@DP- Please feel free to answer the question(s) as well. What's the difference between the deistic God and no god? What's the difference between the Abrahamic God and the deistic god? Why do you believe in a god?

(April 29, 2011 at 10:04 am)tackattack Wrote: @DP- Please feel free to answer the question(s) as well. What's the difference between the deistic God and no god?

I see the universe as a machine as opposed to something that we're lucky to have. I see the human mind and our capacity for building our civilization as an intention as opposed to a fortunate turn by natural selection.

Quote:What's the difference between the Abrahamic God and the deistic god?

The differences are legion, both in terms of how we would describe God and how that would change how we live our lives. To do this question justice requires an extensive dissertation.

Trying to sum up the highlights quickly:
- The salvation message
- The afterlife
- The "personal relationship"
- The need or demand for worship
- The rituals and worship services
- Taboos to be heeded
- Scripture to be believed

Quote:Why do you believe in a god?

Because, to quote Mr. Spock, I look at the universe and say "fascinating".

(April 29, 2011 at 10:04 am)tackattack Wrote: @DP- Please feel free to answer the question(s) as well. What's the difference between the deistic God and no god? What's the difference between the Abrahamic God and the deistic god? Why do you believe in a god?

I'll take a shot, but you might not like it.

Before discussing the difference between the deistic God and no god, I always ask, "how do you define a god"? Seems like I never get the same answer twice.

I don't see all that much difference between theism and deism. Religions were created to provide answers to questions that "science" couldn't answer. For early man that was pretty much every question in their lives, so they needed gods that could account for everything that happened in their lives. Now that science has answered most of those questions, the old religions are, for many people, becoming harder to swallow. Deism offers answers to the final 2 big questions; The origin of the universe, and what happens to us when we die. But, Deism is not a formal religion, it is a personal belief that, maybe, a supernatural entity caused the big bang, and maybe there is something after this life. This idea of amoral inaction is one of the problems with religions that claim a benevolent god, but cannot be applied to deism which makes no such claims.

(April 29, 2011 at 10:46 am)corndog36 Wrote: Deism offers answers to the final 2 big questions; The origin of the universe, and what happens to us when we die.

Deism has no answers to any possible afterlife. Many deists reject the idea completely. Personally, I simply don't know.

@corndog- that's because deism is theism.
@Gawdzilla- It's a question of the deistic god, not Abrahamic God, which I'm no expert on and a deist should probably answer. Whether I like something or not is completely irrelevant.
@DP-
1)"Because, to quote Mr. Spock, I look at the universe and say "fascinating". " cites no cauality and is the very definition of a God of the Gaps fallacy
2)I appreciate your attempt to answer the differences between the Abrahamic God and your God, but to keep on topic (it was a rhetorical question) perhaps it would be better to just define the deistic god here.
3)So your contention is that
a)causal atheists see the universe as something that we're lucky to have, rather than a mechanism.
b)socially, material atheism purports natuaral selection alone without factoring in the human mind and our capacity for building our civilization as an intention.

I would agree only with 3b out of your assertions. I think it's a generalization, put sufficiently pronounced in the atheist populous.

(April 29, 2011 at 10:34 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: Before discussing the difference between the deistic God and no god, I always ask, "how do you define a god"? Seems like I never get the same answer twice.

Mysterious mind behind the natural universe that may have had some involvement in our evolution, ensuring that we might develop the minds and potential that we have. Beyond that, it's up for grabs. It could be the FSM for all we know.

---

(April 29, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: @corndog- that's because deism is theism.

Theism is a belief in a personal god. Deism is not.

Quote:cites no cauality and is the very definition of a God of the Gaps fallacy

I never said it was a reason that anyone else should believe. It's how I see the universe. Standards of proof are different for personal philosophy than for science.

#2 answered above.

Quote:3)So your contention is that
a)causal atheists see the universe as something that we're lucky to have, rather than a mechanism.
b)socially, material atheism purports natuaral selection alone without factoring in the human mind and our capacity for building our civilization as an intention.

I recognize they hate the word "luck" but I use it to distinguish from intent. Deism is distinguished from believing that the universe explains itself well enough without speculating on intent. As for the human mind, so much came together in our evolution thereof. It could be good fortune or something helped the process along.

(April 29, 2011 at 7:11 am)tackattack Wrote:

(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.

The question wasn't answered, nor does it imply anything. It's a clear statement of What is the difference between the desitic god, and not having a God? If I asked what's the difference between the Abrtahamic God and the desistic god would you have dismissed it just as easily?

As far as the rest of that crap, it's obvious you've been quite hurt by Christians. Since I'm included in your horribly mis-informed sweeping irrational generalization, allow me to apologize on behalf of Christianity.

Just so you know I don't need God either, he's revealed himself or been observed and for me it's a simple classification issue, not a need. I do find my faith more usefull than useless and my life is exponentially better with God which bolsters my observations, but it doesn't ever cross over to need over want.

@Doubting Thomas- I found your comment so interesting because I find deists I as a bunch of theists who are afraid to call themselves Christians. These are just my opinions but, perhaps they are sick of being picked on by atheists for their flawed view of Christianity, societal or familial pressures to claim belief. They usually believe this because they don't see any cause & effect with regards to prayer, or why a loving god would allow natural disasters, but they've just eschewed all acountability for their faulty interpretation or lack of insight. They'd probably rather blame the Christian interpretation of God and generally label their belief as a God without a name, but it does make a smaller target.

First of all Tack - I think christianity is utter nonsense at best and morally reprehensible at worst. AND I would say that generally, most atheists would feel this way. That is an example of a sweeping generalization and it is warranted because it's been proven to be accurate. I will continue to make sweeping generalizations of religions that I think are generally stupid. If your brothers in christ stop acting like dipshits - I'll stop generalizing all of them. Perhaps (and this is a big perhaps judging by your reply) you are not one of these types of christians, but generally they fall into the same category of human being. As for your apology - don't put that I'm a martyr bull shit on me. You can nail yourself and your condescending apology up on the cross in your church where unwanted martyrs belong.

2nd - I love your horribly mis-informed sweeping irrational generalization of defining deists as a bunch of theists. LMAO ... christians are always such hypocrits. (<----generalization)
3rd - Are both you and Scarlet blind? I will now post word for word my answer that I did indeed give. No, I did not give a dissertation on the subject as DP so eloquently put, but I also explained that I am not here to save souls and you can find out about Deism on your own time.

My answer was in two posts: 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. I don't know what Deists you're talking to, but I never said that I didn't think God controlled anything. I also never said absolutely that God doesn't get involved with earth. Once again, I have to add that I do not know what Gods daily planner looks like but most Deists will tell you it is possible that God puts a hand on this planet much like any creator of any project would come back to a certain portion of that project and do a little re-adjusting. There are also other factors to consider for the reason we have a God, but I'm not a preacher trying to win souls. If you'd like to know a little more about Deism. Here is a link.
and finally, my last answer to Scarlet ...
It's plain to see that I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role.

Now, read the initial question and then read the above answers. CLEARLY, I have shown a DIFFERENCE between My God and no God, and that is all the question required. I'm not answering this question a fourth time. I'm not writing out my entire belief system just to answer such a simple question.

(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?

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

I think you hit the crux of it there. Personal gods (especially of the Abrahamic flavor) always seem to have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. The deist god didn't say anything in the first place.

(April 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(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?

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

I think you hit the crux of it there. Personal gods (especially of the Abrahamic flavor) always seem to have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. The deist god didn't say anything in the first place.

...which truly says a lot about the characteristics the human race has assigned to god. Even now in a forum filled with enlightened people, I've got atheists demanding I tell them what good a god is that doesn't get involved. You see, whether it be subconscious or not, even the unbelievers are assigning god attributes that are completely human.

Why is it so important to you that my God be involved in my life????
Why does my God have to make sense to you?

(not you personally summerqueen just a general 'you' ... I'm not being aggressive )