Fire & Brimstone Deism

[George-ananda]

"....poltergeists and all of the other evidence...." That's as far as I got.

????

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here's a pretty good link:

Afterlife Evidence

Thanks for the link! I'll look into it.

You see, I believe there will be life after death, just not immediately after death, as taught in many religions: that at the moment a person dies, he goes somewhere else. No, I do not believe this.

But, please, keep an open mind, when reading the rest of this post!

Jesus said, the dead are in their "memorial tombs", when he will resurrect them, at a future time. -- John 5:28-29; John 6:40. And the resurrection being in the future, is further indicated by Paul, @ Acts of the Apostles 24:15.

But even most of Christendom doesn't teach that!! Most professed Bible supporters think that, when a person dies, they immediately go to bliss in heaven, or torment in hell. These teachers completely ignore Scriptures that directly deal with the subject, such as Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalms 146:3-4, Jesus' words regarding Lazarus at John 11:11-13, et.al.

Then, what could all these accounts of NDE's be about? It's about deceiving people, getting people to believe something that's not the truth! Just like with the people enslaved in Christendom! It is not for nothing the Bible tells us, that Satan is misleading "the entire inhabited Earth"! -Revelation 12:9.

What was the first lie? It was told by the Devil (John 8:44; "the original Serpent", Revelation 12:9), when he told Eve, "You positively will not die." He's simply trying to get many to believe his lie, that people don't really die, they just go to another place, and live there. He has pretty much succeeded....most think that way.

Another thing to consider. If our loved ones, when they died, actually did go somewhere else to live, wouldn't a loving God want us to know, and talk to them, to ease our mind? Of course!! But He tells us to avoid "consulting with the dead"(Deuteronomy 18:10-12)..... the dead are dead (for the time being, during which time, God is staying out of mankind's 'rulership trials'), and He is aware of whose power is really behind this deception.

Take care.

 

[Neon Genesis]

I feel like this is a bit too much of an either/or situation. It could be just as possible there is a god of some sort but still no afterlife for humans. On the other hand, it could be possible for humans to have an afterlife or something like reincarnation, but there is some other force behind it besides a god.

 

[siti]

I know this thread is a bit old and has moved on, but I want to ask my old friend (from other forums) TPT about this line of reasoning...

The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that ... however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation...

...deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't

So are we to infer that this "hope" is also "individual, irrelevant speculation"? Of what value then except to the individual "hoper"? And how is the judgement between the moral and virtuous who are deserving of such a reward and the immoral and non-virtuous who deserve oblivion made by a strictly "hands-off laissez faire God"?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I know this thread is a bit old and has moved on, but I want to ask my old friend (from other forums) TPT about this line of reasoning...



So are we to infer that this "hope" is also "individual, irrelevant speculation"?

That hope is not a coin of this realm, but only a refusal to accept that we live our threescore and ten and then return to the oblivion from which we came.

Of what value then except to the individual "hoper"?

The individual soul is the entity of ultimate value. Without it, without our individual souls and our full self-awareness, the universe is uncomprehended by anything other than God (if It exists). Good and evil wouldn't exist, because they are born of the choices that self-awareness provides. The root of all evil is a moral/legal double standard which is the rationalization for choosing to put our individual rights above those of others.

And how is the judgement between the moral and virtuous who are deserving of such a reward and the immoral and non-virtuous who deserve oblivion made by a strictly "hands-off laissez faire God"?

I would assume that God's policy of non-intervention would only apply to our mortal selves in this natural universe, the rational stage on which we make our choices, free from the fetters of divine influence. But that's irrelevant to any judgement in a speculative "hereafter" because we will be our own judges. Imagine being seated in a judgement chair bathed in the light of Truth, and reviewing your life. The Truth of your life, the self-awareness that emerged from oblivion, will be there for all to see, without the possibility of self-deception. If you can live on with what you were, well and good. If not, there's the mercy of the oblivion button close at hand. I imagine that many of those who use it will do so instantly. The agony and oppressive gloom of a wasted, evil life would be far worse than any hell-fire.

Can there be a more righteous judgement than that which one metes out to one's own self?

 

[siti]

So is this "judgement" based on some absolute standard of moral behaviour or our own individual interpretation?

It is interesting to me because, following the trajectory of deistic thinking in the 17th-18th century, this idea seems to me to hark back to a more primitive version such as Lord Herbert's, who included divine rewards and punishments in his "Five Articles". However, by the time of Shaftesbury's Characteristicks in the early 1700s, the emphasis was shifting from divine arbitration to human reason as the basis for determining what was or was not morally acceptable. By the end of that century, a number of deists (Collins and Bolingbroke for example) had cast doubt on or rejected the idea of an afterlife altogether and even for those (like Paine) who still (albeit rather vaguely) admitted the possibility, the prospect was more or less de-linked from morality much as Shaftesbury had de-linked morality from theology earlier.

Your comments seem to suggest, on the one hand, that morality ("good and evil") arises out of human reason ("born of choices"..."self-awareness") but, on the other hand, somehow seems to exist (primordially, independent of human reason) as an ideal ("in the light of Truth") to be discovered by reason. So which is it? Or am I misreading one part or the other?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So is this "judgement" based on some absolute standard of moral behaviour or our own individual interpretation?

It is interesting to me because, following the trajectory of deistic thinking in the 17th-18th century, this idea seems to me to hark back to a more primitive version such as Lord Herbert's, who included divine rewards and punishments in his "Five Articles". However, by the time of Shaftesbury's Characteristicks in the early 1700s, the emphasis was shifting from divine arbitration to human reason as the basis for determining what was or was not morally acceptable. By the end of that century, a number of deists (Collins and Bolingbroke for example) had cast doubt on or rejected the idea of an afterlife altogether and even for those (like Paine) who still (albeit rather vaguely) admitted the possibility, the prospect was more or less de-linked from morality much as Shaftesbury had de-linked morality from theology earlier.

Your comments seem to suggest, on the one hand, that morality ("good and evil") arises out of human reason ("born of choices"..."self-awareness") but, on the other hand, somehow seems to exist (primordially, independent of human reason) as an ideal ("in the light of Truth") to be discovered by reason. So which is it? Or am I misreading one part or the other?

It is based on an absolute, objective morality of which we become innately aware with the development of self-awareness--which is necessarily a simple adherence to honoring the rights of others. Those rights are Locke's rights to life, liberty and property, to which I've added the right to self-defense. They govern our moral actions towards each other, and should be the only basis for law. They are absolute as such, but there are peripheral gray areas, primarily, when are those rights acquired, when are they lost, and how do we enforce the humane treatment of which animals. The impetus for the legislation and enforcement of morality is founded in the near universal desire for good order, the only opponents of which are anarchists and tyrants.

All other codes of behavior are individually determined and subjective, and which I apply by convention to the segregated word, "virtue". Unfortunately it's been used interchangeably with morality, especially by religion.

 

[siti]

And yet, there you are (I am guessing you are of European descent) occupying the property that was - assuming the absoluteness and (I am presuming again) universality of this "objective morality" - once the unalienable right of an entirely different tribe of our species to own. And so am I - albeit in an entirely different part of the world. But my point is this: "bathed in the light of Truth", how would any of us be able to overlook our own part in the perpetuation of sometimes deliberate, concerted and institutionalized failure to "honor the rights of others" (knowingly or not) and adjudge ourselves worthy of the hoped for "happiness beyond this life" - as Paine so vaguely put it.

My point is that I don't think morality is simple at all and in the evolution of human culture, it is quite routinely, morphed and re-worked with the tools of human reason. I actually think that is partly what Locke was about too - except that I suppose he had God doing the re-working (he was not a deist) - whereas Hobbes (also not a deist - functionally, from a moral POV, an atheist) had the government doing it. Shaftesbury's contribution was to defend the idea of an absolute morality (accessible but not changeable by reason) by effectively separating morality from theology. This is, of course, the essence of deism - God makes it so and so it stands - forever. But surely, circumstances change - and whilst taking someone else's life, liberty or property away from them is undoubtedly wrong in principle, surely there must be circumstances in which such actions are morally justified - where, precisely, does my right to liberty - or even my property - begin and end? At what point does my right to self-defense kick in? Has God pre-determined these limits for all possible circumstances? For example, how high above the ground does my property extend? How far beneath? How loud does my neighbour have to play his music before it infringes on my right to enjoy my property? Are there really absolute standards about these things that are merely accessible to "right thinking" or are they really matters of convention - collectively subjective (i.e. expressing how most of us currently feel about it), relative and subject to change?

Anyway, I have sidetracked significantly - my question was more about judgement than morality per se and as I said, how could anyone, with the benefit of perfect hindsight and full knowledge of Truth, be able to judge themselves worthy of an eternally happy afterlife? No wonder good ol' Tom Paine expressed it as a mere "hope" and in such vague terms.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We aren't guilty for the sins of our ancestors. If we do violate the rights of others, repentance and restitution are our only options for forgiveness. How do we repent for something someone else did, related or otherwise? And even if we tried, who could we make restitution to? If the victims of such a theft, the courts can and justly would return it to the rightful owners. But more than there or four generations back, even if the illegal action were identified, how do you find the victims, especially if there were no records or they were lost. Otherwise, the overriding pursuit of good order applies.

BTW, what does European descent have to do with anything? People of all ethnic origins have been robbing, killing and enslaving people of their own or those of other descent, since the beginning. What is your ethnic origin, and would it stand up to such an examination?

But surely, circumstances change - and whilst taking someone else's life, liberty or property away from them is undoubtedly wrong in principle, surely there must be circumstances in which such actions are morally justified - where, precisely, does my right to liberty - or even my property - begin and end? At what point does my right to self-defense kick in?

How have circumstances changed? I've already stated that the acquisition of rights is a gradual process, which is different for each right, but the rights themselves are simple. Basically, those rights are ironclad for adults and are only forfeited by someone attempting to violate the rights of others. For example, a child acquires some of it's right to liberty only when it demonstrates that it understands that it can be deadly to play in traffic.

Has God pre-determined these limits for all possible circumstances? For example, how high above the ground does my property extend? How far beneath? How loud does my neighbour have to play his music before it infringes on my right to enjoy my property? Are there really absolute standards about these things that are merely accessible to "right thinking" or are they really matters of convention - collectively subjective (i.e. expressing how most of us currently feel about it), relative and subject to change?

God, if It exists, hasn't predetermined anything but our possession, via evolution, of full self-awareness. Those other examples are merely points (what does possession [which is 9/10ths of the law] mean, what is disturbing the peace) that must be decided by law, again, while adhering to the overarching principle of maintaining good order via those four basic rights.

Anyway, I have sidetracked significantly - my question was more about judgement than morality per se and as I said, how could anyone, with the benefit of perfect hindsight and full knowledge of Truth, be able to judge themselves worthy of an eternally happy afterlife? No wonder good ol' Tom Paine expressed it as a mere "hope" and in such vague terms.

As I said, it was my speculative model for judgement in the Hereafter. But hindsight would be irrelevant, since it's nothing but rationalization for dong what you did. But rationalization is a lie, which I would expect wouldn't be possible in said light of Truth. Rationalization is nothing but saying my worth is greater than his, so my rights outweigh his. A moral/legal double standard is the root of all evil. And lying to one's self to "justify" such a situation becomes habit, and forms a subjective foundation for making the lie a truth without even realizing it. But deep down, we still know.

 

[siti]

Oh! I see - so this "absolute" standard cannot actually be applied then. So practically we're stuck with muddling through as best we can on questions of morality and almost all of it is - as I think I may have suggested - a matter of evolving convention.

BTW - I am of European origin too. It was only relevant because you - and I - are not still occupying the property of our ancestors but the property of some other tribe that has now been dispossessed. So much for the "unalienable rights" of all men.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But the only evidence available is the perfect lack of evidence concerning the origin of the universe, or what came "before". I understand atheism, and as I've said, it's as reasonable as deism. So given that, atheism is 100% individual preference. My question is why reject hope--fear of disappointment and betrayal as happens with revealed religions? Better to resign yourself to the pessimistic possibility rather than be jilted again?

Obviously, this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I could perhaps add something by answering, as an atheist.
Unlike some atheists, I don't have any issues with deism. But for me, it doesn't represent 'hope', just as atheism doesn't represent a 'pessimistic possibility'. It's an attempt for self-honesty is all. I find it quite comforting, although you could make the argument that this is me finding the good in an existing belief/non-belief, rather than anything inherent in atheism.

Ultimately, my position is that there is a lot I don't know. A non-interventionist God could be part of that. Who knows? A whole pantheon of those could exist. But if they do, what do I know about them? About the afterlife? About their wants for humanity, or whether they have an interest in us? Nothing.

What impact, then, would they have on me here on Earth? On my behaviours? None.

I try to live with a longer term view. To leave the world in a better state than I found it. It's not my atheism that determines that, since it could as easily support an extreme hedonism, but that's my life philosophy, for many reasons.

That response is far too glib. Why not check it out, whether God is there or not, then, if you're still tired, bored or whatever, just opt for oblivion. Would you dismiss trading in your car for a new flying yacht for free without even testing it in a similar cavalier fashion? Or are you worried about "qualifying" given all those residual revealed religious qualifications you were brought up to believe in? Or....were you originally brought up (read indoctrinated) as an atheist?

Yet you label yourself a deist????

Obviously much of this was targetted at @RRex and his responses, so I know it doesn't directly relate to me. But suffice to say, I was raised in a Christian family (if not devout) and I do try to keep an open mind when considering religion and spirituality. But it's unlikely that any would convince me, since the means for me being convinced is kinda a high bar, I suspect.
Perhaps a personal revelation would do it, but that's pretty unlikely from a Deistic position.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Oh! I see - so this "absolute" standard cannot actually be applied then. So practically we're stuck with muddling through as best we can on questions of morality and almost all of it is - as I think I may have suggested - a matter of evolving convention.

Perhaps you "see" but I'm afraid I don't. Morality is absolute, at least for adults, and is there for all adults to either listen to or ignore. "Listen to what?" you may ask. To the inherent knowledge we have of what the person will feel by what you do to them, knowledge enabled by our full self awareness by which we put ourselves in their shoes. BTW, sarcasm is nothing but a method for rationalizing our lack of dedication to the Truth, and an irritating deflection for others.

BTW - I am of European origin too. It was only relevant because you - and I - are not still occupying the property of our ancestors but the property of some other tribe that has now been dispossessed. So much for the "unalienable rights" of all men.

We are unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land. By your reasoning, the first human occupied, or more precisely, could have claimed to have occupied, the whole world. Liberals, on the one hand, claim that no one owns the land, while at the same time, reason that the first occupiers, whoever they were, owned an indeterminate amount of land which they occupied a portion of.

Obviously, this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I could perhaps add something by answering, as an atheist.
Unlike some atheists, I don't have any issues with deism. But for me, it doesn't represent 'hope', just as atheism doesn't represent a 'pessimistic possibility'. It's an attempt for self-honesty is all. I find it quite comforting, although you could make the argument that this is me finding the good in an existing belief/non-belief, rather than anything inherent in atheism.

You just make a point then retracted it. What's not pessimistic about atheism (inevitable oblivion), as opposed to,say, some version of paradise, from our viewpoint? If given that option at your death, would you decline?

Ultimately, my position is that there is a lot I don't know. A non-interventionist God could be part of that. Who knows? A whole pantheon of those could exist. But if they do, what do I know about them? About the afterlife? About their wants for humanity, or whether they have an interest in us? Nothing
What impact, then, would they have on me here on Earth? On my behaviours? None..

God is indeed irrelevant to us in this life, because It does not interact, except for the hope for a hereafter a God might imply?

I try to live with a longer term view. To leave the world in a better state than I found it. It's not my atheism that determines that, since it could as easily support an extreme hedonism, but that's my life philosophy, for many reasons.

Yes, since fulfillment in this life is the highest goal, it's pursuit in this life is our highest calling. All well and good, but the mystery and nagging doubt about death is always in the back of our mind no matter what you believe. I'll ask you the same question I asked Siti, would you decline an afterlife if it is offered? Since there may be a God, how can we anyone deny there might be an associated afterlife as well.

Obviously much of this was targetted at @RRex and his responses, so I know it doesn't directly relate to me. But suffice to say, I was raised in a Christian family (if not devout) and I do try to keep an open mind when considering religion and spirituality. But it's unlikely that any would convince me, since the means for me being convinced is kinda a high bar, I suspect.
Perhaps a personal revelation would do it, but that's pretty unlikely from a Deistic position.

With there being a universe, but absolutely no evidence for or against a God creating it, or existing, how can either possibility be determined to be more likely. It's been my experience that most atheists rebel against the gods of our religions, because there is much evidence against them, but there is none at all against a laissez-faire God. Many hard, but ultimately reasonable atheists (Dawkins, Krauss, Stenger, Hawking [kicking & screaming], Hoyle, Sagan, Einstein} have been forced to admit that a deist God cannot be ruled out.

 

[siti]

Perhaps you "see" but I'm afraid I don't. Morality is absolute, at least for adults, and is there for all adults to either listen to or ignore. "Listen to what?" you may ask. To the inherent knowledge we have of what the person will feel by what you do to them, knowledge enabled by our full self awareness by which we put ourselves in their shoes. BTW, sarcasm is nothing but a method for rationalizing our lack of dedication to the Truth, and an irritating deflection for others.

OK - without sarcasm (which is actually a form of ridicule or irony - which has enjoyed enormous prestige in Deist literature - have you read Paine? Or what Shaftesbury said on that subject - he defended its use in philosophical debate thus: "Truth, ’tis suppos’d, may bear all Lights: and one of those principal Lights or natural Mediums, by which Things are to be view’d, in order to a thorow Recognition, is Ridicule it-self")...

Anyway, sarcasm apart, I can't see how you can reconcile "Morality is absolute" with "[listening to the] inherent knowledge...of what the person will feel" (isn't that the same as saying "listen to one's own conscience?) - and how can that not be subjective?

And if, as you correctly state, we are (far more often than not) "unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land" - how can our "unalienable" moral "right" to our property be anything other than a matter of (current) moral convention - and subject to change?

More to the point - why would a Deist God even care? So how could it be any basis for judgement with respect to our worthiness to inherit an afterlife? It seems to me we are accepting this afterlife as "deism" only because earlier Deists had not yet got around to refuting (or ridiculing) the idea. But it seems to me that the idea of God (directly or indirectly) judging us based on some supposed absolute standard of morality that not one of us could possibly fathom is profoundly un-deistic. There is nothing we can observe in nature and no logical reason to assume that this 'afterlife' is even a possibility. Everything we know about death tells us that that's the end of life - period!

We are unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land. By your reasoning, the first human occupied, or more precisely, could have claimed to have occupied, the whole world. Liberals, on the one hand, claim that no one owns the land, while at the same time, reason that the first occupiers, whoever they were, owned an indeterminate amount of land which they occupied a portion of.

Yes - you're right of course - the first human did indeed occupy the whole world - and she bequeathed it in it's entirety to the whole of her progeny - hence, no ONE 'owns' any land and yet collectively by birthright we all own all the land - so the "liberals" seem to have got it right. In any case, a more certain prospect for most of us, I think, is that we will finally occupy as much property as it takes to bury us - and that only till the worms are done with us.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

OK - without sarcasm (which is actually a form of ridicule or irony - which has enjoyed enormous prestige in Deist literature - have you read Paine? Or what Shaftesbury said on that subject - he defended its use in philosophical debate thus: "Truth, ’tis suppos’d, may bear all Lights: and one of those principal Lights or natural Mediums, by which Things are to be view’d, in order to a thorow Recognition, is Ridicule it-self")...

Anyway, sarcasm apart, I can't see how you can reconcile "Morality is absolute" with "[listening to the] inherent knowledge...of what the person will feel" (isn't that the same as saying "listen to one's own conscience?) - and how can that not be subjective?

One other applies, depending on whether the sarcastic one is correct or not.

And if, as you correctly state, we are (far more often than not) "unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land" - how can our "unalienable" moral "right" to our property be anything other than a matter of (current) moral convention - and subject to change?

Theft is not a current moral convention, it's universal and immutable. You're talking about repentance and restitution, that is, justice, for an immorality, but how is that possible if the perp and injured parties are all dead. Say your grandfather murdered my grandfather and enslaved my grandmother, but now they're all dead. There is no justice to be had. But then say your grandfather stole my grandfather's gold watch, which his son, your father (who has no knowledge of it's origin), now has. I recognize it and have it confiscated because my grandfather had recorded it's serial number. It is rightfully, legally mine and justice was done--but only because I could prove it was stolen. You're saying that all the citizens of Nazi Germany are guilty of the Holocaust, and they or their descendants, for x number of generations, should be brought to justice for it. Genocide is universally and immutably immoral, but only for the ones who perpetrated it. But if it's victims' descendants can positively identity property stolen from their ancestors, it should be returned. But that's on an individual, case by case basis. Group victim-hood of a given society is impossible to prove, especially when the perpetrators is another society. This all falls under the heading of life ain't fair.

More to the point - why would a Deist God even care? So how could it be any basis for judgement with respect to our worthiness to inherit an afterlife? It seems to me we are accepting this afterlife as "deism" only because earlier Deists had not yet got around to refuting (or ridiculing) the idea. But it seems to me that the idea of God (directly or indirectly) judging us based on some supposed absolute standard of morality that not one of us could possibly fathom is profoundly un-deistic. There is nothing we can observe in nature and no logical reason to assume that this 'afterlife' is even a possibility. Everything we know about death tells us that that's the end of life - period!

You can't present the first piece of evidence, much less prove, that the universe came into being spontaneously. As such, you can't rule out the equal improbably possibility that God did it. When you can tell me what came "before" the universe; why there's a minimum division to space/time on the fabric of our universe, or how quantum transactions are consummated in an apparent timeless, "external" ether, then it would be meaningful to talk about what we know about death. Those firewalls separate this natural 4-D universe from something extra-natural (or ?supernatural?). At this point we're literally still in the dark, so to claim at this point that we know enough about death to make an informed decision that death is the end, and dismiss hope, is presumptuous.

Yes - you're right of course - the first human did indeed occupy the whole world - and she bequeathed it in it's entirety to the whole of her progeny - hence, no ONE 'owns' any land and yet collectively by birthright we all own all the land - so the "liberals" seem to have got it right. In any case, a more certain prospect for most of us, I think, is that we will finally occupy as much property as it takes to bury us - and that only till the worms are done with us.

So it appears that the foundation for your argument is the declarative that "the 'liberals' do seem to have it right"..."period!"

I agree about the worms, but again, that may only apply to this universe. And you're correct that we all own the land,
collectively, through the government--we just rent it with our property taxes. Not saying that's right, just the way it is. In fact we've implemented most of Marx's points for becoming good communists. The only part that's completely missing is establishing a Utopia.

 

[siti]

Thanks TPT - you make some excellent points - pity they were not related to what I posted - I mean, I don't recall "saying" as you suggest I did, anything at all about Nazi's, gold watches, murderous grandparents - or even justice and restitution for that matter (though these are admittedly related concepts)...my point was not that you should immediately abandon your property and turn it over its "rightful" ancestral owner, but that the so-called "universal and immutable" or "unalienable" "right" to it was not observed or applied in their case and, as your "proof of ownership" example of the gold watch illustrates, its continued observance depends entirely on convention - legal convention, in this case.

In terms of property, there are different concepts in different cultures of what that even means...for an English man his home is his castle...for a Fijian, land is traditionally held collectively by tribes and clans,...nomadic peoples range over enormous territories and their "property" is really their freedom to do so. These are emergent, evolving cultural norms that clearly give rise to different moral standards in relation to property and one's moral right to own it. in some cases, to impose one is to dispossess another - how can that be rationalized as "absolute morality"? That is the point I was making.

I give up on the afterlife - I know what I know about life and if we are dragging in arguments based on what we don't know, then we are moving away from deism and naturalism towards theism and supernaturalism. There's a hell of a lot we don't know, but I prefer not to build a worldview on ignorance. There might be something after this life, but the idea raises a lot more philosophical problems than it solves and opens the door to all kinds of unfettered metaphysical speculation - its fun (perhaps) but it doesn't answer any of the important questions.

I'll leave aside your side swipes at liberalism, Marxism and Utopia for now (interesting as they are)...I'll post another thread sometime that discusses these through the eyes of an 18th century deist radical...but I need to knock the info into shape first.

 

[oldbadger]

....................... The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that such as pandeism, panendeism, however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation.

Hi.....
I do not mean to be rude, but your whole OP is just a jumbled mess of nonsense.
Your religion title is just a contradiction of terms.

I accept that there is no depth to me or my reasoning, but I can assure you that the core belief is that 'all is God'..... no ifs about it.

Whilst there is a degree of speculation present, the belief can remain intact.

...................deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't;.

The above is absolutely unfounded.
As a Deist I do not need to seek a hereafter. I was dead for countless billions of ages before I came to be as I am now, and I will be quite prepared top be dead for countless billions of ages hereafter. My morals and virtue, such as they are, have nothing to do with my beliefs.

Any sparrow in my garden can have as much expectation as I.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Thanks TPT - you make some excellent points - pity they were not related to what I posted - I mean, I don't recall "saying" as you suggest I did, anything at all about Nazi's, gold watches, murderous grandparents - or even justice and restitution for that matter (though these are admittedly related concepts).

You were applying presumed inherited guilt. My examples just made your argument more transparent.

Hi.....
I do not mean to be rude, but your whole OP is just a jumbled mess of nonsense.
Your religion title is just a contradiction of terms.

Not to be rude either (though I don't believe you succeeded there), but it's blatantly obvious that contradiction was the intent. There is no reasonable room for Hell in deism.

I accept that there is no depth to me or my reasoning, but I can assure you that the core belief is that 'all is God'..... no ifs about it.

That's the core belief of pandeism, a speculative subdivision of deism, which is the prime speculative agnostic possibility that if God exists, It does not and will not interact in this natural universe It created.

Whilst there is a degree of speculation present, the belief can remain intact.

While pandeism may well be the correct version of deism, it's irrelevant for us whether God is all and doesn't interact, or is not all and doesn't interact. Deism says that God, if It exists, does not interact, That's all that's important for us to know about God. BTW, I think God is all is better expressed as God is Truth, Truth being everything that exists including imagination.

As a Deist I do not need to seek a hereafter.

I don't seek it either, I merely hope, and pursue the Truth.

I was dead for countless billions of ages before I came to be as I am now, and I will be quite prepared top be dead for countless billions of ages hereafter. My morals and virtue, such as they are, have nothing to do with my beliefs.

What is the source or foundation for your morality?

Any sparrow in my garden can have as much expectation as I.

None of those sparrows, or any animals for that matter, possess full awareness of self, including our mortality, and thus have no moral free will. If such creatures do exist, here or elsewhere in the universe, we would be equivalent sentient beings with them. AI may well be fully self-aware some day. Beings without full self-awareness are innocent because they choose to do right or wrong--wrong being the intentional violation of the rights of other self-aware creatures to their life, liberty, property or self-defense.

 

[oldbadger]

@ThePainefulTruth
You would need to edit your post if you ever want any to see it.
I will copy some of it here:-

There is no reasonable room for Hell in deism.

Oh, you're soooo reasonable!
Just you tell that to the millions of starving, cold, bullied, tortured folks in this world.

I don't seek it either, I merely hope, and pursue the Truth.

What is Truth?

What is the source or foundation for your morality?

Nature

None of those sparrows, or any animals for that matter, possess full awareness of self, including our mortality, and thus have no moral free will.

Wrong.
I'll tell that to the kingfisher, when next I see it.
...... and the sparrowhawk.
....I'll even tell the next rock that I see....

You see, to be more lost in your intellect than any curlew on the foreshore, for sure.


Honestly....

 

[siti]

You were applying presumed inherited guilt. My examples just made your argument more transparent.

Where did I say anything about "inherited guilt"? I was making the point that the "unalienable right" to enjoy one's property that you propose as an absolute moral standard cannot genuinely be so. Your responses were more about legality and (avoidance of) guilt. I have made two clear points:

1. Morality is not absolute - and cannot be so because (as you correctly pointed out - thereby countering your own absolutist position) it arises from self-awareness which itself evolves. Your argument is therefore paradoxical and untenable.

2. The prospect of an afterlife (if there is such a prospect) cannot therefore be based on judgement according to an imagined absolute - or any other - moral standard. If the standard were absolute, nobody would qualify (because our behaviour is not governed by morality but culture - as I have also clearly shown) and if it were not it would be a free-for-all completely dependent on self-justification, or at the very least, the "standard" would have to be one that varied considerably across times and cultures, rather than any genuine "standard".

None of this is about implied guilt, inherited or otherwise - its about logical reasoning on the suggested "advantage" that your particular version of deism has over atheism according to your OP.

It turns out, on closer examination, that the "hope" of an afterlife is of no more genuine value (as far as I can see) than the vague hope of a fifty-something bald atheist that his hair might one day grow back by some miraculous reversal of nature. He might hold that hope - but he sure as hell isn't going to base his worldview on it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

@ThePainefulTruth
You would need to edit your post if you ever want any to see it.
I will copy some of it here:-

Oh, you're soooo reasonable!
Just you tell that to the millions of starving, cold, bullied, tortured folks in this world.


What is Truth?

Nature

Knowledge, yes. But what about justice, love and beauty?

Wrong.
I'll tell that to the kingfisher, when next I see it.
...... and the sparrowhawk.
....I'll even tell the next rock that I see....

Sorry, I seem to have interrupted your train of thought.

you see, to be more lost in your intellect than any curlew on the foreshore, for sure.
Honestly....

When you catch up let me know.