Hello

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course, all this is speculation. It's just that I see the universe as a machine that "must" have some mysterious mind behind it, one that is beyond our current comprehension. I put the "must" in quotes because I realize I could be completely deluded here.

It does sound rather like the Argument from Personal Incredulity to me "I find it unbelievable to believe that the universe can work without a mind so I therefore think it is so much more likely to have one". Where is actual evidence that any such mind is required at all?

Anyway, welcome aboard interesting member. Welcome to the forums. It's good that you're not shy about discussing about your belief(s)

P.S: I thought Einstein is more of a pantheist ("sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins would say) than a deist ("Watered down theism").

EvF

[DeistPaladin]

It does sound rather like the Argument from Personal Incredulity to me "I find it unbelievable to believe that the universe can work without a mind so I therefore think it is so much more likely to have one". Where is actual evidence that any such mind is required at all?

Hence why I'm an agnostic deist. I intellectually recognize there's not much to go on. Even if God were to appear and speak to us, how could we be sure it was really God? Star Trek V was a terrible movie but it did have an interesting point at the end. Kirk, of course, figured it out, that it was a powerful alien trying to get aboard his star ship. I've prefaced that I may be deluded here but that's how I genuinely see it.

P.S: I thought Einstein is more of a pantheist ("sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins would say) than a deist ("Watered down theism").

EvF

Yes, he was. I said "closer". And I don't think Dawkins understands what deism is. His description in The God Delusion that you quote seems to rely too heavily on the dictionary, which also misrepresents atheism.

The only thing I have in common with the theist is that we both use the term "God", and even here there's a chasm of difference in what we mean by that term. What I have in common with the atheist is everything but that. I think "really, really sexed-up super hot atheism" is a better definition.

---

Oh, just to add, I have more than just that watch to bring to the table.

I have come up with one argument that atheists will find wholly unconvincing but it is an argument that fundies aren't likely to hijack anytime soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJWjYZLEcs

Enjoy.

[Purple Rabbit]

Hello DeistPaladin,

Welcome to AF. Please don't feel offended by the following I have to say on our first encounter. It is the position of deism and your arguments thereof that I attack, not you as a person.

I think the argument being made in the video is totally unconvincing. Evolution has equipped men and women with biological needs and traits such as an innate urge for caretaking and raising of children that, fairly common other factors being in place, assure the perpetuation of the genome. Also there are a lot of human features that nature has equipped us with that have no straight translation to proliferation of genetic material. Also evolution theory predicts that as a spinoff of unprecise natural selection traits will develop that have no direct purpose for survival but on the other hand are not detrimental to it.

Also it seems in this video as if evolution is regarded as the whole of nature. There are a lot of things we don't understand about nature. To posit a deity to fill the gaps is a bogus solution. The more we find about nature the more it becomes clear that there is no thread of evidence in nature that a deity is needed for it. When you reach the conclusion, as you do, that your "solution" is unverifiable and has many alternatives, the only reasonable thing to do is to refrain from speculation. Deism may be your personal conviction but since you share it here as a reasoned position I more or less feel an obligation to point out that you have not a single argument to go on and that it is nothing but mere biased speculation.

[Scented Nectar]

Oh, just to add, I have more than just that watch to bring to the table.

I have come up with one argument that atheists will find wholly unconvincing but it is an argument that fundies aren't likely to hijack anytime soon:

It's almost convincing to me, except there is the likelihood that the selected personality traits of doing things beneficial to society and other individuals, occurs in both people who end up breeding as well as those who don't (gay or straight). The ability to love and care for someone else's genetic offspring probably is a trait we are all capable of having.

Also, at least in the case of humans, many gays, both female and male do breed, so if it does turn out that gayness is genetically based, it won't be selected out of existence. But even if there are less gays passing on their genes to the next generation than straights, that doesn't mean they themselves didn't receive the unrelated personality traits (genetic somewhat?) of being beneficial to society/other people, which in turn society selects for by protecting and rewarding those who have the traits.

Interesting video topics at your youtube page by the way. There are a bunch I want to go back and watch. I subbed to you recently, but I can't remember whether I found your channel here at this forum, or from someone else's channel on youtube. I'm adding subs intravenously these days!

[British_Atheist]

Welcome to AF DeistPaladin

[mysoogals]

whats the difference by shifting your believes from a known god to a unknown god ? Agnostic-Deist people still are religious aren't they, they just use a different spelling term for the same idea , Agnostic-Deist are religious as much as the Christians . Agnostic-Deist people seem to jump from a delusion to a second delusion but the same idea with a new all fearing god oh yes without a name of course makes things more interesting.

[DeistPaladin]

whats the difference by shifting your believes from a known god to a unknown god ? Agnostic-Deist people still are religious aren't they, they just use a different spelling term for the same idea , Agnostic-Deist are religious as much as the Christians . Agnostic-Deist people seem to jump from a delusion to a second delusion but the same idea with a new all fearing god oh yes without a name of course makes things more interesting.

How do you define "religion" or "religious"?

With deism, there are no churches. There's no scripture. No priests or clergy. No rituals or rites. No holy days. No prophecy. No saints. No relics. No afterlife. No salvation message.

What remains to be called "religion"?

[theVOID]

Welcome DeistPaladin

One question, why do you feel it is reasonable in any way to believe in a deity of any kind?

[DeistPaladin]

Welcome DeistPaladin

One question, why do you feel it is reasonable in any way to believe in a deity of any kind?

Thanks for the welcome.

Earlier in this thread:

My sense of awe of the natural universe and the potential of the human mind are what give me say "God" with reverence. In advance, I know that won't be enough to convince others (most of my friends, family and freethinkers I work with are atheists).

[Edwardo Piet]

Why can't such a sense of awe for the universe reside with you without a deity?

EvF