How is Deism and Atheism practically different?

[Stravinsk]

There you go. Strawman. Avoiding the issue and creating a diversion.

I sort of feel sorry for you. I mean, my last post should have shown you that you were misusing the word "strawman" and it appears you have not even looked it up to see what it means and how it is applied. Perhaps you have a learning disability?

What does God's word say?

Hey Alithis, - "the apple is green"

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.

I've made it clear I don't go by the strict definition of Deism you provided. I actually did this in my first reply. Apparently you lack reading comprehension.

As for sharing Scripture (Scripture that I affirm), I've done so plenty on this site(and in response to you as well). Your claim that I cannot is not only provably false but also ridiculous at face value. An Atheist could (and probably would) find at least some passages in the Bible with which he or she agreed with, and might even quote. Do you realize how stupid it sounds for someone to make the claim that anyone but a Christian by your definition can share (and affirm) ANYTHING that's included in the bible? Seriously?

Remind us again how deism and atheism are practically different.

I already did. Any person (apparently, except you) reading my posts would know the difference, at least from my point of view.

 

[MennoSota]

I sort of feel sorry for you. I mean, my last post should have shown you that you were misusing the word "strawman" and it appears you have not even looked it up to see what it means and how it is applied. Perhaps you have a learning disability?



Hey Alithis, - "the apple is green"

What does God's word say?



I've made it clear I don't go by the strict definition of Deism you provided. I actually did this in my first reply. Apparently you lack reading comprehension.

As for sharing Scripture (Scripture that I affirm), I've done so plenty on this site(and in response to you as well). Your claim that I cannot is not only provably false but also ridiculous at face value. An Atheist could (and probably would) find at least some passages in the Bible with which he or she agreed with, and might even quote. Do you realize how stupid it sounds for someone to make the claim that anyone but a Christian by your definition can share (and affirm) ANYTHING that's included in the bible? Seriously?





I already did. Any person (apparently, except you) reading my posts would know the difference, at least from my point of view.

Again, you change the subject away from the original topic.
Whether you like a verse or not is irrelevant. As you state...even Atheist's may like what a verse says.
What doesn't change is the fact that God does not practically exist for either the Deist or the Atheist.
For the Atheist, God does not exist. For the Deist, God originally created and then ceased to interact with creation. God practically doesn't exist. There is no difference in everyday function between an Atheist and a Deist. For both God is of no practical purpose and has never entered the world as a man to be a sacrifice for sin.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

Wait are there actually deists that exist?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Good question. I guess it's safe to say there are a few people who style themselves Deists because they agree with the basic proposition. But because the term seems so outdated or esoteric, some who feel that way call themselves Unitarians instead, and the Unitarian Universalist Assn. doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[Pedrito]

If my understanding is correct (and I am open to its being demonstrated to not be so), based on reading this thread and projecting a little, Deism has a practical way of viewing things which can be described something like:

- We observe the universe that is visible to us, including the elements of the Earth that we can see, hear, feel, etc. and we document the consistent scientific laws that control its behaviour. (The fact that our understanding is not yet complete, and that in the realm of astronomy there is a continually changing flavour of the month aspect, is immaterial.)
- We therefore conclude that the creation as we observe it was put into place by an Intelligent Power far greater than we have experienced, or can hope to comprehend, or hope to interact with on a plane of mutual understanding.
- We see various ways in which mankind, based on the premise that that Power has initiated communication with us, has attempted to define how that Power (God) has done so.
- We note that those attempts (religions) vastly differ from each other, especially with respect to the defined nature of that Supreme Creator God (who may be one among many in some religions, or even absent in one).
- We therefore wonder which if any of those religions can be given credence.
- We can sensibly ask, if focussing on Christianity for instance, which God is the correct one – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the God of the original Nicene Creed, or the God of the later so-named “Nicene Creed”? And which of the conflicting organisations actually does represent that Supreme Creator God and the truth of His communication with us?

==============================================================================================

Assuming for a moment that I am a Deist seeking wisdom and truth: Who can demonstrate precisely and unequivocally:
- How and why their particular organisation or doctrine set truly does represent that supposed communication from the Supreme Power;
- And thereby demonstrate why that particular organisation is the one I should join;
- Or demonstrate why their particular doctrine set is the one I should believe?

In the absence of that unequivocal, definitive demonstration, I would suggest that Stravinsk be afforded unaffected respect from every quarter of the CH community.


My apology to the deist community (however I should have expressed it) if I misrepresented it in any way.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The most basic difference is
that one will say they believe in a spiritual origin for existence while the other will contend that there is no spiritual anything that is observable within the limited capacity of science.

The thing is though that one cannot claim supernatural or not natural or provable because science doesn't have a full or even really partial grasp on the limits of the natural or the extent of existence or creation/ formation.

Both lead to the same conclusion; nihilism.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

If my understanding is correct (and I am open to its being demonstrated to not be so), based on reading this thread and projecting a little, Deism has a practical way of viewing things which can be described something like:

- We observe the universe that is visible to us, including the elements of the Earth that we can see, hear, feel, etc. and we document the consistent scientific laws that control its behaviour. (The fact that our understanding is not yet complete, and that in the realm of astronomy there is a continually changing flavour of the month aspect, is immaterial.)
- We therefore conclude that the creation as we observe it was put into place by an Intelligent Power far greater than we have experienced, or can hope to comprehend, or hope to interact with on a plane of mutual understanding.
- We see various ways in which mankind, based on the premise that that Power has initiated communication with us, has attempted to define how that Power (God) has done so.
- We note that those attempts (religions) vastly differ from each other, especially with respect to the defined nature of that Supreme Creator God (who may be one among many in some religions, or even absent in one).
- We therefore wonder which if any of those religions can be given credence.
- We can sensibly ask, if focussing on Christianity for instance, which God is the correct one – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the God of the original Nicene Creed, or the God of the later so-named “Nicene Creed”? And which of the conflicting organisations actually does represent that Supreme Creator God and the truth of His communication with us?

==============================================================================================

Assuming for a moment that I am a Deist seeking wisdom and truth: Who can demonstrate precisely and unequivocally:
- How and why their particular organisation or doctrine set truly does represent that supposed communication from the Supreme Power;
- And thereby demonstrate why that particular organisation is the one I should join;
- Or demonstrate why their particular doctrine set is the one I should believe?

In the absence of that unequivocal, definitive demonstration, I would suggest that Stravinsk be afforded unaffected respect from every quarter of the CH community.


My apology to the deist community (however I should have expressed it) if I misrepresented it in any way.

Thank you for your post. However, the basic definition of Deism is that one believes in God and this is evidenced through the observation of Creation(and it's many facets, including spiritual ones). The specifics of what a particular Deist may believe will differ by Deist. Generally speaking, for Deists, revealed religion, taken only from the fact that it is revealed and not directly observable and testable, merits a question mark if that is the only basis it is said to be true. But there is a measure of faith to Deists who would use the measure but not consistently. Some will use the measure only for the Bible or other religious texts, and not necessarily for other historical figures. It can also be said that a level of faith is involved for most Deists in the sense that certain other things are only testable second hand, by word of mouth or story. For instance, nearly everyone experiences a level of electrical shock in their lives, even if it is only static electricity, but few experience deadly electrical shock. We are taught about this (a revealed idea) and take it on a certain level of faith without having to test it personally for obvious reasons.

This Deist looks at many sections of the bible the same way, but does not shy away from doubt when obvious contradictions present themselves.

 

[tango]

Good question. I guess it's safe to say there are a few people who style themselves Deists because they agree with the basic proposition. But because the term seems so outdated or esoteric, some who feel that way call themselves Unitarians instead, and the Unitarian Universalist Assn. doesn't have a problem with it.

I suppose in many ways I was a Deist before I was a Christian. Having spent time considering all sorts of things I came to conclude, on the balance of probability at least, that the existence of some form of eternal being was more likely than not. By "eternal being" I mean nothing more than some kind of being or beings, nature as yet undetermined, that exists outside of time and therefore has no beginning and no ending. I also conclude, on the balance of probability, that one or more such beings was involved in creating the earth.

I hadn't particularly thought of myself as a Deist at that point but I guess that's what I was - I had a belief in some form of god/s but as yet had little to no idea of just what form/s of god/s were out there.

I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb to figure other people who identify as Deist hold views that are at least somewhat similar, namely that one or more eternal beings exist, even if there are many variations of belief in just what form those beings take and what level of involvement they may have with humanity.

ETA: For me the process of looking to understand, as best as I could, the nature of such beings led me to Christianity. That said, from a perspective of purely logical reasoning and personal experience, I don't see any obvious reason why someone shouldn't continue to believe in some form of deity without necessarily regarding that deity to be the God of the Christian faith. Woody Allen may have been somewhat flippant when he said he wanted God to "give him a sign, like maybe six million dollars in a Swiss bank account" but it's not all that hard to see why people might accept the existence of a creator while not accepting the assertion that such a creator continues to be involved in the day-to-day struggle of humanity. As one friend put it, a craftsman takes considerable pride in each and every one of his creations but once he sells it he takes no further interest in what happens to it. If the new owner drops it, scratches it, breaks it, he doesn't immediately step in to make everything right again.

 

[MennoSota]

Based upon what I am reading here. It seems that the theory of the "evolution of God" fits within a Deistic worldview. Evolution is obviously compatible with Atheists. So practically speaking (not ideologically speaking) Atheist's and Deists's fall in the same area. Both consider God to be of no consequence in every day activities.

 

[tango]

Based upon what I am reading here. It seems that the theory of the "evolution of God" fits within a Deistic worldview. Evolution is obviously compatible with Atheists. So practically speaking (not ideologically speaking) Atheist's and Deists's fall in the same area. Both consider God to be of no consequence in every day activities.

In the sense of the belief that God is not involved in our day to day lives it would seem that an atheist and a deist would agree. But to step from there to conclude that the two are practically no different is absurd - a degree of agreement doesn't mean there aren't areas of disagreement.

I think the theory of evolution makes more sense from a deistic perspective than from an atheistic perspective. To argue that a deity created life and created within it the means to adapt and evolve makes more sense to me than to argue that nothing became something and a creature crawled out of the ooze and evolved because it just got lucky. Even theistic evolution makes some sense from a deist perspective, in that some kind of god watched and guided the evolution of its creation until it reached a certain stage, then left it alone. In that respect it's rather like a parent - when I was a baby my parents were involved in every little thing I did and as I grew older their involvement in my life diminished. They still care about me, they still interact with me, but not on a day-to-day basis. I know the analogy isn't perfect but it works most of the way

 

[MennoSota]

In the sense of the belief that God is not involved in our day to day lives it would seem that an atheist and a deist would agree. But to step from there to conclude that the two are practically no different is absurd - a degree of agreement doesn't mean there aren't areas of disagreement.

I think the theory of evolution makes more sense from a deistic perspective than from an atheistic perspective. To argue that a deity created life and created within it the means to adapt and evolve makes more sense to me than to argue that nothing became something and a creature crawled out of the ooze and evolved because it just got lucky. Even theistic evolution makes some sense from a deist perspective, in that some kind of god watched and guided the evolution of its creation until it reached a certain stage, then left it alone. In that respect it's rather like a parent - when I was a baby my parents were involved in every little thing I did and as I grew older their involvement in my life diminished. They still care about me, they still interact with me, but not on a day-to-day basis. I know the analogy isn't perfect but it works most of the way

Perhaps the word "practical" is throwing people off.
I mean by it that the common sense day-to-day living of life is viewed similarly by a deist and an atheist. For all intense puposes their daily perspective of God's interaction is the same. It is non-existent.
The only difference is: What caused the Big Bang?