Deism is not gutless...

[Neo Deist]

In the Deism DIR, someone mentioned that deism is just gutless atheism. Although that post has been deleted, I wanted to explore that argument, so I posted it in this section so it could be discussed.

For those unaware of what deism is, it is the belief in God based on personal observations in nature and the cosmos, as well as personal feelings and experiences. It has nothing to do with a holy book, divine revelation, any type of savior, or following specific commandments. We typically reject those things, and dismiss them as man made (which they are). Deists try to follow the "Golden Rule" and live for the here and now. If God wants us to have an afterlife, It will provide one. Hopefully living a moral life will grant such an afterlife.

Since we don't follow any religion's path to salvation, if we are wrong we will suffer the same fate as atheists. I don't see how that is gutless if we suffer the same punishment as our non-believing brothers and sisters. Of course, any deity that torments Its creations just because they tried to think for themselves, doesn't deserve to be worshiped in the first place. God gave us intelligence but then denies the ability to use it? Bah...

 

[Ouroboros]

In the Deism DIR, someone mentioned that deism is just gutless atheism.

Sheesh. That's rude. My belief has been called word game, dumbed down, hypocritical, and many other things, and those posts are still around somewhere on this site. It's easy for a person to jump to disrespect when he/she doesn't fully understand the other person's views.

Anyway, I don't think Deism is gutless atheism. And the rest you said is all cool with me.

 

[Corthos]

Hmmm... you know, I considered being a Deist at one time. I respect it's rationality. =) Pure Deism seems lacking to me in the spiritual sense, though...

I suppose one could just incorporate spiritual ideas/practices from other religions as one saw fit, but I would think that would begin to "dilute" the pure rationality of the Deist with more things that can't be proven scientifically... Maybe I'm wrong. What are your thoughts?

 

[George-ananda]

In the Deism DIR, someone mentioned that deism is just gutless atheism. Although that post has been deleted, I wanted to explore that argument, so I posted it in this section so it could be discussed.

For those unaware of what deism is, it is the belief in God based on personal observations in nature and the cosmos, as well as personal feelings and experiences. It has nothing to do with a holy book, divine revelation, any type of savior, or following specific commandments. We typically reject those things, and dismiss them as man made (which they are). Deists try to follow the "Golden Rule" and live for the here and now. If God wants us to have an afterlife, It will provide one. Hopefully living a moral life will grant such an afterlife.

Since we don't follow any religion's path to salvation, if we are wrong we will suffer the same fate as atheists. I don't see how that is gutless if we suffer the same punishment as our non-believing brothers and sisters. Of course, any deity that torments Its creations just because they tried to think for themselves, doesn't deserve to be worshiped in the first place. God gave us intelligence but then denies the ability to use it? Bah...

This is well-said defense against the claim of 'gutless'.

I don't like Deism much myself but I would not call it gutless. My problem with Deism is its dismissal of all things spiritual and beyond the normal in the history of the human experience. I think there is sufficient evidence for us to know more about ourselves and the universe than is accepted in Deism.

 

[Sees]

I think of Deism as being much closer to theism than atheism, calling it gutless atheism is very silly.

 

[Deidre]

Remembering back when I explored Deism, I was told something along those lines too. lol I ignored them. How can a belief system be 'gutless?' How can someone's opinion of who or what a deity might be...be gutless? Is that supposed to imply that atheists are somehow braver than those who believe in the concept of a deity? Hmmm.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Actually, many pagans would hold exactly the same view, with the addition of the gods. Greeks like Socrates and Plato believed in a Supreme Being, but that our religious activity involves interaction with the gods who are part of the created universe, just like us.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Methinks that 'gutless' was used to describe how unsubstantiated it is.
Atheists can always fall back on skepticism, while theists can fall back on their religion.
It was compared to atheism due to its disorganization.

That's what I thought when I read the post, maybe it was just an insult though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In the Deism DIR, someone mentioned that deism is just gutless atheism. Although that post has been deleted, I wanted to explore that argument

"Argument" is a very generous term to describe that position. Stephen Pinker isn't the most anti-religious popular author out there, but is the only I've worked alongside personally, and has said publically and privately that a sophisticated deism is compatible with science despite his rather severe distaste for religion. Deism arose as an intellectually defensible alternative to theism thanks to an increasing (scientific) understanding of a cosmos that was increasingly understood as sensical. The well-known atheist Anthony Flew discarded atheism after years of publicly arguing for it in favor of deism. Many of the founders of modern science and academia were also founders or leading proponents of deism. Even today, physicists tend to appeal to a deistic perspective when talking about the nature and origins of the universe even when explicitly arguing against any evidence for a god (deist or no). I can't see how deism is "gutless". It's easy to explain things in terms of an all-powerful, inexplicable, participatory god. It's easy to stick strictly to the limits of empirical findings and abandon questions about spirituality, metaphysics, ultimate reality, god, etc. It's hard to try to meld rational, scientific thought and findings with most religions and religious worldviews, and deism has done this from its inception.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Greeks like Socrates and Plato believed in a Supreme Being

Socrates didn't believe any such thing, though he was executed in part for failing to properly honor the gods. Plato seems to have started to develop theology and a cosmology in which there was something akin to the supreme being you refer to, but never really finished. And this view was basically unique. For the Greeks (and romans, and basically all cultures) religion was fundamentally something one did, not something one believed.

 

[Neo Deist]

Methinks that 'gutless' was used to describe how unsubstantiated it is.
Atheists can always fall back on skepticism, while theists can fall back on their religion.
It was compared to atheism due to its disorganization.

That's what I thought when I read the post, maybe it was just an insult though.

It was an insult and removed by a Mod because of its nature, in that DIR.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It was an insult and removed by a Mod because of its nature, in that DIR.

I am aware that it was an insult, I was saying that the insult may have had meaning past just being an insult.

 

[Thana]

In the Deism DIR, someone mentioned that deism is just gutless atheism. Although that post has been deleted, I wanted to explore that argument, so I posted it in this section so it could be discussed.

For those unaware of what deism is, it is the belief in God based on personal observations in nature and the cosmos, as well as personal feelings and experiences. It has nothing to do with a holy book, divine revelation, any type of savior, or following specific commandments. We typically reject those things, and dismiss them as man made (which they are). Deists try to follow the "Golden Rule" and live for the here and now. If God wants us to have an afterlife, It will provide one. Hopefully living a moral life will grant such an afterlife.

Since we don't follow any religion's path to salvation, if we are wrong we will suffer the same fate as atheists. I don't see how that is gutless if we suffer the same punishment as our non-believing brothers and sisters. Of course, any deity that torments Its creations just because they tried to think for themselves, doesn't deserve to be worshiped in the first place. God gave us intelligence but then denies the ability to use it? Bah...

Well.... Deists do hide behind the fact that they don't claim to know anything other than the existence of God. If that's not a bit gutless, than what is? Theists are willing to explore the idea that you know more about God than just His existence, And Atheists are generally more than happy to claim that they either know God doesn't exist at all or that all God concepts they're currently aware of are false. But Deists? No, I get why some people might find their beliefs a bit cowardly. It's like playing on both sides, but claiming neutrality. It gets a bit tedious.

 

[Neo Deist]

Well.... Deists do hide behind the fact that they don't claim to know anything other than the existence of God. If that's not a bit gutless, than what is?

We are not hiding behind anything. We are simply stating that it is impossible to prove and validate any claim beyond "we believe in God." Our claim lies within personal observations, which can't be refuted. Nothing more, nothing less. Gutless is refusing to accept that God gave you intelligence and expects you to use it. Clinging to archaic notions that you will suffer some form of torment if you don't follow path X, is gutless. Step outside of the box. Think for yourself.

Theists are willing to explore the idea that you know more about God than just His existence

And how do you go about that exactly? By reading some man made texts that can't even be traced to the originals? By praying and then having a chemical reaction in your brain, that makes you think you had a divine interaction?

And Atheists are generally more than happy to claim that they either know God doesn't exist at all or that all God concepts they're currently aware of are false.

Their prerogative.

But Deists? No, I get why some people might find their beliefs a bit cowardly. It's like playing on both sides, but claiming neutrality. It gets a bit tedious.

Nothing tedious about it. As other prominent atheists have said, deism is the ONLY "religion" that they can give credit to that makes any sense. Feel free to go argue with Dawkins, Hitchens (well, not anymore), or any others that are well known.

 

[Thana]

We are not hiding behind anything. We are simply stating that it is impossible to prove and validate any claim beyond "we believe in God." Our claim lies within personal observations, which can't be refuted. Nothing more, nothing less. Gutless is refusing to accept that God gave you intelligence and expects you to use it. Clinging to archaic notions that you will suffer some form of torment if you don't follow path X, is gutless. Step outside of the box. Think for yourself.

I do think for myself, That's why I am who I am and I believe what I believe.
And I never implied you didn't think for yourself, I just implied that your beliefs could very easily be seen as gutless because you refuse to actually believe in anything more.

And how do you go about that exactly? By reading some man made texts that can't even be traced to the originals? By praying and the having a chemical reaction in your brain, that makes you think you had a divine interaction?

Nope. People found God before ever a word was written about Him.

Nothing tedious about it. As other prominent atheists have said, deism is the ONLY "religion" that they can give credit to that makes any sense. Feel free to go argue with Dawkins, Hitchens (well, not anymore), or any others that are well known.

I know it makes you proud that Atheists can't argue with you, But does the thought that maybe Deism isn't worth arguing with ever cross your mind? That maybe the reason why Atheists don't argue with Deism is because Deism is not enough of anything to be made an issue? They've practically dismissed Deism. So congrats on that then?

 

[Neo Deist]

I know it makes you proud that Atheists can't argue with you, But does the thought that maybe Deism isn't worth arguing with ever cross your mind? That maybe the reason why Atheists don't argue with Deism is because Deism is not enough of anything to be made an issue? They've practically dismissed Deism. So congrats on that then?

Go read/watch Dawkins or Hitchens. You'll understand after that.

 

[Thana]

Go read/watch Dawkins or Hitchens. You'll understand after that.

I have.
They say, essentially, that it's the only type of belief that they consider reasonable.

But they aren't the Popes of Atheism, and not only that, they said nothing noteworthy about Deism. Do you know why? Because Deism has nothing substantial to talk about, let alone debate. Your first post, explaining what Deism is, is pretty much all there is to say about Deism. After you've said that one paragraph, there's really nothing more to add. So tell me how is purposely choosing to be unsubstantial anything but a little gutless?

 

[Neo Deist]

I have.
They say, essentially, that it's the only type of belief that they consider reasonable.

There you have it! They are but two out of scores of atheists activists, that have drawn the same conclusion.

But they aren't the Popes of Atheism, and not only that, they said nothing noteworthy about Deism. Do you know why?

Yes. They can't refute personal observations and experiences. They know not to debate against my kind as it is futile.

 

[Thana]

There you have it! They are but two out of scores of atheists activists, that have drawn the same conclusion.
Yes. They can't refute personal observations and experiences. They know not to debate against my kind as it is futile.

They can't refute something that has no substance. And Deism has no substance.
Which is what I said, if you hadn't stopped reading mid-sentence, apparently.

Well atleast it's nice to know that Atheists and Theists don't have a monopoly on self-righteousness.

 

[Neo Deist]

They can't refute something that has no substance. And Deism has no substance.
Which is what I said, if you hadn't stopped reading mid-sentence, apparently.

Well atleast it's nice to know that Atheists and Theists don't have a monopoly on self-righteousness.

Wait. I feel something. There's a tickle...OMG, I think I am about to give a damn...

Nope, false alarm.