In Defense of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what I'm hearing is a lot of 'well, you can't disprove the deist god' bullshit. That's helpful.

Well, it would be a hell of a claim to say that the deist god -can't- be disproven.  Don;t you think?  Most believers simply think that their god, or perhaps the deist god -hasn't- been disproven.

You can't infer from nature that a designer is 'good' in terms of humanity, you can infer that they are either indifferent or cruel enough to take the occasional deliberate potshot.

Perhaps god is not good?  

What then, if no guidebook, no direct communication, or anything of the sort, can give any other real or rational indications about this supposed deity (whose minimum requirement is the capability to design at least one universe, however competently or incompetently), including whether or not one (or more) even exist, to the point where there is any point whatsoever in discussing or speculating?

I don't see why that's a minimum requirement for a god.  Most gods are not creator gods.  

It is literally a non-issue in this case and should have no impact whatsoever on our lives. Deism as a concept is even stupider than theism because at least theists have something (as spurious as it is, their antiquated texts and traditions) to legitimately argue about.

Some people who believe in gods don't think that the gods are an issue, as you put it - that there is no compulsion for either you or them that they impact your life.

[Astonished]

So what I'm hearing is a lot of 'well, you can't disprove the deist god' bullshit. That's helpful.

Well, it would be a hell of a claim to say that the deist god -can't- be disproven.  Don;t you think?  Most believers simply think that their god, or perhaps the deist god -hasn't- been disproven.

You can't infer from nature that a designer is 'good' in terms of humanity, you can infer that they are either indifferent or cruel enough to take the occasional deliberate potshot.

Perhaps god is not good?  

What then, if no guidebook, no direct communication, or anything of the sort, can give any other real or rational indications about this supposed deity (whose minimum requirement is the capability to design at least one universe, however competently or incompetently), including whether or not one (or more) even exist, to the point where there is any point whatsoever in discussing or speculating?

I don't see why that's a minimum requirement for a god.  Most gods are not creator gods.  

It is literally a non-issue in this case and should have no impact whatsoever on our lives. Deism as a concept is even stupider than theism because at least theists have something (as spurious as it is, their antiquated texts and traditions) to legitimately argue about.

Some people who believe in gods don't think that the gods are an issue, as you put it - that there is no compulsion for either you or them that they impact your life.

Dude, you can't prove a negative, so any old bullshit claim can't be disproved 100%. It's just the nature of how stupid the entire argument is. And I pointed out that if there is a god, a deist (uncaring) or theist (gives a shit what we do) god, they are not good, that simply cannot be argued so your response to that (which wasn't a question, it was a statement; there was only one question in my post) was unnecessary. And if at least one god in whatever pantheon is being proposed can't be responsible for creation in any respect, their existence is as pointless as the belief in them, and the term 'god' doesn't really fit as it carries certain implications. Unless you want to make the distinction between Titans like Cronos who created everything and the Greek pantheon came after, but that's just word salad which is beneath a rationalist. And the issue of there being no compulsion is irrelevant when it comes to actual theists peddling their horseshit; I can't respect a deist who is really doing nothing but lending passive support to the whole insane notion. No one who's practicing deism is doing it 'right', in that sense, at least when it comes to the secular humanist perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dude, you can't prove a negative, so any old bullshit claim can't be disproved 100%. It's just the nature of how stupid the entire argument is.

I'm certainly not asking you to disprove anything, and it's worth pointing out that no god believer has to believe, also, that anyone has to disprove their god.

And I pointed out that if there is a god, a deist (uncaring) or theist (gives a shit what we do) god, they are not good, that simply cannot be argued so your response to that (which wasn't a question, it was a statement; there was only one question in my post) was unnecessary.

An evil god would still be a god, don't you think?  People have believed in plenty of evil gods.  

And if at least one god in whatever pantheon is being proposed can't be responsible for creation in any respect, their existence is as pointless as the belief in them, and the term 'god' doesn't really fit as it carries certain implications. Unless you want to make the distinction between Titans like Cronos who created everything and the Greek pantheon came after, but that's just word salad which is beneath a rationalist.

\
The greeks saw fit to make a distinction.  Their gods were not creator gods.  They were hardly alone in that.  I'm simply mentioning that any argument as to problems with creator gods (or that we were not created by gods) have limited applicability.  

And the issue of there being no compulsion is irrelevant when it comes to actual theists peddling their horseshit; I can't respect a deist who is really doing nothing but lending passive support to the whole insane notion. No one who's practicing deism is doing it 'right', in that sense, at least when it comes to the secular humanist perspective.

Allow, for a moment, the notion that the theists you know are not representative of all theists, that their beliefs are not the same as the beliefs of those other theists.  I'm not, in this thread, looking to excuse shitty behavior from people who believe, only mentioning that it isn't a requirement of belief - and that believers behaving badly doesn't tell us anything about whether or not there is a god.

[Astonished]

I'm saying, any theistic notion of god or gods is indefensible, which is why it fails at every turn, and your way of trying to get around that was to fall back on the deistic god. What that does is give theists, who will act on beliefs, a sense that their numbers are greater and that reason could not call a deist all the way to the rationalist/atheist side, strengthening their beliefs and falling deeper into that madness. Giving any legitimacy to these notions is not just pointless but unethical. So you can't really even defend deism. Claiming to be agnostic instead of an atheist isn't quite as bad but still doesn't exactly help.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm saying, any theistic notion of god or gods is indefensible, which is why it fails at every turn, and your way of trying to get around that was to fall back on the deistic god.

I don't think you understand, I'm not falling back on any god, I'm not proposing any god.  I'm simply providing commentary on what an argument -against- god can or does say.  

What sorts of gods it would apply to, and what sorts of gods it wouldn't, etc.  Whether it's more an argument against the believers god....or more that believers are often not nice people™.

What that does is give theists, who will act on beliefs, a sense that their numbers are greater and that reason could not call a deist all the way to the rationalist/atheist side, strengthening their beliefs and falling deeper into that madness.

I seriously doubt that a mad theist finds much support in deists or deism.

Giving any legitimacy to these notions is not just pointless but unethical. So you can't really even defend deism. Claiming to be agnostic instead of an atheist isn't quite as bad but still doesn't exactly help.

.....?

[Astonished]

You put an atheist, a theist, and a deist in a room together, and the theist is going to point at the deist and say 'they're on my side'. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Stupid as it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, I'm sure that's going to happen with some theists and deists.  I;m simply point out that this isn;t an argument against god, and that there is no requirement that god believers do whatever it is you have in mind.

[Astonished]

Then why even take the devil's advocate position on this? Religion is the only proposition so utterly wicked that I can't do that. And I do and say some stupid, crazy shit!

[The Grand Nudger]

Then why even take the devil's advocate position on this? Religion is the only proposition so utterly wicked that I can't do that. And I do and say some stupid, crazy shit!

Some religions may be wicked, but again..they don't have to be, and yes, some believers say incredibly silly things...but that doesn't change the fact that there are many arguments that do not yield the desired conclusion, with regards to -gods-...even if they do accurately describe one god among what, thousands, tens of thousands?  Millions of personal Jesi in the private minds of the faithful?

(this thread was made as an example of how a person can respond to those arguments -without- being assholes, or saying fantastically silly things)

[Astonished]

If the very nature of it is rooted in irrationality, isn't that an indictment of how impossible it is for it to produce the desired results?