Amoral Inaction

[tackattack]

---

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.

---

@corndog- that's because deism is theism.

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

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.

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.

---

def.-theism is a belief in God (whether personal, impersonal or multiple gods and the qualities of said god(s) is irrelevant) just as atheism is lack in a belief in any god(s)

---

theism
1. a belief in the existence of God or gods.

deism
the acknowledgment of the existence of a god upon the testimony of reason and of nature and its laws, and the rejection of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs and of special revelation. — deist, n. — deistic, adj.

quoted from thefreedictionary.com

---

1)Nor did I claim you were proselytizing or citing a reason for anyone else to believe. I was however, pointing out that in a deterministic universe your reasoning holds no explanatory power and is the definition of the "God of the Gaps fallacy" by a lack of said causality.

2)"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. " Is fine for your definition of God as you stated. It's ambiguity an lack of definition is what I hope you can see leads it to be perceived as a dodge by the atheistic community. I'm not a member of the atheistic community so I don't wish to pick appart your definition.

3)Your response to 3a) and 3b) seems a little wishy-washy and indirect, if these are indeed your contentions then a simple yes, no or restating would be sufficient.

Thank you for your attention in your response

---

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.

---

4) Your opinion that Christianity is utter nonsense at best and morally reprehensible at worst and your assumption that most atheists would feel this way is irrelevant as you are part of neither atheism or Christianity, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you would like to entertain the notion further and go on a tangent to this thread in your lashing out feel free to prove that I (as a practicing and self labeled Christian)am either morally reprehensible, utterly nonsensical or anywhere in between.

5) A simply I reject your apology would have sufficed, however it appears (from your response) you have far too much emotional hurt to really be open minded in my case or anyone else claiming Christianity. I'll leave it at that.

6) I cited definitions and reference in the def. section above. Feel free to define words any way you like, it won't however get you very far. If you answer yes to the following question you are some version of a theist: Do you hold any belief in the existence of any type of god?

7)So the answer to the question is "I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role." What succinctly do you have to support that.

8) I never claimed you said : "that I didn't think God controlled anything." or "that God doesn't get involved with earth." I believe you to be a general theist with a lack of definition, by design rather than observation. I would by default assume that you felt God had some sort of controlling ability and involvement, otherwise you'd be a metaphysical atheist (ie. There's something more than the physical properties I observe, but I refuse to label it). If you would like to express more of a definition as to what your god is, feel free.