(IFF) Deism is true (THEN) what?

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 178
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I think we agree.

I'd say there's no big difference between deism and atheism.   Both suppose there is no god now.   The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.   Beyond that there is no difference.

I'm sure many deists of the past would be full-on atheists if they had access to modern cosmology and biology.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"
You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"

Obviously you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.  
Please get to the point.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Edited, and I don't have a point.   I have a question that hasn't been answered.

Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"
You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"

The source of my curiosity follows the assumption that you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.  



Mopac: This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking. 
Religion practically invented "legalistic".

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this. 
Thinks like what?  [...]

Plisken: Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
Your answer doesn't make sense, because it's evident that it was not unclear and moot when you replied.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think we agree.

I'd say there's no big difference between deism and atheism.   Both suppose there is no god now.   The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.   Beyond that there is no difference.

I'm sure many deists of the past would be full-on atheists if they had access to modern cosmology and biology. 
Well stated.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
This opens a can of worms for me.  Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.
This appears to be an appeal to ignorance.

I only need one example of a natural law that requires human enforcement.

Do you have time for one example?

I think it will help me remember to come back.  That's not exactly how I would frame the ramifications of "under God" 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Edited, and I don't have a point.   I have a question that hasn't been answered
Here's the original quote you took issue with [LINK],

This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking. 
Religion practically invented "legalistic".

This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this. 
Thinks like what?  Blame the child?
The "legalistic attitude" that I expressed in the referenced post was "that adults are responsible for the actions of children".

The opposite of my so-called "legalistic attitude" would logically be "children are solely and 100% responsible for their own actions".
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Fyi, trying to logically grasp God is also a very Latin thing. Scholasticism, which was rejected by Orthodoxy btw, likely has a great deal to do with the rise of protestantism and its child, secularism.


The deist says that God has no interaction with creation. Orthodoxy teaches that we have a personal, synergistic relationship with God. 


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
That's not exactly how I would frame the ramifications of "under God" 
The pledge of allegiance is not a legally binding document.

"Under god" was arbitrarily added June 14, 1954.

It means nothing and has absolutely zero bearing on the concept of "natural law".
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The pledge itself is not legally binding.  It is however, constitutional, not irrelevant.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Orthodoxy teaches that we have a personal, synergistic relationship with God. 
Based on what evidence exactly?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
It is not legally binding.  It is however, constitutional
How do you personally imagine it informs the concept of "natural law"?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The experience of the church.





Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law?  That may be helpful 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The experience of the church.
Just so you know, private, personal, internal experiences are not considered proper evidence to anyone except the individual who remembers the experience itself.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@Plisken
On the whole pledge of allegiance thing, that might be considered an oath.

We Orthodox are not really supposed to make oaths. In fact, we don't even make vows at our weddings!

That said, we always pray for civil authorities.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, I can't experience things for you.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law?  That may be helpful 
Gravity is natural law.

Gravity (natural law) does not need to be enforced by a government or police force or any human agents or mechanisms whatsoever.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Well, I can't experience things for you.
Good point.  Your dreams and personal preferences and memories (Qualia) are highly prized by you but are ineffectual to others.

If you want to convince other people, you need logic and independently verifiable evidence (Quanta).
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Mopac
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge of allegience, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?  
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Because of the way religious groups , well " that i know about "  have painted God , really , really thick like. 
It would  stop half the atheists when they catch a glimpse of the God word , their out. 

I'd say most people that can fathom this " Deism " would make the god thing a " bright white light god "
And of course this deisms ex god doesn't / didn't  have a voice , No rules , and definitely no opinions. 
It didn't get guys to do a book for it.

I've always been a big fan of the ( BBWLG  blinding bright white light god )


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?
A Deistic being does not require any sort of "pledge".

And "The YHWH" explicitly tells its followers not to make oaths.  Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.
Is that necessarily the case? Is an atheist also an adeist by definition?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Because of the way religious groups , well " that i know about "  have painted God , really , really thick like. 
It would  stop half the atheists when they catch a glimpse of the God word , their out. 

I'd say most people that can fathom this " Deism " would make the god thing a " bright white light god "
And of course this deisms ex god doesn't / didn't  have a voice , No rules , and definitely no opinions. 
It didn't get guys to do a book for it.

I've always been a big fan of the ( BBWLG  blinding bright white light god )
Well stated.

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?
A Deistic being does not require any sort of "pledge".

And "The YHWH" explicitly tells its followers not to make oaths.  Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

You are claiming revelation with your characterization, and also happen to be misconstruing what I intend to say to Mopac.  
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Plisken
The church position on pledges and oaths as far as I know is... don't do them, because really, all oaths are like oaths to God. They shouldn't be taken lightly. That being the case, they should be avoided.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
 And also mopac,  You are extremely lucky pacmo for picking / joining the orthodox lot.
Because as it just so happens,  you're  in fact a orthodox Christian. 


Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Mopac
As a child I was 'fearful' of the pledge of allegience.  I like the message, but not that people end up casually reciting it.  My school started it in 6th grade.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic and independently verifiable evidence isn't what really convinces people.

People might say that is what they find convincing, but I think that is naive view.







3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
@TwoMan
The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.
Is that necessarily the case? Is an atheist also an adeist by definition?

I've always been told atheism is a lack of belief in any particular gods, not a disbelief in any conceivable god.

An atheist is unconvinced about the "reality" and or "salience" of any particular hypothetical gods.

In the same way a Christian is unconvinced about the "reality" and or "salience" of Zeus.

I don't collect stamps (gods), this makes me a non-stamp-(god)-collector.  The fact that I do not collect stamps does not inform any other aspect of my personal belief system and or identity and or behavior.

Spinoza's god is a perfectly logical description of a perfectly logical god.  When Spinoza revealed his proof, his contemporaries called him an atheist-pantheist-deist.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
By the grace of God, because I am really better at messing up than making the right decision on anything.