(May 30, 2011 at 12:40 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Ooh ooh oohh an atheism vs deism battle, I WANT IN! (Used to be a pandeist of sorts), I'm still agnostic towards deism and its variants, I still have a lot of time for them. Gnostic atheist to all theistic claims.
Someone asked about pantheism and how it relates to deism, didnt see a response to the question so:
-Pantheism is the belief that 'God' and 'the universe'/'nature' are synomynous, nature = god. You can leave it at that or take it further with things being interconnected into some sort of panpsychism, never got into it myself, seemed like a pointless semantic gymnastic exercise in its weakest form, and more religious shenanigans in its stronger forms. Non personal, non anthropomorphic... (I'm not the best person to ask for a definition of it as you can see, pantheists might object to how I've described their belief)
-Deism is the belief that there is a creator (or creators) who created the universe. That's it. Again, non personal, non anthropomorphic. Anything after that is speculation.
You didn't ask but I'll tell you anyway:
-Pandeism is a combination of the two. The creator deity created the universe, by becoming the universe. It's easier to speculate reasons for the creation with pandeism than it is with deism (and funner as well). Its more logical than deism for that reason(Imma drawnin my lines in the sand here, Imma take EVERBODY on!).
some prefixs/affixes explained...
-en- means that the god is the universe, BUT, there is more to the god than the universe. 100% of the universe is within or=god, but god is larger than just that. So panendeism would be the belief that the creator deity, created the universe, by mostly becoming the universe, but it left some part of itself outside, that didn't become the universe. Panentheism, the universe/nature = a part of god.
-poly- of course means multiple creators. Polypanendeism... =P
The deistic/pandeistic god needn't be infinite, only 'very' x (intelligent, powerful) enough to start the universe going as it is, and nothing more.
I do seriously doubt the claims of "like any other religion". The panthiests and deists would never start annihilating each other over doctrine. "God = universe" or A "deity/s created the universe" if that's it then what's to fight about, there are no ramifications. Neither has much scope for real life applications, might as well be atheists really (who believe in a god =P). Apatheism almost, its irelevent in day to day living, untill you crave a good debate or are probing the origins of the universe. Edit: Wow, just had a look at that site, I can see where you're coming from (though it's hard to argue that a world full of deists and pantheists wouldn't be a thousand times more peaceful than a world full of theists. For an antitheist, if given a choice of a theistic world, a deistic world and an atheistic world, deistic would be the seccond choice). I'm not that interested in defending the author of that article, he's a numpty, but I do feel you took him a little out of context given what he then goes on to say (His fault for making it so easy though, "demands" honestly...) Think hes doing a bit of a true scotsman there, deism says nothing of the sort. "Will make your life and the world better..." I'm sure some theists who became deists (as they are want to do, deism and pantheism are often transitional stages) were displeased at having their best buddy become an impersonal indifferent deity. If I make a site about atheism, atheismisawesome.whatever and then claim that "atheism demands that, to the depths of your being, you believe a) there is no god (or don't believe there is a god), and that this belief/lack of belief will make you a better person and would make the world a better place" you'd object, "hold on, get your antitheism off my atheism, stop conflating the two it doesn't help, and 'demands' is an idiotic word to use for a simple lack of belief/belief there is no god, anything else is your own and unrelated to atheism.". Having said that, Who's this founder you spoke of? I didnt see anything on there about a founder (legitimate question, I'm not having a go at you here, I don't doubt that this guy has written that somewhere, that is if he isn't claiming he is)
What's your points about books? There are books on atheism =P.. (Oh yes I did)
The original point of the thread. I'd say a better definition of Deism is "There is at least one deity who created the universe" rather than "a deity created the universe". But then that's me, I seriously doubt there are many deists who will claim one, and only one. "At least one", I feel, is a more accurate description of what most would believe.
I am still a pandeist, and I don't see another option budging me off that position absent some rather extraordinary evidence, either proving that a designer is impossible or proving an intervening theistic deity ; I'm not sure what would do for either; I suppose a deity arranging a few dozen galaxies to spell out 'HERE I AM' would do for the latter, though I am able to conceive of a less-than-omnipotent entity which did not create our Universe still being able to do that within it.... the strike point for me is the fortuitous level of complexity of our Universe; not simply that it is complex enough to generate intelligent life, but that it is at the same time simple enough for intelligent life to figure out how to self-accellerate -- as though we were meant to figure out, this is how DNA works and (eventually) this is how we can rework it ourselves to make people ten times smarter, who can then solve even more complex conundrums!!
