Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deistic Atheist?

Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:06:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
So I was scrolling through a random forum via random google search a few moths ago and I came across a guy that said he was on a middle ground between theism and theism; he insisted that he was a deistic atheist. I never really got the opportunity to question this guy, so I suppose I'll question you guys.

Can there be a deistic atheist? If so, would you please elaborate on this position.
Robert_Santurri
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:13:19 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:07:35 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Oh yeah and how is the position not self contradictory?

That's what I'm interested in hearing.

That'd be like believing the earth is round yet flat. Haha
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-- Edward R. Murrow

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- Robert Frost
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:27:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Simple... he believes God is dead. This fulfills deism (a God once created the universe but no longer decides everything) and a simple sort of atheism (there is no god).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:29:30 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Maybe he believes in a higher being (just not of any religion humankind has invented) that he believes can never be understood, and should therefore not be discussed? Hope that made sense; I know people like that.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:32:10 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
That would not fulfill the atheism requirement. It would be more accurate to call such "Agnostic deist."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:41:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
His belief is probably closer to what is called pantheism which is what spinoza asserted. It basically means Nature is God, God is Nature.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 2:00:22 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
If agnostics are
s0m31john wrote

Main entry:
Atheists without balls
I wonder what these "Deistic Atheists" are.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 3:25:34 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Pretty much a person that believes that it would make sense for a god to have created the universe and to set this stuff in motion, but not much else.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 7:47:30 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/7/2008 3:25:34 AM, Sweatingjojo wrote:
Pretty much a person that believes that it would make sense for a god to have created the universe and to set this stuff in motion, but not much else.

but that is pure deism. B. Frankylnn, T. Jefferson style classical deism.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 7:49:21 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Thats why taking a more spinozian approach with pantheism is much more atheistic.
God didn't created the universe, God IS the universe. That is what i believe personally only there is no need to rename the "universe".
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 8:09:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I still think my answer's the only logical one posted... granted a guy calling himself a "Deistic atheist" isn't likely to be too logical...

Only other one I can think of is he's ruled out all the possibilities except deism and atheism and hasn't gathered any evidence to go from there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 8:36:04 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/7/2008 8:09:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I still think my answer's the only logical one posted... granted a guy calling himself a "Deistic atheist" isn't likely to be too logical...

Only other one I can think of is he's ruled out all the possibilities except deism and atheism and hasn't gathered any evidence to go from there.

yes your answer is most logical but in order to interpret most of humankind you need to develop skills beyond the reaches of logic. :D
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 11:30:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Interpret what about them?

That they are wrong? Logic is plenty sufficient for that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 7:47:41 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm going to have to agree with Ragnar.

I don't see any other possibility other than what he described. Specifically though, it might not be a literal dead God, just a thing with the sole existential purpose of creating the universe, and ceased to be right afterwards.

Deists are just Atheists who want to bypass the cosmological argument, aren't they o.O?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 7:42:24 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/9/2008 7:47:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Ragnar.

I don't see any other possibility other than what he described. Specifically though, it might not be a literal dead God, just a thing with the sole existential purpose of creating the universe, and ceased to be right afterwards.
Cease to be = die. God that has ceased to be = dead god.

Deists are just Atheists who want to bypass the cosmological argument, aren't they o.O?
Usually they just find it more likely that a God exists than doesn't [based on whatever arguments], but they also recognize that things aren't being actively manipulated by this God - that if there is indeed a God, it's just letting nature run its course.
I was a deist for a short time. I forget now what the argument was that made me think a God more than likely existed. I've always been pretty apathetic about all of this, so I guess I didn't care enough to remember.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 4:47:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/10/2008 7:42:24 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/9/2008 7:47:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Ragnar.

I don't see any other possibility other than what he described. Specifically though, it might not be a literal dead God, just a thing with the sole existential purpose of creating the universe, and ceased to be right afterwards.
Cease to be = die. God that has ceased to be = dead god.


Deists are just Atheists who want to bypass the cosmological argument, aren't they o.O?
Usually they just find it more likely that a God exists than doesn't [based on whatever arguments], but they also recognize that things aren't being actively manipulated by this God - that if there is indeed a God, it's just letting nature run its course.
I was a deist for a short time. I forget now what the argument was that made me think a God more than likely existed. I've always been pretty apathetic about all of this, so I guess I didn't care enough to remember.

"Dead" usually refers to something that used to be alive o.O It's kind of out of the ordinary to call a table or a rock "dead". If God was just a single "thing" that led to the universe existing, then promptly stopped existing, we don't need to call it "dead".

In card game terms, God has been removed from the game, he isn't in the graveyard.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 4:59:35 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Oh gosh, stop with the semantics guys.

I know the answer to the question. It's obvious. It goes along the lines of R_R's theory. Except there's more to the story. The god couldn't just die. Omnipotent beings that create universes don't just die of natural causes. The god must have terminated himself. He created the universe, got bored stiff with it and promptly exercised his omnipotence and topped himself.

or...

Perhaps we should try to think outside the box. It has been suggested (and I've seen it suggested on this site quite a bit) that one could be an "atheist" in reference to a particular diety.

If we took this approach, a deistic atheist might be someone who is not a theist in deism. So he's either a complete atheist (not being a theist in deism or in anything else) or he's a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Wiccan... anything
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 8:37:30 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 4:59:35 AM, Lightkeeper wrote:
Oh gosh, stop with the semantics guys.

I know the answer to the question. It's obvious. It goes along the lines of R_R's theory. Except there's more to the story. The god couldn't just die. Omnipotent beings that create universes don't just die of natural causes. The god must have terminated himself. He created the universe, got bored stiff with it and promptly exercised his omnipotence and topped himself.


or...

Perhaps we should try to think outside the box. It has been suggested (and I've seen it suggested on this site quite a bit) that one could be an "atheist" in reference to a particular deity.

If we took this approach, a deistic atheist might be someone who is not a theist in deism. So he's either a complete atheist (not being a theist in deism or in anything else) or he's a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Wiccan... anything

I still that if someone makes such a proclamation as this they didn't very carefully analyzed what exactly they were saying.

you guys are analyzing the words too carefully, and in doing so you are creating a very specific theistic view. The person who had said this had such a specific view they wouldn't have characterized their statement so vaguely.

If you believe god died that is a very specific thing to believe and it would make more sense for you to say to someone, "i believe god died" than it would for you to say "i'm a deistic atheist."

Such a vague description of one's belief suggests a vague belief.
It is most likely that he is a spinozian pantheist (ie the universe is god) but he hasn't carefully thought about exactly what he believes.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 8:40:43 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
wow I totally butchered that
lets do that again.

I still think that if someone makes such a vague proclamation as this they haven't very carefully analyzed what exactly they were saying.

you guys are analyzing the words too carefully, and in doing so you are creating a very specific theistic view. If the person who had said this had such a specific view they wouldn't have characterized their statement so vaguely.

If you believe god died that is a very specific thing to believe and it would make more sense for you to say to someone, "i believe god died" than it would for you to say "i'm a deistic atheist."

Such a vague description of one's belief suggests a vague belief.
It is most likely that he is a spinozian pantheist (ie the universe is god) but he hasn't carefully thought about exactly what he believes.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 9:09:02 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 8:40:43 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
wow I totally butchered that
lets do that again.

I still think that if someone makes such a vague proclamation as this they haven't very carefully analyzed what exactly they were saying.

you guys are analyzing the words too carefully, and in doing so you are creating a very specific theistic view. If the person who had said this had such a specific view they wouldn't have characterized their statement so vaguely.

If you believe god died that is a very specific thing to believe and it would make more sense for you to say to someone, "i believe god died" than it would for you to say "i'm a deistic atheist."

Such a vague description of one's belief suggests a vague belief.
It is most likely that he is a spinozian pantheist (ie the universe is god) but he hasn't carefully thought about exactly what he believes.

You are 100% right. The guy who claimed to be a deistic atheist had no idea about what he is. We just basically took on the topic and developed it into an argument just for the intellectual excercise of it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 11:24:56 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 5:58:47 PM, Zerosmelt wrote:
Aha! here ive found a deistic atheist.

http://www.fullmoon.nu...

"I know what you're thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?

Well, I'll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers."

Great. I have competition. (J/k)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 1:18:44 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I still that if someone makes such a proclamation as this they didn't very carefully analyzed what exactly they were saying.

You may be right. He was probably just really really stoned :D
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 12:55:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:27:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Simple... he believes God is dead. This fulfills deism (a God once created the universe but no longer decides everything) and a simple sort of atheism (there is no god).

You're talking about Christian atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 1:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/13/2008 12:55:16 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 10/6/2008 7:27:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Simple... he believes God is dead. This fulfills deism (a God once created the universe but no longer decides everything) and a simple sort of atheism (there is no god).

You're talking about Christian atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, since Christian atheism specifies the Christian god, where deistic atheism does not specify anything about whatever god.

Also, "Most Christian atheists believe that God never existed, but there are a few who believe in the death of God literally."
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 1:13:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/13/2008 1:06:59 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 12/13/2008 12:55:16 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 10/6/2008 7:27:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Simple... he believes God is dead. This fulfills deism (a God once created the universe but no longer decides everything) and a simple sort of atheism (there is no god).

You're talking about Christian atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, since Christian atheism specifies the Christian god, where deistic atheism does not specify anything about whatever god.

Also, "Most Christian atheists believe that God never existed, but there are a few who believe in the death of God literally."

I mean about that Ragnar_Rahl means belief that God is dead. Isn't deistic atheism contradictory?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 1:26:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/13/2008 1:13:01 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/13/2008 1:06:59 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 12/13/2008 12:55:16 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:

You're talking about Christian atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, since Christian atheism specifies the Christian god, where deistic atheism does not specify anything about whatever god.

Also, "Most Christian atheists believe that God never existed, but there are a few who believe in the death of God literally."

I mean about that Ragnar_Rahl means belief that God is dead. Isn't deistic atheism contradictory?

No. Here's what a deistic atheist believes.

1. There was at one time a god [fulfills the deism requirement]
2. God no longer exists [fulfills the atheism requirement]

Granted, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's not self-contradictory.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 1:31:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/13/2008 1:26:20 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 12/13/2008 1:13:01 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/13/2008 1:06:59 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 12/13/2008 12:55:16 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:

You're talking about Christian atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, since Christian atheism specifies the Christian god, where deistic atheism does not specify anything about whatever god.

Also, "Most Christian atheists believe that God never existed, but there are a few who believe in the death of God literally."

I mean about that Ragnar_Rahl means belief that God is dead. Isn't deistic atheism contradictory?

No. Here's what a deistic atheist believes.

1. There was at one time a god [fulfills the deism requirement]
2. God no longer exists [fulfills the atheism requirement]

Granted, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's not self-contradictory.

Therefore, something killed God, forming the conclusion that God is dead. Say what??? It sure doesn't make sense to me at all.