B. H. Manners

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a "god" in the deist sense. It is not the god of the Koran, Bible (Old or New), Vedas, ect. so we do not know anything about it and have no way to know anything about the the god in question. In a practical sense as far as a relationship with that god is concerned, what would be the difference between deism and atheism?

Jayhawker Soule

I suspect none, and I suspect that this is the case irrespective of the correctness or of either ism. Why would/should there be a difference?

B. H. Manners

The point is: why waste time worrying about it then?

Anti-Creedance Front

I'm just saying don't become like the fundies. You sound like total fundamentalists the way you're talking. "I oppose all unreason." Isn't that the same as a Christian saying, "I oppose all heathens?" Skepticism is a neutral, liberal standpoint, thinking outside the lines. If there's going to be an outpouring of anal "secular humanists", then I'm going to end up calling myself something else. The last thing we need is infighting. Don't go on a crusade. Isn't that what you hate Christians for?

Jayhawker Soule

If I tell you of the existence of an odorless, colorless gass that is virtually undetectable and entirely benign, you might well consider its existence wholly irrelevant. After all, why waste time 'worrying' about it? But, if I tell you that this gas is capable of turning gnats into gnomes and hippos into hobbits, though it very rarely manifests that capability, you might consider its existence or nonexistence of some import.

In my opinion, the question is not:

• "In a practical sense as far as a relationship with that god is concerned, what would be the difference between deism and atheism?"

The question is:

• "In a practical sense as far as a relationship with nature is concerned, what would be the difference between deism and atheism?"

Deism suggests to me that I have no right to presume the generalizability and/or extensibility of my experiences or their codification as science. As I suggested earlier, you can't let the Genie out of the bottle and then pretend to know and/or proscribe its attributes and proclivities.

beyelzu

i have been called everything from a devout atheist to an evangelical atheist, because i firmly and strongly argue against the existence of god. of course, i do prefer deists and agnostics to theists, because i think that they will grow into atheists. albert einstein was a fool, late in life he actually refuted all of quantum physics, because he was old and scared of death. that doesnt make deism any better.

atheists should argue against deism and christianity and islam and any other crap that people who are too weak to stand on their own rely on. god is a fairy tale.

the biggest difference between an atheist and any theist is that most of atheists are logical, and the ones that arent use common sense. it is impossible for a logical atheist to be dogmatic. because dogma is based on faith.

i dont have faith that there is no god. i have years of experience in which i have seen no proof of gods existence. i have logical arguments against the existence of god. atheism just isnt faith based

Keith Russell

Beyelzu:

I agree, except with one minor difference.

Agnosticism is fine--but only as long the agnostic is in transition towards a rational belief system.

If one honestly believes that human beings cannot know with certainty whether there is a 'God', fine.

But, if one chooses agnosticism because one wants to leave open the possibility that 'God' 'might' exist (and I know some agnostics who have chosen agnosticism for exactly that reason) then I cannot view that as 'OK', correct, or valid--under any circumstances.

Pantheism and Diesm, on the other hand, are beliefs in 'God'--even if the diest and/or pantheist 'God' is quite different from most other religious views of 'God'. As such, I believe they suffer from the same error as any other mystical (non-rational) system or tradition.

Keith.

beyelzu

keith,

i guess that my problem with agnostics in general is that they are rarely true agnostics, most of them do fall into of that category of "there might be a god" which i think is either weak atheism or weak theism. I have often heard it argued by a self proclaimed agnostic that while he doesnt believe in god, a god may in fact exist. i have only ever met a couple of agnostics who actually argued that it is impossible to know if god does exist.

earlier, someone argued that atheists shouldnt attack deists and agnostics because we are all non-theists. and that atheists shouldnt be closedminded. but these arguments ignore the fact that if i know that i have 5 fingers on my left hand, because i can count them and see them and feel them, why shouldnt i insist that this is so when someone else tells me that i have six.


-grady

Keith Russell

grady:

You're absolutely right. (Besides, deists do believe in 'God', just not a personal 'God'. They are theists, diesm is a theological belief.)

Agnostics who say 'there might be a 'God'' often sound hopeful, to me. They would like a 'God', but they are (perhaps) too logical to make the 'leap of faith' to believe that 'God' actually exists, so they simply say 'God' might...

I believe that the concept of 'God' contradicts reality, and thus there cannot be a 'God'--

--period.

Keith.

capnkirk

You seem to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Obviously, time-space WAS created, and its properties are fairly well understood. Whether some sentient creator was involved in that creation is the only issue for debate.

So, let's start with a supposition, apply what we DO know, and see where it leads. If, for argument's sake, we presume for a moment that there WAS such an entity, what does the nature of time-space tell us about the nature of such a creator.

Please forgive the language here, as it reflects our bondedness to time. I will attempt to illustrate this by italicizing each word that that is time-bound for its meaning. That said, let us start: Before the big bang, there was no time because there was no matter (space-time is a property of matter), so such an entity would have to exist outside of conventional time-space (to control something one must be external to it). He would therefore not be time-bound. This would make him a very alien being indeed. It does not follow that such a being would then be interested in the time-bound existences of sentients within that creation. At best his consciousness would be best be described as being everywhere and everywhen. To such a consciousness (if that's what you would call it), omnipotence has no meaning because his reality is so totally different from ours that (time-bound) action (potence being the power to act) is irrelavent. In fact, the term exist is itself irrelavent.

While I do not subscribe to the existence of such a being, neither can I preclude it, but it makes no difference! Since such a being requires no worship, no homage, does not intervene, and neither rewards nor punishes, his existence becomes irrelavent to the only reality we can access.

P.S. Speaking totally metaphorically: In the reality of such a creator, the entire big-bang may have been nothing more portentous nor worthy of his interest than a spark from a hammer blow to his anvil.

The preceding addresses the argument of the "true" deist, but not all deists are "true". Many (if not most) contemporary deists are actually theists who have started down the path to athiesm, but can't quite let go of their theism yet. To call themselves deists really functions as a waystation or halfway house on their journey. The different "degrees" (for lack of a better term) of deism (imho) are mostly a reflection of how far along the particular 'recovering' theist is.