I was reading an article a while back about natural disasters and the immorality of any god, unworthy of worship, even should a god exist at all.

The idea was that inaction in the face of terrible suffering, when one has the power to prevent it (as certainly a god must have power, or why call such a being god?) can only mean any number of repugnant characteristics (apathy, maliciousness, pettiness, etc) but certainly nothing good.

This is a very good point. If a good human being, supposedly of imperfect morality and limited ability, would do all in his power to avert suffering, such as the tsunami in Japan, how much more must be expected from that being which would be called a god.

But then I had a thought.

A deist conception of god is most truly one which is without action, other than spinning the top to begin with.

Why is not a deist god considered immoral or at last amoral?

Is it because a deist god is said to have no involvement at all, make no demands, have no ethical implication?

Is it because, since a deist god never does intervene, it's pointless to discuss it's morality with regards to action?

Is it because, deists are the least offensive, least harmful of any religious group, who themselves don't gain or lose anything by what other people think or say about god?

Or is inaction from a god plausibly sometimes not evil?

It's because a deist god is as much a fantasy as any other kind of god.

A deist god is uncaring. Exactly what I would expect from a malevolent designer. If a deist god existed, it would be just as responsible for the absurdity as a theist god would be.

Personally the desit god looks just as fictional as the theist god, so dont feel like you are being singled out.

The difference is in the personality. Deists tend to have a MUCH BETTER personality than theists. Because of that, I tend to be more easy going and forgiving around them than I would be around..let say... Godschild...whom I would call a "retarded cheese dick" in front of his face and around as many people as I could possibly muster in order to get as many people to laugh at his stupid ass as possible like he deserves for saying such fucktarded shit.

To me, its not IF you have a god so much than rather how you use it.

(April 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm)FadingW Wrote: A deist conception of god is most truly one which is without action, other than spinning the top to begin with.

Why is not a deist god considered immoral or at last amoral?

Some people do. Clearly, you may want to as well.

Is it because a deist god is said to have no involvement at all, make no demands, have no ethical implication?

Yes, that is probably exactly why.

Is it because, since a deist god never does intervene, it's pointless to discuss it's morality with regards to action?

The reason no one bugs us with this kind of question is because we don't pretend to know. Therein lies the problem with your argument. I cannot argue the morality of a God that I cannot prove exists. How can I even assign him behaviors or feelings.

Is it because, deists are the least offensive, least harmful of any religious group, who themselves don't gain or lose anything by what other people think or say about god?
Or is inaction from a god plausibly sometimes not evil?

We are least offensive because we don't presume to know the characteristics of God. Plus you're assuming that we have made claims that our God is everywhere. I don't believe that at all and I know that the majority of my fellow deists don't believe that either. That being the case you can't really hold a God responsible for everything horrible that happens on earth if he happens to be 100 million light years on the other side of the universe at the time.

The Abrahamic god had certain infinite qualities ascribed to him at a relatively late period,(after the alleged Exodus) He stopped being EL, (he) a rather stupid, nasty, jealous,petty,petulant,vicious, vindictive,ruthless and cruel minor tribal god.He transmogrified into YHWH,Lord and creator of the universe, omnipotent,omniscient and omipresent. He also became infinitely loving,compassionate and forgiving.

I concluded in my teens that those qualities are mutually exclusive and that the existence of evil and suffering are incompatible with the Abrahamic notions of God.

(April 28, 2011 at 12:06 am)padraic Wrote: The Abrahamic god had certain infinite qualities ascribed to him at a relatively late period,(after the alleged Exodus) He stopped being EL, (he) a rather stupid, nasty, jealous,petty,petulant,vicious, vindictive,ruthless and cruel minor tribal god.He transmogrified into YHWH,Lord and creator of the universe, omnipotent,omniscient and omipresent. He also became infinitely loving,compassionate and forgiving.

I concluded in my teens that those qualities are mutually exclusive and that the existence of evil and suffering are incompatible with the Abrahamic notions of God.

can't argue with any of that ... I agree.

also ... not my God.

The difference between a deist god and no god at all is ______________________________________________________________________________________?

(April 28, 2011 at 1:29 am)Minimalist Wrote: The difference between a deist god and no god at all is ______________________________________________________________________________________?

The question you are asking implys that deists need a god for some reason. I don't need a god. People who need a god are called christians, or muslims or whatever. They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning. I don't need a god .... therefore its of no concern to me whether hes watching over the planet or has completely forgotten all about us. I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference.

(April 28, 2011 at 2:39 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(April 28, 2011 at 1:29 am)Minimalist Wrote: The difference between a deist god and no god at all is ______________________________________________________________________________________?

The question you are asking implys that deists need a god for some reason. I don't need a god. People who need a god are called christians, or muslims or whatever. They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning. I don't need a god .... therefore its of no concern to me whether hes watching over the planet or has completely forgotten all about us. I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference.

Thats a sweeping generalisation of theists which I do not believe is true at all. I do not think you can offer any reasoning to suppose that a deist god is more likely than a theist god. The diest god is subject to less critcism merely becuase it offers less to be attacked in the firts place and it is hard to see the difference between a diest god and no god at all.

Deism (although I can only speak to those I have conversed with on this subject) seems to spring forth from a desire to explain perceived order (design) and or get things started in the first place; but prima facie we now have superior explanations for the universe, so...hence what is the diffenrence between a diest god and there being no god at all?

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is
conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's
expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an
intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain
paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a
concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's
science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his
hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he
conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has
been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality
has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily,
what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through
time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's
consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of
subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person
to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.


Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding,
past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient
misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the
earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this
can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large.
Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost
insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost
insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe
(be it cosmos or chaos matters not).


Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not
subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time
and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain
knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God;
submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and
the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it
is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs
to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual
revelation from God to man.


Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the
highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men
have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not
conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic
customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an
introspective creature.


In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy
in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that
of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon
himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of
man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from
indifferent Nature.


These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to
the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony,
Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002