaring that all those who insult Islam should be beheaded, whereas in fact, they could never actually stomach that being done (and certainly not doing it themselves).

Yes these are examples of religous dishonesty and hypocrisy, but they are also inherent problems with social relations which centre around peer pressure and group-identification, amongst other things.

I think it is actually very difficult to gauge if someone is moderate or radical in their views without spending a very long time talking to them and getting to know them.

inquisador

So by the time Hitler was opposing communism, by killing Russian troops, Britain had been at war with Germany for almost two years. The last thing he was considered to be by the western establishment was valuable. He was a deadly enemy.

I know that you know far too much about history to let that slide.

The very first victims of Adolf Hitler where Germany's Communists, the ones who fought on the streets to oppose him. The ones whose deaths and incarceration (they were also the first to be sent to concentration camps) was completely ignored (and deliberately so) by Western governments.

Many people in Britain and the US praised Hitler before the war broke out. Throughout the 30s he was treated as a darling by many, even being visited by politicians, businessmen and even British royalty.

Hitler repeatedly praised the British Empire and imperialism and consistently suppressed Communism (or 'Jewish Bolshevism' as the Nazis termed it). He hated Marx, because he was a Jew, and he declared Communism to be a Jewish conspiracy to takeover the world.

Don't tell me that Hitler didn't oppose Communists until 1941. Hitler opposed Communists on the streets of Germany before he even came to power; his murderous mobs lynching them wherever they could find them.

It was only the German Communists who actually stood up to Hitler before he came to power, and they paid the ultimate price for their opposition.

The Capitalist West was quite happy to let this pass, and quite happy for Hitler to kill Communists ad infinitum without raising even an eyebrow.

inquisador

I don't know much about Horowitz and his other activities, whatever they may be, but his video on the violence against women is valuable. He is one of the few who has the courage to publicly, and in his own name, cite Islam itself, not a hi-jacked or twisted version of Islam, as a prime motivator for all kinds of destructive behaviour in the name of allah.

Just as Adolf Hitler was considered valuable by the Western establishment of the time for having the 'courage' to oppose Communism.

It's not always a good idea having a rogue, unsavoury and somewhat unbalanced rabid dog as the vehicle for your otherwise hushed sentiments.

The point is, using Horowitz as an ally against the evils of the Islamic world (of which even I will admit there are many) is not all that different from using Hitler as a bulwark against the march of Communism, or of Saddam Hussein as a stick with which to beat the anti-American Ayatollah, or of various South American dictators to suppress leftist insurgents. If this was the first time, you might be forgiven. But history has shown that the results of this kind of thing are pretty horrendous...