Surely deism was the first step toward atheism (the french revolutionaries were deists as well as some of the US forefathers), as it gave us a crappy explanation for the complexity of life. But when Darwin came... there goes Deism :) Creationists are basically arguing for a deistic universe. Even if a god created everything, why believe that it was the Christian one or that he cares about us? It's all pointless in the end...

[quote=Derevirn]Surely deism was the first step toward atheism (the french revolutionaries were deists as well as some of the US forefathers), as it gave us a crappy explanation for the complexity of life. But when Darwin came... there goes Deism :) [/quote]

It's interesting to see you make that correlation because obviously deism still exists, however I've always thought that if some of our forefathers (Thomas Paine comes to mind) had the findings of todays scientists, they'd have been atheists.

That's how I feel. I know deism does have it's own footing to stand on, however I feel a lot of deists really were just lacking the knowlege we have now to be full fledged atheists. I guess I'm just perturbed by any form of belief in a god, because that itself eludes me. I don't deny people believe, let alone full heartedly, I just don't understand why. I was raised catholic, and I have sympathy towards catholicism versus other christian sects because they are generally frowned apon by other christians; however I can't remember the last time I really believed that my talking to my ceiling was really talking to some higher being that can make everything better or worse.

But I digress...

I've always just felt that deism is the closest link to atheism in the theological relm, and a discussion on the enlightenment era in my history class just kinda compounded that, as many of my classmates said it was ironic that deism believes in god with no proof, yet denies other mysticism because of the lack thereof. I find it ironic as well.

I realize that they believe in a god. That belief is still unfounded, and that's my point in saying it's a step towards atheism if not atheism with the security blanket intact. I know it's an equal belief system, it just bewilders me that anyone THAT logical could still hold on to the illogical.

I think yes, deism is a step towards atheism. The reason why the US forefathers, French philosophers, etc. were deists and not atheists, was because they didn't have any advanced space programs then, and they had to accept a god at least created the world. In the present day, thinking people are more likely to become atheists since we know a lot more about what happened in the beginning of the universe. Even a watchmaker-type god isn't needed to actually explain creation, at least to me.

Except deism relies on the argument from ignorance at times. And I think atheism and deist can be disproven- either by some good evidence of an active Christian deity or the active Christian deity revealing himself to all the world.

Deism still falls into the weakminded attitude of A) avoiding finding natural causes/ascribing the 'magic' card and B) not obeying Ockham's Razor

gosh, seems like every argument I've posted in the last 5 days has an A) and a B)

I understand what deism is, this is just a debate on whether or not it's a step away from theism towards atheism.

Also, deists are atheistic towards a personal god. Giving up a personal god, to me, is a step towards atheism, even if the next step is believing in a watchmaker god.

I wouldn't consider deism halfway between atheism and fundamentalism. I'd put it more like this.

1 - Fundamentalist suicidal nut
2 - Fundamentalist suicide-advocating nut
3 - Fundamentalist nut
4 - Fundamentalist
5 - Mild fundamentalist
6 - Moderate
7 - Kinda believer
8 - Deism
9 - I don't know what god is, but he's there.
10 - Atheism

[quote=domakesaythink]But Atheism is without God correct? Deism is just without personal god, so not really saying it's a step towards or away because they can be atheist but turn deist. Lets put it like this, Some christian(point 1) goes to deism (point 5) yes it is a step towards atheism, but if an atheist(point 10) goes to deism(point 5) then they are going away to atheism, but in most situations i guess so, but it can be either or. [/quote]

yes, and when I jump up, I'm actually pushing the earth down. The point being that deism is better than theism, but not as good as atheism

[quote=AgnosticAtheist1][quote=domakesaythink]But Atheism is without God correct? Deism is just without personal god, so not really saying it's a step towards or away because they can be atheist but turn deist. Lets put it like this, Some christian(point 1) goes to deism (point 5) yes it is a step towards atheism, but if an atheist(point 10) goes to deism(point 5) then they are going away to atheism, but in most situations i guess so, but it can be either or. [/quote]

yes, and when I jump up, I'm actually pushing the earth down. The point being that deism is better than theism, but not as good as atheism
[/quote]
Better in your opinion correct?
And that was not the point, read the topic it said if it was a step towards atheism not if it was better then theism or worse then atheism, then you may make sarcastic replies =\

I'm just saying.

[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Well yes, I do believe atheism to be better than theism, and thus, a step towards atheism, by default, is better.

However, that was not the point. The point was that it was both better than theism, yet worse than atheism(aka, in between the two)[/quote] But what if an atheist is turning to a deist was my point.

"Deism, is it a step towards atheism?" I'm pretty sure that was the point of this topic and what i'm trying to explain.

Well, it was a step [i]away[/i] from atheism for Anthony Flew, if that means anything.

~P-Dunn

[quote=Bashh]I realize that they believe in a god. That belief is still unfounded.[/quote]

How do you know their belief in God is unfounded? Most deists believe in God because they think there is reason to do so(usually it falls down to the arguemnt from beauty/complexity/first cause). Their reasons may not seem sufficent to you, but thats far from them being 'unfounded.'

[quote=Guruite]I beleve he means unfounded in physical evidence.[/quote]

But why do we need physical to determine the existance of something? Why not philosophicial? Or historical? There are many paths to finding truth.

[quote]There is no real physical evidence for god... that dosent mean that he dosent exist... just that you must have faith to beleve in him (more faith than a belef in a chair... you cant sense god with you 5 (or is it 6 now) senses)[/quote]

By that token you also need 'faith' to believe in George Washington. Or that you love your family.

[quote=Guruite]Name one thing besides god that you beleve in that has no physical evidance (god includes jesus and miracles... supernatural phemominon and such religious ideas)[/quote]

How bout that I exist? Or that an external world exists?

[quote]And as for my family? I love them... I have evidance of that... I have my emotions (in this case they are evidance [/quote]

So since when do emotions qualify as physical evidence.

[quote=Guruite]Uh huh, Ya and I guess you find basic sensory information on the same level as a testimony[/quote]

Not sure what your point is here. In general, I'd say yes if the testimony comes from a credible source. In fact I'd say the vast majority of what I know(and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of what you know) comes from the testimony of others, and not from things I'v seen or done first hand.

My point was that you cant provide physical evidence that the world you see before you, or even your own thoughts and feelings, isnt an illusion. Entire worldviews(especially in the Eastern tradition) have been built on this assumption. And philosophical debates on the issue have been going on for centuries. But it remains something that cant be physically proven. But if you think you can, well then I'd love to see you try.

Of course you can prove a negative. For example, no square circles exist. If we can show the qualities of a specific god to be contradictory, we can prove it doesn't exist as people believe in it. The only god we can't do this for is one with no qualities, and if something has no qualities... it's kinda hard to distinguish it from nothing.

[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Explain what you mean by 'evidence.'

Last I checked a credible testimony IS evidence. If thats not the case then our courts are wasteing a lot of time bringing in witnesses. Most of our work studying history is a waste too(since the vast majority of what we know about history comes from the written testimony of people who were there)
[/quote]

Credible being the point of contention. I don't believe it is wrong to question an account that is replete with supernatural, mystical events. It is without a doubt that there is ofcourse a historical significance relating to the gospels. But one must keep in mind this to be true from the Koran to the Pali Canon. History acknowledges the accounts of antiquity but makes little effort to hold true what appears to be folklore and embellishments.

[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]
And here's where I differ from you. I dont reject a given claim simply because it involves 'supernatural' events(a term I dislike btw). Rather I look at the credibility of the person(s) making the claim.
[/quote]

Considering the OT was passed down through oral tradition and many centuries passed before it was laid to paper. I would ask how would one determine credibility for anonymous writers? Are we giving collective credibility in this case? In regards to mystical events in the gospels, I treat those claims much the same as similar fantastic
accounts from a variety of sources. While I'd like to believe some of those mystical events happened, I cannot in reason do so.

Even with all we know, we still open ourselves to accept claims of miracles, psychic powers, alien abductions, and so on. This allows charlatans like Sylvia Brown to exploit people in believing she is contacting their loves ones from the grave and make a good penny doing so. Or Benny Hinn to convince thousands of people of his miraculous powers of healing, and they sadly refusing medical treatment. The fact is, that all these mystical claims can never withstand the scrutiny when investigated. But regardless of this fact, people still want to believe..

[quote]
To use the Koran as an example. I believe Muhamad probably did see the visions recorded in there, and may or may not have seen Jerusalem in one of them. What I reject is that what he saw was a genuine communication from God. And do so because of the lack of evidence that he was a prophet, and the fact that the miricules he allegedly performed wernt recorded until centuries after the fact. [/quote]

Well you forget that Muslims feel Mohammed was the miracle. As far as the Koran being written centuries later, this is not uncommon in history. The OT was primarily an oral tradition for centuries, and while there exist much debate on the NT, some feel that there was atleast a century before Matthew was written. In regards to Mohammed, I wonder how you can determine that the visions Mohammed witness were false?

[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'd say that knowing the identity of an author isnt absolutely necessary to determine his credibility(although it helps a lot). In regards to the OT I see no reason to believe that the authors(whoever they were) were writing fiction or grossly misrepresenting the facts(to the point of fabriction or lieing).
[/quote]

So how does one determine what is credible and what is not? The claims in OT compared to the claims of the followers of Buddha, or Zoroaster?

[quote]
I'd add that if the only reason you have for doubting it is becacsue of the 'fantastic' claims. You might want to re-evaulate how you examine such claims.
[/quote]

Thats part of it yes, but not simply based on the claims themselves but the fact that those claims cannot withstand scrutiny. Noah's flood is a perfect example. The story should have plenty of evidence to support, if we are to consider that the whole earth was covered in water, but as we know from the geological record that was not the case. Or the many civilizations that were unaffected throughout the period in which the flood should have been in place. This just being a few examples of why this story has been thoroughly debunked.

[quote]Also, its clear that Jesus, the NT authors, and the early church saw the OT as credible. So there is prescident here as well.
[/quote]

But you have to account also that the criterion for evidence was not as strong in those days. The demands for evidence were different in those times, you can read Origen's refutation of Celsus and find that many of the questions we asked today were not brought up in those days. People accepted claims of the mystical variety far easier.

[quote]
Yes and credible historians put Matthew/Mark(there is some debate as to which came first) at 70 AD at the latest. Wit the rest of the Gospels being completed by 100 AD.

Some actually place Matthew and Mark in the early 60's Luke in the late 60's and John in the 70's
[/quote]

I know the RCC uses a more liberal dating schemes.

[quote]
I dont. I think he probably did see the things recorded in the Koran.
[/quote]

So was he truthful at all in his claims,?

[quote]
The same we we determine the credibility of other claims. Do we have reason to suspect these people would fabricate things?
[/quote]

Exactly, why would people make up the Buddha and everything therein. Or Islam, or scientology (ok, I know thats a strecth :P ).

[quote]
How close is the writing to the events it describes? Generally earlier is better.
[/quote]

While its hard to truly determine when the OT was written, it is believed that it was almost purely an oral tradition for several hundred years. One appologist refutation of the Epic of Gilgamesh and why Noah's flood is nearly identical in account and yet Gilgmesh predates it, is that the oral tradition existed for so long. Hence Gilgamesh was actually based off the Ark oral tradition. This ofcourse is hardly verified, but the point being is that an oral tradition existed for centuries before it was actually written down. So my question to you is, does this discredit the OT since the events described and the writing of it were so far apart, why, why not?

[quote]
In the case of one claiming a divine mission do they offer anything to substantiate their claims? If Someone claimes to be a prophet but performes no miricules, makes no prophecies ect. Then their status as a prophet is questionable.
[/quote]

It is common knowledge that during the time of Jesus many other 'prophets' were going around preaching and performing miracles. And yes, people would attest to these miracles. Wasn't it not John the baptist who was highly skeptical of Jesus at first, was looking for a bigger than life figure to outshadow some of the other 'prophets' on the scene. Miracles and prophecies are not new to Christianity and can be found from Zoroaster to Buddha.

[quote]

Or it could be that the story referes to a massive, but not global flood. Interestingly the Hebrew word used in Genesis for 'whole earth' actually translates as 'whole land' which may suggest a non-global flood.

Although to be quite honest I dislike this subject because its not particularly relevent to the truth of Christianity(or lack thereof) so dont be surprised if I dont respond on this issue further.
[/quote]

Yes, the only viable theory these days is a localized flood but that is a view not shared by the majority. However I think this to be an important aspect of Christianity. Because shortly after this, was it not God who made a covenent with Abraham? The story and what happens subsequently affirms the fact that Christ was the messiah, so I don't see why you would pick and choose. Would the tower of babel be equally unimportant? Or how about the exodus, there is zero corrobrative proof of this but the account is exceedingly relevant to Christianity.

[quote=melchisedec]Exactly, why would people make up the Buddha and everything therein. Or Islam, or scientology (ok, I know thats a strecth :P ).[/quote]

And I have no probelm believeing the Buddah existed and probably did say many of the things attributed to him(although with regard to Buddah it can be tricky since there is a LOT of later legends surrounding him). Or that Muhamad saw the 'visions' he claimed to see.

[quote]
It is common knowledge that during the time of Jesus many other 'prophets' were going around preaching and performing miracles. And yes, people would attest to these miracles. [/quote]

Mind giving me a name of one such 'prophet?' And what sort of miricules they supposidly performed.

[quote]Wasn't it not John the baptist who was highly skeptical of Jesus at first, was looking for a bigger than life figure to outshadow some of the other 'prophets' on the scene. [/quote]

No, John the Baptist was slightly skeptical of Jesus, but the Bible never gives any reason why.

[quote]Miracles and prophecies are not new to Christianity and can be found from Zoroaster to Buddha. [/quote]

And found only centuries after they suppoedly happend. In the case of Buddah he never even claimed a divine mission for himself. That notion was added later, and his miracle claims later still.

[quote]However I think this to be an important aspect of Christianity. Because shortly after this, was it not God who made a covenent with Abraham? [/quote]

No it was centuries between the two events.

[quote]The story and what happens subsequently affirms the fact that Christ was the messiah, so I don't see why you would pick and choose.[/quote]

Exactly how does the flood story affirm Christ's status as the Messiah?

Also I dont 'pick and choose' what I believe. I simply discuss the issues find woth discussing. I hold little interest in any discussion of the Biblical account of creation/the flood, and know of much more qualified people who've already debated both subjects ad nausism. So I dont bother with the issues.

[quote]Would the tower of babel be equally unimportant? Or how about the exodus, there is zero corrobrative proof of this but the account is exceedingly relevant to Christianity.[/quote]

Yep you see Christianity ultimately rests on Christ(hence the name CHRISTianity), and in particular his deth and ressurection.

Deism is a product of a period where the universe was perceived to be mechanistic, that is to say governed by unbreakable natural laws. This 'order' was taken by many to be proof of rational design, a sentiment that was very popular prior to Darwin. The Bible was largely contrary to the moral ideas and of the Enlightenment thinkers, however, and so Deism was for a while taken to be a very rational position among the educated elite.

These days we live in an age where the existence of complex life is readily explainable via natural selection and scientific 'laws' are viewed to be probabilistic due to the rise of quantum physics. As a result such a stance doesn't seem have much basis - the universe doesn't really seem to be designed at all. So yeah, for many today I guess deism is a compromise. It gives a sense of rationality and plausibility, yet also provides sense of comfort and innate purpose that religion bestows.

But you've got to remember some people do see 'purpose', 'order' and 'beauty' in the universe around them today - that might influence their thinking. A sunset, a breath-taking landscape or a flock of birds darting around in the sky, all of these things can trigger emotional responses profoundly and perhaps directly lead somebody to the conclusion that there is some kind of personal force behind it all.

It might irritate you, but polite debate focusing on the reasoning behind Deism is the best option - just accusing people of taking up watered down atheism isn't productive.

(mini-essay alert)