I have been challenged and have challenged myself why I am not a Diest and the only reason why I am not at the moment is because I do not like to make quick decsions, perhaps the God of the Bible is the actual God? but perhaps He isnt? So at the moment I am inbetween; both a Deist and some sought of Theist.
My question for you guys is; why not Deism?
Many of you guys used to be Christians/Muslims or just plain religious and your belief that God does not communicate with us or contradictions in the Bible does not mean there is not a God.
However, with society most people are either the two extremes and this can be seen with atheism and theism.
So why Atheism? Is it just an emotional reaction to seeing contradictions in the Bible and other religions and claiming there is no God or having a belief that there isnt one? And why not Deism?
Exactly I agree with you on that. Even the American money that says "In God We Trust", isn't actually speaking of the Christian God, it is directly referring to the God of Nature (the deist God)
I think its very dishonest of Christians to argue otherwise
I agree with both of you it wasn't founded on Christianity.
I do believe "In God We Trust" IS a reference to the Xian god, though. I can't point to hard evidence of this right off the bat, but it's an inference based off of what I am about to tell you. It first appeared on our coinage (the short-lived two cent piece) in 1864, basically four score and eight years after the Declaration of Independence. So even if I am right and it DOES refer to the Xian god, it's still either dishonest or just ignorant of them (usually the latter, actually, when it's joe blow, but when its a member of the Xian 'intelligentsia,' it's certainly a lie) to point to IGWT as proof we are founded on Xianity.
You may have heard that IGWT first appeared on our money in 1957--not quite true. That IS the date on the first US paper money to bear the damn legend on it, but it had been on coins, inconsistently, since 1864 (as I mentioned). The last US coin NOT to bear IGWT on it was the "Buffalo" nickel, which ended partway into 1938.
One might argue that the "In God We Trust" refers to the God of the Founding Fathers, though.
Except, I'm just now thinking, why trust a being who isn't around?
Is the text of the letter credited with getting the ball rolling in 1864.
It's clear the motivation at the time was to recognize the Xian god.
In hunting that down I tripped across a reminder that one of the later verses (we typically only hear the first of four) of Star Spangled Banner (written during the war of 1812 as a poem, later set to music) states that our motto is "in god is our trust" That's a bit closer to "founding fathers" era, but of course that could be the deist god.
I have to say I was thinking, basically of the Founding Fathers' version of it, and wasn't really aware of the others; thanks for edjumucating me.
We rejected religion because it says that the whole existence was made just for humans who live only in pale blue dot and therefore, they must worship him which is illogical..
Deism say that the universe was made for no reason or, for unknown reason which illogical too!
Well to be fair the belief of deism doesn't make any claims on a purpose of the universe. I suppose you might call it a spiritual explanation of the first cause.
But the thing is there, one could say the same thing about a view of the universe that came into being without a deity. A universe that came about for no reason or for an unknown reason.
Correct me if I'm wrong here?
There is nothing spiritual or mystical about saying "I don't know" or "we don't have the tools yet to investigate it" or "no theory so far is unfalsifiable". It is a default position. There's no faith or spirituality with "I don't know".
I would only object to the word 'explanation'. Deism holds no explanatory value as far as I know.
By way of analogy, imagine you asked me how I took a particular photograph, and I replied, "Nikon". The answer is relevant to the question, and perhaps it does have some value, but would you really say it explains anything? It holds a very minimal amount of implication which may inspire some interesting speculation, but no, 'Nikon' offers a 'what' rather than a 'how'.
If deism offers some value to others or it seems philosophically meaningful, that's fine by me. Personally, I think it just introduces an entirely unnecessary and useless variable into the mix.
In your mind's eye what is the distinction between being a deist and a theist? I don't believe there is a middle ground between the two as I understand their definition.
Isn't deism a subset of theism? A deist believes in God but not in his active participation in the world, the theist thinks he stuck around and is messing with things. Are your definitions so different that there is no "middle ground" between them. In other words, do you think they aren't related at all?
Theist believes in a personal God a deist believes in an non-personal God.
Since deists don't believe in revelation; I would say that is the difference between the two. Deism is not a subset of theism; because of how it is defined