A question for Anti-Theists

[FatAndFaithless]

How exactly can someone be a theist without religious beliefs?

Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sin taxes? What do you mean by sin taxes? Taxes on tobacco, alcohol and pollutant products? At least in Fiscal/Tax Law we use the 'Sin taxes' terminology for these kind of taxes, but they have several justifications behind them. Do you have more relevant examples behind taxes?

And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?

I too think deism is still wishful thinking, the same goes for agnostic theism (without religious beliefs), but these people are still not hurting anyone else

Just because a gun is sitting on the table not being used to shoot someone - does not mean that it cannot be used to shoot someone. That's an extreme analogy, granted, but it makes my position on the issue of "they're not hurting anyone, geesh man" crystal clear. People who do hurt people go through vast stretches of time where they are not actively hurting people. We're talking about terrible people here - they still manage not to be the worst possible permutation of themselves -all of the time-. The same, I think, is true of belief in god or gods.

[Chad32]

Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?

They may believe a god takes a more active role in the world, but doesn't see it as worthy of worship?

[FatAndFaithless]

How is that different from a deist?

They may believe a god takes a more active role in the world, but doesn't see it as worthy of worship?

I guess...but then they'd have to characterize his role in the world..which would imply some sort of 'personality' of God wouldn't it? Unless they're saying something like "God is there, he takes a role in the world but we have no idea what it is or how to tell or how to prove it"...which is about useful as a God that doesn't exist.

[Dystopia]

Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?

If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped

[FatAndFaithless]

How is that different from a deist?

If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

[Dystopia]

And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?

You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes). The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money, I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether. It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious. If you ask me, I wouldn't want my girlfriend or any of my female friends working in the sex industry, I wouldn't trust it, but that's just my call. I really cannot criticize because I love watching pornography (and I cannot lie).

---

If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

Well there are several differences. Firstly the argument of 'god is unbelievably cruel because of all the misery in the world' will only work for theists, same for other similar arguments. A theist might believe in destiny and that god is designing his/her life), while a deist will more likely trust free will. I also think a deist will have more trouble believing in superstition than a theist. These are examples of differences, but a god that shapes everything and one that simply watches immediately has repercussions because in the first we are conditioned and maybe even determined to live our lives a certain way, in the later we have free will and are dependent on ourselves only.

[The Grand Nudger]

You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes).

I am serious. Sure, all those things are good reasons not to do any of those things - but they are not justifications for singling out industries -over and over again...everywhere in the nation - You know what those taxes you just mentioned amount to in the US? A campaign of wealth redistribution -away from minorities and the poor. All under the smug superiority of a position that was not rationally arrived at, but rationalized over after having already arrived. Curiously, we don't sin tax pollutant fuels (that wouldn't fly, our cars are "good")..people get up in arms about a pennies rise in a gallon...but the streets are empty when the price of a pack of smokes goes up 300% in a decade - on sin tax alone..while the cost of production actually decreases. We don't have universal healthcare here, so people are left floating in the wind when they smoke themselves to death. That one - a good counterpoint - doesn't even work in our system..........

- and the differences in the way we handle things which ought to be proscribed by the very same arguments is a wonderful example of why they are sin taxes - and not environmental counterbalance.

The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money,

And?

I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether.

Again, pornography isn't breaking our bank in non existent social healthcare costs - and I seriously doubt the veracity of a claim that puts such an immense monetary toll on porn......

It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious.

Do they? Guess what, people who don't share our cultural heritage don't actually seem to think that at all. I'd call that curious, if it wasn't so obvious.

[FatAndFaithless]

And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?

You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes). The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money, I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether. It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious. If you ask me, I wouldn't want my girlfriend or any of my female friends working in the sex industry, I wouldn't trust it, but that's just my call. I really cannot criticize because I love watching pornography (and I cannot lie).

---

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

Well there are several differences. Firstly the argument of 'god is unbelievably cruel because of all the misery in the world' will only work for theists, same for other similar arguments. A theist might believe in destiny and that god is designing his/her life), while a deist will more likely trust free will. I also think a deist will have more trouble believing in superstition than a theist. These are examples of differences, but a god that shapes everything and one that simply watches immediately has repercussions because in the first we are conditioned and maybe even determined to live our lives a certain way, in the later we have free will and are dependent on ourselves only.

i don't think I've ever met someone that believes in a God that controls the universe that isn't religious. Trying to follow what that God wants, trying to please/worship him, trying to avoid his judgment or punishment almost necessarily follows unless someone really does make the statement "God controls everything, everything is his whim, I can't change any of it or have any impact on my fate".

---

You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes).

I am serious. Sure, all those things are good reasons not to do any of those things - but they are not justifications for singling out industries -over and over again...everywhere in the nation - You know what those taxes you just mentioned amount to in the US? A campaign of wealth redistribution -away from minorities and the poor. All under the smug superiority of a position that was not rationally arrived at, but rationalized over after having already arrived. Curiously, we don't sin tax pollutant fuels (that wouldn't fly, our cars are "good")..people get up in arms about a pennies rise in a gallon...but the streets are empty when the price of a pack of smokes goes up 300% in a decade - on sin tax alone..while the cost of production actually decreases. We don't have universal healthcare here, so people are left floating in the wind when they smoke themselves to death. That one - a good counterpoint - doesn't even work in our system..........

- and the differences in the way we handle things which ought to be proscribed by the very same arguments is a wonderful example of why they are sin taxes - and not environmental counterbalance.

The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money,

And?

I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether.

Again, pornography isn't breaking our bank in non existent social healthcare costs - and I seriously doubt the veracity of a claim that puts such an immense monetary toll on porn......

It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious.

Do they? Guess what, people who don't share our cultural heritage don't actually seem to think that at all. I'd call that curious, if it wasn't so obvious.

Also..just to reinforce your point on pornography, there are places where pronography is banned altogether with extreme penalties.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

-And as before. If we can't communicate with this god - and it is ultimately responsible for the contents of this world as it's creator, how do we seek redress for grievances? What does this have to say about our concept of justice, or of human rights? What does that tell us about the god in question? Even if it were true, would we be "right" to accept it?