Religion
Related: About this forumDeism. What it is, and what it is not.
The term was used recently here, and the claim was that deism is merely a placeholder for atheism. So what is deism?
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
(130,903 posts)that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.'
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Eko
(7,289 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Jefferson seems to have been a deist with a strong interest in religion of many types.
Eko
(7,289 posts)"[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
(42,641 posts)I understand that. He also called for regular revolution as well.
Eko
(7,289 posts)"[N]o one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its 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 its founder an imposter.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Got it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)have you ever seen sub-threads on DU?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I could never have anticipated you'd resort to that.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Incredible.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(42,641 posts)But I understand. You have a focus.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)otherwise...
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Add in another 3 from this thread alone.
When you refuse to post anything of content the repertoire grows rather thin.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)5 times in this thread now.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)#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
(4,031 posts)...#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
(36,827 posts)Subtle variations are to be expected.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...such as 4a and 4b?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And stress on his keyboard. We should have a running tally on it as well.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'd vote for a sticky
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)My work isn't generally at a desk...
Eko
(7,289 posts)"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 shouldnt 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
(36,827 posts)Eko
(7,289 posts)Not sorry lol.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For violating the super sacred 11th commandment.
Eko
(7,289 posts)"Thou shall not point out the inconsistencies a religion or a adherent of a religion have".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Eko
(7,289 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I tried asking elsewhere, but didn't get a response.
Eko
(7,289 posts)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
(7,886 posts)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
(7,289 posts)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
(7,888 posts)I commented before reading the thread. Ditto to all you said
Eko
(7,289 posts)you have stopped responding to me. Did I insult you or something?
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)as much as he favored the comma...
Eko
(7,289 posts)Eko
(7,289 posts)"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
(36,827 posts)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 wasnt in popular use in just about all European languages until well after reformation.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But to speculate that deists as a class might have been placeholders for atheists assumes too much in my view.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(42,641 posts)In answer to your question.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that some theists might not identify as deists.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Deism subscribes to the belief in a creative being or force. Theism goes at least the addition step of revelation.
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 religionsa belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism. [3][4]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Not all theists believe in direct revelation. A Biblical literalist must accept that revelation exists, but what of non-literalist theists?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Your first line had nothing to do with what I wrote.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The idea you'd consider this as an attack demonstrates just how thin your skin must be.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Congratulations.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You won the debate with yourself in a convincing fashion.
Congratulations.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)An interesting bit of explaining on your part.
So it is not just in this forum.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Dawkins would approve.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Sorry for your loss.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Not everyone has the good sense to shut up at that point, which makes it all that much better.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)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
(36,827 posts)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
(36,827 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Fess up...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)RCC as a young person and student, and a deist at this point.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Confusing...sort of...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I believe in the Creator, and the message of Jesus.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Real good, then...
Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)Is your Jesus not simply another human,but more than that, a god?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and I believe that we all share in that spark of the Creator, there is your answer.
Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)Is your Jesus a god?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if you did not understand, that does not make my answer not an answer.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thanks for the additional gaslighting.
Now, based on your own words, do you think you're a god?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And very harmonious.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Cause I'm following along fine
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and you have the results of this thread.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So you believe in revelation, which makes you a theist. Not a deist. Oops.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I understand.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If so, more work is needed.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)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
(36,827 posts)Suspicion confirmed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This one is going to go down as a classic.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Almost as if you were channeling another here.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)elleng
(130,903 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Perhaps many other scientists.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So a blatant contradiction and more evidence you poorly understand the subject matter.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)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
(42,641 posts)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
(12,344 posts)You assumed the answer you thought would make the other seem poorly informed, and proceeded accordingly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I also pointed out that that word deist obviously contains the Latin word dei.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)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
(42,641 posts)But, again, in my view, there was enough dialogue that the point could have been made of that had been intended.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)He didnt bother reading far enough to find it.
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
(49,533 posts)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
(36,827 posts)You never asked, you simply put words in my mouth and wound up making a fool out of yourself.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the 11th Commandment would not be honored.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(42,641 posts)And sound incredibly similar to another's in wording and attitude.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(13,033 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which seems strange coming from someone who appeared around the same time as another's departure.
Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)No point in asking the author as he refuses to answer any questions.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I mean, he's humiliated himself plenty of times, but this thread really takes the cake.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)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
(7,886 posts)You can tell because he always starts a new thread on a topic he lost the honest discussion about.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Thats a start at least.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Someone posted this. Thought you might like to actually read it.
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
(42,641 posts)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
(36,827 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Almost a habit by now.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I matter of factly pointed out your point was strawman.
Funny how you'd claim as much though.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But the actual evidence contradicts you.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Thank you.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(15,805 posts)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
(36,827 posts)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
(15,805 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)That's why I'm an unaffiliated apatheist.
procon
(15,805 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)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
(36,827 posts)All thats 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. Its also possible to be a Christian and an atheist.
That being said its 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
(7,316 posts)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
(36,827 posts)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
(101,316 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Are you setting yourself up as the definer of who is a Christian?
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)You know, the one where you set yourself up as the definer of who is a deist.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(7,316 posts)And according to that definition, Jesus' deity does not fit.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)What's your 👉?
Mariana
(14,857 posts)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
(36,827 posts)Most of them are Christians
Mariana
(14,857 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If there really is an 11th Commandment it would be, "Thou shall argue with other Christians and excommunicate each other."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)paleotn
(17,913 posts)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
(36,827 posts)Many went to great lengths to describe understanding natures order (science), brought you closer to understanding the creator.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I also think you didnt well understand what little of it you did read.
Thats what I think.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The same methods and the same adherence to the 11th Commandment.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)Yeah, that's sneaky as hell.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Why are you insisting on a literal interpretation?
Mariana
(14,857 posts)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
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Good luck.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)You can surely find a source with more credibility than the crappy Christian recruiting site you linked to in the OP.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)in compliance with the dictates of the 11th Commandment.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)All of which betray your definition for that word. I suppose one could say they are all biased against subliteracy.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thanks for the honesty.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(3,910 posts)It appears you need to convince yourself
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,857 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'd love to see it at the top of the list as long as possible.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The 11th Commandment must be honored at all times.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(49,533 posts)Classic gil.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Kinda fun to watch sometimes.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)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
(146,308 posts)That's always a risk with some audiences.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(36,827 posts)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
(14,574 posts)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
(36,827 posts)PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
(101,316 posts)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
(1,242 posts)When God created the universe, did he create and predestine the whole timeline?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)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
(36,827 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)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
(42,641 posts)As is the singing of the choir.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)Interesting.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(13,033 posts)I cant imagine why the author has bowed out.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We'll see tomorrow how we get reframed and literalistsed. The twists and turns will be nausea inducing.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...oh and collecting screen captures, 'cause...you never know.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)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
(146,308 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Slipping a bit.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The 11th commandment must be observed. The 9th can be summarily ignored.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I thought of Thomas Jefferson.
I have been told that my ancestors were closet Deists, generations that did not practice any organized religion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You get to define religious beliefs for others, but no one else can.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)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
(13,033 posts)Perhaps it has a bit of the divine in it.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)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
(36,827 posts)You're starting to tread into 11th commandment waters and could fall victim to hubris.