What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2014, 04:28 PM
What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Lets jump straight to the point .

I quit Religion for 2 years now . I am not an Atheist in the narrow sense that it is the belief in no deities . It is funny how people imagine that you have a clear opinion , in reality I have conflicting arguments and I wanted to see your opinions on them .

Firstly , I want to say that I think my safest place is Agnosticism . Just because it is less confident than Atheism . For that same reason it angered Einstein that people called him an Atheist . When I stretch my thoughts , I believe in a non personal God that Caused the big bang and watched it happen . However , not a separate being who lives in the sky but rather the conscious God manifested in the laws of physics .

I think , there is a higher wisdom than we will ever understand that is not centered around us as human beings . But rather something above us and above our understanding . Something , like what skeptics like George Carlin believe in . Something maybe close to what Einstein and Michio Kaku believe in . That it is too good to be a random thing . Too good to the point that something as simple as a sunset can make Dawkins cry .

I do not preach , I do not promise eternal life , I am not so certain that I can not retreat . I support equal rights to women and gay people . Basically , I follow no moral guideline from a book .

Would you think it is so unreasonable to believe so ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mora's post
07-07-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
I don't find deism particularly unreasonable - to me it's even harder to argue with a deist - not that I can think of a reason to do so - than a theist.

For me the problem comes with the 'too good' argument you use. To me it's missing the point - it's not that it's 'too good' for all the random stuff to have happened and for us to exist - more that we exist in our current form because of those events.

Random and unlikely things do happen in nature - but for a few chance happenings, different species may have evolved or survived - I don't see a reason to attach deism to it although I can see why people reach that conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like CiderThinker's post
07-07-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Well let's start off by just clarifying something real quick: atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Gnostic and agnostic deal with what we claim to KNOW while atheism and theism deal with what we claim to believe.
For example I am an agnostic atheist: I do not believe a god exists but I do not know as a matter of fact that there is no god(s).
While its a common misconception that agnosticism falls between atheism and theism that is not the case.

Now with that out of the way as for the meat of your post: yes it is unreasonable to believe in deism. Its unreasonable to believe in pretty much anything until it can be demonstrated to be true. Deism of any kind lacks any kind of supportive evidence just as theism does. Unless you can provide evidence (falsifiable, testable and so forth) that god did the things you claim it did then yes it is unreasonable.
Now you might find the notion of no god disheartening and that's fine many do. The question then that I would pose to you is, thusly "what has greater value to you, comfort or truth?". That question is just personal edification on my part the real question of value is...

Why do you believe these things?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
07-07-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Deism is a pointless affectation.

"We don't understand everything, so let's invent a name for the things we don't understand, which tells us nothing further about them and admits of no utility whatsoever, so that we can pretend to explain the things we still don't understand, but only so long as we don't question the explanation we just made up".

That's deism. Unlike theism, the claims are not immediately disprovable, but they're so far removed as to be unfalsifiable.

That's assuming, of course, that they're even coherent. A "being" - a conscious being, no less - possesses attributes. Do you know what those are? Can you explain those? How do you know any of this?

There's simply no evidence for such a supposition, either. Even to use the word "being" is to make unfounded assumptions (probably founded on fallacious generalisation - likewise, such usage of "cause") and as mentioned doesn't actually tell you anything; it's an exercise in pointless semantics.
(and can't even avoid the question of infinite regress by anything other than fiat assertion!)

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like cjlr's post
07-07-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 04:36 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  I don't find deism particularly unreasonable - to me it's even harder to argue with a deist - not that I can think of a reason to do so - than a theist.

For me the problem comes with the 'too good' argument you use. To me it's missing the point - it's not that it's 'too good' for all the random stuff to have happened and for us to exist - more that we exist in our current form because of those events.

Random and unlikely things do happen in nature - but for a few chance happenings, different species may have evolved or survived - I don't see a reason to attach deism to it although I can see why people reach that conclusion.

Your take is quiet interesting, I have heard of a similar argument . That we see we call wisdom and order , but if we existed in completely different world , we would have still called it wisdom and order from a different perspective and a different frame of reference .

I would certainly like to hear an expert argument of weather life can only evolve in similar circumstances than earth or not . If you have a video or something about it please reply it .

My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence . Especially that we have no frame of reference to what is God , I don't believe the silly belief of a God that sits on a chair . So really we have no frame of reference .

Since , Christopher Hitchens is your choice for a profile image . I would like to mention that he too struggled with this question , in my opinion . I know he says he is an anti theist . But when William Lane Craig asked him in a debate , do you withhold belief in God the way an agnostic does or do you believe in no deities , he never gave a direct answer to that .

I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .

Thank you for a thoughtful reply .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
I see Deism as a stepping stone from theism to atheism for some. Kind of a comfort blanket to help you adjust to the thought of no gods.

As said above. There is no evidence to support the claim. So it is unreasonable. But maybe you'll eventually take the next step. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
07-07-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I would certainly like to hear an expert argument of weather life can only evolve in similar circumstances than earth or not . If you have a video or something about it please reply it .

It is not in principle impossible. The more important things is that we don't know what we don't know.

The request amounts to proving a universal negative - not a productive way to go about things.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence.

... Because that's the only way to get through life and remain sane?

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  Especially that we have no frame of reference to what is God , I don't believe the silly belief of a God that sits on a chair . So really we have no frame of reference .

Indeed. That's why claiming to know anything - anything at all - is unwarranted.

"I don't know therefore it's not impossible therefore I believe [vague deistic claim]" is not sound logic.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  Since , Christopher Hitchens is your choice for a profile image . I would like to mention that he too struggled with this question , in my opinion . I know he says he is an anti theist . But when William Lane Craig asked him in a debate , do you withhold belief in God the way an agnostic does or do you believe in no deities , he never gave a direct answer to that .

Because those words are not coherently defined, and asking as odiously dishonest a person as William Lane Craig to define them is agreeing to ride the express train to failuretown.

(07-07-2014 04:56 PM)Mora Wrote:  I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .

Thank you for a thoughtful reply .

You know that agnosticism is totally different from deism, right?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
07-07-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
While specific theistic concepts -- among them the Judeo-Christian Yahweh -- can be demonstrated to be false or ill-defined, deistic deities are completely unfalsifiable, and thus they are utterly useless.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
07-07-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
(07-07-2014 04:47 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Well let's start off by just clarifying something real quick: atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Gnostic and agnostic deal with what we claim to KNOW while atheism and theism deal with what we claim to believe.
For example I am an agnostic atheist: I do not believe a god exists but I do not know as a matter of fact that there is no god(s).
While its a common misconception that agnosticism falls between atheism and theism that is not the case.

Now with that out of the way as for the meat of your post: yes it is unreasonable to believe in deism. Its unreasonable to believe in pretty much anything until it can be demonstrated to be true. Deism of any kind lacks any kind of supportive evidence just as theism does. Unless you can provide evidence (falsifiable, testable and so forth) that god did the things you claim it did then yes it is unreasonable.
Now you might find the notion of no god disheartening and that's fine many do. The question then that I would pose to you is, thusly "what has greater value to you, comfort or truth?". That question is just personal edification on my part the real question of value is...

Why do you believe these things?


First let me say That I am from Saudi Arabia . I find good questions and points in your reply . I got tired because I can not talk to people in my country about such things . I would be executed . My decision to come here was to challenge my points of view and it quiet did . So I am thankful for that . I just moved to the US about 2 months ago to continue my studies I am thankful for that too .

lets jump to the point , I am claiming something because of I what I think is order in the universe something that Einstein and Michio Kaku believe in . Now as I said it is still a belief for me not certainty . The kind of God I believe is not something to evade our scientific responsibility to look for answers . Rather he is the law it self .

Questions like why is there is something rather than nothing also pop to mind . It is not a God of the gabs kind of thing . But we can not eliminate the possibility at least .

Thank you for your thoughtful reply .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: What is your opinion on this kind of Deism ?
Quote:Your take is quiet interesting, I have heard of a similar argument . That we see we call wisdom and order , but if we existed in completely different world , we would have still called it wisdom and order from a different perspective and a different frame of reference .

I would certainly like to hear an expert argument of weather life can only evolve in similar circumstances than earth or not . If you have a video or something about it please reply it .

I'm not by any stretch an expert in evolution, but it seems to me logical that if life can evolve in circumstances like ours that those may not be the only plausible circumstances. Even if they were, that still does not answer the age-old question of where God (in this case a deistic one) comes from. Nor does it mean that ours is the only planet with evolved life in the universe. For all we know there may be many other planets with similar if not identical chemical make-up to support life.


Quote:My other point that I always ask to my atheist friends is how can you deny the existence of something without supporting evidence . Especially that we have no frame of reference to what is God , I don't believe the silly belief of a God that sits on a chair . So really we have no frame of reference .

I think in this case you're confusing what the vast majority of atheists think, which is that we see no evidence or proof for the existence of God. We for the most part do not claim to be able to prove the non-existence of God just as we cannot disprove the existence of dragons, yetis or unicorns. This is a common misconception which was also dealt with by other replies in this thread.

Quote:Since , Christopher Hitchens is your choice for a profile image . I would like to mention that he too struggled with this question , in my opinion . I know he says he is an anti theist . But when William Lane Craig asked him in a debate , do you withhold belief in God the way an agnostic does or do you believe in no deities , he never gave a direct answer to that .
I'll have to go back and watch that debate again - it's been a while and it is difficult as I find Craig to be one of the most intellectually dishonest and evasive people I've seen - debating is stretching a term when it comes to his arguments. As to Hitchens, from all that I've seen and read I think he was an agnostic atheist - pretty much like I described above, but I think as far as he was concerned, the existence of God was secondary to the harm of religious belief and institutions. This is where I see a difference between Hitchens and for example Richard Dawkins, who is much more concerned with the idea of a deity from a scientific perspective.

Either way - although Hitchens is someone I greatly admired I think no less of him (or anyone else) if they wrestle with the question of their own mortality, this seems to me to be perfectly natural because as animals we are all about survival.


Quote:I am a lawyer , I know that in court if you acknowledge or deny something you need proof because both are positive postilions that are really claims . And remarkable claims require remarkable evidence . Because it is different from saying I do not know and I do not care , that would be an agnostic take . or am I wrong .

Thank you for a thoughtful reply .
If you're a lawyer then I'll put it this way. In court you need to prove someone guilty of a crime rather than innocent. In the same way I ask any believing person to prove God guilty of existence. That doesn't mean that I can't conceive of the fact that he doesn't exist, just as I can see the man accused of theft is capable of the deed even if found innocent. But both need to be proven to be the case for the prosecution.

I hope that makes my position clearer - of course I'm happy to answer any further questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CiderThinker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: