Atheist, Theists, & Intimate Deists

[slave2six]

Jeremy is an atheist.

Terrence is a theist who believes that some deity created everything and set the universe in motion but is not intimately involved in the affairs of humans.

From a practical perspective, is there any meaningful difference between the two? If these were the only two types of people on the planet, would there be all this discussion about how atheists are <insert sarcastic description> while the atheist responds by saying that the theists are a mistaken bunch of <insert sarcastic description>? In the end, would either belief system be in conflict with the other or necessitate the horrific bloodshed with which history is replete?

Morgan believes in a personal God who is intimately involved in the affairs of humans as a species and individual humans. It is because of this that he is evangelical about his beliefs.

It seems to me that this third type of person is the one that "stirs the pot" and causes most if not all of the discussions that we find on this forum. Because of Morgan's insistence in proclaiming his belief and because his belief is entirely unassailable since it is not based in anything tangible or self-evident, the atheist is forced to respond in ways that he/she would never respond to a theist. Indeed, it seems to me that it is precisely because of this belief in a personal god that religious conquests have ever occurred.

Question: Why can't people who believe as Morgan does simply leave well enough alone rather than insist on inflicting their viewpoint on the rest of society and labeling those who disagree with them as bad or sinners or whatever?

I am most interested in hearing from those who actually do proclaim a personal god, regardless of what religion you subscribe to.

 

[TheKnight]

Question: Why can't people who believe as Morgan does simply leave well enough alone rather than insist on inflicting their viewpoint on the rest of society and labeling those who disagree with them as bad or sinners or whatever?

1. People such as Morgan believe that it is their God-given duty to evangelize.
2. I don't know of any religion that is discriminatory in its labeling of sinners. Every Abrahamic religion sees EVERYONE as sinners. not just those who don't believe/disagree.

3. Attempting to convince another human being of your beliefs and mindset is not "inflicting your viewpoint". It's simply an attempt at engaging in a persuasive conversation.

All in all, I would say that with all 3 viewpoints there is not inherent conflict between beliefs.

 

[slave2six]

All in all, I would say that with all 3 viewpoints there is not inherent conflict between beliefs.

Then whence the conflict?

 

[TheKnight]

Then whence the conflict?

Conflict arises between human beings because that is part of our nature. We like to fight. I don't think it has any specific or direct cause in religion.

 

[J Bryson]

Conflict arises between human beings because that is part of our nature. We like to fight. I don't think it has any specific or direct cause in religion.

Spot on. Frubals.

 

[Willamena]

Isn't "Intimate Diest", as it's described, an oxymoron?

 

[J Bryson]

Isn't "Intimate Diest", as it's described, an oxymoron?

Maybe it's a deist who gives you that really awkward hug when saying goodbye?

 

[3.14]

would you rather fight over who gets the better life after your death or fight about the proper usage of you/you're

 

[J Bryson]

would you rather fight over who gets the better life after your death or fight about the proper usage of you/you're

At this point, if death is not an option, I'll take the second choice.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe it's a deist who gives you that really awkward hug when saying goodbye?

It just seems to me that "Terrance" is the deist and the other an "intimate theist".

 

[Willamena]

Why can't people who believe as Morgan does simply leave well enough alone rather than insist on inflicting their viewpoint on the rest of society and labeling those who disagree with them as bad or sinners or whatever?

Some people have a need to shape the world to their own specficiations.

 

[logician]

13. Attempting to convince another human being of your beliefs and mindset is not "inflicting your viewpoint". It's simply an attempt at engaging in a persuasive conversation.

.

Certainly not universally true, it depends on how you do it, and in what context.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

In prompt to your first question I think the answer is no. There wouldn't be any kind of "meaningless prejudice or conflict" beyond what is normal to human affairs. The Deist, Pantheist/Panetheist, the Agnostic, and the Atheist differ primarily in terms of cosmology. This is primarily a philosophical difference. It can easily be argued to have scientific implications (some day... maybe 10,000 years later) and maybe some sort of mystical quality (something appreciably different from psychology but that's at least debatable). In the end things like ethics, logic, observation, etc: all of these things easily remain intact and/or are preserved across the different perspectives.



As far as the second case is concerned a special instance of religion is all that is needed to effect needless conflict. The Abrahamic religions all venerate a "war" "God." This deity had the canaanites exterminated on their own land because they didn't deserve it and the "chosen" people did. Of course it isn't all that shocking that "Yahweh" "Jehovah" "Allah" are "war Gods" because the region has been inundated with war throughout the annals of history. Every institution to come from this region is altered by war.

So we take this and then look at something like the Crusades. Hundreds of years of pointless suffering and bloodshed, all over who controls some spot of land. No, it actually had nothing to do with the religious sites and everything to do with the power to control who could visit those sites. The whole of the Dark Ages can also be layed at the door of religion. After the fall of the Roman Empire it would have been almost trivial to re-establish contact with the "civilized" cultures of the east (china/india) were it not for the rise of Islam. So we have a religious upwelling which interrupts cultural development and then Europe falls into "brutal religious oppression."

The common man may have forgiven organized religion for this, but elites and scholars have long memories...

Consider: If the West's experience with religion were not so colored by Abrahamic "war Gods" would we have such prejudice against religion? The religion's of the East seem to coincide quite nicely with Science and when was the last time you heard of a Guru on some mountain top advocating the persecution of a bunch of people for being different?

MTF

 

[knockknock]

Consider: If the West's experience with religion were not so colored by Abrahamic "war Gods" would we have such prejudice against religion? The religion's of the East seem to coincide quite nicely with Science and when was the last time you heard of a Guru on some mountain top advocating the persecution of a bunch of people for being different?

MTF

It's small minded to just blame the abrahamic religions for causing all of the wars and injustices in the world, therefore creating predjudices. If you look hard enough you will find wars and atrocities carried out by eastern peoples of those religions you are so biased towards.

Also, were the Romans ***** cats? I think not and look how much land they 'stole'.

It all boils down to bad people using religious powers of pursuasion to manipulate the masses into doing their bidding. The despots and tyrants don't even bother appealing to the faithful, they just rule by fear and domination.

Men are men and they make war no matter what their weapon of choice is.
As

 

[ManTimeForgot]

It's small minded to just blame the abrahamic religions for causing all of the wars and injustices in the world, therefore creating predjudices. If you look hard enough you will find wars and atrocities carried out by eastern peoples of those religions you are so biased towards.

Also, were the Romans ***** cats? I think not and look how much land they 'stole'.

It all boils down to bad people using religious powers of pursuasion to manipulate the masses into doing their bidding. The despots and tyrants don't even bother appealing to the faithful, they just rule by fear and domination.

Men are men and they make war no matter what their weapon of choice is.
As

So who is blaming Abrahamic religions for all atrocities? I certainly wasn't. But if you could please point out to me which eastern religions were the primary cause for genocide?

Its really quite simple; if your religion promotes war, then you are yourself more likely to engage in war. Sparta's patron was Artemis (a war god). Look at what Sparta's culture turned into: Warrior ethos, soldier training from early childhood, women prized almost exclusively for their ability to produce strong males to become warriors...


Power attracts those who are prone to corruption. Corrupt individuals in power are prone to abuses of power. In sum human history has cases of horrible abuses of just about every institution we are aware of. But the question is Not: Will eastern religions end corruption (certainly not), but rather is the net effect of a religion a positive one.


At the time of Christianity's rise throughout the Roman Empire it attempted to supplant paganism as the "religion" of the aristocracy and the scholarly. All of the "great" works of dissertation on topics of interest were primarily written with the Greek/Pagan world-view in mind and used examples of "pagan" mythos to explain lessons. Christianity ultimately failed to produce a scholarly class of note. Monasticism failed to take root in part because monasticism fostered a retreat from reality, which the aristocracy certainly did not care for and not all the scholarly wished to become hermits (though some surely did). Christianity ultimately ended up "co-existing" with paganism for hundreds of years: Christianity being the religion of the "uneducated" (notice that the congregation was not allowed to read the Bible; it was only the priests that could) and paganism the "religion/world-view" of the scholarly and the aristocracy. Obviously Christianity eventually ended up supplanting Paganism, but that is for another thread.



Take a look at what happens to society during the early times of Buddhism: A major war-like conqueror loses his "taste for blood" and takes up a life of peace and a sizeable portion of the nobility similarly become Buddhist (this is followed by a fairly substantial period of time in which Buddhism is oppressed). But the point here is introducing Buddhism to the populace didn't suddenly cause people to want to go conquer their neighbors; whereas the introduction of Islam coincides with immense war-like expansion.


Religion is not completely responsible (pure causative agent) for the actions that occur at their inception, but it certainly is worth noting which sort of events occurred historically at the inception of a religion. Sociologically all institutions contribute some extent towards the actions a society takes. But major institutions like religion, economy, polity, family, etc contribute to a greater extent than lesser institutions like art, architecture, language, writing, etc and those contribute to a greater extent than even lesser institutions like grooming practice... So it is always worth noting what sort of precepts a religion is conceptually predisposed towards producing.

MTF

 

[J Bryson]

So who is blaming Abrahamic religions for all atrocities? I certainly wasn't. But if you could please point out to me which eastern religions were the primary cause for genocide?

Its really quite simple; if your religion promotes war, then you are yourself more likely to engage in war. Sparta's patron was Artemis (a war god). Look at what Sparta's culture turned into: Warrior ethos, soldier training from early childhood, women prized almost exclusively for their ability to produce strong males to become warriors...


Power attracts those who are prone to corruption. Corrupt individuals in power are prone to abuses of power. In sum human history has cases of horrible abuses of just about every institution we are aware of. But the question is Not: Will eastern religions end corruption (certainly not), but rather is the net effect of a religion a positive one.


At the time of Christianity's rise throughout the Roman Empire it attempted to supplant paganism as the "religion" of the aristocracy and the scholarly. All of the "great" works of dissertation on topics of interest were primarily written with the Greek/Pagan world-view in mind and used examples of "pagan" mythos to explain lessons. Christianity ultimately failed to produce a scholarly class of note. Monasticism failed to take root in part because monasticism fostered a retreat from reality, which the aristocracy certainly did not care for and not all the scholarly wished to become hermits (though some surely did). Christianity ultimately ended up "co-existing" with paganism for hundreds of years: Christianity being the religion of the "uneducated" (notice that the congregation was not allowed to read the Bible; it was only the priests that could) and paganism the "religion/world-view" of the scholarly and the aristocracy. Obviously Christianity eventually ended up supplanting Paganism, but that is for another thread.



Take a look at what happens to society during the early times of Buddhism: A major war-like conqueror loses his "taste for blood" and takes up a life of peace and a sizeable portion of the nobility similarly become Buddhist (this is followed by a fairly substantial period of time in which Buddhism is oppressed). But the point here is introducing Buddhism to the populace didn't suddenly cause people to want to go conquer their neighbors; whereas the introduction of Islam coincides with immense war-like expansion.


Religion is not completely responsible (pure causative agent) for the actions that occur at their inception, but it certainly is worth noting which sort of events occurred historically at the inception of a religion. Sociologically all institutions contribute some extent towards the actions a society takes. But major institutions like religion, economy, polity, family, etc contribute to a greater extent than lesser institutions like art, architecture, language, writing, etc and those contribute to a greater extent than even lesser institutions like grooming practice... So it is always worth noting what sort of precepts a religion is conceptually predisposed towards producing.

MTF

That's generally a good point, except that Christianity as stated in the New Testament does not condone violence. However, the corrupted version of the religion that we see with some of the Roman followers is certainly warlike.

 

[blackout]

My only problem is with people who try to LEGISLATE
what is or isn't a "marriage" or a family unit living/arangement,
or weather there should be "prohibition", or stores open on sunday...
or whatever... just because their religion says it's wrong.

God put you here to make YOUR OWN decisions.
And he gives you the FREEDOM to do that each and every day.
(assuming of course you live in a free country)
So PLEASE afford everyone else the SAME RIGHT god himself gives.
Stop trying to control what people can and can't do.
Let them decide for themselves.
Do you not believe that each person's salvation is between god and that person alone?

 

[Keith]

Jeremy is an atheist.

Terrence is a theist who believes that some deity created everything and set the universe in motion but is not intimately involved in the affairs of humans.

From a practical perspective, is there any meaningful difference between the two? If these were the only two types of people on the planet, would there be all this discussion about how atheists are <insert sarcastic description> while the atheist responds by saying that the theists are a mistaken bunch of <insert sarcastic description>? In the end, would either belief system be in conflict with the other or necessitate the horrific bloodshed with which history is replete?

Morgan believes in a personal God who is intimately involved in the affairs of humans as a species and individual humans. It is because of this that he is evangelical about his beliefs.

It seems to me that this third type of person is the one that "stirs the pot" and causes most if not all of the discussions that we find on this forum. Because of Morgan's insistence in proclaiming his belief and because his belief is entirely unassailable since it is not based in anything tangible or self-evident, the atheist is forced to respond in ways that he/she would never respond to a theist. Indeed, it seems to me that it is precisely because of this belief in a personal god that religious conquests have ever occurred.

Question: Why can't people who believe as Morgan does simply leave well enough alone rather than insist on inflicting their viewpoint on the rest of society and labeling those who disagree with them as bad or sinners or whatever?

I am most interested in hearing from those who actually do proclaim a personal god, regardless of what religion you subscribe to.

Jesus’ last words on earth were to go forth and baptize all nations. I testify on religious boards for the same reason that some trudge through town centres bearing heavy boards upon their backs worded ‘Don’t delay. Repent today’. We are all obeying Jesus’ command so that the ignorant, and the deceived can know how to be saved. You proudly describe yourself as an ex-Christian as if you have won a war whereas the reality is that you have lost it. Still you have come to an education forum to learn. Here you can learn of many gods that will satisfy all of your desires whilst enslaving you by confirming that you don’t need the saving Grace of Jesus. Only Jesus offers to save you. That is the lesson that Christianity teaches.

Keith

 

[Storm]

Jesus’ last words on earth were to go forth and baptize all nations. I testify on religious boards for the same reason that some trudge through town centres bearing heavy boards upon their backs worded ‘Don’t delay. Repent today’. We are all obeying Jesus’ command so that the ignorant, and the deceived can know how to be saved. You proudly describe yourself as an ex-Christian as if you have won a war whereas the reality is that you have lost it. Still you have come to an education forum to learn. Here you can learn of many gods that will satisfy all of your desires whilst enslaving you by confirming that you don’t need the saving Grace of Jesus. Only Jesus offers to save you. That is the lesson that Christianity teaches.

Keith

You might want to find another forum, then, as this one forbids proselytization.

 

[rojse]

Jeremy is an atheist.

Terrence is a theist who believes that some deity created everything and set the universe in motion but is not intimately involved in the affairs of humans.

From a practical perspective, is there any meaningful difference between the two?

In what regard could any theological discussion be said to have a practical perspective?