Amoral Inaction

[DeistPaladin]

OK, I want the atheists on this board to reflect on how they feel every time someone says, "so, you deny God exists then?"

Even Webster's Dictionary misdefines atheism in this manner. Think about how you feel as you have to, once again, patiently explain that atheism isn't the "denial" of God (and "denial" is a loaded word anyway, since the burden of proof isn't on you). It's the lack of belief in any god or gods.

That's exactly how I feel every time I hear the "so you think God created everything and then abandoned the universe".

And yes, "abandoned" is often the loaded word theists use.

As a deist, I see no reason to believe in a personal god. Given the multi-billion year time scale (of which humanity has existed for maybe 200K years of that) and the massive scale of space (of which we're a tiny blue speck), it seems reasonable to conclude that our relationship with God would be something along the lines of a bacteria cell in a petri dish to the human scientist that cultivated it (at best).

The human scientist is not cruel or amoral for ignoring the plight of the bacteria cell (OK, the cell isn't really sentient but just bear with me on this analogy). It's a matter of scale. The human scientist can't relate to or empathize with the individual bacteria cells. By this analogy, I would argue that it's not reasonable to expect God to empathize with us on an individual scale.

As far as human suffering is concerned, this is relative and our sensibilities adjust to the environment. Remember the 80's movie line, "what you call Hell, he calls home"? If human suffering were cut by half, our sensibilities would adjust until we got used to the new standard.

This is one of many reasons I reject the idea of Heaven or Hell. After a thousand years, you get used to being on fire all the time.

[Doubting Thomas]

I personally see deism as a bunch of atheists who are afraid to call themselves atheists. Or, perhaps they keep believing in a god because of societal or familial pressures to believe in one, but they rightly don't think that any gods interact in any way with anything that happens on earth. They 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 just haven't made the next logical step to realize that there's no reason to even believe in a god which created the universe but doesn't do anything with it. A god which exists but doesn't control anything in the universe is basically the same as no god existing. Since there's no evidence that this ambivilant god exists, then there's no reason to believe in it, especially since we're close to explaining how the universe came to be without a god creating it.

[Cinjin]

---

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.

---

Thats a sweeping generalisation of theists which I do not believe is true at all. I do not think you can offer any reasoning to suppose that a deist god is more likely than a theist god. The diest god is subject to less critcism merely becuase it offers less to be attacked in the firts place and it is hard to see the difference between a diest god and no god at all.

I never made claim that my God is more likely than a theist god. That was not the question put forth. And your third sentence is just a reiteration of min's original question ... which I answered.

Deism (although I can only speak to those I have conversed with on this subject) seems to spring forth from a desire to explain perceived order (design) and or get things started in the first place; but prima facie we now have superior explanations for the universe, so...hence what is the diffenrence between a diest god and there being no god at all?

"We have superior explanations of the universe", first of all, is, and always has been hotly debated. Secondly, talk about sweeping generalization - not everything in the universe is explainable just yet. MANY things are still unknown ... hell, scientists are still debating the source of the earth's water - a "superior explanation" has NOT been locked down on that or many many other things. As for your last sentence ... that again is the same question min posed ... and I already answered it. I wasn't asked to prove that my God was better than a theist god .... I already know I cannot prove that. And I don't care to.

Rebuttals really shouldn't include accusations of points that were never initially made.

---

I personally see deism as a bunch of atheists who are afraid to call themselves atheists. Or, perhaps they keep believing in a god because of societal or familial pressures to believe in one, but they rightly don't think that any gods interact in any way with anything that happens on earth. They 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 just haven't made the next logical step to realize that there's no reason to even believe in a god which created the universe but doesn't do anything with it. A god which exists but doesn't control anything in the universe is basically the same as no god existing. Since there's no evidence that this ambivilant god exists, then there's no reason to believe in it, especially since we're close to explaining how the universe came to be without a god creating it.

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. http://www.deism.com/index.html

[Captain Scarlet]

..not everything in the universe is explainable just yet...

I made no such claim. Refer to your point about rebuttals

Rebuttals really shouldn't include accusations of points that were never initially made.

---

I agree, see above.

You did not offer a answer to Mins question (at least in my opinion) and I disagreed with your unecessary generalizations of theists. You set deism against theism in that response, arguing theism/theists are flawed for their beliefs. If this is the case then you should be able to state why deism is more reasonable than theism (which is why I pointed out that I don't think you can).

With respect to cosmic origins and teleological arguments; I believe there are superior arguments than those tentatively proposed by deism; how is that a sweeping generalisation?

[Cinjin]

..not everything in the universe is explainable just yet...

I made no such claim.

-and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs - I stated that the reason for having a God is fundamentally different for Deists and Theists ... pray tell, where did I say that theists are flawed? Interpolate what you want - the post is clear and plain to read.

And regarding that the universe is explainable .. you did indeed say that, regardless of how you now want to define it. You wrote, quote, "we now have superior explanations for the universe". Only now are you putting perameters on that statement (see your new post below).

I stand by what I said about rebuttals. You added an argument that I didn't initially make and you deny your own statements (see above) Obviously, ANYONE who believes in God, whether it be a Deist or not, is going to take issue with the phrase, "we now have superior explanations for the universe", because in the context you wrote it - it was a sweeping generalization about mankinds knowledge of the entire universe.

You did not offer a answer to Mins question (at least in my opinion) and I disagreed with your unecessary generalizations of theists. You set deism against theism in that response, arguing theism/theists are flawed for their beliefs. If this is the case then you should be able to state why deism is more reasonable than theism (which is why I pointed out that I don't think you can).

With respect to cosmic origins and teleological arguments; I believe there are superior arguments than those tentatively proposed by deism; how is that a sweeping generalisation?

If my answer to Min's question was not to your satisfaction, there's little I can do about that, but that does not change the fact that I answered it. Read both my response to Min and my response to Doubting Thomas - I did indeed answer the question. 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. Clear enough?

[Captain Scarlet]

I don't need a god -and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs ...pray tell, where did I say that theists are flawed? Interpolate what you want - the post is clear and plain to read.

"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"

Seems clear to me. If you don't think it does well... I can't help that

And regarding that the universe is explainable .. you did indeed say that, regardless of how you now want to define it. You wrote, quote, "we now have superior explanations for the universe". Only now are you putting perameters on that statement (see your new post below).

I did not. I said with respect to design and first cause arguments there are superior explanations. I did not say the universe is explicable, and furthermore I don't believe it is yet. Repeating the same point does not make it true, just becuase you want it to fit your argument/s. What paramaters?, they are already in the sentence when it refers design and first cause arguments.

I stand by what I said about rebuttals. You added an argument that I didn't initially make and you deny your own statements (see above) Obviously, ANYONE who believes in God, whether it be a Deist or not, is going to take issue with the phrase, "we now have superior explanations for the universe", because in the context you wrote it - it was a sweeping generalization about mankinds knowledge of the entire universe.

I agree with your point about rebuttals. But I have no case to answer here because in the context I wrote I didn't say mankind now knows everything. Thats is your interpolation of what I said. I think we know enough however to go head to head with theism/deism on the grounds they once solely occupied, and argue that the natural explanations are superior to supernatural ones for the origins and perceived design in the universe. Obviously an atheist is going to take issue with the need for a god at all. I cannot see how you could construe this as a sweeping generalisation, but then to do that you have had to misconstrue my words. Yours clearly was: "They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives"

If my answer to Min's question was not to your satisfaction, there's little I can do about that...Clear enough?

I agree there is little you can do, doesn't stop me saying I don't think you answered it. Clearly you feel no burden to offer a fuller explanation as to why, nor offer any reasoning. There is little I can do about that.

[reverendjeremiah]

If you will, I would like to add another dimension to this discussion..

In my opinion, it isnt about wether a god exists or not. It is about YOUR place in the scheme of things.

These discussions about a deity are always one sided. They are always about the deity. In my point of view, my philosophy, what really matters is MY point of view. My life. How I interact with the cosmos. This can also be interpreted as YOUR life and YOUR point of view.

For anyone who actually pays attention to what goes on in this Cosmos, it doesnt take long for them to realize that something is FUCKED UP.

When I say "Something is fucked up" I mean there are inherent contradictions with the interactions between Sentient beings (in this case humans for the most part) and the Cosmos. There is an inherent Absurdity. The humans as individuals are not the cause of the absurdity, nor is the Cosmos. Both are atomic machinery who are inherently predictable to their molecular core. Where the absurdity lies is when you mix the human with the cosmos. Within the mix is the absurdity.

Allow me to give you an example: Even though humans are capable of rational thought, humans are also an emotional machine. We are caring, giving, loving, hating, etc, etc. The Cosmos, on the other hand, is incapable of rational thought, and unable to interact with our emotional need for connection. The biggest aburdity of this example lies in the fact that the human machine was created by that Cosmos. So here we are, looking at the cosmos, our creator, expecting it to act as if a parent, yet it is unable to do so.

THAT is the absurdity at its root core.

When a person finally stops long enough from his day in day out repetitive routine to actually contemplate his relationship with the Cosmos, and eventually comes to the conclusion that the Cosmos does not share his emotional wants and needs, the human is then faced with these 2 choices:

Choice #1 - Seperate yourself from reality. This can be done physically (physical suicide) or mentally (philosophical suicide). Physical suicide is the extreme end of the choices, a blatant admission that life is absurd and that you are unable to handle it. Mental suicide is the very popular choice of humans. The choice becomes to ignore reality and live in a fantasy land. This is the EXACT same thing as physical suicide, but without the dying. When you retreat into this fantasy land you are admitting that you personally cannot handle reality, so you will be leaving it in favor of an unreal world in whic you are special, and the Cosmos DOES listen to your cries of pain and anguish. You will see what you want to see to convince yourself that the Cosmos is answering your calls for help in every way you possibly can. This option is what is popularly known as "God" for the most part, but it can go much further than that in the delusion department.

Choice #2 - Admit the truth and accept the contradiction. The contradiction is something that most humans do not want to admit, and go through great lengths of delusional bantor to avoid. The contradiction is to embrace the fact that the absurdity between human and Cosmos exist, and at the same time that embrace should be revolted against. How can an emotional and caring human embrace an unemotional and uncaring Cosmos? THIS is the absurdity. In order to have true mental freedom, one must accept the universe for what it is, and embrace the absurdity while revolting against it at the same time. If you do not accept it, you will have comitted an act of suicide. Accepting it is horrid and lonely. Cold and cruel.

Now, with that said, it doesnt matter wether one god exists, or three, or an infinite amount of infinitely powerful gods and goddesses exist. They would be responsible for the Absurdity, and thus should be REVOLTED against.

To make it very simple: This life is fucked up, and if someone created it, then that someone is a fucking prick.

So, because of that, I would not care if a creator exists, as I am fucked regardless.

[tackattack]

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.

[DeistPaladin]

Doesn't anyone want to talk to me?

[Gawdzilla]