Deism

[Freethinker43]

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

Apparently you don't understand theism either.

Theism is the belief in God and that you can have a personal relationship with God. That divine revelation and intervention happens, miracles are performed, etc. Deism rejects those beliefs because of free will.

I disagree with your use of the term "Theism" and apparently Wikipedia supports my view:

Theism Described on Wikipedia

1 Types of Theism

1.1 Monotheism
1.2 Polytheism
1.3 Pantheism and panentheism
1.4 Deism
1.5 Autotheism
1.6 Value-judgment theisms

Notice that Deism is simply a type of Theism.

Theism simply means "Belief in God".

Theos is Greek for "God"

and "ism" is a an English suffix that can mean "belief system", or "study of", or "practice of", etc.

Therefore Deism is a type of Theism since deism is a "belief in a God".

You are most likely thinking of Theism as it applies to the Abrahamic and Mediterranean monotheistic religions. Such as the "Abrahamic Theism".

Pantheism and Panentheism are also "Theisms", (i.e. a belief in a "God") but they view our very existence as being an expression of "God" rather than thinking of God as being a separate individual entity.

Deism is actually far more like the Abrahamic Theism in that the Deists continue to think of "God" as a separate entity (as you have clearly expressed when you suggested that after God created this universe he went off to do other things).

So your view of Deism is far more in line with the Abrahamic Monotheism than it is with something like say Pantheism or Panentheism.

So don't tell me that I don't understand what "Theism" is until you've done a bit of research yourself.

Deism is a Theism.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

You can disagree with my use of the term theism all you want to, the premise stands, as that is the difference between theism and deism.

Oh, and citing Wiki as a source is never a good idea. Anyone can edit Wiki. I have been down this road with others before, that did not know the difference between the two. They tend to overlook footnote #16 at the bottom:

16. Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam, 1924) defines deism as "belief in the existence of a personal god, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture". Although listed as a type of theism, deism is completely different from theism. If anything, theism would be an off shoot of deism since it takes beliefs a step further to include miracles and divine revelation, with deism being the "base" belief in God.

Deism came first. Theism grew from there when it started adding dogma and mysticism.

According to you...

Theism: the belief in God
Deism: the belief in God

Well, what is the difference? I explained it already. Theism believes that God is still active in the world and can intervene. Deism rejects divine intervention and miracles.

Next!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 32 by American Deist]

I'm not interested in getting side-tracked into silly arguments over semantics. I disagree with your use of the term Deism. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that semantics. Wiki only confirmed what I already knew to be true anyway. Deism is definitely a type of theism. It's a believe in the existence of a God.

Your avoidance of the REAL ISSUE has been noted. There would be no difference in terms of evolution between secular naturalism and deism anyway. So that's really the bottom line.

You were being inconsistent in trying to argue that deism would require that life cannot evolve naturally in the universe from non-living matter, and that was the point I was addressing. Your diversion into a disagreement on the semantics of deism isn't going to help you there.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

This is what I just read: "blah blah blah" :yapyap:

You can't comprehend that deism came first, not theism. Allow me to demonstrate:

Deism: the simple belief that God exists
Theism: takes the position of deism and adds dogma, tenets, ceremony, divinely inspired holy books, belief in miracles, etc.

You don't create dogma, stories and rituals without first believing in the concept of a God that those ideas would be based on. Those that say deism is a type of theism have it wrong. Theism is an expansion of deism, as evident above.

But, you are entitled to your opinion, so go ahead and erroneously keep saying that deism is a type of theism.

P.S. - didn't I just say that Wiki is a bad source, as anyone can change it? I have a Wiki account. Maybe I should go change the entry for theism...

[American Deist]

Actually, there was no need to make a change. Sentence #2 under the entry for theism is as follows:

In popular parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions; a belief in a god or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.

Pay attention to the underlined part. Theism banks on divine revelation. It includes the belief in intervention and miracles. I have been saying that all along.

Read the blue part of my signature. Case in point.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

If he's "working through people" then he's intervening via using some people as puppets.

People do tend to self identify as being the form rather than the 'god particle' {consciousness} within the form.

This leads to the assumption that GOD is separate from individuals.

So no - not 'puppets' really. Appearances can be deceiving...egoism misinterpreting as usual.

[Divine Insight]

Read the blue part of my signature. Case in point.

Don't give me that baloney. You made the claim that the scientific view of life arising naturally in the universe could not be true because you claim that an intelligent creator would have needed to intervene to create it.

And now you are "hiding" behind a totally false semantic argument over the difference between theism and deism. That's baloney.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

If he's "working through people" then he's intervening via using some people as puppets.

People do tend to self identify as being the form rather than the 'god particle' {consciousness} within the form.

This leads to the assumption that GOD is separate from individuals.

So no - not 'puppets' really. Appearances can be deceiving...egoism misinterpreting as usual.

But what you are proposing here is Pantheism. And Pantheism doesn't claim that God doesn't act through humans. To the contrary Pantheism claims that humans are in incarnation of God.

Although, even in the Pantheistic view the scientific view of evolution as a natural process would still hold.

But deists view God as something "Other". Deism is not Pantheism. Deists actually view "God" to be a separate egotistical character not unlike the Abrahamic Theists. Recall that even the American Deist who started this thread suggested that God is "off doing other things" after he had created this universe. So that's hardly Pantheism.

That's basically like Abrahamic Theism where Yahweh simply abandoned humans and went off and did something else.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

If he's "working through people" then he's intervening via using some people as puppets.

People do tend to self identify as being the form rather than the 'god particle' {consciousness} within the form.

This leads to the assumption that GOD is separate from individuals.

So no - not 'puppets' really. Appearances can be deceiving...egoism misinterpreting as usual.

But what you are proposing here is Pantheism. And Pantheism doesn't claim that God doesn't act through humans. To the contrary Pantheism claims that humans are in incarnation of God.

Well whatever one might call it, I was just commenting on the particular comment you had made.

Although, even in the Pantheistic view the scientific view of evolution as a natural process would still hold.

Not that I had argued for or against that in my post.

But deists view God as something "Other". Deism is not Pantheism. Deists actually view "God" to be a separate egotistical character not unlike the Abrahamic Theists.

Well there is GOD and then there are aspects of GOD...essentially one cannot separate these without using ego as the device in which to do so, and even then, the result is misrepresentation.

Recall that even the American Deist who started this thread suggested that God is "off doing other things" after he had created this universe. So that's hardly Pantheism.

It appears that Freethinker43 started this thread. But sure, essentially it is about Deism. I don't think I am the first to mention the contrasting ideas of GOD herein.

That's basically like Abrahamic Theism where Yahweh simply abandoned humans and went off and did something else.

I think of Yahweh as possibly ET, so it may very well be the case if that were so. Things to do, places to be, less advanced species to discover and play 'god' over.

Stuff like that...

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

You missed the part where I stated that under deism, we believe that God created the universe to include the laws of nature, and set it all in motion. If nature is following its designed path, then God does not have to intervene (e.g. fine tuning).

The fact that atheists can't disprove that is what drives you guys so crazy. It's also why people like Richard Dawkins won't debate with a deist (his own admittance).