How is Deism and Atheism practically different?

[MennoSota]

Christian is not a loose term. God said wolves would be among the sheep and claim to be what they are not.
The sheep hear the shepherds voice. Since the Shepherd is God and Deists don't believe God interacts with humanity...

 

[Stravinsk]

Christian is not a loose term. God said wolves would be among the sheep and claim to be what they are not.
The sheep hear the shepherds voice. Since the Shepherd is God and Deists don't believe God interacts with humanity...

Anything to prove you're the real deal and everyone else is a phony, right?

Have you posted here under another name? C'mon, don't lie now.

 

[tango]

Has the gift of prophesy ceased? Were there not other prophets? Did they not say "Thus says the Lord"? Does the Bible indicate God is not active?
No. If you state that God has ceased to interact with creation, then when? What arbitrary line do you draw regarding a God who lives outside of time and within it as well?

You're mixing and matching here. Firstly, I didn't say any of those things, I made it abundantly clear that the idea that God has ceased to interact with us is not a view I personally hold. My point is that we do not currently have prophets like Elijah, like Ezekiel, like Daniel. Therefore the conclusion that God did once interact with us but no longer does so enjoys at least some support from basic observation.

Frankly many of those today who claim to be prophets, who boldly proclaim "Thus saith the Lord" are little more than crackpots who disgrace the pages of sites like The Elijah List, which would be comical if not for the fact some people actually take them seriously. This does little to counter the idea that God no longer speaks to us. Asking the question of whether the gift of prophecy has ceased is to do little more than rephrase one aspect of the underlying question - a person who believes God no longer interacts with us would, almost by definition, believe the gift of prophecy has ceased. To counter the claim you would need something to back an assertion that the gift of prophecy has not ceased - if all you have is an implied statement you have nothing more than the denier has. That which is asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

If one wants to claim that God once interacted and at some point stopped, there is no need to determine the exact point at which God stopped. I can look at a dead person and conclude that their heart once beat but it no longer beats, without a requirement to determine the exact time at which the heart stopped beating.

Since the Bible has not had anything added to it for many centuries the argument that the Bible does not indicate God is no longer active doesn't really work very well either.

 

[tango]

Has the gift of prophesy ceased? Were there not other prophets? Did they not say "Thus says the Lord"? Does the Bible indicate God is not active?
No. If you state that God has ceased to interact with creation, then when? What arbitrary line do you draw regarding a God who lives outside of time and within it as well?

You're mixing and matching here. Firstly, I didn't say any of those things, I made it abundantly clear that the idea that God has ceased to interact with us is not a view I personally hold. My point is that we do not currently have prophets like Elijah, like Ezekiel, like Daniel. Therefore the conclusion that God did once interact with us but no longer does so enjoys at least some support from basic observation.

Frankly many of those today who claim to be prophets, who boldly proclaim "Thus saith the Lord" are little more than crackpots who disgrace the pages of sites like The Elijah List, which would be comical if not for the fact some people actually take them seriously. This does little to counter the idea that God no longer speaks to us. Asking the question of whether the gift of prophecy has ceased is to do little more than rephrase one aspect of the underlying question - a person who believes God no longer interacts with us would, almost by definition, believe the gift of prophecy has ceased. To counter the claim you would need something to back an assertion that the gift of prophecy has not ceased - if all you have is an implied statement you have nothing more than the denier has. That which is asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

If one wants to claim that God once interacted and at some point stopped, there is no need to determine the exact point at which God stopped. I can look at a dead person and conclude that their heart once beat but it no longer beats, without a requirement to determine the exact time at which the heart stopped beating.

Since the Bible has not had anything added to it for many centuries the argument that the Bible does not indicate God is no longer active doesn't really work very well either.

 

[tango]

Christian is not a loose term. God said wolves would be among the sheep and claim to be what they are not.
The sheep hear the shepherds voice. Since the Shepherd is God and Deists don't believe God interacts with humanity...

In many ways "Christian" is a loose term. Look at the differences between people who call themselves Christians.

At its very core one would hope that all those who identify as Christian would agree on a few key points. But beyond those key points, just look at the differences of opinion in whether baptism is necessary for salvation, whether we should baptise babies or adults, whether we should drink alcohol, whether the rapture will come before or after the tribulation, whether the rapture will happen at all, and so on. And yet all these different viewpoints exist under the label "Christian".

 

[MennoSota]

Anything to prove you're the real deal and everyone else is a phony, right?

Have you posted here under another name? C'mon, don't lie now.

What does God's word say?

Interesting how you want to plant a false idea that I am someone coming back to this site. What are you avoiding?

 

[MennoSota]

You're mixing and matching here. Firstly, I didn't say any of those things, I made it abundantly clear that the idea that God has ceased to interact with us is not a view I personally hold. My point is that we do not currently have prophets like Elijah, like Ezekiel, like Daniel. Therefore the conclusion that God did once interact with us but no longer does so enjoys at least some support from basic observation.

Frankly many of those today who claim to be prophets, who boldly proclaim "Thus saith the Lord" are little more than crackpots who disgrace the pages of sites like The Elijah List, which would be comical if not for the fact some people actually take them seriously. This does little to counter the idea that God no longer speaks to us. Asking the question of whether the gift of prophecy has ceased is to do little more than rephrase one aspect of the underlying question - a person who believes God no longer interacts with us would, almost by definition, believe the gift of prophecy has ceased. To counter the claim you would need something to back an assertion that the gift of prophecy has not ceased - if all you have is an implied statement you have nothing more than the denier has. That which is asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

If one wants to claim that God once interacted and at some point stopped, there is no need to determine the exact point at which God stopped. I can look at a dead person and conclude that their heart once beat but it no longer beats, without a requirement to determine the exact time at which the heart stopped beating.

Since the Bible has not had anything added to it for many centuries the argument that the Bible does not indicate God is no longer active doesn't really work very well either.

You're avoiding my question. Has the gift of prophesy ceased? It is a spiritual gift, like teaching, encouragement, etc. Does God no longer give the gifts?

 

[Stravinsk]

What does God's word say?

I'm sure you don't know, as you have shown on numerous occasions that not only are you willing to lift it out of context to fit a viewpoint, but when faced with Christ's words directly you deny their authority. Such is the case when I pointed out what Jesus said with regards to where He got His words in another thread.

Interesting how you want to plant a false idea that I am someone coming back to this site. What are you avoiding?

I'm afraid you planted that idea with your posts. I'm merely commenting on my suspicion. But it's also of note that not only have you been avoiding the question, but you won't answer it directly.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm sure you don't know, as you have shown on numerous occasions that not only are you willing to lift it out of context to fit a viewpoint, but when faced with Christ's words directly you deny their authority. Such is the case when I pointed out what Jesus said with regards to where He got His words in another thread.



I'm afraid you planted that idea with your posts. I'm merely commenting on my suspicion. But it's also of note that not only have you been avoiding the question, but you won't answer it directly.

Tell us what God says.

 

[MennoSota]

Tell us what God says.

@ Stravinsk, your silence speaks volumes.

 

[MennoSota]

Conclusion: Atheism and Deism is essentially the same thing.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Conclusion: Atheism and Deism is essentially the same thing.

Conjecture isn't conclusion. You've been asked many times, in many ways, to support any pov you have. Because people give up on you does not support your position.

 

[MennoSota]

Conjecture isn't conclusion. You've been asked many times, in many ways, to support any pov you have. Because people give up on you does not support your position.

It's not conjecture.
Atheist's have no belief in God, therefore God does not act in nature.
Deists's believe God created and then abandoned His creation, therefore God does not act in nature.
The conclusion is identical. There is no practical difference between a Deist and an Atheist.

 

[Stravinsk]

Conjecture isn't conclusion. You've been asked many times, in many ways, to support any pov you have. Because people give up on you does not support your position.

Oh, he supports his position, but basically it's all on his terms, or general definitions. I explained already how far my Deism goes with regards to the definition provided, but he ignores that because it doesn't suit his goal of putting someone else in the wrong or error. I guess he needed a better argument after branding me an ELCA Lutheran when I simply posted a song completely unrelated to Christianity at all. Then there's the arguments he does answer. If you're not a Protestant by his standard or if one is a believer by any other denomination within the faith (like Ethiopian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox, Catholic etc) which accept other books, then you only do so beause of your "rebellious nature". You might think Maccabees or Enoch were books that are basically a license to sin by this logic. But anyways, I'm sure anyone of these faiths was thoroughly convinced by the depth of this particular argument, hehe.

Clearly the OP is rather incapable of thinking outside his programming or considering ideas honestly enough to provide a rational reason to reject them. But then again, maybe I'm mistaken. Perhaps reason and anything approaching intellectual honesty is an enemy as well when your beliefs are challenged?

 

[Josiah]

The conclusion is identical. There is no practical difference between a Deist and an Atheist.

Often, the problem is definitions......

Christianity has no common governance in such matters, and of course such would be meaningless for those outside of Christianity as most Deists today are and of course as all Atheists would be..... The "problem" is that ANYONE can define and use words ANY WAY they want... and yes, since English is governed by USAGE, eventually we can end up with an unlimited number of definitions (perhaps in direct contradictions to each other) because in English, words mean whatever meaning is ascribed to them by any who uses the word.


IMO, if we look at the word itself and the original or primary meaning....


THEIST - One who dogmatically holds there is supernatural, divine, "god" in some sense; Something beyond the natural (physics). Most theoretical physicists are theists in this sense since they believe there are situations where physics entirely breaks down and that "something" preexisted physics as we know it, even the Big Bang itself. They may not hold to a PERSONAL GOD in the sense of Western Religions (they hold to something more akin to Hinduism) but they are theists.


ATHEIST - one with a dogmatic theology that there is no God, no divine, no supernatural. The "A" makes it the opposite of Theism, so whatever Theism means and implies, Atheism is dogmatically the opposite. That's technically, primarily, originally what the word means. Now, one can insist the word only means "One who does not drive a Ford Mustang" and if that's how they mean it, then that's what it means. People get amazingly creative in the "meaning" they give to this word.


AGNOSTIC - one who simply holds there is insufficient physical evidence for the divine, the supernatural. The word "gnosis" means knowledge or empirical evidence. It does not in any way preclude what they believe or what faith they have, it simply means they hold there is insufficient (and perhaps entirely lacking) evidence for such. For example, most Astrophysists believe there is life of some kind somewhere else in the universe - its a STRONG and PASSIONATE belief that really drives them and determines their life, but EVERY ONE of them is actually an Agnostic because they ALL quickly admit that we have ZERO evidence of that, there certainly is insufficient empirical proof. Many will even admit their believe COULD be entirely, wholly wrong.


DEIST - One who is a theist (SEE ABOVE) and believe that the divine created physics (most add as well as moral laws) but that is the extent of the supernaturals' interplay with people and the universe today.... it's all just "running" according to how the divine set it up. One CAN be a deists AND a Theist of course.....


So, yes, a Deist not only could but probably does hold that we are to be moral in light of the divine: God set up the MORAL laws as well as the PHYSICS laws, and the world works best when those laws are allowed to rule; they MAY take a passive view of morality (don't resist, don't go against) rather than the more active view of most world religions but the upholding of morality could easily be the same.




- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Often, the problem is definitions......

Christianity has no common governance in such matters, and of course such would be meaningless for those outside of Christianity as most Deists today are and of course as all Atheists would be..... The "problem" is that ANYONE can define and use words ANY WAY they want... and yes, since English is governed by USAGE, eventually we can end up with an unlimited number of definitions (perhaps in direct contradictions to each other) because in English, words mean whatever meaning is ascribed to them by any who uses the word.


IMO, if we look at the word itself and the original or primary meaning....


ATHEIST - one with a dogmatic theology that there is no God, no divine, no supernatural. The "A" makes it the opposite of Theism, so whatever Theism means and implies, Atheism is dogmatically the opposite. That's technically, primarily, originally what the word means. Now, one can insist the word only means "One who does not drive a Ford Mustang" and if that's how they mean it, then that's what it means. People get amazingly creative in the "meaning" they give to this word.


AGNOSTIC - one who simply holds there is insufficient physical evidence for the divine, the supernatural. The word "gnosis" means knowledge or empirical evidence. It does not in any way preclude what they believe or what faith they have, it simply means they hold there is insufficient (and perhaps entirely lacking) evidence for such. For example, most Astrophysists believe there is life of some kind somewhere else in the universe - its a STRONG and PASSIONATE belief that really drives them and determines their life, but EVERY ONE of them is actually an Agnostic because they ALL quickly admit that we have ZERO evidence of that, there certainly is insufficient empirical proof. Many will even admit their believe COULD be entirely, wholly wrong.


THEIST - One who dogmatically holds there is supernatural, divine, "god" in some sense. Most theoretical physists are theists in this sense since they believe there are situations where physics entirely breaks down and that "something" preexisted physics as we know it, even the Big Bang itself. They may not hold to a PERSONAL GOD in the sense of Western Religions (they hold to something more akin to Hinduism) but they are theists.


DEIST - One who is a theist (SEE ABOVE) and believe that the divine created physics (most add as well as moral laws) but that is the extent of the supernaturals' interplay with people and the universe today.... it's all just "running" according to how the divine set it up. One CAN be a deists AND a Theist of course..... indeed, many of the early deists were ALSO Christians (Thomas Jefferson for example) although I admit I have a hard time seeing how they held to both views at the same time.


So, yes, a Deist not only could but probably does hold that we are to be moral in light of the divine: God set up the MORAL laws as well as the PHYSICS laws, and the world works best when those laws are allowed to rule; they MAY take a passive view of morality (don't resist, don't go against) rather than the more active view of most world religions but the upholding of morality could easily be the same.




- Josiah

There are differences by definition. In every day life there is no practical difference between an Atheist and a Deist. For both, God does not affect their world.

 

[Stravinsk]

What does God's word say?

Interesting how you want to plant a false idea that I am someone coming back to this site. What are you avoiding?

There are differences by definition. In every day life there is no practical difference between an Atheist and a Deist. For both, God does not affect their world.

Only an Alithis could jump to such an assumption about someone's personal relationship with their Creator and only an Alithis would target me with this thread because only an Alithis is dumb enough to talk about being a true blue better than you Christian and then lie in this very thread as to his identity.

Who is the Lord Jesus to you and why?
What good things has he done for you personally ?
(Not just quoting verses about salvation and forgiveness )

I mean real life every day things that are not distant theology but here & now blessings of the power of God at work in our lives ..that sort of thing.

the lord JESUS being the center of the topic as he is so very wonderful and he LIVES .
.

[MENTION=131]visionary[/MENTION]
[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION] help me out ,i know you two know understand testimony of how the lord speaks to us and deals with us to transform us and bring us into all he has for us -

Hello Alithis! Same issues, same grudge against me for questioning you elsewhere, same willingness to ignore or misrepresent arguments - same person ! LOL

 

[MennoSota]

Only an Alithis could jump to such an assumption about someone's personal relationship with their Creator and only an Alithis would target me with this thread because only an Alithis is dumb enough to talk about being a true blue better than you Christian and then lie in this very thread as to his identity.



Hello Alithis! Same issues, same grudge against me for questioning you elsewhere, same willingness to ignore or misrepresent arguments - same person ! LOL

What does God's word say?
You are attempting to create a straw man. I'm not building your strawman.
What does God's word say?

 

[Stravinsk]

What does God's word say?
You are attempting to create a straw man. I'm not building your strawman.
What does God's word say?

LOL. A strawman argument attempts to address an issue with a false representation. The issue of the OP is the subject of Deism, it's definition and assumed application to the individual with relation to God.
My pointing out that you are a sock of Alithis has nothing to do with this, therefore it is not a strawman.

As for what God's Word says? It says nothing on whether you are Alithis or not just as it says nothing on the quality of goods at my local furniture store just as it says nothing about the consistency of cow droppings in the winter.

But I would point out that only an Alithis would actually attempt to use "What does God's word say" as a defense to the accusation of whether or not he is a former member.

I suggest if staff is not going to ban you again to at least give you back your original name so you don't have to hide behind a bare profile and we can all listen to the glorious wisdom that eminates from your being, rofl.

 

[MennoSota]

LOL. A strawman argument attempts to address an issue with a false representation. The issue of the OP is the subject of Deism, it's definition and assumed application to the individual with relation to God.
My pointing out that you are a sock of Alithis has nothing to do with this, therefore it is not a strawman.

As for what God's Word says? It says nothing on whether you are Alithis or not just as it says nothing on the quality of goods at my local furniture store just as it says nothing about the consistency of cow droppings in the winter.

But I would point out that only an Alithis would actually attempt to use "What does God's word say" as a defense to the accusation of whether or not he is a former member.

I suggest if staff is not going to ban you again to at least give you back your original name so you don't have to hide behind a bare profile and we can all listen to the glorious wisdom that eminates from your being, rofl.

There you go. Strawman. Avoiding the issue and creating a diversion.
What does God's word say?
Of course, you cannot share what God's word says because, for you, God has abandoned His creation. For you, God has not shared any "word" with His creation.
Remind us again how deism and atheism are practically different.