Deist v Theist

[Masterblaster]

Hello

"Theists also believe that god (or the gods) interacts with humans and the known universe via methods of divine intervention. Deism is similar in that deists believe that a creator god exists, but deists do not believe that such an entity interacts with the universe, humans, or other life forms."

How is this distinction possible?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

"Theists also believe that god (or the gods) interacts with humans and the known universe via methods of divine intervention. Deism is similar in that deists believe that a creator god exists, but deists do not believe that such an entity interacts with the universe, humans, or other life forms."

How is this distinction possible?

in a way, we are almost there - Theists have to excuse why Evil exists.
God has to distance Himself on some pretext or another to excuse why he doesn't DO SOMETHING This is next to Deism, except Deism tends to be like irreligious Theism. The god is NOT the god of the Bible (or Quran, LDS or ten day moneyback advertists. Even if someasert that the Bible talks about that god, but will probably say it all the other gods too...the 'Which god? 'response "There is only One God". Which may or may not be a personal god, cue arguments from the Bible or Quran.

But the 'agnostic' - god we seem to get with deists is a god of no religion. They don't (in my experience) even want the Bible pointing at it. It is a cosmic Mind with no interest in religion.

There is course I imagine we'd get the ones who think this sortagod made us, whileothers accept evolution and no intention that we should happen at all.

I suspect the latter because 'agnostics' exist to have a non - religious Theism and the last thing they want is going to the god of Abraham. So we are approaching what I used to call 'The god of Einstein', and pretty impersonal ordering entity but pretty uninterested in humans, let alone what we are doing on Friday nights.

The phenomenon of irreligious theists who are nevertheless intensely hostile, denialist and defensive about this really academic sorta god,either for political reasons or because with the Bible gone, Kalam is all their Faith has, is white outside the scope of the discussion.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

It was you who mentioned a Deist on another thread recently and I have been considering the term anew. It is giving me a golfball headache. Look at your stuff...
....Deism tends to be like irreligious Theism.

.....But the 'agnostic' - god we seem to get with deists is a god of no religion.

....... It is a cosmic Mind with no interest in religion.

....I suspect the latter because 'agnostics' exist to have a non - religious Theism

Joke T
The difference between a duck? One of it's legs are both the same! Could you spot them in a crowd?
Surely the second the irreligious deity is spotted is when it turns religious. Are they like swatting fireflies?

An irreligious theist ??? That is like riding a Zebra in the Kentucky Derby. Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

It was you who mentioned a Deist on another thread recently and I have been considering the term anew. It is giving me a golfball headache. Look at your stuff...
....Deism tends to be like irreligious Theism.

.....But the 'agnostic' - god we seem to get with deists is a god of no religion.

....... It is a cosmic Mind with no interest in religion.

....I suspect the latter because 'agnostics' exist to have a non - religious Theism

Joke T
The difference between a duck? One of it's legs are both the same! Could you spot them in a crowd?
Surely the second the irreligious deity is spotted is when it turns religious. Are they like swatting fireflies?

An irreligious theist ??? That is like riding a Zebra in the Kentucky Derby. Thanks!

Yeah .Problem is loose wording, and for a reason I think I know. 'Agnostics' should logically be atheists (1) and many probably are - but they don't want to use the title.

They are quite clearly unlike Deists who DO believe in or at least seriously credit a god, but one not interested much in human affairs if at all.

In fact i call them 'Irreligious theists'.

Hope that sorts the confusion, and the trick is 'Meanings before words'.

(1) Agnostic: "I do not know whether there is a god or not"

Atheist: "So I will not believe in one until I do know".

So the logical belief - position of the agnostic should be atheism, but a LOT simply cannot do that step. Hence the tap dancing around the G.W Bush.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1

"Theists also believe that god (or the gods) interacts with humans and the known universe via methods of divine intervention. Deism is similar in that deists believe that a creator god exists, but deists do not believe that such an entity interacts with the universe, humans, or other life forms."

"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used by some theologians in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense, Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. So stark an interpretation of the relations of God and man, however, was accepted by very few Deists during the flowering of the doctrine, though their religious antagonists often attempted to force them into this difficult position."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

[Masterblaster]

Hello

TRANSPONDER says - "Hope that sorts the confusion, and the trick is 'Meanings before words'.
(1) Agnostic: "I do not know whether there is a god or not"
Atheist: "So I will not believe in one until I do know".

-----
Confusion is where I thrive , T.
The more that i look at this abyss of distinctions the more I see all these 'entities' being sucked into the one vortex. Theists, Deists , Agnostics , Atheists, Others in Between, are all crying out for a collective term. Can you have a collective term if there is only one guy in a cave in Borneo who is not in it. I do not know.

The Curious - Show me a God that I can believe in and I will"

Does that warrant a collective mantra, T or A or O?
Thanks

[Mae von H]

Hello

"Theists also believe that god (or the gods) interacts with humans and the known universe via methods of divine intervention. Deism is similar in that deists believe that a creator god exists, but deists do not believe that such an entity interacts with the universe, humans, or other life forms."

How is this distinction possible?

I think I don’t understand the problem. You explained the difference. For deists, God has no relationship with people and for Christians, he does. I don’t say all theists say that because in Islam, Allah has no relationship with them. Few groups claim this. For Christians, it’s everything.

So why do you need a distinction when you, yourself, explained the difference?

[Mae von H]

Yeah .Problem is loose wording, and for a reason I think I know. 'Agnostics' should logically be atheists (1) and many probably are - but they don't want to use the title.

This is one of the most astute things I’ve ever heard an atheist say. Spot on!!

They are quite clearly unlike Deists who DO believe in or at least seriously credit a god, but one not interested much in human affairs if at all.

In fact i call them 'Irreligious theists'.

Interesting description!

Hope that sorts the confusion, and the trick is 'Meanings before words'.

(1) Agnostic: "I do not know whether there is a god or not"

Atheist: "So I will not believe in one until I do know".

With the bar that high, no atheist will ever believe. You see, the Apostles KNEW Jesus was the Son of God because they received the evidence with natural eyes and ears. Those who believe but haven’t seen Him, they believe. Takes many years to go beyond that to knowing. So if one refuses to believe something until one knows, the requirement is beyond what the evidence can generate.

So the logical belief - position of the agnostic should be atheism, but a LOT simply cannot do that step. Hence the tap dancing around the G.W Bush.

Again spot on!

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

TRANSPONDER says - "Hope that sorts the confusion, and the trick is 'Meanings before words'.
(1) Agnostic: "I do not know whether there is a god or not"
Atheist: "So I will not believe in one until I do know".

-----
Confusion is where I thrive , T.
The more that i look at this abyss of distinctions the more I see all these 'entities' being sucked into the one vortex. Theists, Deists , Agnostics , Atheists, Others in Between, are all crying out for a collective term. Can you have a collective term if there is only one guy in a cave in Borneo who is not in it. I do not know.

The Curious - Show me a God that I can believe in and I will"

Does that warrant a collective mantra, T or A or O?
Thanks

Humans. All lumped together irrespective of beliefs or not.

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1

"Theists also believe that god (or the gods) interacts with humans and the known universe via methods of divine intervention. Deism is similar in that deists believe that a creator god exists, but deists do not believe that such an entity interacts with the universe, humans, or other life forms."

"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used by some theologians in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense, Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. So stark an interpretation of the relations of God and man, however, was accepted by very few Deists during the flowering of the doctrine, though their religious antagonists often attempted to force them into this difficult position."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

That's a handy explanation. I sometimes suggest that it went like this; Deists were only (irreligious) theists because they could not imagine where everything came fromwithout a big invisible human waving a magic wand. After Darwin, The act of creation was considered less necessary, at least as set out in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yeah .Problem is loose wording, and for a reason I think I know. 'Agnostics' should logically be atheists (1) and many probably are - but they don't want to use the title.

This is one of the most astute things I’ve ever heard an atheist say. Spot on!!

They are quite clearly unlike Deists who DO believe in or at least seriously credit a god, but one not interested much in human affairs if at all.

In fact i call them 'Irreligious theists'.

Interesting description!

Hope that sorts the confusion, and the trick is 'Meanings before words'.

(1) Agnostic: "I do not know whether there is a god or not"

Atheist: "So I will not believe in one until I do know".

With the bar that high, no atheist will ever believe. You see, the Apostles KNEW Jesus was the Son of God because they received the evidence with natural eyes and ears. Those who believe but haven’t seen Him, they believe. Takes many years to go beyond that to knowing. So if one refuses to believe something until one knows, the requirement is beyond what the evidence can generate.

So the logical belief - position of the agnostic should be atheism, but a LOT simply cannot do that step. Hence the tap dancing around the G.W Bush.

Again spot on!

Your observation was also astute. Yes we can Never Really know and theist apologists sometimes point up when they say 'we can't be 100% sure'.

But the way we logically work, or should is in crediting the more probable, credible and best supported (by evidence) hypothesis. We know that tomorrow the sun will rise and it will be a new day. Of course we actually don't, but we are confident about it.

We know our house will not fall down and our car will start, or at least credit that idea because we understand how things work or at least trust the experts who do.

That's why we trust technology and science, at least to make the best guesses. Unless, that is, we trust conspiracy theories more. In some things, the theory (hypothesis) is certain. The earth is not flat and the planets go around the sun. Bioforms evolved; they were not made all in one go. That's how the evidence points, unless we deny it.

Questions may be asked, just as I ask questions about the claim that the apostles saw the evidence of Jesus as witnesses. I now see the evidence as showing that they could not be witnesses and the evidence for Jesus is fabricated invention, mostly.

That may be disputed, and rightly so, but it's why we are here to dispute these matters.