Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Deism and the Belief in God

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 2:08:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Whenever I use the words "Deism" or "Deist," I use them to refer to the mere belief in a God. But when I use that definition, people keep correcting me that it's the belief in a God who doesn't intervene.

So if "Deism" isn't the right word, then what do you call a person who merely believes in God, yet has no theology attached and no attributes such as "non-intervening"?

Should there be a new term for such belief? It is such a common position that it's hard to believe there's no word for it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 2:17:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Shouldn't "deist" mean "the belief in any god" regardless of religion? Like "statist" means any big goeverment belief, including but not limited to authoritarianism and totalitarianism. So it includes the belief in a non-interviening god AND an intervening god.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 2:50:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Normally referred to as non interventionist, since theism is specifically the opposite.

Otherwise there is a tendency to run into errors of definition boundaries.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 2:57:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 2:17:04 AM, OreEle wrote:
Shouldn't "deist" mean "the belief in any god" regardless of religion?

Not really. Theism traditionally is simply 'belief in' it's only recently that it's been defined in terms of personal interaction. Deism is traditionally non interventionist and would require sever definition changes to make it a concept sitting above theism itself in terms of definitional hierarchy.

I prefer the traditional theism definition as the broad brush at the top of the tree under which specific types are then part of.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:02:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I always thought that what separates a Deist from a Theist, is that a Theist believes in a God of a religion, whereas a Deist believes in a God not from a religion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:10:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Always no. It's a modern usage often propagated by the opposing side.

Deism refers to basically 'is' and nothing else. It exists, that's it. Theism tended to always refer to 'belief in'. Christianity, Monotheism etc., give greater detail on one's beliefs, terms lower down the hierarchy under theism.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:28:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 2:08:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Whenever I use the words "Deism" or "Deist," I use them to refer to the mere belief in a God. But when I use that definition, people keep correcting me that it's the belief in a God who doesn't intervene.

So if "Deism" isn't the right word, then what do you call a person who merely believes in God, yet has no theology attached and no attributes such as "non-intervening"?

Should there be a new term for such belief? It is such a common position that it's hard to believe there's no word for it.

There is: Theist.
The Cross.. the Cross.