(March 15, 2014 at 3:55 am)max-greece Wrote: Never yet found a way to dismiss the deist god other than the lack of a need for one - and that's not really provable at this stage.
jesus_wept Wrote:It seems to me like they're arguing for a god of the gaps who doesn't do anything, might as well just become an atheist and ditch the god of the gap IMO.
CapnAwesome Wrote:It drives me crazy when Atheists and Agnostics get at one anothers throats over piddly differences and the same applies to Deists. Save your criticism for someone who matters (and for someone that you actually know something about.)
All of you make excellent points and this is where any atheist/deist conversations end up. It's plausible but there's no proof for it. The burden of proof is on me. I can't provide much aside from my "homosexuality proves God" argument (I think I offered that in another thread and may link to it in an edit of this post), which always gets a mutual chuckle but isn't compelling. I admit it's instinctive and there you are.
In practice, deism is atheism with poetic flourishes. How I live my life, find meaning and evaluate moral issues would be no different were I to become an atheist tomorrow. The only distinction are some abstract philosophical musings that have no practical impact.
So why then? A good question. I described it earlier as a truce between two sides of me, the skeptical and the sentimental. The natural universe and the potential of human civilization are awe inspiring for me. I remember walking out of the New York planetarium on Sunday morning with my extended family and, without thinking, blurted out the rhetorical question of why anyone would waste their time in church within earshot of my Christian sister. The natural universe is not only enough to instill that sense of wonder but it dwarfs the petty miracles in the Bible. My skeptical side is satisfied that this "spirituality" is kept grounded in the natural realm, based on things that are real enough.
Dawkins in The God Delusion described deism as "watered down theism", a quote that leads me to speculate that he's never met any deists or actually spoken with them and is simply going by the dictionary. The Christian and the Muslim also use the term "God" and the similarity ends there. Even the shared term itself has a radically different meaning for us then for them. One atheist once complained rightly enough that deism was a "category confusion" since the same word suddenly means something completely different (which is why I frequently use the term "Yahweh" for the Christian god). I think the category confusion works for the freethought movement, since it underscores that the work for the theist goes well beyond establishing a creator but also knowing the mind of it.
I did go through a crisis of non-faith for about two weeks wondering why I can't be a normal atheist like all my friends and most of my family. Such social instincts to conform would be the wrong reason to be an atheist, most of you would probably agree. I just concluded it is simply what I am.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist