Question to atheists and agnotics: why are you not a deist?

[firedragon]

a-theism is a-version of theism too

No.

 

[stvdv]

No.

I know

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Whilst I have no proof against a Deist concept of God, nor do I have any proof for it. So it seems a warrantless addition to my basic understanding of the world.

 

[oldbadger]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

.....'cos Deists are cool, an' them afeists ain't fort it out rite, yet.

 

[oldbadger]

Whilst I have no proof against a Deist concept of God, nor do I have any proof for it. So it seems a warrantless addition to my basic understanding of the world.

OK
So try this for thought.....
All is Nature. Every chip of rock, leaf, creature, planet, space, nothingness, the lot... is just Nature.
That's it...... and nothing goes away, it only changes...some of it.
But it's all part of the whole.

You don't have to call it anything........ it's just Nature.
But I call myself Deist because that directs me straight to thinking about the Boss around here.
And Boss around here is Nature. And that's OK.

 

[Rise]

I believe the reason deism seems to have disappeared right around the time that scientists started to claim they could provide nontheistic explanations for how creation came to be is because people who were inclined to want to be deists simply became atheists instead.

Why is that? Because it is self evident that creation is designed. So in an age when there existed no invented rationalization that would allow someone to believe creation could appear designed without actually having a designer, deism was the only way someone could affirm the self evident fact that someone must have created the world while also rationalizing themselves an excuse for why they could do whatever they want and weren't accountable to that person in any way for what they did.

Therefore, deism was just an expression of man's historical desire to rationalize away their accountability to obey God and deify themselves so they get to be the god of their own life accountable to no one.

If that's all your true motivation is for embracing deism then you'd rather just embrace atheism instead because it gets you even closer to what you want.

And you will find that is still the motivation behind atheists generally today. You can prove this by asking them if they would obey God and follow Jesus if it could be proven the Bible were true. They usually answer no. Proving it's not a matter of evidence for them. It's a matter of preference masquerading under the pretense of not having enough evidence. So nothing will ever be good enough for them.

 

[Justanatheist]

I believe the reason deism seems to have disappeared right around the time that scientists started to claim they could provide nontheistic explanations for how creation came to be is because people who were inclined to want to be deists simply became atheists instead.

Why is that? Because in an age when it was self evident that something had created everything by looking at the fact that it is designed, deism was the only way someone could affirm the self evident fact that someone must have created the world while also rationalizing themselves an excuse for why they could do whatever they want and weren't accountable to that person in any way for what they did.

Therefore, deism was just an expression of man's historical desire to rationalize away their accountability to obey God and deify themselves so they get to be the god of their own life accountable to no one.

If that's all your true motivation is for embracing deism then you'd rather just embrace atheism instead because it gets you even closer to what you want.

Thomas Jefferson just wanted to be accountable to no one, who knew!

 

[Rise]

Thomas Jefferson just wanted to be accountable to no one, who knew!

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of mockery.

Mocking an argument does not refute an argument.

You would need to provide logical arguments to explain why you think the argument is in error if you want to disagree with it's conclusions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe the reason deism seems to have disappeared right around the time that scientists started to claim they could provide nontheistic explanations for how creation came to be is because people who were inclined to want to be deists simply became atheists instead.

Why is that? Because in an age when it was self evident that something had created everything by looking at the fact that it is designed, deism was the only way someone could affirm the self evident fact that someone must have created the world while also rationalizing themselves an excuse for why they could do whatever they want and weren't accountable to that person in any way for what they did.

Therefore, deism was just an expression of man's historical desire to rationalize away their accountability to obey God and deify themselves so they get to be the god of their own life accountable to no one.

If that's all your true motivation is for embracing deism then you'd rather just embrace atheism instead because it gets you even closer to what you want.

Self-evident if one was looking in the mirror rather than actually seeking any truth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

No proof or possibly of creationism whatsoever.

No point in being a deist.

 

[Justanatheist]

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of mockery.

Mocking an argument does not refute an argument.

You would need to provide logical arguments to explain why you think the argument is in error if you want to disagree with it's conclusions.

What you mean is the Appeal to Ridicule which is an informal fallacy and in this case I am not doing so. Thomas Jefferson is relevant to the discussion because he is a Deist and well known to have devoted his life to the pursuit of a political system that made people accountable. If you are going to accuse me of fallacies make sure you understand what they are and when they should be applied. Otherwise it looks like deflection.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia

And your argument is hardly nuanced.

 

[Rise]

Self-evident if one was looking in the mirror rather than actually seeking any truth.

You are committing the logical fallacy of mockery or ad hominem.
Mocking an argument does nothing to refute or disprove the validity of an argument or the truth of it's conclusions.

You have given no logical reasons or evidence why anything I said would be in error.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are committing the logical fallacy of mockery or ad hominem.
Mocking an argument does nothing to refute or disprove the validity of an argument or the truth of it's conclusions.

You have given no logical reasons or evidence why anything I said would be in error.

I'm so sorry, I didn't think in my ignorance to think it needed such. Please accept my abject apologies. I didn't realise you were such a soft little petal.

But it just seemed self-evident to me that you were mistaken. And since when was being self-evident a logical argument?

 

[Justanatheist]

You are committing the logical fallacy of mockery or ad hominem.
Mocking an argument does nothing to refute or disprove the validity of an argument or the truth of it's conclusions.

You have given no logical reasons or evidence why anything I said would be in error.

You have stated logic cannot be proven by logic therefore it is subjective as are all your arguments.

 

[Rise]

What you mean is the Appeal to Ridicule

If you are going to accuse me of fallacies make sure you understand what they are and when they should be applied. Otherwise it looks like deflection.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia
"also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh"

Your own link disproved your claim.

This is evidence you need to take more time to research and consider things before you post.

I have noticed in other cases you appear to fire off responses way too quickly after I've posted. This suggested to me you aren't taking any time to actually consider what I've said and to consider what an intelligence response to it would be.
I think you are just being reactive.

Thomas Jefferson is relevant to the discussion because he is a Deist and well known to have devoted his life to the pursuit of a political system that made people accountable.

If you had said that to start with then you wouldn't have been committing a fallacy.

But you didn't.

Your original post had no arguments attached to it that would denote any logical connection or relevance to what you were responding to.
You had nothing left but a tone of mockery and a nonsensical statement.

Now, based on what you have said, it does appear you were not intending to commit the fallacy of mockery - but it ended up looking like one due to your failure to articulate what you were thinking.

Your failure of articulating the intended logic behind your statement would at the very least have resulted in it appearing to be the logical fallacy of non sequitur or red herring even if you had removed the mocking tone.

The fact that the statement by itself constituted something that had no demonstrated relevance or logical connection to what you were responding to, combined with it's mocking tone, left no other logical conclusion but that it is an attempt at a fallacy of mockery as opposed to simply a failure to articulate a logical argument.

And your argument is hardly nuanced.

Your statement is the logical fallacy of non sequitur.
You don't prove you weren't committing the fallacy of ridicule/mockery by claiming my argument wasn't nuanced enough. That is not a logical requirement for you to be guilty of the fallacy of ridicule/mockery. And you have demonstrated no reason why we should think there would be a logical connection, which is why you're committing a non sequitur.

It says it's "often found" in that form. But it's not a requirement that it take that form.

At it's basic level it would be defined this way:
Appeal to ridicule is a type of appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy which seeks to instill a particular emotion in the readers rather than address the intended issue.
Essay:Appeal to ridicule - RationalWiki

 

[Justanatheist]

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia
"also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh"

Your own link disproved your claim.

This is evidence you need to take more time to research and consider things before you post.

I have noticed in other cases you appear to fire off responses way too quickly after I've posted. This suggested to me you aren't taking any time to actually consider what I've said and to consider what an intelligence response to it would be.
I think you are just being reactive.



If you had said that to start with then you wouldn't have been committing a fallacy.

But you didn't.

Your original post had no arguments attached to it that would denote any logical connection or relevance to what you were responding to.
You had nothing left but a tone of mockery and a nonsensical statement.

Now, based on what you have said, it does appear you were not intending to commit the fallacy of mockery - but it ended up looking like one due to your failure to articulate what you were thinking.

Your failure of articulating the intended logic behind your statement would at the very least have resulted in it appearing to be the logical fallacy of non sequitur or red herring even if you had removed the mocking tone.

The fact that the statement by itself constituted something that had no demonstrated relevance or logical connection to what you were responding to, combined with it's mocking tone, left no other logical conclusion but that it is an attempt at a fallacy of mockery as opposed to simply a failure to articulate a logical argument.



Your statement is the logical fallacy of non sequitur.
You don't prove you weren't committing the fallacy of ridicule/mockery by claiming my argument wasn't nuanced enough. That is not a logical requirement for you to be guilty of the fallacy of ridicule/mockery. And you have demonstrated no reason why we should think there would be a logical connection, which is why you're committing a non sequitur.

It says it's "often found" in that form. But it's not a requirement that it take that form.

At it's basic level it would be defined this way:
Appeal to ridicule is a type of appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy which seeks to instill a particular emotion in the readers rather than address the intended issue.
Essay:Appeal to ridicule - RationalWiki

No I do not need to take a long time to respond because I am not making huge claims and trying to deflect. My post made perfect sense to me and you understood it, you confuse terse responses with untrue ones and think long, thought out responses prove truth, they do not. I showed why you used a fallacy that you did not even know the name of and why you had know cause to use it. If you did not spend so much time trying to find fallacies (which even if they are there do not prove the argument false) example you have offered no argument as to how Jefferson proves your argument is wrong at least in his case, you are deflecting away from my point.

 

[Rise]

You have stated logic cannot be proven by logic therefore it is subjective as are all your arguments.

You are committing the logical fallacy of a strawman by misrepresenting what I have argued.

The reason you misrepresent it is because you engage in the logical fallacy of projection.
You are assuming the way you define objective truth is the way I am defining it.

You are the one who has a contradiction problem in your worldview because of the way you have chosen to define objective truth.

I don't have your problem because I don't make that mistake.

You are the one who stated that objective truth can only be determined by using logic.

And you are the one who rejects self evident truth as a valid form of objective truth.

So you are the one who logically is left with no belief in objective truth by your own standards.

I don't have your problem because I accept the validity of self evident truth as capable of being objective truth.

Therefore, I don't need to reject the idea that logic is true just because logic can't be proven with logic. The fact that logic is self evidentially objectively true is good enough for me to regard it as objectively true.

You're the one who has the dilemma here: are you going to reject your definition of what defines objective truth or are you going to decide you don't believe in objective truth in order to continue holding to your definition?

You're actually engaged in a type of intellectual hypocrisy by trying to falsely accuse me of having the dilemma you actually have - while at the same time not actually recognizing that you have put yourself in that dilemma.

 

[Yazata]

I believe the reason deism seems to have disappeared right around the time that scientists started to claim they could provide nontheistic explanations for how creation came to be is because people who were inclined to want to be deists simply became atheists instead.

Yes, I think that today's atheists are the descendants of the deists of the 17th-19th centuries.

Deism was never an organized intellectual movement with coherent doctrines. It is more of a general term used by today's scholars to refer to religious free-thinkers of the past. If we look at historical individuals who are classed as deists, we find almost as many deisms as there were deists. Each one had fairly unique views.

I don't think that historical deism was ever the idea that God created the universe and then abandoned it. (That's more an artifact of today's classrooms.) What historical deism was, was skepticism about revealed theology, while continuing to accept the force of natural theology. So deists questioned many of the things they read in the Bible (typically not all), while accepting the force of the traditional cosmological arguments.

I see deism as a natural product of the protestant reformation. The protestants had directed great skepticism at many aspects of traditional Catholic religiosity such as miracles, Mary and the saints. All in the name of their own brand of Bibliolatry. (If it isn't in the new testament, then it must be removed from their purified Christianity.) But it was impossible to stop the skepticism once it was unleashed and a generation later we see avant-garde intellectuals directing similar skepticism at the Bible itself.

Why is that? Because it is self evident that creation is designed. So in an age when there existed no invented rationalization that would allow someone to believe creation could appear designed without actually having a designer, deism was the only way someone could affirm the self evident fact that someone must have created the world while also rationalizing themselves an excuse for why they could do whatever they want and weren't accountable to that person in any way for what they did.

Yes, I pretty much agree. Though I would replace your "it is self evident that creation is designed" with something like 'it seemed self-evident to most of the deists that reality was designed'. The deists typically accepted the arguments of natural theology such as the first-cause argument. And the design argument seemed strongest of all these arguments to them. Many of them did indeed think that it was self-evident.

I think that one of the reasons why we see deism dying out in the 19th century and being replaced by full-frontal atheism was perhaps the effect of Darwin, who made it possible for people to explain what they had always taken to be conclusive evidence of design in the biological world as evidence of natural selection instead.

Therefore, deism was just an expression of man's historical desire to rationalize away their accountability to obey God and deify themselves so they get to be the god of their own life accountable to no one.

I don't think that's what motivated most of the deists. It's more that they doubted that books like the Bible were really communications from whatever the source of the universe's design might have been. The deist period was the period when Europeans spread around the world and scholars became aware of religious texts like the Vedas and Puranas. These European scholars didn't accept the truth of these texts, but they knew that many Indians thought of them as revealed in some sense. If there's any one thing that the deists shared, it was doubts about revealed theology and the idea that God, the creator of reality, had made special communications to particular human individuals.

It certainly raises the question of how, assuming that we are indeed supposed to "obey God", how humanity is supposed to know what God wants. Pretty much all of the moral stuff, both good and bad, is found in revealed theology, in God's supposed communications with man.

Some of the deists sought to base morality on what they took to be human moral intuitions, which they believed were implanted in us at creation as part of the original design. So we see people like Thomas Jefferson editing the Bible to remove everything that he intuitively found immoral or unjust. There was great emphasis on the 'nice Jesus' image as contrasted with the thundering genocidal OT Yahweh. So we see the beginnings of the 'picking and choosing' that kind of define modernist Biblical interpretation.

That reliance on human moral intuition is pretty much what modern atheists base their morality on today. We still see it today in things like evolutionary ethics.

 

[Rise]

I'm so sorry, I didn't think in my ignorance to think it needed such. Please accept my abject apologies. I didn't realise you were such a soft little petal.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Repeating your logical fallacy of mockery doesn't make it stop being fallacious just because you repeat it.

Your fallacy is still left unable to refute any of the arguments I made.

But it just seemed self-evident to me that you were mistaken.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that someone is wrong doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

You are required to give logical reasons and evidence to support your claim of why you think someone is wrong.

And since when was being self-evident a logical argument?

You are committing the logical fallacy of nonsequitur.
Your statement has no demonstrated logical relevance to refuting any specific argument I have made.

 

[Yazata]

As for me, I do tilt towards deism a little bit, so I do feel some kinship with them. I think that the traditional cosmological arguments are arguably stronger than most atheists are willing to accept.

But having said that, I don't see those arguments as pointing to anything like a traditional theistic God. What the traditional cosmological arguments do is point towards fundamental unsolved metaphysical questions. But I don't see a whole lot of reason to personalize the unknown answers and turn those answers into objects of religious worship.

So bottom line, while I feel considerable kinship with the deists, my own path is far more agnostic than theirs. And that's my answer to the question in the subject line.