New religion

[DeistPaladin]

A counter argument is not necessary nor appropriate, as an expression of faith is not an argument. It is a statement.

Now if the reasoning as to why someone believes in theistic religion and an argument is put forth in terms of suppot via empirical evidences as premises, well then.... this is fair game.

Well, it's more the predicable effect of dangerous beliefs that mostly concerns me. This is why I spend a lot of time on Islamo-Christianity and not, say on Wicca, Buddhism or other relatively harmless religions. The question I usually ask when someone tells me what they believe isn't the evidence they have (although this might be question #2). My first question is "if you really believe that, what behavior can I expect from you?"

As Sam Harris has noted, belief represents potential action. If you really think there is a devil that opposes your god, it doesn't lend itself to tolerance for other religions that serve other gods. Since the only other power, by the light of your belief, is the devil, that rather narrows it down which power you're serving.

Islamo-Christian ideology is a religion that can't, by its nature, live and let live. The belief in Hell, combined with a faith-based scheme of salvation, ratchets the stakes so high as to justify any acts of murder or cruelty to save as many souls as possible.

Deism is another kettle of fish... a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste. The application of Occam's Razor tends to render the god/deity assumption redundant, but if the foundation here again is faith, then we are not speaking empirically, but rather intuitively.

I'm not big fan of getting into debates on the hair splitting between atheism, deism, pantheism, agnosticism, etc. Once we've agreed that the universe is a natural place governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason, the rest is abstract philosophy that has little impact on how we live our lives. We're I to switch to atheism tomorrow, nothing of significance about me or the way I live would change. I suspect the same would be true of any atheist shifting to deism.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm content to admit that my reasons for being a deist are instinctive, based on the sense of wonder I have of the natural universe, the potential of the human mind and my enduring hope of the human prospect (despite the rank stupidity I've witnessed over the last decade). None of these preclude atheism but I have a need to say "God" and attributing some conscious intent that the atheist doesn't have.

As an added bonus, I get to identify with great thinkers from history who had fantastic hair. I have this unexplained sentimental attachment to the 18th century.

That same intellectual honest prevents me from adopting the label "atheist" because on that deep level, for whatever reason, I am unshakably convinced.

Though I am indeed a gnostic atheist (theism) and an ignostic atheist (deism) I cannot really get behind bashing and insulting to make a point.

Bullying was the bargining tool of many a theist who sat upon the throne of power for many a century. I do not wish to lower my principles to the level of these abuses. Sure jokes and jabbs can be made, but this is to keep the situation from getting out of hand.

I try to keep in mind that neither I nor any other freethinker is smarter than any theist. Given the right upbringing or indoctrination, it could just as easily be me rolling around on the floor of a Pentecostal Church imagining that I'm speaking in tongues. I'm not smarter. I'm luckier. Our purpose should be to free the minds of those enslaved by a terrifying and dis-empowering belief system.