Atheists don't like the idea of a laissez-faire God....

[ThePainefulTruth]

It seems as though you have many more suppositions. If we set aside the possibility that a god exists, how do you know:

1. There is exactly one god. Maybe there is a pantheon of deistic gods. Who's to say there isn't an entire deistic god for every single conscious primate on the planet?

For us in this world, there'd be no difference. And there could only be one omnipotent God.

2. This god or gods are omnipotent. How do you know these gods your supposing have unlimited power to affect anything that isn't human free will? Maybe they are also unable to affect lead? Or beryllium? Or gravity? Maybe their powers are only effective when the Milky Way is in a specific relative position to Andromeda? How would you know exactly what these god(s) powers are?

A God that created the universe, would for all intents and purposes by omnipotent.

3. These gods motivations. What you highlighted in red, of course. . this is a problem. Ascribing specific motivations to a deity is assuming a lot. Even if 1 and 2 above aren't problems, who's to say that the goal of a deistic god(s) is to protect free will in terrestrial primates? Maybe ther trying to stop us, or trick us, because we're a threat?

The only thing is ascribes is that if a God created the universe, then it stands to reason it was done for a purpose.

I would also refrain from making persoanl jabs about Atheists having so-and-so "emotional motivations", or "suspicious ignorance" I get it. . . you're frustrated because no one's buying into your claims.

How would you characterize atheists getting exercised about all the revealed straw men, but not addressing the only reasonable alternative to reasoned atheism. And I'm merely echoing Einstein who said, "I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." The source of his frustration is the same as mine: knee-jerk, out-of-hand, unthinking (read emotional) rejection.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The point is that I don't even need a reason. But if you need one, what about my aesthetical preference for not imagining entities that are likely not to exist at all?

But are just as unlikely as your non-existant alternative.

 

[Revoltingest]

But are just as unlikely as your non-existant alternative.

I say you're over-complicating something very simple.
There's no evidence for gods.
So we don't believe.
There's no evidence gods don't exist.
So we don't claim the truth.
Everything else said about the matter is invention.

 

[LuisDantas]

But are just as unlikely as your non-existant alternative.

And that would be important, because...?

 

[Windwalker]

Hope is the difference. I've said it repeatedly. We all fear death, at least the ones that aren't dead already.

Hope of what? A God that creates and becomes an absentee landlord doesn't seem to offer someone living here in this universe much consolation or promise. I don't get it. A pantheistic view of a wholly immanent God makes more sense that way then a wholly transcendent one who skips town after he builds a big city and doesn't having anything to do with it anymore. Can you explain?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no evidence gods don't exist.

That depends on the god.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hope of what?

Something more than suffering and death, which is the lot of many more people than we care to admit to. And the rest of us fear a pointless life as well.

A God that creates and becomes an absentee landlord doesn't seem to offer someone living here in this universe much consolation or promise. I don't get it. A pantheistic view of a wholly immanent God makes more sense that way then a wholly transcendent one who skips town after he builds a big city and doesn't having anything to do with it anymore. Can you explain?

You don't get the hope that we don't just live and then die, really? Pantheism/pandeism is irrelevant to the issue. And it's the Christians who claim deism is about a clockmaker who wound up the universe and then walked away. Why would it do that?

 

[Twilight Hue]

,....because it side steps their argument for atheism which is simply a straw man argument attacking all the "revealed" gods. It's so much easier to shoot fish in a barrel than to argue against a deist God which is indistinguishable to us, from atheism. Don't get me wrong, soft atheism is reasonable, but deism is equally reasonable--or equally unreasonable, if you will. But it appears that some atheists are as emotionally invested in an irrational eradication of doubt, as theists are.

Not really. No God, no point in thinking about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That depends on the god.

No argument here.
But I spoke of "gods" in general.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Theist only meaning an individual who believes in god(s). Hindu are theists just as Pagans, Muslims, and Bahai's. I don't see how deist is different?

Theists claim certainty based on faith. Deists claim uncertainty based on lack of evidence for the source of the universe--the same lack of evidence the atheists have.

I believe in god; and, my belief/religion isn't based on faith but fact. Unless a Muslim or Jew corrects me, I don't think their belief is based on faith either. The indigenous individuals I talk to see their (and our) faith/religion in absolute certainty/fact. The only theist religion that puts emphasis on faith that I know of is Christianity.

"Deist claim uncertainty based on lack of evidence" sounds like a Deist is an agnostic naturalist who sees the spender and awe of creation.

You don't, at least not in this life. All the personal relationships with God by the theists are completely manufactured, iow unfounded, iow a fabrication.

That depends on the god you're talking about. I am a monotheist as I believe in one god/life. I am a polytheist because I believe in multiple spirits/entities. A lot of religions and native traditions believe in god; and, they are not manufactured and fabricated. Can you give me an example of how god (an entity) can be fabricated if the god entity doesn't exist to even define it one way or another?

Why do deist believe in god?
What is their definition?
Why isn't their god fabricated since their belief sounds like an agnostic approach to theism?

 

[Neo Deist]

I have said it many times on this forum and I have flooded the Deism DIR with a ton of info. I would suggest starting there if you seek answers about deism. Most atheists don't care about it, so I will just say this:

Atheism: there is no God.
Theism: God exists and intervenes, answers prayers, performs miracles.
Deism: God exists but does not intervene, answer prayers or perform miracles because of free will or natural law.

Remove theism from the equation and focus on atheism and deism. Both accept scientific and medical explanations, both reject holy books, supernatural boogeymen, and divine intervention, and both agree on the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. While science has yet to answer the question "what caused the Big Bang," deism has answered it with "God caused it because God is the creator of the universe." Neither position can be proven or disproven.

With the belief in a deistic God, many can't grasp why you would believe in or worship a deity that doesn't do anything for you. Deists understand that God gave us free will, and if God were to intervene it would no longer be free will. That is the sole reason and explanation. We make our own choices and live with the consequences, good or bad. I do not speak for God, but who is to say that under a free will system, God is not saddened when something bad happens but we never know it? Just like the Big Bang, we can't prove it one way or another. For deists, our belief in and worship of God is out of respect for giving us life.

Then comes the big question, "well why do you choose to believe in a God that you can't have a relationship with?" The answer is: I choose to.




And no, 9/10ths, I will not be responding to you. I slammed the door on you on other threads. There's nothing from you that I need to read.

 

[viole]

I have said it many times on this forum and I have flooded the Deism DIR with a ton of info. I would suggest starting there if you seek answers about deism. Most atheists don't care about it, so I will just say this:

Atheism: there is no God.
Theism: God exists and intervenes, answers prayers, performs miracles.
Deism: God exists but does not intervene, answer prayers or perform miracles because of free will or natural law.

Remove theism from the equation and focus on atheism and deism. Both accept scientific and medical explanations, both reject holy books, supernatural boogeymen, and divine intervention, and both agree on the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. While science has yet to answer the question "what caused the Big Bang," deism has answered it with "God caused it because God is the creator of the universe." Neither position can be proven or disproven.

What would you do if science answered that question in a fully materialistic way?

And what would you do if causality was not applicable? I am sure you agree that not everything we experience has necessarily a cause.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jumi]

Which one(s)?

For starters any group of gods that is inactive or otherwise cannot be demonstrated can't be logically ruled out.

Next an active God might exist in probability distributions, nudging evolution or events on such a small scale to some direction as to avoid detection by humans using any foreseeable technologies. Such would be near impossible to prove false or true. I believe this view to be taken by some who believe in theistic evolution.

There are more, I probably can't even list them all.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

For us in this world, there'd be no difference. And there could only be one omnipotent God.

Why exactly one? What are you basing this claim on? I say there are three of them. . . Explain to me why your claim is any closer to accurate than mine.

A God that created the universe, would for all intents and purposes by omnipotent.

Are you sure your God created it? I say my triumvirate gods came across it only a billion years or so, found a few dozen class-M planets, including earth, and did their abiogenesis thing.

Again, explain to me why claim is any less valid that yours.

The only thing is ascribes is that if a God created the universe, then it stands to reason it was done for a purpose.

How do you know that? You are using yor limited human reason, after all. I say that my three gods each had a reason:

God A wanted to see how life developed, and take notes for his parents in his home universe.

God 1 wants everyone to behave according to his wishes. He keeps punishing them, but since they can't hear him, the message gets muddled.

God Grey made the world and evolved consciousness to create as much plastic as possible. It's a fuel source for anothe project he has going the Gamma quadrant of our universe.

Again, why are my claims any less valid that your presuppositions?

How would you characterize atheists getting exercised about all the revealed straw men, but not addressing the only reasonable alternative to reasoned atheism. And I'm merely echoing Einstein who said, "I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." The source of his frustration is the same as mine: knee-jerk, out-of-hand, unthinking (read emotional) rejection.

Why it's not reasonable . . . there are billions of unfalsafiable possibilities, as I've illustrated just one.

You think your take is more reasonable than mine, demonstrate why.

Don't forget, you put Atheist in your thread title, and insulted that very minority group of people.

Don't be surprised when some arrive to prove you wrong. Why? Can't speak for others. . But for me, because it's fun.

EDIT: if you don't want a discussion, there's a safe Deist DIR you can post this on.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What redundancy? And I merely gravitate towards it for the hope it offers to the vacant alternative.

Hope of what, exactly? Again this sounds like clutching at metaphysical straws, prioritising comfort over truth.

 

[Neo Deist]

What would you do if science answered that question in a fully materialistic way?

And what would you do if causality was not applicable? I am sure you agree that not everything we experience has necessarily a cause.

Ciao

- viole

Deism is very flexible. Deists are not stuck in set dogma or confined to a strictly interpreted set of beliefs. We merely choose to believe in God based on our observations of nature and/or the cosmos. It has nothing to do with holy books or organized religion. If science proves something, so be it!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

“
In this life, it is.

LOL.

So that's it then? You are just trying to shoehorn an afterlife into an effectively atheist worldview?

Takes all types I guess.

Let's just hope your lazy god got around to actually designing an afterlife for you. Chances are he is too busy, or perhaps taking a 6 billion year nap.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

For all:
There have been in recent history, a number of atheistic and skeptical scientists and noted philosophers who have come out and admitted that a deistic (laissez faire) God cannot be ruled out. To wit:
Richard Dawkins
Lawrence Krauss
Victor Stenger
Carl Sagan
Issac Asimov
Albert Einstein
Fred Hoyle (an atheist who embraced intelligent design???)
And even Stephen Hawking (reluctantly, petulantly, kicking and screaming)

Quotes please.

Then why do so many atheists, here and elsewhere, spend so much time arguing against all the totally based on hearsay, "revealed" gods?

I'm sorry can you pleased rephrase this question. As it is, it is unintelligible.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I'd have thought you'd have had something more to say than to just slather on the sarcasm. And who said anything about courage, I'm merely an advocate for Truth. What words have I put in atheists mouths? Is this forum not here for this exact purpose, to discuss these things. Your response is totally emotive.

Honestly i'd be shocked if SS didn't reply with sarcasm.

It's part of his formidable charm.

 

[Neo Deist]

LOL.

So that's it then? You are just trying to shoehorn an afterlife into an effectively atheist worldview?

Takes all types I guess.

Let's just hope your lazy god got around to actually designing an afterlife for you. Chances are he is too busy, or perhaps taking a 6 billion year nap.

Deists do not claim to know anything about the afterlife, if there even is one. What we do say, and to quote Thomas Paine, "I believe in only one God; and I have hope for happiness in an afterlife."

In other words, if an afterlife exists then living as a moral person would surely be enough for God to grant you access. Ultimately, it is up to God. If an afterlife is not granted, so be it. Death is the end of the road.

It's not up to us so it is not worth fretting over.