capnkirk

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beyelzu
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.

From the tone of your posting, militant athiest might be a better description.

....it is impossible for a logical atheist to be dogmatic. because dogma is based on faith.[QUOTE]

Dogma is broadly defined as An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. Dogma's basis is it's absoluteness. All that is required is that the person/group be "absolutely convinced" of his/their facts. Ergo, when an athiest becomes absolutely convinced that he is right, he by definition becomes dogmatic.
:boohoo:

capnkirk

You are correct. Since we were discussing deists and deism, I "presumed" the deist definition of god. mea culpa. Restated more clearly, a god that has no interaction with contemporary reality is by definition "unknowable".

Keith Russell

capn:

A 'God' that has no interaction with reality...

..isn't real.

Keith.

capnkirk

This corollary is flawed. Any "Deist" that tells you that 'his' god even rarely interacts with contemporary reality in such a way as to circumvent the laws of nature that (according to Deism) he created in the first place is NOT a Deist at all...he is a closet Theist! :banghead:

Neither I nor the moderator were referring to the god described by your corollary because that is not the god that literal Deism professes. In other postings to this thread I have described the nature of this distinction in more detail. Please refer to them for further clarification if necessary.

Actually, after further consideration, even if you told me that this (otherwise Deist) entity sometimes manifests supernatural capabilities, there is still no reason to worry about it because my will holds no sway with said entity (Intercession on behalf of a supplicant is a purely theist concept). I am as powerless before it as I am to stop a supernova.

In this respect, you are still confusing the Deist god with the Theist God, and they are (except for the act of creation) antithetical to each other. One is a god that demands belief, worship, and supplication, and one who intervenes at his pleasure to answer prayer; the other is NONE of these things. Again, the key to clarity on this issue is to realize that as soon as a professed Deist begins to make any of these claims for his god, he has started to slip from Deism back into Theism.

This is why I say that the Deist god is irrelevant, even if he does exist. The moment you stray from the above definition, you have strayed into Theist territory...where a whole different set of arguments apply.

capnkirk

I think we are essentially in agreement here; the Deist god is not real in any sense of the word that I am familiar with. Though it is clear to you and I, Deists aren't ready to accept that yet. The point that both I and the moderator were trying (perhaps too subtly) to make is that so far as how we get along with our lives, deists and athiests both realize that we can't expect any divine intervention on our behalf, and that there is no promise of a hereafter. In short, the only difference between the two groups is semantic. Deists are just athiests who still cling to the perceived requirement for a creator. They have let go of all their articles of faith but one, and that one is the most benign of all.

Caveat: I am excluding from the preceding description the professed Deists whose god is still more theist than they realize. To the extent that theist activism is retained in the deist god, the anti-theist arguments still apply.

Jayhawker Soule

At least no true Scottish Deist would suggest such a thing! It is truly at times such as this that this old trekkie comes to appreciate the relative value of Spock over Captain Kirk.The alternative, of course, is to

1. choose not to accept you as an authority, and
2. allow your adopted moderator to speak for himself

So, for example:Note, also:And:And:And:The spectrum encompassed by Deism is reflected in these discussions of English and French Deism. Apparently, Deism is far from monolithic, your "further clarification" notwithstanding.

And I suggest that the common denominator of Deism is 'theism in opposition to revealed religion', even to the point of rejecting 'deism' as revealed by capnkirk.

To quote Thomas Paine: "It believes in God, and there it rests." Perhaps deism should be applauded for this, but I still find it insufficient - an absentee Landlord is a Landlord nonetheless, and all efforts at proscribing what this Landlord can or will do is pure pretention. Again, once you posit a God, you've let the Genie out of the bottle, and there is absolutely nothing that stands between the Deism of Thomas Paine and such marvelous hybrids as Christian Deism as a Personal Religion.

Keith Russell

Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:

-belief in the existence of a single supreme God
-humanity's duty to revere God
-linkage of worship with practical morality
-God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
-good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death

I don't know if Lord Herbert is speaking for all (or even a majority of) deists, but a 'duty to revere' 'God'? 'Linkage of worship and morality'? 'Good works will be rewarded in life and after death? 'God' will forgive us?

[b]The above do not seem in any way related to the beleif that 'God' made reality, and then sat back to watch the results.

Believing that it is 'God' who judges (and then rewards or punishes) our deeds, that it is 'God' whom it is our duty to revere, believing that morality and worship are linked--

--these beliefs sound very much like many of the beliefs of any basic, organized Christian faith--

--and not much like deism.

If this is deism, it has nothing in common with my atheism.

Keith.

capnkirk

Mea culpa

I just thought I knew what Deism is. It is now apparent that Deism is as factionated as Theism. Since even Deists don't agree on what Deists believe, it becomes obvious that we, in this thread, can't make generalizations about Deism and how to debate Deists.

So for the sake of establishing some commonality of terms useful for dialog within this thread, I propose that we arbitrarily define Deism as differentiated from Theism. For this purpose it is convenient to define Deism as being completely devoid of theistic content.

Under this definition, anywhere one recognizes theism (irrespective of how the espouser defines himself), one debates those theistic articles for what they are, not what your protagonist labels them.

The only form of Deism that has no theistic content is the 'god created the universe and then he rested (and rests still)' denomination. To me this view amounts to pragmatic Athiesm with a placebo godhead, and can be treated as such.

P.S. I earned my capnkirk moniker when, as a Trekkie and an an Army captain, I happened to also be named Kirk (given name, not surname). As a highly analytical intelligence officer, however, I have always identified much more closely with Mr. Spock than with his C.O.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

'Theism' is the belief in existence of 'God' or 'gods'.

If deists believe that 'God created the universe, then left', they still believe in 'God', regardless of what else they may or may not think about 'God'.

Deists are theists, by definition.

Keith.

Jayhawker Soule

I can achieve exactly the same thing by arbitrarily defining Deism as the belief in carrots. Of course, this only helps if we insist that carrots play no role in our arbitrary definition of Theism. But the latter wouldn't be 'arbitrary' then, would it?

It seems to me that tweaking with definitions gets us no better than tautology: X-ism, when defined as an irrelevant belief system, is irrelevant.