Deism. What it is, and what it is not.

[guillaumeb]

The term was used recently here, and the claim was that deism is merely a placeholder for atheism. So what is deism?

Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

Note that I bolded a few terms that refer to a god and a creator, both terms that are familiar.
I could have cited more definitions, but the others that I read are consistent with this one. So given that a deist by definition accepts the existence of a creator deity, I cannot understand how anyone could imagine that deists were or are anything but another type of theist.


Thoughts?

[elleng]

1. 'The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries

that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.'

[guillaumeb]

5. True. And I feel that many theists accept that view. eom

[Lordquinton]

26. Speculation

[guillaumeb]

32. Of course. And I framed it as an opinion.

[Lordquinton]

45. It's still mere speculation

[Eko]

2. Some could have been atheists

when atheist was more that just a bad word and could get you killed, run out of town and make you ineligible to hold a public office. Others could have been true deists of course.

[guillaumeb]

7. Speculation.

Jefferson seems to have been a deist with a strong interest in religion of many types.

[Eko]

18. Maybe, maybe not.

"[T]o the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other."

[T]he truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

From all his writings it seems as if he does not like religion at all, but likes Jesus's teachings as a philosopher.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

[guillaumeb]

20. He seems to have opposed the negative aspects of the institution.

I understand that. He also called for regular revolution as well.

[Eko]

22. I dont know. This one is pretty strong.

"[N]o one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr Drake, has been a common one. the religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter.

[guillaumeb]

29. Jefferson also wrote that each generation needs a revolution.

[Lordquinton]

46. What does that have to do with religion?

[guillaumeb]

65. It has to do with Jefferson and his views.

[Lordquinton]

76. So it's a non-sequitur meant to distract from the topic

Got it.

[guillaumeb]

108. You seem confused.

have you ever seen sub-threads on DU?

[Lordquinton]

128. No, you're just trying to cover for yourself

You're posting to distract from the topic with something tangentially related, for what goal I don't know, probably instinct at this point.

[guillaumeb]

136. Congratulations on convincing yourself.

[Lordquinton]

142. Wow, a stock answer with less than zero substance

I could never have anticipated you'd resort to that.

[guillaumeb]

145. Amazingly enough, I thought the same about your response.

Incredible.

[Lordquinton]

151. And again distracting from the topic at hand

So the person in this subthread talked about Jefferson's views on religion. Out of no where you mentioned his views on revolution. The person then tried to bring it back to his views on religion, and you doubled down, like a broken record about his views on religion. You got called on it and did your usual routine, this time with added gaslighting.

I'll give you another chance to answer the question, and I'll even narrow it down so you don't get lost in such a broad topic.

What does "He also called for regular revolution as well" have to do with his views on religion? How are the two connected?

[guillaumeb]

154. And again, missing the point.

But I understand. You have a focus.

[Lordquinton]

169. Did you even read what I wrote?

It's funny how you say you say other people don't understand what you're saying then refuse to respond when people ask for clarification because they don't understand what you're saying.

[Major Nikon]

182. You're missing the point

[Lordquinton]

190. It's a good thing I'm used to these responces

otherwise...

[Major Nikon]

183. As predictable as a broken record

I concede that you have convinced yourself.

Yes, you have convinced yourself.

Yes, as I said. You have convinced yourself.

You have apparently convinced yourself.

I understand that you have convinced yourself of something.

[Lordquinton]

191. Oh my...

Add in another 3 from this thread alone.

When you refuse to post anything of content the repertoire grows rather thin.

[trotsky]

202. A choir of one, apparently.

[Major Nikon]

203. There's always the fan club

[Lordquinton]

213. Update

5 times in this thread now.

[Major Nikon]

214. It would save a lot of time if he just numbered his responses

#1 You have convinced yourself

#2 Name calling!

#3 11th Commandment

#4 You avoided/missed my point

#5 Semiotics

#6 Nice try

#7 Ubiquitous Whataboutism

#8 I'm rubber, you're glue

If you have any others, feel free to add them and I'll amend this post. That way we have a handy reference guide that puts everyone on the same page. Eventually there will be no need for him to post anything more than a number in response to anything. Imagine the increase in posting efficiency.

[NeoGreen]

215. I think you missed...

...#7 You're Missing the Point

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283592

Which, I would argue, is different than #4.

[Major Nikon]

216. I'm going to have to combine some of them

Subtle variations are to be expected.

[NeoGreen]

217. how about delineated variations...

...such as 4a and 4b?

[Lordquinton]

218. That would save a lot of time

And stress on his keyboard. We should have a running tally on it as well.

[Major Nikon]

219. Someone should open a thread on it

I'd vote for a sticky

[Lordquinton]

220. Perhaps when more time is available

My work isn't generally at a desk...

[Eko]

164. Did he really say that? dont think so.

"Thomas Jefferson never said, “every generation needs a new revolution”, but he did say, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”[1][2][3]"

"When Thomas Jefferson said, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” he was expressing the idea that a little rebellion is healthy for a democracy and shouldn’t be punished too harshly by the state (it should be punished, as it was illegal, but not too harshly). This was said in a letter that was expressing worry that Shays’ Rebellion would be be used as a reason to justify a conservative Constitution (the letter has him commenting on Shays’ rebellion, the Constitution which is then in draft form, and the British propaganda claiming the colonies where anarchistic)."
http://factmyth.com/factoids/thomas-jefferson-called-for-rebellion-and-revolution/

[Major Nikon]

184. There you go with your reality again

[Eko]

185. Sorry Mr Major Sir!

Not sorry lol.

[Major Nikon]

186. You need to put yourself on report

For violating the super sacred 11th commandment.

[Eko]

189. I think it might have been the 12th.

"Thou shall not point out the inconsistencies a religion or a adherent of a religion have".

[Major Nikon]

194. That's fully covered by the 11th

[Eko]

195. Shucks.

[Lordquinton]

192. Does that say how it relates to his views on religion?

I tried asking elsewhere, but didn't get a response.

[Eko]

196. I think I could answer that,

as I see where that thread of reasoning might go, but it leads only to more talking about Jefferson as a whole while discounting his actual views on religion.

[Lordquinton]

197. Taking it far away from the topic at hand

It seemed really forced, like it got repeated on it's own when you tried to stay on topic.

Interesting fellow TJ, lots to discuss, but most of it not really in this group.

[Eko]

198. ah, Guillaumeb is a ally.

And I'm glad they are here, doesn't mean I cant pick apart what I see as a bad argument though, I would do the same for Lincoln. Makes us all a little bit stronger, but in the end, its all internet pillow talk lol.

[saidsimplesimon]

178. guillaumeb

I commented before reading the thread. Ditto to all you said

[Eko]

231. I do find it interesting that

you have stopped responding to me. Did I insult you or something?

[lordsummerisle]

177. Sometimes I wish that Jefferson favored the period

as much as he favored the comma...

[Eko]

168. He didnt say that also.

[Eko]

170. This doesn't sound like opposition to the negative aspects of the institution.

"and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. "
Sounds more like an intense dislike and attack on the Religion of Christianity.

[Major Nikon]

23. So where were the atheists of the 17th and 18th centuries?

Do you simply assume that during the Age of Enlightenment and the emergence of so many freethinkers there were none to speak of? Atheism was illegal pretty much everywhere and the word for atheism wasn’t in popular use in just about all European languages until well after reformation.

[guillaumeb]

30. A good question.

But to speculate that deists as a class might have been placeholders for atheists assumes too much in my view.

[Major Nikon]

38. And you are certainly entitled to that opinion

Nor would I claim otherwise and disingenuously put contradictory words in your mouth. YMMV obviously as you still continue to do so.

Followup question. Why do you think there are so few who identify as deists today after being so popular at one time?

[guillaumeb]

64. Unfamiliarity with the concept?

In answer to your question.

[Major Nikon]

81. Not an answer

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

109. I was referring to your question, and a possible reason

that some theists might not identify as deists.

[Major Nikon]

121. Understanding the difference seems to be the best reason. YMMV.

Deism subscribes to the belief in a creative being or force. Theism goes at least the addition step of revelation.

Theism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Deism.

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism. [3][4]

[guillaumeb]

132. Revelation is an interesting subject.

Not all theists believe in direct revelation. A Biblical literalist must accept that revelation exists, but what of non-literalist theists?

[Major Nikon]

138. They also do

Literacy isn't the only form of revelation.

The demonstration of the lack of understanding on a subject you pretend to lecture others on is astounding.

[guillaumeb]

144. You well demonstrate what you attack.

Your first line had nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Major Nikon]

153. My first line matter of factly answers the question you posed yourself.

The idea you'd consider this as an attack demonstrates just how thin your skin must be.

[guillaumeb]

155. You have convinced yourself.

Congratulations.

[Major Nikon]

157. I can't take all the credit

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218283339

[guillaumeb]

159. Yes, you can.

You won the debate with yourself in a convincing fashion.

Congratulations.

[Major Nikon]

162. No need to be so modest

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218283339

[guillaumeb]

163. Speaking of debates, this one was a bit bizarre.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=12711

An interesting bit of explaining on your part.

So it is not just in this forum.

[Major Nikon]

173. You post this immediately after your diversion remark?

Welcome to bizarro world.

[guillaumeb]

209. Are you welcoming me from "mansplaining" world?

Dawkins would approve.

[Lordquinton]

193. Won the debate with you as well

Sorry for your loss.

[Major Nikon]

212. Some arguments are self-defeating

Not everyone has the good sense to shut up at that point, which makes it all that much better.

[malchickiwick]

52. Actually the term "atheist" was used by Greeks and Romans to refer to early Christians.

They were seen as being "without god" because of their refusal to participate in ritual worship of the Greco-Roman pantheon. (The label was sometimes used to refer to Jews, but because they were seen as having their own ancient traditions, they were less likely to be persecuted for their "atheism".)

[Major Nikon]

53. The term was also used differently in the 17th and 18th centuries by freethinkers

Catholics and Protestants also referred to each other as atheists and the term was often interchangeable with deism as both of those aforementioned groups referred to the belief in a non-interventionalist god as atheism.

[Major Nikon]

44. Do you think "creator" and "god" are interchangeable?

[MineralMan]

3. So, are you a deist?

Fess up...

[guillaumeb]

8. I am a theist first,

RCC as a young person and student, and a deist at this point.

[MineralMan]

10. So, then, you are not a Christian?

Confusing...sort of...

[guillaumeb]

12. I see no problem with being a Christian and a deist.

I believe in the Creator, and the message of Jesus.

[MineralMan]

14. OK, then...

Real good, then...

[Voltaire2]

49. Was this Jesus person a god?

[guillaumeb]

66. I agree with the American Friends that each person has a fragment of the divine.

[Voltaire2]

71. That is not an answer.

Is your Jesus not simply another human,but more than that, a god?

[guillaumeb]

106. If all humans are a part of the Creator,

and I believe that we all share in that spark of the Creator, there is your answer.

[Voltaire2]

114. Nope. Still haven't answered.

Is your Jesus a god?

[guillaumeb]

120. I did answer, but not as you wanted.

And if you did not understand, that does not make my answer not an answer.

[Major Nikon]

176. I understood it perfectly

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

[Lordquinton]

129. So you think you're a god?

[guillaumeb]

137. You sound confused.

[Lordquinton]

146. Again, not in the slightest

Thanks for the additional gaslighting.

Now, based on your own words, do you think you're a god?

[guillaumeb]

148. Definitely confused.

And very harmonious.

[Lordquinton]

167. You talking about yourself?

Cause I'm following along fine

[Major Nikon]

179. Sometimes a non-answer provides far more information

[Lordquinton]

188. multiply this by a hundred

and you have the results of this thread.

[trotsky]

204. "the message of Jesus"

So you believe in revelation, which makes you a theist. Not a deist. Oops.

[guillaumeb]

211. Still confused?

I understand.

[trotsky]

221. Gaslighting. n/t

[Major Nikon]

59. Does that not make you an atheist?

[guillaumeb]

70. Are you working on some sort of routine?

If so, more work is needed.

[Mariana]

74. Come on Gil, don't project.

We all know you receive numerous personal messages asking you to continue doing what you are doing, and praising your efforts here. We know this because you have posted about it, more than once.

[Major Nikon]

83. Just questioning how much or little you know about the subject matter

Suspicion confirmed.

[guillaumeb]

110. As are mine of you.

[Major Nikon]

124. Sorry I didn't mention it before, but thanks for utterly disproving your argument

This one is going to go down as a classic.

[guillaumeb]

135. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.

Almost as if you were channeling another here.

[Major Nikon]

139. I am, thanks for noticing.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218283339

[elleng]

4. Preceded my agnostic 'belief,'

I'll believe it when I see it.

I am not 'another type of theist,' but I accepted 'deism' as ok (when I was about 10 years old.)

This too: A belief in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.

Quite acceptable.

[guillaumeb]

9. My opinion is that this described George LeMaitre as well.

Perhaps many other scientists.

[Major Nikon]

84. Who was a theist and decidedly not a deist

So a blatant contradiction and more evidence you poorly understand the subject matter.

[guillaumeb]

111. Sarcasm and insult are not substitutes for insight.

[Major Nikon]

123. You stole my line!

[marylandblue]

6. Depends on what they meant by "placeholder"

I didn't think they meant deism is synonymous with atheism, but you apparently thought they did and never sought clarification, starting a whole OP on an error that may never have happened.

[guillaumeb]

11. After reading the response, and replying to it,

and after hearing no further elaboration from the original poster, I feel that the intent was to suggest that deism is/was a cover for atheism. An assertion for which there is no evidence.

[marylandblue]

13. You never actually asked that question

You assumed the answer you thought would make the other seem poorly informed, and proceeded accordingly.

[guillaumeb]

15. I disagree.

I also pointed out that that word deist obviously contains the Latin word dei.

[marylandblue]

19. I have no dog in this fight

So I think I am more objective. And I am claiming that the issue is what they meant by placeholder, not the definition of deism.

[guillaumeb]

21. I accept that about you.

But, again, in my view, there was enough dialogue that the point could have been made of that had been intended.

[Major Nikon]

42. The best part is his own source says virtually the exact same thing

He didn’t bother reading far enough to find it.

Deism – A Stepping Stone to Atheism
Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all). Science seemed to engage in a centuries-old battle with religion for the mind of man. Life became a product of blind change -- a cosmic game of chance played throughout time.

Deism was the placeholder that allowed freethinkers to reject superstition without an overt rejection of theism, which could have gotten them prosecuted for heresy. Some of them had to burn their works and defend accusations of atheism for fear of the authorities. Today most freethinkers are atheists, not deists. Kinda makes you think unless you have a closed mind.

[trotsky]

205. Ouch.

He's his own worst enemy. And his fan club enjoys this? Maybe I should join the club, if they all actually cheer him on to watch him humiliate himself.

[Major Nikon]

41. Disagree all you want. The facts tell a different story.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282871

You never asked, you simply put words in my mouth and wound up making a fool out of yourself.

[guillaumeb]

115. If you refrained from insults and attack,

the 11th Commandment would not be honored.

[Major Nikon]

122. The facts tell a different story

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282871

When you engage in condescension, it's probably not a good idea to expect civility in return. For further reading see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Meanwhile congratulations on the massive face plant. This entire thread is comedy gold.

[guillaumeb]

134. Your responses are very harmonious.

And sound incredibly similar to another's in wording and attitude.

[Major Nikon]

140. Whatever that means

Sometimes your metaphors are as hard to follow as your literalities.

At any rate, please do continue. This part just adds to what is already an extremely amusing thread so please don't let me miss an opportunity to commend you for it.

[Voltaire2]

223. It was his choir insult. It should be on the list.

[Major Nikon]

224. Sounds more like a sock allegation

Which seems strange coming from someone who appeared around the same time as another's departure.

[Voltaire2]

225. Could be that too.

No point in asking the author as he refuses to answer any questions.

[trotsky]

228. I'm sure at this point he would love nothing more than to see this thread fall off the first page.

I mean, he's humiliated himself plenty of times, but this thread really takes the cake.

[MineralMan]

226. Yes. We are supposed to sing in harmony.

That poster has admitted that he has cronies who communicate with him and encourage him via DU Mail. I suspect he thinks that the atheists and skeptics who post here do something similar, because how would we know what to say otherwise or something like that.

I know that nobody has done that with me. I don't generally answer DU Mail anyhow. If we are a choir, we are an unrehearsed choir.

Irony is funny.

[Lordquinton]

47. That's exactly what happened

You can tell because he always starts a new thread on a topic he lost the honest discussion about.

[Major Nikon]

24. At least you admit your strawman

That’s a start at least.

[Major Nikon]

133. "no evidence"

Someone posted this. Thought you might like to actually read it.

Deism – A Stepping Stone to Atheism
Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all). Science seemed to engage in a centuries-old battle with religion for the mind of man. Life became a product of blind change -- a cosmic game of chance played throughout time.

[guillaumeb]

141. You missed an essential part.

It can be a stepping stone. I understand that you might have a need to see it as such, and a need to reduce the argument to one where scientists, being intelligent, must battle with and reject theism. I understand that need, it is expressed here constantly, but it is pure projection to satisfy a need.

And because this conforms what you already believe, you are ready to accept it as the most logical conclusion.

As to Newton, while secretly not a Trinitarian, he was a Christian.

[Major Nikon]

150. Funny how you pretend to want to engage in dialog after injecting yet more strawman into it

I didn't miss anything. If you wanted clarification of my statement, you should have asked for it. Instead you desperately wanted to insert words in my mouth and you're doing so again. At least now you are at least admitting "It can be a stepping stone" after your own source proved you dead ass wrong.

[guillaumeb]

152. Funny how you ignored my point.

Almost a habit by now.

[Major Nikon]

160. The evidence proves otherwise

I matter of factly pointed out your point was strawman.

Funny how you'd claim as much though.

[guillaumeb]

161. Nice try.

But the actual evidence contradicts you.

[Major Nikon]

165. One would have to be delusional to think so

You posted your point, I told you it was strawman.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my observation, the idea that I ignored your point just doesn't originate from the world most call reality. If you want to relive it, please continue to do so. I'm enjoying this immensely.

[guillaumeb]

166. I am enjoying how you divert yourself.

[Major Nikon]

172. I'm diverting to your own words. Please try to stay focused.

[procon]

16. "Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator"

That's about as clear and concise a definition of the term as can be. I'm an atheist with no belief in any higher anything, so I'm definitely not a Deist and I don't see any ambiguity between the two separate philosophical concepts.

The subject of Deists often comes up in discussing what the Founding Father believed, with Christians busily rewriting history to portray Deism as an elitist, if somewhat befuddled version of their own beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

17. I understand your position.

Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

56. It's actually simplistic and non-inclusive

There were many schools of thoughts on deism that emerged in the 200 or so years that followed the late 17th century. One of which was essentially the universe is your creator. So while some think the words creator and god are interchangeable, this isn't historically accurate.

[procon]

57. It has always somewhat surprised me when religious folks try to appropriate

the word 'creator' and use it as a facsimile for their 'god'. It's disingenuous at best, but maybe it's more symptom of their own doubts and insecurities.

[Major Nikon]

58. Most religions have some kind of creation myth

Naturally theists are going to interpret deism through their imaginary friend lens. History is a lot more complicated. There's also a few natural religions which defined a creator much like the "force" in Star Wars, which itself was derived from New Age ideas that borrowed from natural religions.

[procon]

60. That's why I'm an atheist, it's much less complicated than the religious contortions.

[Major Nikon]

61. There are those here who make that overly complicated as well

That's why I'm an unaffiliated apatheist.

[procon]

62. LOL - that's good, too. nt

[Cartoonist]

25. Christians are not deists

Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.
_

Jesus is clearly an intervention.

Muslim's can't be deists either. Allah intervenes.

When someone moves from the Abrahamic religion to deism, they ate jettisoning all the BS from all the holy books.

[Major Nikon]

27. Christians can be deists

All that’s required to identify as a Christian is to subscribe to the teachings of Christ. One does not need to believe in the divinity of Christ. Most early Christians did not and some denominations still do not to this day. It’s also possible to be a Christian and an atheist.

That being said it’s going to be hard to reconcile Christianity with either atheism or deism as you have to reject both the notion of an interventionist god and all revelation.

[Cartoonist]

28. Are there Christians like that?

How many? In that regard, I am a better Christian than many who regard him as a deity. I would never refer to myself as a Christian though.

[Major Nikon]

37. At one time there were many

Whether they actually were theists is debatable. When professing atheism got you ostracized at best and BBQed at worst, self identification became problematic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. By definition, Christians must believe that Jesus was 'anointed'

That's what 'Christ' means - 'anointed'. Therefore they must believe in the interventionist god that anointed him, whether or not they think he is divine. So they can't be deist, or atheist.

[guillaumeb]

31. And thus the matter is settled?

Are you setting yourself up as the definer of who is a Christian?

[Cartoonist]

33. Just responding to your OP

You know, the one where you set yourself up as the definer of who is a deist.

[guillaumeb]

34. The sources can make that claim.

I am reporting. Feel free to provide other sources if you wish.

But given that the word deism derives from dei, that should be a strong clue.

[Cartoonist]

35. I'm OK with the definition you provided.

And according to that definition, Jesus' deity does not fit.

[guillaumeb]

63. Deity and deism.

[Cartoonist]

77. Dumb and dumber

What's your 👉?

[Mariana]

43. Anyone can be a Christian.

All they have to do is say, "I'm a Christian" and poof! It's done.

Seriously, one can believe or disbelieve just about anything and still be one flavor of Christian or another.

[Major Nikon]

86. There are those who believe otherwise

Most of them are Christians

[Mariana]

87. Yeah, and they all believe and disbelieve different things. nt.

[marylandblue]

91. It's part of the Christian tradition to argue about who is a Christian

If there really is an 11th Commandment it would be, "Thou shall argue with other Christians and excommunicate each other."

[Major Nikon]

92. Things were much simpler when you could just BBQ dissenters

[paleotn]

36. A non-interventionist creator

need not be supernatural. Thus, not a god in the traditional sense. Possibly not even an intelligence. It may simply be natural forces that appear to be the workings of a clock maker to a brain that evolved to see patterns. Deism seems to be a way for 18th and 19th century intellectuals to fill in the gaps in human knowledge, without resorting to the obviously ridiculous interventionist creator hypothesis of traditional religion.

[Major Nikon]

39. This becomes apparent when you consider how they avoided the supernatural

Many went to great lengths to describe understanding nature’s order (science), brought you closer to understanding the “creator”.

[Major Nikon]

40. I think you didn't read very far into your own source

I also think you didn’t well understand what little of it you did read.

That’s what I think.

[guillaumeb]

67. I think you are channeling another poster here.

The same methods and the same adherence to the 11th Commandment.

[Mariana]

79. The same methods of actually reading the material you provided?

Yeah, that's sneaky as hell.

[Major Nikon]

82. Same nonsense

[Lordquinton]

48. Such a literalist

Why are you insisting on a literal interpretation?

[Mariana]

50. Your source is biased.

Did you click the "Does God Exist – Learn More!" link on that page? It leads to a lame apologetics piece for the existence of a deity that contains fallacy after fallacy. Let's see, there is the appeal to authority, the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to ignorance, and multiple flawed premises. If you click the "Learn More Now!" link at the bottom of that page, you come to the false claims that the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses to Jesus's life, and the direct pitch for the author's particular flavor of Christianity.

[Major Nikon]

55. Did you really expect anything other than confirmation bias?

[guillaumeb]

68. Name an unbiased source.

Good luck.

[Mariana]

72. You can do better.

You can surely find a source with more credibility than the crappy Christian recruiting site you linked to in the OP.

[guillaumeb]

112. And some can find fault with everything

in compliance with the dictates of the 11th Commandment.

[Major Nikon]

89. Websters, Collins, Oxford, Britanica, among others

All of which betray your definition for that word. I suppose one could say they are all biased against subliteracy.

[Lordquinton]

96. So you openly admit you went to a biased source?

Thanks for the honesty.

[guillaumeb]

113. You need to reread what I wrote.

[Major Nikon]

126. Funny how you always say that when you've been busted contradicting yourself

Meanwhile the facts tell a different story.

[Lordquinton]

127. Ok, reread it

and came to the same conclusion, the source is incredibly biased, and you acknowledge it. Well, you tried to cover it with whataboutism, but that's pretty much the same thing, unless you're a literalist.

[njhoneybadger]

51. What are you trying to accomplish with all your post?

It appears you need to convince yourself

[Major Nikon]

54. Nailed it

[guillaumeb]

69. You sound convinced of your own opinion.

[Mariana]

73. What are you trying to accomplish with your post? nt.

[Major Nikon]

94. ...

[guillaumeb]

107. To promote dialogue in with those who wish it.

[Major Nikon]

143. Please do keep promoting this thread

I'd love to see it at the top of the list as long as possible.

[guillaumeb]

147. Your best talent so far seems to be posting such clips.

The 11th Commandment must be honored at all times.

[Major Nikon]

156. Yours seems to be hubris

[guillaumeb]

158. You need a better dictionary.

[Major Nikon]

171. We can use yours if you like

I cannot understand how anyone could imagine that deists were or are anything but another type of theist.

noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282918

[trotsky]

206. LMAO

Classic gil.

[Major Nikon]

207. At least he is consistently inconsistent

Kinda fun to watch sometimes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Not another type of theist - here's the definition of theism:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theism

That's fairly important for the implications of religion. If the deity, or deities, are noninterventionist, then there are no moral implications from the belief - there's never been any message from them. And there's no basis for any kind of religion - the unknowable deity is outside the universe, and our existence will continue in the same way as if there was no creator deity.

So in practical terms, deism is close to atheism than any theism. It's largely a philosophical inquiry into causation, the anthropic principle, and maybe one or two other things.

[MineralMan]

78. You may be using a too-high level of diction.

That's always a risk with some audiences.

[guillaumeb]

117. Were you confused?

[Major Nikon]

181. Someone is

I cannot understand how anyone could imagine that deists were or are anything but another type of theist.

noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282918

[Major Nikon]

88. Kinda funny though

Someone who pretends to lecture others on what deism is and isn't makes such an obvious mistake about what deism is and isn't.

In its heyday many desists were called atheists by some because they did not believe in an interventionalist god. It's literally speaking exactly what it means, although certainly not how we define it today.

Also what's quite funny is the OP takes issue with the idea that deism was a placeholder for atheism, yet his own unread source confirms this farther down.

[PatrickforO]

105. Now, here we have the crux of the matter. Both recognize a supreme being but

with deism, that being does not intervene.

With theism, the being does intervene. In my own personal faith, God is the un-created - before anything was created, God was-is-will be. God created beings who assisted in further creation. However, all of that which has been created is encompassed by God - one can go no place in the universe where one is not a part of God. God is also inside of all created things, including us.

In a word, for me, God is both transcendent and immanent.

Now, since God created all things, and the act of creation is by definition intervention, I am a theist, not a deist.

[Major Nikon]

180. So in your view, what does a deist believe that's different from your belief?

[PatrickforO]

199. According to the definitions provided here, the deist believes there is a God,

but that God does not intervene.

The theist believes that God does intervene. My own belief is that the transcendent God, the I-AM, created all things, either itself, or through various agents.

God also set forth spiritual and physical laws, and there are definite consequences in this life and subsequent ones for both obedience and disobedience to the laws. Thus, the laws themselves are a form of intervention, albeit passive.

Then, of course, we have the agents of God - and we ourselves are included in this group. These agents are co-creators, again operating according to the spiritual and physical laws.

As to this plane of existence, the analogy I use is that it is like a buoy in a boat race. We must round it before we can turn for home, which is oneness with the Divine. By this, of course, I mean master life on this plane without allowing the two great illusions - wealth and power - to seduce us away from the true will of the Divine for us.

I also believe salvation is collective, and that the will of the Divine for us is that we love and help one another. The positive fruits of any powers or wisdom we happen to gain in life must be shared, then, or perhaps 'bestowed' upon others as a gift so that all can advance along the path.

Many times this is just a smile or an encouraging word - acknowledging someone's humanity in a dehumanizing world, or perhaps lending a helping hand. No sermons necessary.

[guillaumeb]

116. Creation was intervention.

[Major Nikon]

131. Which is where the intervention stops for deists

Theism goes at least one step farther and is "not to be confused with deism". YMMV.

"...I cannot understand how anyone could imagine that deists were or are anything but another type of theist."

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. You yourself bolded "a noninterventionist creator". Are you saying that's an oxymoron

and so you don't accept the definition you provided us?

To 'intervene' means to 'come between'. There has to be an event before the intervention, and one after. So creation is not intervention.

[Htom Sirveaux]

80. What's your take on free will?

When God created the universe, did he create and predestine the whole timeline?

[guillaumeb]

118. As sentient beings, we have free will.

[Voltaire2]

90. From your own crappy source:

Deism – A Stepping Stone to Atheism
Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all)

Perhaps you need to keep searching for a source that actually supports your argument.

Or not. Your choice.

Note: Newton was doing his thing in the 17th century while your crappy source infers he was somehow doing it int the late 18th.

[Major Nikon]

93. ...

[MineralMan]

95. Apparently, one needs only to read the introductory material

before posting it and drawing conclusions. That appears to be a habit with "some few" here. Fortunately, others do read the entire thing and lead such posters to be "hoist by their own petard."

Amusing.

[guillaumeb]

119. The 11th Commandment in action is amusing to behold.

As is the singing of the choir.

[Major Nikon]

125. "amusing to behold"

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

229. "Mansplaining" can also be amusing to see.

[Major Nikon]

230. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283979

[Voltaire2]

222. So pointing out that your source contradicts your thesis is a violation of your rules?

Interesting.

[MineralMan]

227. Many things are amusing...

[Major Nikon]

232. Someone clearly got their feelings hurt in the process

[Lordquinton]

97. So you go to a conservative christian site for absolute definition on religious matters

then don't even read your source material where they go on to say exactly the opposite of your point.

If your other sources are consistent with this one, then you have soundly defeated your own argument.

[Voltaire2]

98. This thread is now a religion forum classic trainwreck.

I can’t imagine why the author has bowed out.

[Major Nikon]

99. It should be a sticky

[Lordquinton]

100. Well, it is sunday...

We'll see tomorrow how we get reframed and literalistsed. The twists and turns will be nausea inducing.

[NeoGreen]

101. Bookmarking to be a permanent reference...

...oh and collecting screen captures, 'cause...you never know.

[Major Nikon]

102. Don't forget to rec

[NeoGreen]

103. Done (nt)

[Lordquinton]

130. Oh, we do know

There is someone here who, at one point, asked for references to things he said, then when supplied with the references proceed to delete the posts. Screen shots are more than appropriate, if not necessary to keep certain theists honest.

[MineralMan]

104. K&R for future reference.

[guillaumeb]

149. Only 27 out of 80.

Slipping a bit.

[Major Nikon]

174. The quality more than makes up for the quantity

[MineralMan]

208. Irrelevant to the discussion.

[Major Nikon]

187. There's a lesson to be learned here

The 11th commandment must be observed. The 9th can be summarily ignored.

[saidsimplesimon]

175. "Thoughts"

I thought of Thomas Jefferson.

I have been told that my ancestors were closet Deists, generations that did not practice any organized religion.

[guillaumeb]

210. Which does not make them atheists.

[trotsky]

201. And there you go with a fine display of hypocrisy once again.

You get to define religious beliefs for others, but no one else can.

[Bretton Garcia]

233. Deism defers to the study of Nature; Science

America's foundational documents refer to the authority of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This stresses obedience not to God, but Nature.

In one reading of the Declaration of Independence, even God is under Nature.

Deism was a sort of halfway house between traditional religious-based culture, and science. You could choose to follow a God or a creator. But it was suggested that whatever gods there were, had long ago retreated. Leaving behind a universe.that is best understood as operating according to natural, not supernatural, principles. As science was beginning to prove.

[Voltaire2]

234. This might be an eternal thread.

Perhaps it has a bit of the divine in it.

[Bretton Garcia]

235. Hopefully there's no religion in it

But it may be very, very useful to atheism; feel free to use it and expand on it, if you find it helpful.

[Major Nikon]

236. Good god man, don't ever say that

You're starting to tread into 11th commandment waters and could fall victim to hubris.