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

[McBell]

,....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.

um...
what do you think my "argument for atheism" is?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

Because there can only be one omnipotent God, and that one may not exist.

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.

Faith is a word for believing in something when there's no reason to, and it's (unintentionally understood to be blind faith aka unreasoned faith.)

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

Well, that's one way to put it.

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?

We believe that God is a possible cause of the universe.

What is their definition?

I define God as Truth, and the aspects of that Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. But deists generally simply define God as the laissez-faire creator.

Why isn't their god fabricated since their belief sounds like an agnostic approach to theism?

Because we just claim God as a possible explanation for the universe. I've never met or talked to one, but I suppose there could be hard deists who (unreasonably) claim certainty.

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.

Yes!

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

Do you mean, in a way that would disprove God. If so, then I'd have to accept that an move on, depressed though I'd be.

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

That's just another way of saying that God had been disproved.

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.

Because omnipotence is one. There can't be two or more all powerful Gods. And we can reasonably assume virtual omnipotence in the face of the scale and scope of the universe, and the ether in which it is suspended.r

Are you sure your God created it?

I can't believe how many times I've had to answer that question. Agnosticism precludes certainty.

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.

Looking back 13 billion years in time, we find no evidence for one single supernatural act, and there is an ostensible reason for that, free will.

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

Anyone who uses a straw man argument should be insulted I suppose, but I'd use the word, "exposed".

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

What, it's fun being wrong, and being arrogant about it as well? I wouldn't know. But I have been wrong in the past, but I admitted it--a virtue few people practice.

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

Doubt is not comfortable. But neither is false certainty, unless you're really good at self-deception. And I call it hope, because I know it's not certain. And if I put comfort above all, I'd stay the hell away from Truth....or discussion boards.

LOL.

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

I wouldn't use the smug sarcasm, but yes. And if I was born in some hell hole with nothing to expect out of life but pain, suffering and an early death (the likes of which there are planty), I would have no choice but the "shoehorn" of hope.

Quotes please.

Richard Dawkins (atheist) debate with John Lennox www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw begin @ 4:30
"We could take a deist god, sort of god of the physicists. A god of somebody like Paul Davies who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and that would be…the deist god would be one…I think one would be…one could make a reasonable respectable case for that. Not a case that I would accept, but I think it’s a serious discussion that we could have."
@ 37:45
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."


Lawrence Krauss (scientific skeptic) debate with William L. Craig " youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:55…Uploaded 03/30/11

“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."



Victor Stenger (atheist) in Huffpost Blog. 06/30/11

“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”



Stephen Hawking (atheist?-skeptic)

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" A Brief History of Time (1988), pp. 8-9. (note: an expanding universe was initially considered a blow to atheism since it indicated a beginning as opposed to the Steady State model. But that, ultimately, is unable to sidestep the issue of a beginning anyway.)



Fred Hoyle An atheist who embraced intelligent design???



Carl Sagan (scientific skeptic) God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them? Edward Wakin (May 1981)

“To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”



Albert Einstein (agnostic) Einstein: The Life and Times. Clark, Ronald W. (1971) p.425

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but 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. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."….

…."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."


Isaac Asimov (atheist) interviewed by Paul Kurtz on “Science and the Bible”, in Free Inquiry, Spring 1982

“I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any
evidence against it.”


Charles Darwin (supposed atheist) Letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[/QUOTE]

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me see...

Because there can only be one omnipotent God, and that one may not exist.

However, you do believe in a god, right? If so, that is theism (believe there are god(s)). If not, why call what you believe god?

Faith is a word for believing in something when there's no reason to, and it's (unintentionally understood to be blind faith aka unreasoned faith.)

Faith is believing in something without evidence and proof of. It's also trust.

We believe that God is a possible cause of the universe.

God does exist or is it probable?

I define God as Truth, and the aspects of that Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. But deists generally simply define God as the laissez-faire creator.

Laissez-faire? What does that mean in your interpretation and definition of the word?

If god is all these attributes, are you using the word 'god' for convenience so you don't have to list all those attributes individually? (Collective noun)

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?

How are theists relations with god manufactured and fabricated?

Since theist do believe in god (probable or not), that would be saying their god is manufactured and fabricated. Theism just means people who believe in god(s). With and without the -s.

Plus, it depends on your definition of god. Since it sounds like not all deist have the same definition, love, justice, etc do exist but deist who are theist and believe in an entity/creator rather than human characteristics and attributes, how are they manufactured and fabricated?

Because we just claim God as a possible explanation for the universe. I've never met or talked to one, but I suppose there could be hard deists who (unreasonably) claim certainty.

This makes me think that deist don't actually believe a creator exist regardless if they think it is probably. If they are agnostic, then yeah, I can see why they aren't theist. If they know or believe a creator exist, they are theist. Why call oneself a deist if there is only a possibility of god creating the universe?

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

Yes, they do. I just don't agree that it is a creator. We don't experience love out of the blue. There are factors whatever they are that bring on the experience we define as love. Anger doesn't just happen. Like love, even thoughts (cause) or other people's interactions with us (cause) can make us angry. This table didn't build itself. The cause (or motive or action based on motive) had to be someone making this table for a reason. Usually we don't create things without any reason. I don't agree the universe has a cause/creator. Everything is in formation and change. If the universe has a cause, the cause/reason behind the action is that of formation, interaction, and change.

Where in life is it even probable that a creator is behind what we define as the universe?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

um...
what do you think my "argument for atheism" is?

I don't know what YOUR argument for atheism is, I'm only referring to those atheists who try to promote atheism via straw man arguments against revealed religions while ignoring the equally improbable but only reasonable alternative to atheism, deism. Those religions are wrong (Duh!) so atheism is right. The only alternative to atheism they know or care to think about (because thinking about it is easy), are fish in a barrel revealed religions.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't know what YOUR argument for atheism is, I'm only referring to those atheists who try to promote atheism via straw man arguments against revealed religions while ignoring the equally improbable but only reasonable alternative to atheism, deism. Those religions are wrong (Duh!) so atheism is right. The only alternative to atheism they know or care to think about (because thinking about it is easy), are fish in a barrel revealed religions.

I still don't understand your need to believe in a redundant and irrelevant God. We currently have no idea how our universe came into being, but I suspect that if we do get an answer eventually it will be a lot weirder than "God did it". Why do you cling to such simplistic notions? I honestly don't get it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

However, you do believe in a god, right? If so, that is theism (believe there are god(s)). If not, why call what you believe god?

Technically yes, deism is a form of theism. But all other forms of theism involve supernatural intervention and revelation. So by convention, deism has been effectively segregated from being grouped with them under that name.

Faith is believing in something without evidence and proof of. It's also trust.

There's blind faith, which is faith/trust with no basis in reason at all. And then there's faith supported by some degree of evidence and reason.

God does exist or is it probable?

From out standpoint, with no evidence either way, God it's a 50-50 proposition.

Laissez-faire? What does that mean in your interpretation and definition of the word?

Hand's off, no intervention....whatsoever.

If god is all these attributes, are you using the word 'god' for convenience so you don't have to list all those attributes individually? (Collective noun)

It should probably, more rightly, be expressed god/God, where god is the inanimate ultimate ideal Truth (instead of other gods like money, power, idols etc.), or God where that ultimate ideal is the conscious spiritual embodiment of Truth. I guess it's something of a collective convenience, but I mostly just list those aspects to help in an intuitive understanding of the concept of Truth. People alla be axing, from Pilate on, "What is Truth?". There may be more aspects than those four, but in 15 years, I haven't found any.

How are theists relations with god manufactured and fabricated?

People fear death and the dark and pain and suffering and doubt. So some shylock comes along and says, "I know this god who will protect us, but you need to give me, er, God 25 virgins a month in tribute", or some such thing. Then when the time comes that his god doesn't protect them and they complain, he writes some version of the Book of Job where God says, "Where were you when I created the universe?" "Who are you to question me?" "God helps those who helps himself", etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Since theist do believe in god (probable or not), that would be saying their god is manufactured and fabricated. Theism just means people who believe in god(s). With and without the -s.

?

Plus, it depends on your definition of god. Since it sounds like not all deist have the same definition, love, justice, etc.

Yes, Truth and its aspects is my elucidation.

do exist but deist who are theist and believe in an entity/creator rather than human characteristics and attributes, how are they manufactured and fabricated?

How are what created and manufactured?

This makes me think that deist don't actually believe a creator exist regardless if they think it is probably. If they are agnostic, then yeah, I can see why they aren't theist. If they know or believe a creator exist, they are theist. Why call oneself a deist if there is only a possibility of god creating the universe?

Deists are almost universally agnostic (I don't know of any exceptions), therefore can't be certain there is a God.

I don't agree the universe has a cause/creator.

It may or may not, how do you know, or even an inkling either way? There's nothing to base even a guess on.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I still don't understand your need to believe in a redundant and irrelevant God.

Irrelevant in this life, by design. But if God s possible, a hereafter is possible and that's not irrelevant.

We currently have no idea how our universe came into being, but I suspect that if we do get an answer eventually it will be a lot weirder than "God did it". Why do you cling to such simplistic notions? I honestly don't get it.

You have no basis for your suspicions. The prospect is still 50-50. And I can't help but wonder why you not only wouldn't hope for meaning and a continuation, but deride those who do, when, as you admit, there is no indication either way.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have no basis for your suspicions. The prospect is still 50-50. And I can't help but wonder why you not only wouldn't hope for meaning and a continuation, but deride those who do, when, as you admit, there is no indication either way.

I don't know where you get your 50-50 from, it sounds arbitrary to me. There are all sorts of weird and wonderful theories which have been put forward, none of them relying on God. Looking at how weird and wonderful the universe is, I highly doubt that "God did it" is correct, it is crude, simplistic and simply not weird enough!

So how did you arrive at your 50-50 probability? How many other possible explanations have you explored?

Is your need to believe in God really more to do with wanting to believe in an afterlife? Many religious beliefs stem from a fear of death.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ima try and take out the common accepted definition of theism and say it is only a belief in god(s).

Deists are almost universally agnostic (I don't know of any exceptions), therefore can't be certain there is a God.

I dont see a reason for a deist to say they believe in god when god is unknown to exist and defined differently than being an entity (taking out the common abrahamic use just in general)

Technically yes, deism is a form of theism. But all other forms of theism involve supernatural intervention and revelation. So by convention, deism has been effectively segregated from being grouped with them under that name.

Once you call something a god(s) its under theism regardless if its supernatural or not (taking out common definitions and sticking to the strict ones)

There's blind faith, which is faith/trust with no basis in reason at all. And then there's faith supported by some degree of evidence and reason.

Faith/trust can only be faith/trust if one has basis and reason for it. There is a difference between blind faith (better word and faith). I trust some of my family because I found reasons and they gave me reasons to trust them (living and spirits). If I had no reason, my trust would be based on nothing. I wouldn't call that trust. I think there is a better word to describe jumping off a cliff without reason to do so regardless if there is evidence you may die or not. Anyone who doesnt base their trust on evidence isnt trust to me. I think a better word is hope maybe.

People fear death and the dark and pain and suffering and doubt. So some shylock comes along and says, "I know this god who will protect us, but you need to give me, er, God 25 virgins a month in tribute", or some such thing. Then when the time comes that his god doesn't protect them and they complain, he writes some version of the Book of Job where God says, "Where were you when I created the universe?" "Who are you to question me?" "God helps those who helps himself", etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Not all entities defined as god(s) fit this definition. So, just saying in general, god(s) are object(s) and person(s) of worship (anything you put as an idol of worship).

While the abrahamic god is always used, I try to stray from generalizing other gods based on the abrahamic one.

How are what created and manufactured?

You were saying god is fabricated and manufactured. Since I dont single out the abrahamic god as such, Id assume without specifying or guessing, you mean all gods-deist included.

It may or may not, how do you know, or even an inkling either way? There's nothing to base even a guess on.

There is nothing that would make me assume there is a god. Thats like saying I dont know there isnt a 1,000 dollars on the table Im sitting at. I know there isnt but an agnostic would say it could be true or not. I find that odd because why would I have a reason to think its true unless Im philosophizing.

God/entity (any religion) are no exception

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I wouldn't use the smug sarcasm, but yes. And if I was born in some hell hole with nothing to expect out of life but pain, suffering and an early death (the likes of which there are planty), I would have no choice but the "shoehorn" of hope.

Wow. Is that really how you view your life? Some horrible hopeless thing that is meaningless without some straw clutching fantasy of some unknown eternal paradise?

I don't often feel pity, but I honestly pity you.

 

[viole]

.
That's just another way of saying that God had been disproved.

Well, then I can disprove God. For I can make a case for causality to not be applicable at fundamental level. I can also make a case for an atemporal and eternal Universe that always is, and does not therefore requires neither causation, nor a beginning. Everything in the context of Big Bang cosmology, of course.

Which one do you prefer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

,....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.

But atheists don't believe in any gods whether they be laissez-faire or any other type.

 

[Iti oj]

Not being ruled out is not the same thing as ruled in. Can you justify or provide evidence for a deistic god? If you cant then why should i believe in it?

 

[jonathan180iq]

,....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.

IF there is a god, and IF it's not involved in anything ever, then what's the point in even talking about the possibility of its existence?
It literally makes no difference, at all, whether this entity exists or not. So why bother?

And for the record, atheism can't be a thing without a theistic claim preceding it... So...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IF there is a god, and IF it's not involved in anything ever, then what's the point in even talking about the possibility of its existence?
It literally makes no difference, at all, whether this entity exists or not. So why bother?

I don't know, but it might be to do with the implied possibility of an afterlife of some sort.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't know, but it might be to do with the implied possibility of an afterlife of some sort.

But there's a problem with that, as it would mean that this character would have some sort of hand in the Universe.
Even an indirect influence on the psyche of creatures in the hypothetical Laissez-faire Universe is an influence, is it not?

 

[Jumi]

Those religions are wrong (Duh!) so atheism is right. The only alternative to atheism they know or care to think about (because thinking about it is easy), are fish in a barrel revealed religions.

Someone might think like that, but you have already given out exceptions to the rule that you propose. The Asimov quote is quite fitting for most agnostic atheists, a majority position among atheists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You seem to be confusing the commonamity of arguments against revealed religion for the reason atheists are atheist. I talk a lot about the Abrahamic religions, far more than any else both revealed and nonrevealed, because it is the most applicable to the environment and attitudes I live in. It should be no more surprising I talk more about Christianity than Deism than I talk more about Christianity than Vodun. But I'm not an atheist because of my arguments against Christianity, I'm not a Christian because of my arguments against Christianity.

I'm an atheist because I think god (s) create multiple unnecessary assumptions, and see origination through material means as the better candidate. So even though I don't claim to know for sure, my belief is that so far nothing in our universe has suggested the need for a god absent or otherwise.

By the way, not all deists have the same definition of deism you do. Some are polytheistic (polydeism) or even pantheistic (pandeism) all fall under the deist umbrella term.

Some believe god (s) are dead or gone, or used themselves in creation until nothing of them was left, or exist but just don't give a damn about creation, making the afterlife the equivalent of atheism. And they have just as much or as little reason as you do for your bit about the protection of free will.

 

[McBell]

I don't know what YOUR argument for atheism is, I'm only referring to those atheists who try to promote atheism via straw man arguments against revealed religions while ignoring the equally improbable but only reasonable alternative to atheism, deism. Those religions are wrong (Duh!) so atheism is right. The only alternative to atheism they know or care to think about (because thinking about it is easy), are fish in a barrel revealed religions.

What are these "strawman arguments" you keep referring to?

You keep claiming that deism is a "reasonable alternative to atheism" but you have not presented anything that supports that claim.

please present some specific "fish in a barrel arguments" you refer to.

 

[McBell]

The prospect is still 50-50.

What prospect is 50-50?
Please show your math.