Albert Einstein believing in God?
Offline While in a discussion with a theist about science and religion coinciding with one another I was surprised to hear the claim that Albert Einstein was very religious, and believed in God. After doing some research I found a few things. I would assume that the theist got his presumption that Einstein believed in God from his quote "science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind." However while researching I found this to be quite interesting. In response to a question from New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God?" Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Spinoza was a naturalistic pantheist. Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for mystical fulfillment. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being god only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense. Also known as Impersonal pantheism and Impersonal Absolutism.
According to Naturalistic pantheism God and Nature are one and the same; therefore I do not find it reasonable to conclude that Albert Einstein's beliefs resemble the same God that Christian theology follows. Anyone ever heard this agurment before?
Most scientists have an awe for nature's wonders and wouldn't mind calling themselves pantheists... Surely though Einstein didn't believe in anything supernatural.
Many theist you will find decide to attempt to belittle us indirectly by saying someone we all respect was a believer. same thing happen with the fellow who thought of evolution. (sorry i am doing biology and the name escapes me at the moment)
Albert Einstein was totally atheist. He didn't believe in
god (gŏd)
n.
1.
A: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
B: The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
He had no religion or anything. He was atheist.
He was a pantheist... pretty much the same (what's everything is pretty much nothing if you know what I mean).
I think that it doesnt really matter. the point is he wasnt CHRISTIAN. I do believe he was a jew though. was he not?
Oh how they love to lie about Einstein, as if it would mean anything anyway. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
-- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Exactly, it wouldn't mean anything, other great scientists were and are religious, who cares? They are religious for all the wrong reasons... yet Einstein only used God metaphorically.
hmm, so he wasnt a jew? why did he come over from germany then?
Pasting from wikipedia:
"When Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933, Einstein was a guest professor at Princeton University, a position which he took in December 1932, after an invitation from the American educator, Abraham Flexner. In 1933, the Nazis passed "The Law of the Restoration of the Civil Service" which forced all Jewish university professors out of their jobs, and throughout the 1930s a campaign to label Einstein's work as "Jewish physics"—in contrast with "German" or "Aryan physics"—was led by Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark. With the assistance of the SS, the Deutsche Physik supporters worked to publish pamphlets and textbooks denigrating Einstein's theories and attempted to politically blacklist German physicists who taught them, notably Werner Heisenberg. Einstein renounced his Prussian citizenship and stayed in the United States, where he was given permanent residency. He accepted a position at the newly founded Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he concentrated on developing a unified field theory. Einstein became an American citizen in 1940, though he still retained Swiss citizenship."
Imagine if he had stayed. What if the Nazi Axis attained the atomic bomb? No, I'm sure Einstien would have rather died. Still, that would have been a tragic reality.
thanks for the lesson. I didnt know that. but are you sure that is all true? I am not doubting you, just making sure i dont sound stupid when i talk about it.
They had many weird things going on in WWII, some rumors some real. Like when Hilter went to Austria to their Musesm, and took a "spear" along with other objects. The "spear" he took is known as the Spear Of Destiny, Id explain it but I know most know what it is already. Austria still has it today in the muesum.
Yep, you can read it all here:
http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xeinstei.html
Not that hard to explain. The 'spear of destiny' is supposedly the spearhead that Jesus was stabbed with during his crucifixion.
[quote=GrapeScentedGuru]Not that hard to explain. The 'spear of destiny' is supposedly the spearhead that Jesus was stabbed with during his crucifixion.[/quote]
My bad, I meant about its history of Kings that used it.
i think that story is a load of bull though
I like how start discussing Einstein's view of God and end up talking about the Spear of Destiny.
eh, i guess it is a bit off topic. but hey. its still pertains a bit i guess
I was watching something on the Discovery Science channel few weeks ago, though I don't remember the title, about Einstein searching for divinity through his research, including the ellusive combination of the four forces into one force. I was confused as I was pretty sure Einstein wasn't a traditional theist, and as many have posed in this thread I thought he was pantheist, and if so, there's no need for divinity to be found.. or something of the nature. Either way I was bothered by the religious light they held Einstein under
Einstein was not religious. He was very clear on his atheism. Such famous quotes as "Does God play dice" are Einstein's speaking in a metaphorical sense, alluding to God as the creator of the universe in an attempt to explain his theories more easily. In the said quote, Einstein was really asking "Could the universe as we know it have come into being in more then one way?"
Mike
Though i was looking up aphorisms for an english project. And many of einteins quotes had some religious meaning to them..
Einstein was an amazing man. I loved his hair too. But he is interesting to read up on. If i were you i would find a few books on him. I remember a year ago i checked a book out about him, i forget the name, but it was good. Mainly about his projects and history.
[quote=FSMllama]While in a discussion with a theist about science and religion coinciding with one another I was surprised to hear the claim that Albert Einstein was very religious, and believed in God. After doing some research I found a few things. I would assume that the theist got his presumption that Einstein believed in God from his quote "science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind." However while researching I found this to be quite interesting. In response to a question from New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God?" Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Spinoza was a naturalistic pantheist. Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for mystical fulfillment. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being god only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense. Also known as Impersonal pantheism and Impersonal Absolutism.
According to Naturalistic pantheism God and Nature are one and the same; therefore I do not find it reasonable to conclude that Albert Einstein's beliefs resemble the same God that Christian theology follows. Anyone ever heard this agurment before?
[/quote]
Einstein was simply "Pantheist". However, the phrase- "not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." indicates actually PanDeism, rather than PanThiesm. Theism cannot exist without the "personal" aspects of the divine, take away the 'personal" aspects and you don't have any form of THEISM at all; this is what seperates Theism{and it's offshoots such as PanTHEISM and PanenTheism} from Deism{and it's offshoots of PanDeism and PanenDeism}, the idea of it beeing "personal"{theistic} ir "impersonal"{deistic}.
Of course, when Einstein said this, PanDeism was not widely known as a label or philosophy yet. But his sayinhg= "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world," indicates by this language that he saw this god as more than simply an antheistic force and had respect for nature.
Einstein would've been more accurate to say he believed in a mixture of Spinozas god and a mixture of Voltaires{or Paines,etc} god; of course then, beeing as smart as he was he would've then used the label "PanDeist" right then and there.
{Quote/}Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole; Accordingly, Nature is seen as being god only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense. Also known as Impersonal pantheism {Unquote/}
This is contradiction and irrational. Theism by it's veyr nature implies the "personal", the "sentient and intelligent" in some degree or sense of those words and ideas.
One cannot be a PanTHEIST/PanenTHEIST and see nature essentially the same as a Nature loving Athiest does. That would make the person a nature loving ATHEIST, not a PanTHEIST/PanenTHEIST.
However, the label and philosophy that DOES fit with the above description you spoke of is PanDEISM and PanenDEISM, well...except for the "non-sentient' and "unconcious" part, most PanDeists and PanenDeists would be apt to think the opposite given the mathematically preciuse intelligently designed natural Universe/Multiverse governed by a set number of laws, unconciuous MAYBE-in the same sense allmost{metaphorically speaking} as we are creative when we sleep and dream{again, METAPHORICALLY speaking}, but surely sentient and intelligent, but NOT Personal{in the sens eof concerned with or even neccaserily aware of humans or other insignificant byproducts of natural evolution of cosmos and life; but the ingridient needed for such to happren would needs be set in place from conception of all things- whether the Deistic or PanDeistic/PanenDeistic god-like force was omnisentient ands fully aware about what the results would be or not}.
I submit that Einstein was PanDeistic.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
Why do you insist on this distinction of theism having to be personal?
I guess under that way of seeing it, I will agree with your point over agnosticism I just define theism differently than you. I see deism as a subset of theism, where theism is belief in god, and within those you distinguish between various gods, one of which is the deistic subset.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Why do you insist on this distinction of theism having to be personal?
I guess under that way of seeing it, I will agree with your point over agnosticism I just define theism differently than you. I see deism as a subset of theism, where theism is belief in god, and within those you distinguish between various gods, one of which is the deistic subset.[/quote]
Would you not make distinctions between Christianity and Hinduism? They are both religions, yet they are totally different in many ways.
Would you not make a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism?...... or right, this site seems to favour denying Agnosticism as a entity o=unto it;s own and merely as a branch of Atheism.
I will concede, as I've done the research, the original proposers of Deism way back in the 1600's and early 1700's had an allmost liberaly theism quality, but when deism took on a full life of it's own it quickly became a seperate from theism secular and rationalist view of god, and since then as a very progressive philosophy has become a living entity unto itself-which is COMPLETELY different from theism.
Deism is NOT subset of theism, just as Agnosticism is not one of Atheism, etc.
In Reason:
Icono
[quote=Iconoclastithon][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Why do you insist on this distinction of theism having to be personal?
I guess under that way of seeing it, I will agree with your point over agnosticism I just define theism differently than you. I see deism as a subset of theism, where theism is belief in god, and within those you distinguish between various gods, one of which is the deistic subset.[/quote]
Would you not make distinctions between Christianity and Hinduism? They are both religions, yet they are totally different in many ways.
Would you not make a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism?...... or right, this site seems to favour denying Agnosticism as a entity o=unto it;s own and merely as a branch of Atheism.[/quote]
No, agnosticism is not a branch of atheism. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, atheism is a lack of belief. Agnosticism lies in [i]a different realm.[/i] That's why theists can be agnostic too.
Agnostic atheism is a branch of atheism though. Most people who call themselves are agnostic atheists, and the RRS is trying to let them know that they are only agnostic by knowledge, atheist by belief.
[quote]I will concede, as I've done the research, the original proposers of Deism way back in the 1600's and early 1700's had an allmost liberaly theism quality, but when deism took on a full life of it's own it quickly became a seperate from theism secular and rationalist view of god, and since then as a very progressive philosophy has become a living entity unto itself-which is COMPLETELY different from theism.
Deism is NOT subset of theism, just as Agnosticism is not one of Atheism, etc.
In Reason:
Icono[/quote]
Deism IS a subset of theism. Deism is belief in a non-personal god/creator. It IS a belief in a god and therefore, theistic. A theist is simply one who believes in a god. That's it, it doesn't matter if the god interferes with our lives or not.
[quote=noor][quote=Iconoclastithon][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Why do you insist on this distinction of theism having to be personal?
I guess under that way of seeing it, I will agree with your point over agnosticism I just define theism differently than you. I see deism as a subset of theism, where theism is belief in god, and within those you distinguish between various gods, one of which is the deistic subset.[/quote]
Would you not make distinctions between Christianity and Hinduism? They are both religions, yet they are totally different in many ways.
Would you not make a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism?...... or right, this site seems to favour denying Agnosticism as a entity o=unto it;s own and merely as a branch of Atheism.[/quote]
No, agnosticism is not a branch of atheism. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, atheism is a lack of belief. Agnosticism lies in [i]a different realm.[/i] That's why theists can be agnostic too.
Agnostic atheism is a branch of atheism though. Most people who call themselves are agnostic atheists, and the RRS is trying to let them know that they are only agnostic by knowledge, atheist by belief.
[quote]I will concede, as I've done the research, the original proposers of Deism way back in the 1600's and early 1700's had an allmost liberaly theism quality, but when deism took on a full life of it's own it quickly became a seperate from theism secular and rationalist view of god, and since then as a very progressive philosophy has become a living entity unto itself-which is COMPLETELY different from theism.
Deism is NOT subset of theism, just as Agnosticism is not one of Atheism, etc.
In Reason:
Icono[/quote]
Deism IS a subset of theism. Deism is belief in a non-personal god/creator. It IS a belief in a god and therefore, theistic. A theist is simply one who believes in a god. That's it, it doesn't matter if the god interferes with our lives or not.[/quote]
I agree with you about Agnostic Atheists, there are also Agnostic Deists; in both cases, the individual is Agnostic but leans heavily towards{though not completely} one of the other{to varrying degrees}.
But, my complain about the essay and other movements by the new Atheist movement saying shit like that about Agnostics, is that they DON'T make the distinction of degrees, they simply say Agnosticism in general is closet Atheism in denial and whatnot.
Again, I affirm, Deism is NOT a subset of theism; there are individuals whom are indeeed very liberal theists and deists simultaneously{because again, we are talking about degrees}; but Deism itself is NOT a subset of theism; this is exactly why Deism was created, as a way for rationalists whom believe in first cause intelligence to sepeate themselves from the more supertitious, holy books and prophets oriented, sky-parent personal omnibenevolent{etc}, revealed religion theism.
But as I said there are overlaps based on degree of thought about such matters as god and spirituality.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, I've been a devout deist/panendeist for over 3 years.
Deism is NOT a theism subsect{in general}. If it were, we'd simply just call ourselves theists- and we don't.
Just as a devout pure Agnostic{not the agnostic atheist} would not say they are a subsect of Atheism, or Atheists a subsect of agnosticism.
There's a thought for you. Perhaps Athiests are closet Agnostics in denial eh? I mean, most Atheists{except for the loudest and most boisterous of the Militant Atheists} tend to admit that they can't disprove god{as a first cause} and that they could be wrong, and therefore simply don't know but se it as improbable. Perhaps that essay should say that Atheists are closet Agnostucs in denial and should just admit to beeing Agnostics?
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
[quote=Iconoclastithon][quote=noor][quote=Iconoclastithon][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Why do you insist on this distinction of theism having to be personal?
I guess under that way of seeing it, I will agree with your point over agnosticism I just define theism differently than you. I see deism as a subset of theism, where theism is belief in god, and within those you distinguish between various gods, one of which is the deistic subset.[/quote]
Would you not make distinctions between Christianity and Hinduism? They are both religions, yet they are totally different in many ways.
Would you not make a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism?...... or right, this site seems to favour denying Agnosticism as a entity o=unto it;s own and merely as a branch of Atheism.[/quote]
No, agnosticism is not a branch of atheism. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, atheism is a lack of belief. Agnosticism lies in [i]a different realm.[/i] That's why theists can be agnostic too.
Agnostic atheism is a branch of atheism though. Most people who call themselves are agnostic atheists, and the RRS is trying to let them know that they are only agnostic by knowledge, atheist by belief.
[quote]I will concede, as I've done the research, the original proposers of Deism way back in the 1600's and early 1700's had an allmost liberaly theism quality, but when deism took on a full life of it's own it quickly became a seperate from theism secular and rationalist view of god, and since then as a very progressive philosophy has become a living entity unto itself-which is COMPLETELY different from theism.
Deism is NOT subset of theism, just as Agnosticism is not one of Atheism, etc.
In Reason:
Icono[/quote]
Deism IS a subset of theism. Deism is belief in a non-personal god/creator. It IS a belief in a god and therefore, theistic. A theist is simply one who believes in a god. That's it, it doesn't matter if the god interferes with our lives or not.[/quote]
I agree with you about Agnostic Atheists, there are also Agnostic Deists; in both cases, the individual is Agnostic but leans heavily towards{though not completely} one of the other{to varrying degrees}.[/quote]
True.
[quote]But, my complain about the essay and other movements by the new Atheist movement saying shit like that about Agnostics, is that they DON'T make the distinction of degrees, they simply say Agnosticism in general is closet Atheism in denial and whatnot.[/quote]
Basically if you have any sort of doubt (to whatever degree) that leads to not believing, then you're an atheist.
[quote]Again, I affirm, Deism is NOT a subset of theism; there are individuals whom are indeeed very liberal theists and deists simultaneously{because again, we are talking about degrees}; but Deism itself is NOT a subset of theism; this is exactly why Deism was created, as a way for rationalists whom believe in first cause intelligence to sepeate themselves from the more supertitious, holy books and prophets oriented, sky-parent personal omnibenevolent{etc}, revealed religion theism.[/quote]
You're not getting it, theism is belief in a god. That's it. It does not matter if the god messes with our lives or not. Deism is by definition, a belief in a non-interventionist god. [i]A belief in a god[/i]. Just a different sort of god/creator.
Deism was created by people who rejected religion and miracles but still held to the idea of a supreme intelligence. [i]Theism makes no distinction as to whether the god is personal or not.[/i]
[quote]But as I said there are overlaps based on degree of thought about such matters as god and spirituality.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, I've been a devout deist/panendeist for over 3 years.[/quote]
Overlaps do happen, but there is a fine line between atheist and theist. Deism might be closer to atheism than belief in a personal god, but deism still holds on to a god and is a form of theism.
[quote]Deism is NOT a theism subsect{in general}. If it were, we'd simply just call ourselves theists- and we don't.[/quote]
Because the term theist is a very broad one. It includes christians, muslims, hindus, sikhs, etc. and most of them do believe in a personal god. Deism is [i]a special term to distinguish from these other theists who believe in a interventionist god[/i], but it still qualifies as a form of theism.
[quote]Just as a devout pure Agnostic{not the agnostic atheist} would not say they are a subsect of Atheism, or Atheists a subsect of agnosticism.[/quote]
A devout pure Agnostic does not exist at all, the agnostic is [i]either[/i] theist or atheist.
[quote]There's a thought for you. Perhaps Athiests are closet Agnostics in denial eh? I mean, most Atheists{except for the loudest and most boisterous of the Militant Atheists} tend to admit that they can't disprove god{as a first cause} and that they could be wrong, and therefore simply don't know but se it as improbable. Perhaps that essay should say that Atheists are closet Agnostucs in denial and should just admit to beeing Agnostics?[/quote]
1. Atheists often call themselves agnostic because of the negative stigma of the term atheist. It's a lot easier to call yourself an agnostic in public than to call yourself an atheist.
2. Technically, all of us are agnostic. You, me, evangelical christians, buddhists, muslims, etc. are all agnostic by knowledge. What matters is what we believe.
[quote=Iconoclastithon]
Deism is NOT a theism subsect{in general}. If it were, we'd simply just call ourselves theists- and we don't.
Just as a devout pure Agnostic{not the agnostic atheist} would not say they are a subsect of Atheism, or Atheists a subsect of agnosticism.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
[/quote]
What you call yourself is irrelevan, what matters is the etymology and logical distinctions between the positions. 1970's China could call themselves a people's republic all they wanted, but that didn't make it true.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1][quote=Iconoclastithon]
Deism is NOT a theism subsect{in general}. If it were, we'd simply just call ourselves theists- and we don't.
Just as a devout pure Agnostic{not the agnostic atheist} would not say they are a subsect of Atheism, or Atheists a subsect of agnosticism.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
[/quote]
What you call yourself is irrelevan, what matters is the etymology and logical distinctions between the positions. 1970's China could call themselves a people's republic all they wanted, but that didn't make it true.
[/quote]
Is it?
Words change meaning over time. There are probably plenty of words that you{or anyone else for that matter} use that are no longer in keeping with the original meanings of the words{especially given that there are for example many words that are say spoken by so-called english speaking people that are actually words from other languages, and yet not to mean the samr thing as they meant}. Lets look at say Hebrew, hebrew words have many different meanings in alot of cases{of course this is true of any word today; look at your dictionary for example and you'll find MANY words that have many different menaings-sometimes in somewhat contradiction}; but back to Hebrew- lets look at the liberal christians for example- they don't take the lkaws of the O.T. or bible in general at face value like the fundies -because the libeal do their homework and realiuze that many of the words used in the bible hebrew had many different meanigns and could be intrpreted in a number of different ways- even a heberew letter can have many different meanings to it.
Now, let me ask you? Do you consider yourself pro-gay rights? Well, would you go and say to your gay friends that they are not "gay" because the original use of the word meant "happy", and therefore any "happy' person is actually 'gay"? You might. but you probably wou;d'nt, you probbaly have never thought about this, most people don't seem to have in our culture.
Now, Deism has pretty much always meant a simple belief in a intelligent and creative first cause ineffable force god, and many diests really have not a care for the term 'god" even{I'm one of them; but I use it for conventions sake}. Theism has always included the belief in a personal god or divinity that we can have personal connection or relationship to and it to us- hence it lends itself to the idea that all beliefs are equally valid and that revealytion and prophets and so on are valid, whereas in deism- such things are rejected- as are most forms of miracles{that's not to say an individual deist might not believe that certain paranormal or psychic,etc, things do not exist and will someday be evidenced and labelled by hard sciences- many do, I am skeptical but open minded about such things myself; but then many Atheists fit this profile too}.
I am NOT a thiest, I reject revelation,dogma, personal relationship with omnibenevolent sky-parent like deities and divinity that is of the same nature which suits our human centered ego and likeness. I am a Deist. and deism and thesim are largely different categories of thought. Deism also is not Atheism, allthough one famous U.S. president is known to have labelled Thomas Paine for example as a filth little ATHEIST, despite the fact that Paine asserted his deist belief in a first cause god.\
I think you are following along the Dawkins party line on deism and pantheism. Dawkins stated that Deism is watered down theism{did it ever occur to him to call theism supersitionafied deism or something? probably not; I don;t believe so myself, but it woulkd be equally reasonable to turn the tables that way; also many theists believe Deism is a form of Atheism- hell even some deists I've seen use that idea that deists are de-facto atheists- and indeed SOME are- but deism itself is neither Atheism or Theism- nor is it A Form of Agnosticism, it is a meeting point between the 3}, but I digress...
...Dawkins said that about Deism; which makes me to think he has'nt done much research into what Deism is or it's progressive nature, he seems hooked on the definition of the classic deists of the enlightenment and not to be aware that deism even then was progressive and individualistic and rational in nature- which lent it to evolving with the times as easily as any other reasonable viewpoint, which is why Deismj today includes individuals and groups of individual deists whom may unite in their methodology of thinking- into Atheistic Deists{whom believe it exists ir "probably" exist but see it as irrelevant-evento really even philosophize or discuss about}, Agno-Deists= or Agnostic Deists[of varrying degrees; whom see it's existence as "probable"- not certian to varrying degrees and see it as worth thinking about and philosophizing about to varrying degrees depending on the individuals comfortability with the subject= I personally sort of fall into this category}, PanDeism and PanenDeism{think Pantheism and PanenThiesm, but without the "personal" elements, and more rationalized; I also fall into these categories. Actually, this category is closer to what Dawkins says of Einstein and others whom he calls scientific pantheists- a contradiction in temrs-which I will explain later; However, given the language Einstein and other used- if they were 'sexed up atheists"-the'd have madre that more clear, it is obvious from their speech that they see more intelligence and creativity in this force than a so-called "sexed up atheist"}, Dynamic deism{I fall into this}, Modern Deism{I also fall into this}, and so on.
Deism is it's own unique and sovereign methodology of thought and philosophy, TOTALLY seperate from theism, atheism and agnosticism- and yet when examined it incorporates elements of all 3, but is seperate unto itself.
Dawkins also refers to Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". Half-truth. He refers to the more recent movment sof so-called "scientific pantheism"; which IS sexed-up atheism/agnosticism indeed{for the most part}- but this is NOT Pantheism? Even Dawkins fails to see the meaning of Pantheism etymologically{since it seems that etymology is so important to him and the new breed of militant atheists}, they should then simply be called Atheisst whom enjoy the beauty of nature. Pantheism incliudes the term THEISM for a reason; true PanTHEISM includes the thesitic elements; if it does'nt then etymologically speaking it can be called scientific PanTHEISM, right?
Or,perhaps IT CAN. As I mentioned before, words are human inventions, the menaing sof words change, and hardly a day goes by where you will not use a word that is outside of it's original meanings{meanings given it by humans, menaings which at the ill of humans can change}.
But, let then the people of any given philosophy decide FOR THEMSELVES as the adherents of said philosophy{including atheism; and atheism IS a philosophy, it is also a soft/weak "faith", the only truly FAITHLESS position is 'Agnosticism"-beeing without bias until further evidence comes along} decide for themselves what it means to them collectively and even individualistically.
Etymology means little in the end, because words only have whatever meaning we choose to give them as humans, and words menaings often change over time and/or they accumulate new meanings in addiction to old ones{sometimes retaining the old, but often also losing the old through usage of the words in conjuction with the new meanings}.
Words,like symbols, mean only what the individual wants them too, and can and indeed DO change with time.
Again, I refer you to "gay"; scarcely anyone{even those etymologically obsessed militant atheists and others} will refuse to use the word "gay" when referring to Homosexuals and Lesbians and "gay" rights,etc. I doubt you have or will yourself. Apparently forgetting the etymological origins of the word and it's first meanings.
Words are words, and words change.
I am a Deist, NOT a Thiest-and aside from Pantheism I view most forms of Thiesm{not neccaserily all, but vast majority}as illogical; and I resent beeing labelled a "watered down THEIST"; just as many Agnostics whom to remian near the 50/50 line{give or take a little}- or the Agno-Deists or those whom do flip flop with each day of fresh new introspection and thinking/reasoning and new evidences- all probably regret beieng called Atheists in the clset and in denial by the arrogant Militant Atheist types and their fans.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon- the "Deist/PanenDeist".
the whole pantheism only further supports my point. Pantheists do NOT believe in a personal god. Pantheists are people who simply define nature as 'god'. I think it' sstupid, and extraneous, but hey, whatever floats their boat.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]the whole pantheism only further supports my point. Pantheists do NOT believe in a personal god. Pantheists are people who simply define nature as 'god'. I think it' sstupid, and extraneous, but hey, whatever floats their boat.[/quote]
Actually, by definition{and we have sen how important defintions and stymology,etc, are to you; and to the current Hard-line Militant Atheists and mostly militantly atheist agnostics}- Pantheism REQUIRES by definition belief in a personal god{god herein means tha Universe as the all of god, ie: we are but tiny fragments of this beeing; "beeing" simply meansing- 'to exist" NOT beeing in the sense of "form" or "human-like"}- -one that is ultimately perceived to be personal and omnibenevolent towards us individually and collectively as it's smaller components{that it KNOWS us and our inner worskings/feelings/thoughts and wants us to share in that with it the other way around}.-Panentheism takes this up a notch and thinks of this universe{perhaps the multiverse} as PART of "god"{term used loosely- as label not name}- that we are all{along with EVERYTHING that exists in the cosmos period} IN "god" and "god" is in us and everything that exists- in a deeply personal way.
I lean towards PanenDeism/Pandeism myself, I take that above concept but strip it of the fluffy bunny conceptions of a personal and omnibenevolent human-centered{etc} god; combinign that basic PAN or PANEN{god in and in god} concept to the impersonal first cause/underlying prime mover concept of Deism.
The Pantheism you refer to{as Dawkins did when he talked about it beeing "sexed up atheism"; or a non-personal one} is indeed either one of two types- simply Atheism with a deep feeling of awe for the cosmos vastness{which is NOT PanTHEISM in definfion; though if thwy wish to call themselves this- they need do something aboyt the term "theism"- perhaps call it PanAtheism} OR it is of the PanDeistic ideal that I mentioned that I lean towards myself{still involving a vast cosmic creative intelligence of some sorts}.
You think it's stupid for the sexed up atheists to call themsleves PanTHEISTS; perhaps you and Dawkins and other Atheists need suggest they call it PanAtheism{just a thought}.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
again, this whole thing relies on your mandate that theism requires a personal god. Just because it traditionally has, however, doesn't mean it necessarily does.
I don't want to copy and paste, but you (Iconoclastithon) haven't responded to this part of my last post:
You're not getting it, theism is belief in a god. That's it. It does not matter if the god messes with our lives or not. Deism is by definition, a belief in a non-interventionist god. A belief in a god. Just a different sort of god/creator.
Deism was created by people who rejected religion and miracles but still held to the idea of a supreme intelligence. Theism makes no distinction as to whether the god is personal or not.
Deists generally don't call themselves simply "theists" because the term theist is a very broad one. It includes christians, muslims, hindus, sikhs, etc. and most of them do believe in a personal god. Deism is a special term to distinguish from these other theists who believe in a interventionist god, but it still qualifies as a form of theism.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]again, this whole thing relies on your mandate that theism requires a personal god. Just because it traditionally has, however, doesn't mean it necessarily does.[/quote]
[quote=noor]I don't want to copy and paste, but you (Iconoclastithon) haven't responded to this part of my last post:
You're not getting it, theism is belief in a god. That's it. It does not matter if the god messes with our lives or not. Deism is by definition, a belief in a non-interventionist god. A belief in a god. Just a different sort of god/creator.
Deism was created by people who rejected religion and miracles but still held to the idea of a supreme intelligence. Theism makes no distinction as to whether the god is personal or not.
Deists generally don't call themselves simply "theists" because the term theist is a very broad one. It includes christians, muslims, hindus, sikhs, etc. and most of them do believe in a personal god. Deism is a special term to distinguish from these other theists who believe in a interventionist god, but it still qualifies as a form of theism.[/quote]
My mandate?
It seems to me that Atheists and Agnostics too have been re-itrpreting words for themselves. take 'faith" for example. Traditionally "faith" can be in degrees, traditionally "faith" means to believe in something that you cannot prove{just like Atheism cannot be proven=yet, just like Deism cannot be proven=yet; I leave agnosticism out- again because they truly are without faith or bias}; yet modern Atheism eschews 'faith" as the new evil. I used to be part of a movement called Universism that attempted to do this, to redefine faith according to their own mandate{Universism consisted of Atheists,Agnostuis,Deists- and offshoots, Sci-Pantheists, rationalistic Trancendentalists,humanists,etc}- their defintion of "faith" wa spretty much the same as the new Militant Atheist movements definition; but both redefined faith in a way that it has not been historically used. Militant Atheists today are dooing this, according to whose mandate I wonder? Perhaps the loudst spokesmen for the new Militant Athiest movement{such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris- and by the way I'm a fan of Harris's myself-he's not quite as arrogant and out to promote Atheism and out to deny or usurp other rationalist positins as Dawkins seems to be}.
As you said, traditionally "theism" has required a "personal" god{most often a anthropomorphic and anthropocentric one; and in the case of deities AND simple universal pantheistic/panentheistic divinity- omnibenevolence and };human-centeredness}; Deisms[and offshoots} view is more rationalistic and abstract or undefinable, because it includes a love of skepticism and doubt-even of itself[a trait it has inhereited from Agnosticism}.
I HAVE allrready conceded that the classic deism and the modern liberal theism are very much alike in many ways; but Deism TODAY is far from beeing theistic in any way; even in the classic deism era- the term and idea was thought up as a means to seperate from THEISM, and to create a wholoe new system of thought- one which would be very progressive.
Theism has various sub-types; Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Henotheism, Polytheism,etc. And under each of these fall various religions and philosophies whose beliefs are based on one or more of these corner-stones.{Christianity- monotheistic OR polytheistic or PanenTheistic depending on who's view one is looking at whether the liberal ones or the fundies or how many view trinitarianism is Polytheism masquerading as monotheism; Islam- Monotheistic,Judaism-Monotheistic, Hinduism- Polytheistic, Theistic Satanism-usually polytheistic or pantheistic, Paganism- any of the above, Buddhism- either pantheistic or mystic atheism-depending on type,etc.}
Deism perhaps "mirrors" theism, but is not a sub-sect OF theism; Deism is it's own sovereign and unique non-theistic form of thought- it includes like the outdated theism- it's own subsects such as Monodeism, Pandeism,PanenDeism,Transdeism. Deism also is the cornerstone of some non-theistic religions now or cna be seen as such for a few older religions even{Taoism, Dark Doctrines Satanism, Rationalistic from of symbolic paganism, and others}
Deism is a rationalized "mirror' of theism, but is a different method of thought and philosophy all unto it's own. It was mant to be a overturned theism, theism re-defined out of existence{hopefully}- a rationalist mirror of the basic theistic die aof a god or godforce but without the theistic trappings; making it a totally unique non-theism; just as Agnosticism and Atheism though sharing some traits ARE NOT THE SAME THING}. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.
I will concede that some deists do consider diesm{or their form of it- if they think like the classic deists specifically} a branch of theism; but the VAST majority of Deists see them as different entities from one another and deism as not theistic.
Deists generally don't call themsleves theists- Because THEY'RE NOT! Just as Atheists don't generally call themselves Agnostics or visa-versa because THEY'RE NOT!{except for in those cases on a scale where they are pretty much inbetween the two positions- just as happens with those inbetween the positions of Agnosticism and Deism}
But, I guess this arguing isn't going to go anywhere because I'm learning that arguing with militant Atheists and Militant Athiests posing as Agnostic atheists, is like arguing with a fundamentalist monotheist; seemingly pointless; because in both cases- I'm{we're} arguing with absolutists/fundies.
In Reason:
Iconoclastithon
[quote=Iconoclastithon]My mandate?
It seems to me that Atheists and Agnostics too have been re-itrpreting words for themselves. take 'faith" for example. Traditionally "faith" can be in degrees, traditionally "faith" means to believe in something that you cannot prove{just like Atheism cannot be proven=yet, just like Deism cannot be proven=yet;[/quote]
Atheism is a negative position, it is a lack of theism. There is nothing to be proven in atheism! It's like saying a lack of belief in fairies is a faith in itself.
[quote] I leave agnosticism out- again because they truly are without faith or bias};[/quote]
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, it lies in a different realm.
[quote] yet modern Atheism eschews 'faith" as the new evil. I used to be part of a movement called Universism that attempted to do this, to redefine faith according to their own mandate{Universism consisted of Atheists,Agnostuis,Deists- and offshoots, Sci-Pantheists, rationalistic Trancendentalists,humanists,etc}- their defintion of "faith" wa spretty much the same as the new Militant Atheist movements definition; but both redefined faith in a way that it has not been historically used. Militant Atheists today are dooing this, according to whose mandate I wonder? Perhaps the loudst spokesmen for the new Militant Athiest movement{such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris- and by the way I'm a fan of Harris's myself-he's not quite as arrogant and out to promote Atheism and out to deny or usurp other rationalist positins as Dawkins seems to be}.[/quote]
So now you're resorting to personal attacks against militant atheists and Dawkins??
[quote]As you said, traditionally "theism" has required a "personal" god{most often a anthropomorphic and anthropocentric one; and in the case of deities AND simple universal pantheistic/panentheistic divinity- omnibenevolence and };human-centeredness}; [/quote]
No, theism is NOT limited to a personal god. It's a belief in any sort of god.
[quote]Deisms[and offshoots} view is more rationalistic and abstract or undefinable, because it includes a love of skepticism and doubt-even of itself[a trait it has inhereited from Agnosticism}.
I HAVE allrready conceded that the classic deism and the modern liberal theism are very much alike in many ways; but Deism TODAY is far from beeing theistic in any way;[/quote]
Deism IS a form of theism, since theism is belief in a god.
[quote] even in the classic deism era- the term and idea was thought up as a means to seperate from THEISM, and to create a wholoe new system of thought- one which would be very progressive.[/quote]
No, the idea of deism was created to separate people from RELIGIOUS miracles and prayers, etc. not theism.
[quote]Theism has various sub-types; Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Henotheism, Polytheism,etc. And under each of these fall various religions and philosophies whose beliefs are based on one or more of these corner-stones.{Christianity- monotheistic OR polytheistic or PanenTheistic depending on who's view one is looking at whether the liberal ones or the fundies or how many view trinitarianism is Polytheism masquerading as monotheism; Islam- Monotheistic,Judaism-Monotheistic, Hinduism- Polytheistic, Theistic Satanism-usually polytheistic or pantheistic, Paganism- any of the above, Buddhism- either pantheistic or mystic atheism-depending on type,etc.}
Deism perhaps "mirrors" theism, but is not a sub-sect OF theism; Deism is it's own sovereign and unique non-theistic form of thought- it includes like the outdated theism- it's own subsects such as Monodeism, Pandeism,PanenDeism,Transdeism. Deism also is the cornerstone of some non-theistic religions now or cna be seen as such for a few older religions even{Taoism, Dark Doctrines Satanism, Rationalistic from of symbolic paganism, and others}[/quote]
[i]Theism is belief in a god, not always a personal god.[/i]
Go ahead and explain to me how deism is not a form of theism. If deism is not theism, it would have to be a form of atheism. Which it obviously isn't.
[quote]Deism is a rationalized "mirror' of theism, but is a different method of thought and philosophy all unto it's own. It was mant to be a overturned theism, theism re-defined out of existence{hopefully}- a rationalist mirror of the basic theistic die aof a god or godforce but without the theistic trappings; making it a totally unique non-theism;[/quote]
Deism is a very different version of theism, but it is believing in a god.
[quote] just as Agnosticism and Atheism though sharing some traits ARE NOT THE SAME THING}. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.[/quote]
Show me where we say that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. They lie in DIFFERENT realms. Agnosticism and atheism overlap though the same way agnosticism can overlap other forms of beliefs.
[quote]I will concede that some deists do consider diesm{or their form of it- if they think like the classic deists specifically} a branch of theism; but the VAST majority of Deists see them as different entities from one another and deism as not theistic.[/quote]
Again, theism is belief in a god.
[quote]Deists generally don't call themsleves theists- Because THEY'RE NOT![/quote]
If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.
[quote] Just as Atheists don't generally call themselves Agnostics or visa-versa because THEY'RE NOT!{except for in those cases on a scale where they are pretty much inbetween the two positions- just as happens with those inbetween the positions of Agnosticism and Deism}[/quote]
Atheists call themselves atheist and not agnostic because agnostic means without knowledge. Ask any weak atheist this and they will tell you that they are agnostic by knowledge, atheist by belief. They consider themselves atheist because it's the BELIEF (or lack of) that matters, not gnosticism.
[quote]But, I guess this arguing isn't going to go anywhere because I'm learning that arguing with militant Atheists and Militant Athiests posing as Agnostic atheists, is like arguing with a fundamentalist monotheist; seemingly pointless; because in both cases- I'm{we're} arguing with absolutists/fundies.[/quote]
More personal attacks?
And, besides, you're a fundie deist also. You're just chanting that deism is not theism over and over.
From [url=http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/Fundamentalist.htm]here[/url]:
If fundamentalism is primarily about the promotion of "fundamental" beliefs, it's not possible for this to be applied to atheism because [b]atheism has no beliefs, much less "fundamental" beliefs[/b]. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less, so [b]there is nothing "fundamental"[/b] for atheists to "get back to" in order to achieve a more pure or original atheism.
you're talking pihlosophy of people. There is only one thing that matters in the classification of theist/atheist, and that is belief in god/nonbelief. The rest of the characteristics may generally follow, but not necessarily.
[quote=noor][Atheism is a negative position, it is a lack of theism. There is nothing to be proven in atheism! It's like saying a lack of belief in fairies is a faith in itself.;[/quote]
Yes, but is also a BELIEF; as it asserts an idea that is NOT PROVEN.
Your faeries argument would work for other human-like and human-centered concepts- such as person like deities and sky-parents. The Deist conception is NOT like that, it is undefined and abstract.
Atheism contrasts to theistic deities like it contrasts to the faeries ideaor gnomes, or leperchans, so on and so forth}, it does not contrast to deism the same way{as deism is undefinable and abstract, an intellectual position or leaning based on sound reasoning and evidence as opposed to 100% strong faith in anthropomorphic/anthropocentric people like deites and sky-parents}.
However, Atheism- like deism, requires a small meaure of faith to be of it- else one would be a faithless Agnostic.
[quote] Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, it lies in a different realm.;[/quote]
Ys, but is has traditionally been used in refereance to the god question; else it would simply be "skepticism", it is or has become skepticism-but specifically as pertains to the god question.
[quote] So now you're resorting to personal attacks against militant atheists and Dawkins??}.[/quote]
Why not/ they/he have/has done so to theists,deists, and even Agnostics to some degree.. alike.
[quote]No, theism is NOT limited to a personal god. It's a belief in any sort of god....Deism IS a form of theism, since theism is belief in a god. [/quote]
Oh my goodness. I cannot mae it any more clearer to you. Arguing this point with you is like arguing with an evangelical christian that their religion is indeed a religion.
Deism is not Thiems, just as Agnosticism is not Atheism. Get it? got it? Good. Oh wait....I suppose you still are'nt getting it? I guess I can't do anyhting to make you understand this fact, meh.
[[quote] No, the idea of deism was created to separate people from RELIGIOUS miracles and prayers, etc. not theism..[/quote]
Yes, and that IS what theism IS. Without such ideas it is NOT theism, it is Deism.
[quote]Theism has various sub-types; Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Henotheism, Polytheism,etc. And under each of these fall various religions and philosophies whose beliefs are based on one or more of these corner-stones.{Christianity- monotheistic OR polytheistic or PanenTheistic depending on who's view one is looking at whether the liberal ones or the fundies or how many view trinitarianism is Polytheism masquerading as monotheism; Islam- Monotheistic,Judaism-Monotheistic, Hinduism- Polytheistic, Theistic Satanism-usually polytheistic or pantheistic, Paganism- any of the above, Buddhism- either pantheistic or mystic atheism-depending on type,etc.}
Deism perhaps "mirrors" theism, but is not a sub-sect OF theism; Deism is it's own sovereign and unique non-theistic form of thought- it includes like the outdated theism- it's own subsects such as Monodeism, Pandeism,PanenDeism,Transdeism. Deism also is the cornerstone of some non-theistic religions now or cna be seen as such for a few older religions even{Taoism, Dark Doctrines Satanism, Rationalistic from of symbolic paganism, and others}[/quote]
[quote][i]Theism is belief in a god, not always a personal god.[/i]}[/quote]
No. That is simply not true. If it lacks the idea of beeing "personal" than it is NOT "theistic" but "Deistic". Thiesm without the "personal" element is not theistic at all.
[quote][Go ahead and explain to me how deism is not a form of theism. If deism is not theism, it would have to be a form of atheism. Which it obviously isn't.[/quote]
You're right it's not. However, many theists historically and even today have accused Deism of beeing a form of Atheism. You're both wrong.
Why can't you Athiests and Theists both just stop accusing is Deists of beeing of the others camp in your war agisnt each other. You both accuse us of beeing of the others camp. Why can't you both just come to the realization that we are something different from you both?
[quote]Deism is a very different version of theism, but it is believing in a god..[/quote]
That's right,Militant Atheism...er Christianity is not a religion and is the one true way. Militant Athiests....er... Christians are always right.
Head meet wall...~OW~!
[quote]Show me where we say that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. They lie in DIFFERENT realms. Agnosticism and atheism overlap though the same way agnosticism can overlap other forms of beliefs.
.[/quote]
Agnosticism and Atheism are skeptical of the belief in god{to varrying degrees}, they share similar values,etc. Yet they are different realms as you said. Deism and Theism are the same way...except oddly enough the differences between theisst and Deists in general and the philosophies are more abundant than that between Atheists and Agnostics.
I have seen plenty of Militant Atheists in this culture war try and claim the Agnostics for their Atheist agenda, usually subtle implying that most{if not all} of them are basically closet Athiests in denial; a prominent article on this very site written by someone at rational responders does this; and I've seen lots of loud spokepeople for Militant Atheism do the same{allmost always a subtle implication; occasionally coming right out and saying it}
[quote]I will concede that some deists do consider diesm{or their form of it- if they think like the classic deists specifically} a branch of theism; but the VAST majority of Deists see them as different entities from one another and deism as not theistic.[/quote]
[quote]Again, theism is belief in a god..[/quote]
A personal god. Which is what the few deists whom mistake their own philosophy as a form of theism {usually because the Militant Atheists keep driiling this baloney into their heads} don't get{though most do come around at some pont}
[quote]If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.![/quote]
No, I'm a NON-theist. Are you trying to tell me that Deism is a form of Atheism then? Because I will deny till my death bed- as will most deists- that I am a theist; and I/we will be right in this assertion.
If you are not a theist- you are a NON-theist. If you reject even belief or leanings toward Deistic thought or are not an Agnostic... THEN YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. Atheism is right there with Deism and Agnosticism has a form of reason-based non-theism.
[quote] Atheists call themselves atheist and not agnostic because agnostic means without knowledge. Ask any weak atheist this and they will tell you that they are agnostic by knowledge, atheist by belief. They consider themselves atheist because it's the BELIEF (or lack of) that matters, not gnosticism.[/quote]
That is true of 'some" of them, not all. However, you are correct in saying the above, but then thsat person is on the scale as an Agnostic Atheist. If they are outright Agnostic... they are by all usages of the term Agnostic- unsure of the god idea. I know what the word means etymologically... butyou also cannot deny that it is allmost always used in referance to the god question.
[quote]More personal attacks?.[/quote]
Fact.
I see in the vast majority of you strong athiests these days a tendency to have 3 major heros whom you parrot in some form or another- Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Brian Fleeming{I am personally a fan of the works of the last two, since they are not quite as fanatical or absolutist as the first}- Dawking, undoubtably the most beloved of all is himself guilt yof personal attacks... when he -the most beloved by atheists as their greatest spokeperson called Deists watered down theists- it became open season on him and his acolytes by me.
However, you want to accuse me of "personal attacks". this is EXACTLY what you all, what your atheist spokesmen, and hell.even what I as a deist... are dooing to the theists. We're all guilty of it.
[quote]And, besides, you're a fundie deist also. You're just chanting that deism is not theism over and over.[/quote]
I am proud of my Deism, yes. Fundie- No! Because I am not absolutist in my position and because I've actually spent far more time and energy defending Atheism than I have Deism. I still often so, I just have an issue with the current militant Athiest movement and it's hypocrisy.
Saying Deism is not theism over and over again to tr to get it through to people whom obviously are'nt paying attention is not Fundamentalosm, it is stating the simple fact.
[quote]If fundamentalism is primarily about the promotion of "fundamental" beliefs, it's not possible for this to be applied to atheism because [b]atheism has no beliefs, much less "fundamental" beliefs[/b]. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less, so [b]there is nothing "fundamental"[/b] for atheists to "get back to" in order to achieve a more pure or original atheism.[/quote]
You are not getting it still. Atheism IS a "belief". lack of belief would be Agnosticism. Atheism is NOT proven - hence it is a bias in spite of lack of proof- ie: a beleif and a 'faith", until Athiests get this- they will be shooting themselves in the foot with their special pelading and making a bad name for and mockery out of Atheism with their intellectual dishonesty and special pleading double-standards and monopolization of reason,freethought,science, and so forth..
In Reason;
Icono
I did not read the last couple of posts, but I wanted to respond to the post that there can be no fundy atheism
Well, that is half true... weak atheism/ agnosticism (depending on the semantics) is a nonbelief in a god - I could be a Fundy atheist because I consciously do not believe in a god, I have a positive belief that no god exists.
it remains about knowledge, specifically knowledge about god. But knowledge, not belief
You're defining lacking belief as lacking knowledge and the two are different.
[quote]Einstein was simply "Pantheist". However, the phrase- "not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." indicates actually PanDeism, rather than PanThiesm. Theism cannot exist without the "personal" aspects of the divine, take away the 'personal" aspects and you don't have any form of THEISM at all; this is what seperates Theism{and it's offshoots such as PanTHEISM and PanenTheism} from Deism{and it's offshoots of PanDeism and PanenDeism}, the idea of it beeing "personal"{theistic} ir "impersonal"{deistic}.[/quote]
Sorry for coming so late in the game but there are some serious issues here.
1. "PanDeism" is an overly ambiguous term which has several conflicting meanings, including the belief that there is a family of gods that are universally worshiped (the greeks/romans believed this and would give other people's gods the names of their gods).
(A better term is naturalistic pantheism or impersonal pantheism).
2. "Deism" etymologically has the same meaning as theism and was indistinguishable from it until the deist movement in Europe. As such, it shouldn't be combined with other terms because it just hampers communication.
Deism is similar to monotheism, in that it is a more specific term for what a person believes about their deity... which assumes that they have one and are therefore theist.
3. Theism doesn't require a belief in a [i]personal[/i] god but any sort of deity (otherwise, [b]Deists would be technical atheists [/b] and they specifically distinguished themselves from us.)
4. Pantheists believe either that a)everything is the divine(however the hell they define it) or b)they revere the universe in a religious sense.
(This term sucks.A pantheist may or may not believe in a deity so technically, one could be an atheist and pantheist...)
Oy.
[quote]t remains about knowledge, specifically knowledge about god. But knowledge, not belief
You're defining lacking belief as lacking knowledge and the two are different.[/quote]
I was not really defining either one... just saying that a strong atheist could be a fundy atheist
[quote=Stephen][quote]Einstein was simply "Pantheist". However, the phrase- "not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." indicates actually PanDeism, rather than PanThiesm. Theism cannot exist without the "personal" aspects of the divine, take away the 'personal" aspects and you don't have any form of THEISM at all; this is what seperates Theism{and it's offshoots such as PanTHEISM and PanenTheism} from Deism{and it's offshoots of PanDeism and PanenDeism}, the idea of it beeing "personal"{theistic} ir "impersonal"{deistic}.[/quote]
Sorry for coming so late in the game but there are some serious issues here.
1. "PanDeism" is an overly ambiguous term which has several conflicting meanings, including the belief that there is a family of gods that are universally worshiped (the greeks/romans believed this and would give other people's gods the names of their gods).
(A better term is naturalistic pantheism or impersonal pantheism).
2. "Deism" etymologically has the same meaning as theism and was indistinguishable from it until the deist movement in Europe. As such, it shouldn't be combined with other terms because it just hampers communication.
Deism is similar to monotheism, in that it is a more specific term for what a person believes about their deity... which assumes that they have one and are therefore theist.
3. Theism doesn't require a belief in a [i]personal[/i] god but any sort of deity (otherwise, [b]Deists would be technical atheists [/b] and they specifically distinguished themselves from us.)
4. Pantheists believe either that a)everything is the divine(however the hell they define it) or b)they revere the universe in a religious sense.
(This term sucks.A pantheist may or may not believe in a deity so technically, one could be an atheist and pantheist...)
Oy.[/quote]
[quote=Stephen]["Deism" etymologically has the same meaning as theism and was indistinguishable from it until the deist movement in Europe. As such, it shouldn't be combined with other terms because it just hampers communication..[/quote]
This is half-true. But the differentiation happens in how the terms were derived, from what languages. Theism was greek derived and was biblical, of a faith and faiths that was/were comrise dof a "personal" god{s}. Deism is derived from Latin, a language that the Bible was not wrriten in, the Classic Deists chose this term specifically because of this fact, so that they could differentiate the impersonal first cause godforce from the personal god beeing of theism.
For most of it's history, Desim has been as distinguised from Theism and theistic faiths as it is from Atheism{though both sides have often accused Deists of beieng either watered dwon theists-the accusation from atheists; or as Atheists in essense- the accusation from the theists; both are always refusing to concede that deism is it's own dymamic and unique viewpoint}.
and, yes it can be combied with other terms{such as the PANdeism and PANendeism or the MONOdeism}- it would be taking the irrational personal ideas out of theism and creating a whole new system of thought called DEISM; most Deists have always been opposed to theism- because theism oft includes "revelation" ideas or "revealed religion".
[quote=Stephen]"PanDeism" is an overly ambiguous term which has several conflicting meanings, including the belief that there is a family of gods that are universally worshiped (the greeks/romans believed this and would give other people's gods the names of their gods).
(A better term is naturalistic pantheism or impersonal pantheism)...[/quote]
Not at all. First- PanDeism cannot include the idea of a family of gods. There has been a small movement of Polydeists afoot that have created this type of deism; BUT... It is irrational to be a polydeist because you'd have to have personal "revelation" that there are many gods, because the natural universe cnanot indicate this idea or substantiate it in any way; hence PolyDeism cannot exist, though PolyTheism can.
But, no PanDeism and PanenDeism do not include the idea of many impersonal gods{many would be inconsistent with natural reason, and based only on "revelation"-theism}- . PanDeism deals only with the idea that the Universe/multiverse is itself one with "god" or part of "god".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanDeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panendeism
[quote=Stephen](A better term is naturalistic pantheism or impersonal pantheism)...[/quote]
Nope. Because Naturalistic Pantheism is simply regulkar Pantheism. impersonal Pantheism would be PanDeism; and Scientific Pantheism- well here I agree with Dawkins- is sexed up atheism/agnosticism.}. PanTHEISM must by definition and historical usage of 'theism" and modern usage of "theism"-include "personal god/divine force"-else it is NOT THEISM.
[quote=Stephen]Deism is similar to monotheism, in that it is a more specific term for what a person believes about their deity... which assumes that they have one and are therefore theist.[/quote]
Well, plain classic deism{or nowadays called by many in the deist community- MonoDeism} is similar to Monotheism, but without the theistic personal parts. It is a rationalistic mirror of theism, but is unique in itself simultaneously. But NOT ALL "DEISM" is of this nature. Deism is a dynamic and progressive philosophy with several sub-philosophies nowadays, and given how deism was set up-this was bound to happen eventually, as it has always been progressive and individualistic -yet rationally and nature-ally based inherently.
[quote=Stephen]Theism doesn't require a belief in a [i]personal[/i] god but any sort of deity .[/quote]
I'd agree in the sense that pre-enlightenment period there may have been people whom believe din an impersonal god but did'nt have a name for it outside of the theism they were raised in-so they'd have simp;y called themselves "theisst" but been heretics.
However, Deistic thought has been arounbd for thousand sof years, the metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato were pre-cursors, for they were the first{as far as we know} to postulate an impersonal "first cause" or "prime mover", thiese ideas simply did'nt aquire a seperate label until the enlightenment.
Deism,therefore, has existed for thousands of years- simply unlabelled until a few hundred years ago, and has been about a belief in simply a Creative intelligence behind the universe.
Theism- has always been espoused by the likes of revealed religions- and is based on traditions,dogmas, revelation, and irrational things.
'THEISM"-requires a belief in a "personal" god or gods or divine force.
[quote=Stephen][b]Deists would be technical atheists [/b] and they specifically distinguished themselves from us.) .[/quote]
Many theists/monotheists and revealed religionists HAVE accused Deists of beeing Atheistic. Thomas Paine for example was famously labelled a "filthy little atheist" by Theodore Roosevelt. And the Atheist community has recently taken to the same persecution and mislabbeling of Deists and Deism by calling it/us "watered deosn theism/theists". Seems that the Militant Atheisr community has not learned their lesson from thousand sof eyars of persecution and mislballeing by theists, they are now becoming just like those theists in mislballeling and persecuting others; becoming their enemy.
Yes, they/we did distinguish themsleves/ourselves from Atheism/Atheists; AND we've also distinguished ourselves from theism. But I guess after the thousands of years of slander that the Athiest community has faced they now eish to take to slandering us and our philosophy as their enemies the theists have done. I suspect that the Deist will soon be the receiver of the persecution that the Atheists are now getting- and it will come from the Atheists as much as the Theists. Funny that Atheists should mislabel and slander deisst and deism, since modern Deisms community as a whole has jumped to the defense of Atheism and Atheists againt our common enemy the theists; I guess our defense and support is unwanted- as we are beeing pushed away by our fellow non-theists the Atheists.Historically Deists have defended Atheists and Agnostics and their philosophies- hell...if it were'nt for Deistic individuals amongst the founding fathers of the U.S.- Atheists would have even less rights and equality then they do have- but the Deists stood up for the rational equality of the Atheists viewpoint and their equality as nd that of the Agnostics as much as did for the democratic rights of theists to believe in their silly supersitions and absurd "personal' god ideas- I for one am ready to say scre you to both ingrates. I myself have been a loud defender of Atheism and Atheists until recently, but because of the ingratitude we are receieving from the growing militancy of the militant Atheist movement- I'm not considetring withdrawing my support and defense to the Atheists/Atheism community. Funny, I find theists{except for Monotheists- whom see Deism as a essentially satanic deception and/or masonic luciferian conspiracy} these days are much more reasonable and fair towadrs us and our view and see deism as quite rational{even though they believe in "personal" deities}, the Atheist community that we have always stood up for and aligned ourselves with has turne dit's back on us and maligned the philosophy itself and mislablled it and us, so screw them if they want to be such ingrates; I'm as sick of them[the Militant Atheists anyways} as I am of the Right-wing monotheistic nuts.
[quote=Stephen]Pantheists believe either that a)everything is the divine(however the hell they define it) or b)they revere the universe in a religious sense..[/quote]
True, in paty. They also believe it is a personal force, they usually also nclude fluu bunny ideas of ultimate omnibenevolence and personal care underlying the indifferent processes of the universe that don't give a shit one way or the oither about humans or other lifeforms on a pesonal level. They are convinced{usually] that love is the underlying force in the personal divine cosmos.
PanDeism takes the same basic priniple, but subtracts that fluffy stuff and sees the Universe{or god} as a creative intelligence- but indifferent and impersonal and no more concerned with us than with any other aprt of the Universe.
PanTHEISM views the divine/god as caring about hiumans and having relationship in apersonal way with us, PanDEISM sees god/divine as ONLY having a relationship with the larger cosmos itself{or with itself}-at best{though PanDeisst still tend to be humanitarians and whatnot-for more utilitarian reasons}.
[quote=Stephen]This term sucks.A pantheist may or may not believe in a deity so technically, one could be an atheist and pantheist...[/quote]
Not so-AT ALL. the very term 'theist" in there betrays this assertion and betrays that scientific pantheists{atheists/agnostics whom find poetic beuaty in the natural cosmos} are even PanTHEISTS in any way,shape, form.
In Reason:
Icono
P.S. I also wanted to add this little bit as well;
Einstein said his view of God was that of Spinozas; Spinozas god was/is essentially a PanDeistic one. Spinoza might have used the term pantheistic or even scientific pantheism, and many undoubtedly have intrpreted Spinozas god that way since he equated it with the natural Universe. But Spinozas god was the natural universe of matter and energy and was NOT "personal"{which is what "theism" is; since Theism derives from biblical origins, beeing greek- a language the Bible was written in- in which god is a personal beeing- this idea started in Hebrew and the Tanakh and also went into Islam and other theistic faiths- where the deity or divine is particularly "personal"}- Spinozas god was a mixture of Classic Pantheism and Deism; an impersonal unexlaniable force that is creative and is the cosmos; PanDeism.
~Icono
[quote=Guruite][quote]t remains about knowledge, specifically knowledge about god. But knowledge, not belief
You're defining lacking belief as lacking knowledge and the two are different.[/quote]
I was not really defining either one... just saying that a strong atheist could be a fundy atheist
[/quote]
sry, that was to iconoclast, forgot to say who.
If you're going to say taht it applies since the bible was written thus, the Roman numina(impersonal gods which came before the hijacking of greek mythology) are also called theos.
I think I'll apologise beforehand because I know I'll screw up these quotes.
[quote] But the differentiation happens in how the terms were derived, from what languages. Theism was greek derived and was biblical, of a faith and faiths that was/were comrise dof a "personal" god{s}.[/quote]
Theism isn't really a biblical term; Ironically, theism is historically derived from the word "atheism" and not the other way around.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)
Atheism, in turn, is derived from the Greek word "atheos" which roughly means godless.
[quote]Deism is derived from Latin, a language that the Bible was not wrriten in,[/quote]
Seriously?
The Bible may not have been originally in latin (most was in Koine Greek) but the version of the bible to have the most influence on our language is the Vulgate (latin) bible.
Besides, There isn't any historical basis to assume that the Romans believed in an impersonal god (though there were a few Greek philosophers like Aristotle who suggested a prime mover).
[quote]the Classic Deists chose this term specifically because of this fact, so that they could differentiate the impersonal first cause godforce from the personal god beeing of theism[/quote].
Yes but if they are not atheists, then they are by definition theists. They (as you said) don't consider themselves to be atheists (since deists believe in a god of some sort). [i]Theism[/i] is derived from atheism (as its opposite), so if they aren't atheists (people without god) then they are theists (people with a god). QED
[quote]{though both sides have often accused Deists of beieng either watered dwon theists-the accusation from atheists; or as Atheists in essense- the accusation from the theists; both are always refusing to concede that deism is it's own dymamic and unique viewpoint}.[/quote]
Deism is a unique viewpoint... Like monotheism is a unique viewpoint. And polytheism. And henotheism.
However, all of these view points have one common denominator.. they share a god-belief and they are not atheists.
A "not-atheist" is a theist.
[quote]and, yes it can be combied with other terms[/quote]
I didn't say it couldn't. I said, it hampers communication. It is hard enough to make sense of philosophical concepts without using overly complex and unnecessary terminology (coupled with the fact that the language we are using is an amalgamation of different tongues).
[quote]
{such as the PANdeism and PANendeism or the MONOdeism}- it would be taking the irrational personal ideas out of theism and creating a whole new system of thought called DEISM; most Deists have always been opposed to theism- because theism oft includes "revelation" ideas or "revealed religion".[/quote]
No, theism doesn't include any ideas but one (that there is a god).
Specific religions hold specific opinions about this supposed deity
[quote]Not at all. First- PanDeism cannot include the idea of a family of gods. [/quote]
But it already does. The term was first used to mean just that (in fact, it is in the article you posted).
[quote]There has been a small movement of Polydeists afoot that have created this type of deism; BUT... It is irrational to be a polydeist because you'd have to have personal "revelation" that there are many gods, because the natural universe cnanot indicate this idea or substantiate it in any way; [b]hence PolyDeism cannot exist, though PolyTheism can.[/b][/quote]
Which thus invalidates "MonoDeism" since it would be conversly impossible to know that the deistic Watchmaker isn't a team, without revealation as such.
[quote]PanDeism deals only with the idea that the Universe/multiverse is itself one with "god" or part of "god".[/quote]
That is a PERFECT definition of pantheism.
BTW, here is the original use of the word "pandeism" that I mentioned above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism_%28Godfrey_Higgins%29
[quote="Icono"]
[quote=Stephen](A better term is naturalistic pantheism or impersonal pantheism)...[/quote]
Nope. Because Naturalistic Pantheism is simply regulkar Pantheism. impersonal Pantheism would be PanDeism;[/quote]
[quote="definition"]Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
[/quote]
I don't see how "PanDeism" cannot be considered pantheism. When you say "naturalistic pantheism is just regular pantheism" you are totally right. But the same applies to "pandeism" since both posit a god that is one with the Universe.
BTW, Pantheists don't believe in revelations or the supernatural as a rule (and "naturalistic" ones definately don't..) and Spinoza was definatly a Pantheist (the term is derived from what HE believed).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism
(Note: there is another definition of "pandeism" in this article that states that god was a concious deistic watchmaker who became an unconcious pantheistic force... How many definitions of this term are there?)
[quote]Well, plain classic deism{or nowadays called by many in the deist community- MonoDeism} is similar to Monotheism, but without the theistic personal parts. [/quote]
MonoDeism seems pretty impossible as stated earlier.
Monotheists don't have to believe in a personal god... they simply believe that god is one (for whatever reason).
[quote=Icono]
[quote=Stephen]Theism doesn't require a belief in a [i]personal[/i] god but any sort of deity .[/quote]
I'd agree in the sense that pre-enlightenment period there may have been people whom believe din an impersonal god but did'nt have a name for it outside of the theism they were raised in-so they'd have simp;y called themselves "theisst" but been heretics.[/quote]
See here's the thing, No one called themselves a "theist". It was a useless term, since everyone was assumed to believe in a deity. The term "theism" only came in vogue to counter the term "atheism" which is much older (and used as a curse-word more than a position on god-belief).
[quote]Deism,therefore, has existed for thousands of years- simply unlabelled until a few hundred years ago, and has been about a belief in simply a Creative intelligence behind the universe.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]Theism- has always been espoused by the likes of revealed religions- and is based on traditions,dogmas, revelation, and irrational things.[/quote]
Nope. Theism was developed out of the word "atheist" and was meant to detail it's opposite.
When someone claims they are an atheist, you cannot tell anything about that person's beliefs save that they don't believe in deitys.
When someone claims they are theist, you don't know anything about their beliefs except that they believe in a god or gods (which is what other, more expressive terms like "polytheist" or "deist" detail).
[quote="Icono"]
[quote=Stephen][b]Deists would be technical atheists [/b] and they specifically distinguished themselves from us.) .[/quote]
Many theists/monotheists and revealed religionists HAVE accused Deists of beeing Atheistic.[/quote]
I know, "atheist" was a put-down in those days for worldly people or heretics (BTW the first use of the term "atheos" recorded was Socrates, and he definitely believed in gods).
[quote]And the Atheist community has recently taken to the same persecution and mislabbeling of Deists and Deism by calling it/us "watered deosn theism/theists".[/quote]
I'm sorry that some have put you or yours down. If it makes you feel better, I don't think that deists are "watered down theists".. I think they are theists who believe in an impersonal god.
[quote]Seems that the Militant Atheisr community has not learned their lesson from thousand sof eyars of persecution and mislballeing by theists, they are now becoming just like those theists in mislballeling and persecuting others; becoming their enemy.[/quote]
Atheists are HARDLY persecuting anyone, esp. deists.
And no one is mislabeling here. It would be wrong to call a deist an atheist, because they aren't atheists... unfortunately* the term "theist" is derived from atheist and means the opposite. There is no "in-between" atheism and theism since they are polar opposites, two answers to one very simple question which is...
"Do you believe in a god or gods?"
If no, you are an atheist... If yes you are a theist.
That doesn't mean that you believe in a "personal" god, just a god in general.
*It really isn't all that unfortunate. Just because most "revealed" religions are theistic doesn't mean that the term has irrational cooties. Just that they posit a god.
[quote]But I guess after the thousands of years of slander that the Athiest community has faced they now eish to take to slandering us and our philosophy as their enemies the theists have done.[/quote]
This is ironic because "atheist" used to simply be a term used to slander (and not a position).
Also, you betray the real difference between "theism" and "deism" in this post.
One is a philosophy containing many concepts (That god can be know through reason and that this god doesn't reveal himself through revelation.)
The other is simply a single position on a single issue ("God in some form exists").
[quote]
Historically Deists have defended Atheists and Agnostics and their philosophies- hell...if it were'nt for Deistic individuals amongst the founding fathers of the U.S.- Atheists would have even less rights and equality then they do have- but the Deists stood up for the rational equality of the Atheists viewpoint and their equality as nd that of the Agnostics as much as did for the democratic rights of theists to believe in their silly supersitions and absurd "personal' god ideas-[/quote]
This is patent bullshit. While deists have contributed greatly to the constitution (as have UUists), both used the term "atheist" as a term to slander others (even each other). Jefferson did this quite often, even though he is one of the most rational of the founding fathers.
[quote]
I for one am ready to say scre you to both ingrates. I myself have been a loud defender of Atheism and Atheists until recently, but because of the ingratitude we are receieving from the growing militancy of the militant Atheist movement- I'm not considetring withdrawing my support and defense to the Atheists/Atheism community. Funny, I find theists{except for Monotheists- whom see Deism as a essentially satanic deception and/or masonic luciferian conspiracy} these days are much more reasonable and fair towadrs us and our view and see deism as quite rational{even though they believe in "personal" deities}, the Atheist community that we have always stood up for and aligned ourselves with has turne dit's back on us and maligned the philosophy itself and mislablled it and us, so screw them if they want to be such ingrates; I'm as sick of them[the Militant Atheists anyways} as I am of the Right-wing monotheistic nuts.
[/quote]
Deists have not historically alligned with atheists, in fact, they choose the term "DEIST" specifically to differentiate themselves from us. Atheists and Deists do agree on many things, like the absence of miracles and the unnecessariness of religion.
But at the end of the day, Atheists don't believe in the deistic creator (or any creator), and further, believe the idea of a god of any sort is superfluous at best.
However, Just because atheists don't agree with your beliefs, it doesn't mean we are persecuting you and it certainly doesn't mean that there are points of intersection between our world views and needs.
[quote="Icono"]
[quote=Stephen]Pantheists believe either that a)everything is the divine(however the hell they define it) or b)they revere the universe in a religious sense..[/quote]
True, in paty. They also believe it is a personal force, they usually also nclude fluu bunny ideas of ultimate omnibenevolence and personal care underlying the indifferent processes of the universe that don't give a shit one way or the oither about humans or other lifeforms on a pesonal level.[/quote]
False. Almost all pantheists believe that the Universe simply is god. Impersonal or Naturalistic Pantheists believe that the Universe in unconscious... Spinoza was this type.
I didn't deal with the last bit because I'd end up repeating myself.
I hope to continue this conversation.
With respect
Steve.
Just a reminder: "I cannot believe God plays dice with the Cosmos."
Albert Einstein
This probably means that he hated quantum mechanics (which he was debating with at the time) more than he believed in God, but we can't prove what he believed.
[quote=Greg]I think that it doesnt really matter. the point is he wasnt CHRISTIAN. I do believe he was a jew though. was he not?[/quote]
he was jewish by birth, but he was atheist, hitler didnt care if you accepted or denied your faith, if you were jew by decent, you were as good as dead