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? 

 

Thanks.

 

 

Views: 1674

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

‘Actually, you are clearly an Atheist as you are not making the positive assertion that a God exists.  You are not certain that a Theistic god exists , so you are in fact an Atheist.‘

 

I do not know what type of theists you talk to, but no serious theist says that God’s existence is a fact.

I believe there are no absolute truths, so how could I make a positive or negative statement?

 

‘You seem to be suggesting that belief in a God is a default position.  How is this possible?  Babies are born Atheists.’

 

Babies are not born atheists, a baby has no opinion, just like a baby is not pro-life or pro-choice.

 

‘The Bible has nothing to do with my atheism. Science has shown that supernatural explanations are awful. That is all there is to it. :)’

 

The majority of scientists believe in God, so how does that make sense?

 

‘Deism, in my opinion, is more irrational the idea of some sort of personal god that's actively involved in the universe. What Deism practically says is that after God created the universe, he was all, "Screw you guys, I'm going home." A personal god would make more sense in the idea that he would be actively involved with the shit that he made. However, both require the existence of the supernatural, and we all know exactly how much evidence for that crap actually exists. None.’

 

Thats a good point, I never thought of it like that. You are right and if I do continue to have a belief in a God, it is much more easier to defend a personal God, than a Deistic God. Good argument.

 

‘Its very simple.  I don't believe that any god exists because I have no proof of it.  Therefore, if I don't believe in any god then I can't be a Deist either.  You see Deism is no different than any other religion out there to me.  Deism still has faith in something that I don't see existing.’

 

Everyone has faith. You have faith that you exist.

 

‘There still is no evidence – none whatsoever – so why believe there is?’

 

At the moment, there is neither a good enough natural or theistic explanation, so perhaps the best idea is to be agnostic when we are talking about the origin of the universe?

 

‘early Christian believed in stabbing their only son to death’

What?

 

‘Anyway keep going Adam – Doubt is good - you are nearly there.’

 

W

 

 

Top of Form

 

I have doubts, but I would not become an atheist, not at least until I am much older.

 

‘I discovered that a god concept stems from a need for one, and that is what I do not have. Freedom, I think, lacks desire, conclusions or even a need to conclude.’

 

Perhaps. But people have the desire to love and be loved, does that make it a delusion?

 

‘1. Flying Spagetti Monster

2. fly through the air on a carpet

3. accept that I am actually a fig being eaten by a crow

4. a flat earth

5. a square circle.

6. a skyscaper made of Jello‘

 

These are just all straw men. God = being who created the universe. Not some guy with a brown beard or anything, just God, whatever form He/She may take.

 

‘Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."’

 

Nice story. They say scientists make shocking philosophers...

We enter the realm of philosophy, you can not use science to look for God! If we can find God and ‘see’ heaven and scientifically ‘detect’ Him, He is part of the natural environment; something we don’t fully understand yet.

Science can only do so much; this is where philosophy comes in and asks the question ‘Is there a God.’ Scientists do not ponder ‘is there a God’ or ‘existence’ using empirical scientific data or equipment, this is in the realm of philosophy, not science.

 

‘If you don't accept my Love and truly Love me back before you die , tremendous suffering and anguish will come upon you in your afterlife .. choose wisely ..‘

 

Straw men are always fun. Who says that you have to ‘love’ God OR have eternal suffering and anguish in the next life?

 

‘A supreme being seems illogical to me.  It makes the question of how the universe came to be more complicated’

 

How so?

 

‘ A magic man who zaps life into existence (but whom has never irrefutably proven his own existence), or physics and mathematics and biology (which we already see in action every day)?  Really, which is more probable?’

Straw men are always easy to refute...

'Actually, you are clearly an Atheist as you are not making the positive assertion that a God exists.  You are not certain that a Theistic god exists , so you are in fact an Atheist.‘

 

I do not know what type of theists you talk to, but no serious theist says that God’s existence is a fact.

I believe there are no absolute truths, so how could I make a positive or negative statement?

 

Actually, a great many theists say just that. These would be gnostic theists, who are sadly not uncommon. Theists who do not claim the existence of a god as a fact, such as yourself, would be an agnostic theist. The difference between agnostic and gnostic is just as important in theists as it is in atheists. If you object (and rightly so) to all theists being portrayed as claiming that god's existence is a fact (being gnostic), it is rather hypocritical of you to assume that all atheists claim that god absolutely does not exist (another gnostic position) when that is just as inaccurate.

 

‘You seem to be suggesting that belief in a God is a default position.  How is this possible?  Babies are born Atheists.’

 

Babies are not born atheists, a baby has no opinion, just like a baby is not pro-life or pro-choice.

 

This is an invalid analogy. Both pro-choice and pro-life sides are making specific claims about the abortion debate, each putting forth their arguments and presenting their evidence to support their claims. Neither side is expressing a belief (or lack of a belief) in the existence of abortion.

 

A more appropriate analogy would be if the infant believes in Santa Claus. Clearly, a baby cannot believe in Santa yet, as no one has told him or her the Santa story. It is not that the baby does not have an opinion on Santa, it is that the baby has no belief in Santa. Or the Easter Bunny, or horses for that matter.

 

A baby is an atheist, yes. However, it is only an atheist for reason of absolute ignorance, and if one is unaware of a concept one cannot believe in that concept, and thus by default a newborn child is an atheist. The weakest and least significant type of an atheist, but an atheist none the less. Also an a-Santa-ist, an a-unicorn-ist, and an a-horse-ist.

 

Only once information has started to be gathered can a belief form, and which beliefs form will depend on the quality and accuracy of the information the child receives.

 

The majority of scientists believe in God, so how does that make sense?

 

This is incorrect. Evidence shows that scientists, particularly those in the physics, cosmology, and biology fields, are far less likely to believe in a deity than non-scientists. For example, the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers. The highest belief in God was among chemists, at 41 percent.

 

‘Its very simple.  I don't believe that any god exists because I have no proof of it.  Therefore, if I don't believe in any god then I can't be a Deist either.  You see Deism is no different than any other religion out there to me.  Deism still has faith in something that I don't see existing.’

 

Everyone has faith. You have faith that you exist.

 

No, I have confidence that I exist, based on prior experience and ongoing evidence. You are deliberately conflating multiple definitions of faith in an attempt to make religious faith seem like something that everyone shares. There is a significant difference between the following definitions:

 

1a) allegiance to duty or a person

  b) fidelity to one's promises 

2 a) belief and trust in and loyalty to God/belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

  b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof

3) something that is believed especially with strong conviction

 

You are trying to excuse definition 2 by claiming that it is the same as definition 3. While a faith of definition 2 can also be a faith of definition 3 (a particularly strong faith in God), a faith of definition 3 does not have to be one of definition 2. One can have a strong conviction that the brakes on your car will slow you down when you apply them, but this is based on evidence.

 

This is why I have stopped using the word faith to describe a confidence built on evidence and knowledge, because I know that some people will attempt to twist it towards definition 2. (Specifically 2b)

 

‘There still is no evidence – none whatsoever – so why believe there is?’

 

At the moment, there is neither a good enough natural or theistic explanation, so perhaps the best idea is to be agnostic when we are talking about the origin of the universe?

 

Agnostic does not mean 'There is an even change of any answer being true". When you flip a coin, while it is in the air, we are agnostic as to how it will land. We do not know as yet. However, that does not mean that there is an even chance of it landing heads, tails, or on edge. While we may not know, we can calculate the odds of various answers being likely possibilities.

 

God = being who created the universe.

 

Why assume that there had to be a being that created the universe? Absent any evidence to suggest such a possibility, why propose it?

Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in a postulated entity, that being a personal god.  

 

It is not that I believe pink unicorns don't exist ... There just is not any reason to believe they do.  Not believing in something is not a belief.  It is the natural and default position.  So yes babies do not believe in a God , therefore they are Atheist until indoctrinated.  

 

And yes I have met many theists that claim they are 100% certain God exists.  You may claim they are lying , but that is what they say.  

Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in a postulated entity, that being a personal god.  

So, you don't think God exists but you don't believe it?

The default position, in light of the fact that there is ZERO evidence of any other concept, is that there is no supreme being. Everything else, from varying levels of agnosticism to full fledged evangelicism, is variations on the concept of supernatural. For me, anything beyond the default position is unfounded and unworthy of reasonable discussion.

Why not deism?

I hereby award Emperor Milos, 1 internet!

Ok, round 2 !!

Uhm...

Because the whole idea of the universe being the work of a cosmic magician is absurdly absurd to an absurd degree(?).

It doesn't matter whether you think the deity is with us or not or doesn't participate in the daily lives of people. The whole idea is totally absurd.

why not Deism?

Allow me to answer that with a question for you: Why Deism? Why do you feel the need to believe there is a deity?

So why Atheism?

Because of a lack of evidence for god(s)

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?

Actually, both of those are wrong. Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s). It's not that we believe there isn't one.. we just don't believe there is one.

One additional question: what is the practical difference between atheism and deism?

If I told you that god is a spider who lives on the planet Neptune and sends messages to anyone who wears a black feathered hat ... I think you'd be sceptical. If I then claimed that all you need to know about this spider is written down, chiselled into the wall of a cave several thousand years ago ... you are still likely to be sceptical. If I then told you millions of people have swallowed this story ... other people might start to believe it too. If I then invented thousands of myths around it, allegorical stories that remind you of it,  and catchy songs and colourful rituals designed to praise the spider from  Neptune ... even more people might be seduced into believing it. If your parents were Arachno-neptunian-deists, then you would have little choice but to believe in the Neptune spider. That is of course until you reach adulthood and learn to cast away such a superstition. Of course there is no spider on Neptune. That is beyond absurd. Anyone who thinks they communicate with the spider from Neptune is delusional or has serious problems. The stories are fiction and the rituals are human inventions none of it is real. It's all really just silly. The same goes with god. There is no man in the sky. The bible is a  book written by very creative people. Those who think they communicate with this god are really just talking to themselves. The same goes for Allah. Or Buddha. Or karma. Or rain-ghosts. Or quantum-love. They are all the same. We have all become adults and we've put such things behind us. That's why we are atheists.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service