AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Morr]

Deism rejects the afterlife, miracles, and the idea of god answering prayers or fiddling with creation. It's atheism from a practical standpoint.

Not really practical atheism, it was not atheistic at all. It did fulfill a similar role in matters of the steering of governmental policy relative to the period as does atheism of this day, but then evangelical Christianity of the period fulfilled a similar role as modern liberal Christianity does today. But that is it merely parallels in operation in the context of the greater society rather than being practical conception or parallel of belief. Deism is not more practically atheism than a Bison is practically an Elephant.

I think you need to realize that the liberalism of the 1700's wouldn't have prevented the ruination of outspoken atheists as far as public office is concerned. Deism God stripped down to the barest lip service, it is a purely theoretical and useless theism that allows someone to behave as if they didn't believe in God, but say technically there is a God. Most influential deists would not have been influential if they were atheists.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet it isn't because they do believe in a deity, simply a non-interventionist one.

Stop being blatantly dishonest.

You seem to be considering religion solely from a non-philosopical point of view. A theistic position without accompanying philosophy is effectively atheism, because God's existence or lack thereof makes zero difference your way of life. So you are, from a practical viewpoint, an atheist, you conduct yourself exactly as you would if you didn't believe in God.

And yet it isn't.

If you wonder how much I will keep repeating it, I will keep repeating it until it hammers in your head that deism =/= atheism. The same as an Audi isn't a Toyota.

[Morr]

You seem to be considering religion solely from a non-philosopical point of view. A theistic position without accompanying philosophy is effectively atheism, because God's existence or lack thereof makes zero difference your way of life. So you are, from a practical viewpoint, an atheist, you conduct yourself exactly as you would if you didn't believe in God.

And yet it isn't.

If you wonder how much I will keep repeating it, I will keep repeating it until it hammers in your head that deism =/= atheism. The same as an Audi isn't a Toyota.

It's practically the same thing, yes, because they function practically the same. If I come up with something exactly identical to fascism in function, but then give it an officially strongly anti-fascist position, it might be technically anti-fascist, but practically it is fascism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet it isn't.

If you wonder how much I will keep repeating it, I will keep repeating it until it hammers in your head that deism =/= atheism. The same as an Audi isn't a Toyota.

It's practically the same thing, yes, because they function practically the same. If I come up with something exactly identical to fascism in function, but then give it an officially strongly anti-fascist position, it might be technically anti-fascist, but practically it is fascism.

And yet they are not the same.

They are not the same because they contend different positions about a belief in a deity. Atheism is the belief of no deities, deists believe in a deity.

[The Archregimancy]

Not really practical atheism, it was not atheistic at all. It did fulfill a similar role in matters of the steering of governmental policy relative to the period as does atheism of this day, but then evangelical Christianity of the period fulfilled a similar role as modern liberal Christianity does today. But that is it merely parallels in operation in the context of the greater society rather than being practical conception or parallel of belief. Deism is not more practically atheism than a Bison is practically an Elephant.

I think you need to realize that the liberalism of the 1700's wouldn't have prevented the ruination of outspoken atheists as far as public office is concerned. Deism God stripped down to the barest lip service, it is a purely theoretical and useless theism that allows someone to behave as if they didn't believe in God, but say technically there is a God. Most influential deists would not have been influential if they were atheists.

I'm always amused by this apparent need on the part of a small subset of atheists to argue that 18th-century deists were actually atheists in disguise.

They weren't. They were 18th-century deists.

Arguing that they were functionally atheists - or must have been secretly atheists but period cultural constraints meant they couldn't express their true atheism - is simply not true. It's back-projection masquerading as wishful thinking.

While generalisation is difficult given that deism is a broad church (pun intended), for the most part 18th-century deists accepted the existence of a theistic creator while simultaneously rejecting 1) an interventionist deity and 2) revealed scriptural and priestly authority on the basis that the creator gave humans the ability to reason for themselves. This is clearly not atheism.

The real irony here is that arguing that 18th-century deists were somehow actually atheists is actually to embrace a common contemporary theist argument about deists, while ignoring that contemporary deists were usually fairly explicit about rejecting atheism. Indeed, the title 'deist' was originally specifically used to distinguish deists in opposition to atheism.

While I would regard it as an oversimplification, I would not consider an argument that 18th-century deism was an evolutionary stage on the road to atheistic non-belief to be wholly invalid. But even if we concede this point, being the ancestor of something isn't remotely the same as being functionally the same thing as the descendant.

[Morr]

It's practically the same thing, yes, because they function practically the same. If I come up with something exactly identical to fascism in function, but then give it an officially strongly anti-fascist position, it might be technically anti-fascist, but practically it is fascism.

And yet they are not the same.

They are not the same because they contend different positions about a belief in a deity. Atheism is the belief of no deities, deists believe in a deity.

But deism holds this belief to be irrelevant in practical sense.

[Morr]

I think you need to realize that the liberalism of the 1700's wouldn't have prevented the ruination of outspoken atheists as far as public office is concerned. Deism God stripped down to the barest lip service, it is a purely theoretical and useless theism that allows someone to behave as if they didn't believe in God, but say technically there is a God. Most influential deists would not have been influential if they were atheists.

I'm always amused by this apparent need on the part of a small subset of atheists to argue that 18th-century deists were actually atheists in disguise.

They weren't. They were 18th-century deists.

Arguing that they were functionally atheists - or must have been secretly atheists but period cultural constraints meant they couldn't express their true atheism - is simply not true. It's back-projection masquerading as wishful thinking.

While generalisation is difficult given that deism is a broad church (pun intended), for the most part 18th-century deists accepted the existence of a theistic creator while simultaneously rejecting 1) an interventionist deity and 2) revealed scriptural and priestly authority on the basis that the creator gave humans the ability to reason for themselves. This is clearly not atheism.

The real irony here is that arguing that 18th-century deists were somehow actually atheists is actually to embrace a common contemporary theist argument about deists, while ignoring that contemporary deists were usually fairly explicit about rejecting atheism. Indeed, the title 'deist' was originally specifically used to distinguish deists in opposition to atheism.

While I would regard it as an oversimplification, I would not consider an argument that 18th-century deism was an evolutionary stage on the road to atheistic non-belief to be wholly invalid. But even if we concede this point, being the ancestor of something isn't remotely the same as being functionally the same thing as the descendant.

I'm not an atheist.

Explain how deism in practical function is different from atheism.

[Cambernia]

I think you need to realize that the liberalism of the 1700's wouldn't have prevented the ruination of outspoken atheists as far as public office is concerned. Deism God stripped down to the barest lip service, it is a purely theoretical and useless theism that allows someone to behave as if they didn't believe in God, but say technically there is a God. Most influential deists would not have been influential if they were atheists.

I'm always amused by this apparent need on the part of a small subset of atheists to argue that 18th-century deists were actually atheists in disguise.

They weren't. They were 18th-century deists.

Arguing that they were functionally atheists - or must have been secretly atheists but period cultural constraints meant they couldn't express their true atheism - is simply not true. It's back-projection masquerading as wishful thinking.

While generalisation is difficult given that deism is a broad church (pun intended), for the most part 18th-century deists accepted the existence of a theistic creator while simultaneously rejecting 1) an interventionist deity and 2) revealed scriptural and priestly authority on the basis that the creator gave humans the ability to reason for themselves. This is clearly not atheism.

The real irony here is that arguing that 18th-century deists were somehow actually atheists is actually to embrace a common contemporary theist argument about deists, while ignoring that contemporary deists were usually fairly explicit about rejecting atheism. Indeed, the title 'deist' was originally specifically used to distinguish deists in opposition to atheism.

While I would regard it as an oversimplification, I would not consider an argument that 18th-century deism was an evolutionary stage on the road to atheistic non-belief to be wholly invalid. But even if we concede this point, being the ancestor of something isn't remotely the same as being functionally the same thing as the descendant.

I have to agree - as an atheist, I don't see the founding fathers being closet atheists. Deism can be summed up quite nicely as God being a clock-maker, he built the clock, assembled the gears, and sat back to let time tick her life away. This definitely correlates with the non-interventionist ideal - add in the fact of reason, Age of Enlightenment also commonly known as the Age of Reason anybody?

Many, many settlers, pilgrims, and others coming to settle the new world were looking for a new life, a new beginning, and an escape from religious persecution - it makes absolutely no sane, nor rational sense for them then, to reinstate the same archaic laws in the New World. Especially considering they just came from a country, and had first hand experience with seeing, dealing with, and overall experiencing the travesty of religious influence within their respective governments.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet they are not the same.

They are not the same because they contend different positions about a belief in a deity. Atheism is the belief of no deities, deists believe in a deity.

But deism holds this belief to be irrelevant in practical sense.

And yet they are not atheists.

The fact deists believe in a non-interventionist deity does not make it a non-belief of a deity.

[Geanna]

But deism holds this belief to be irrelevant in practical sense.

And yet they are not atheists.

The fact deists believe in a non-interventionist deity does not make it a non-belief of a deity.

Exactly

[Morr]

But deism holds this belief to be irrelevant in practical sense.

And yet they are not atheists.

Which branch of substance theory do you subscribe to in which praxis is irrelevant?

[Neutraligon]

But deism holds this belief to be irrelevant in practical sense.

And yet they are not atheists.

The fact deists believe in a non-interventionist deity does not make it a non-belief of a deity.

I find it funny that someone is trying to "broaden" the term atheist to include some theists, especially when most theists want to use the narrow definition to be atheists think gods do not exist.

[The Sons of Adam]

While your first sentence is correct, your second is quite wrong. Deism is a rejection of Dogma, not of the existence of God. Deism is wholly incompatible with atheism.

Deism rejects the afterlife, miracles, and the idea of god answering prayers or fiddling with creation. It's atheism from a practical standpoint.

No it isn't. The sadducees did not believe in the afterlife either. The only God is a natural one, whil you atheist don't believe in God. The difference is between night and day!

[Stormaen]

I'm now 99% sure this thread is a trollfest. The OP clearly isn't serious or isn't educated.

[Morr]

Deism rejects the afterlife, miracles, and the idea of god answering prayers or fiddling with creation. It's atheism from a practical standpoint.

No it isn't. The sadducees did not believe in the afterlife either. The only God is a natural one, whil you atheist don't believe in God. The difference is between night and day!

They did, however, believe in the other parts, and their life practice was heavily influenced by this belief.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet they are not atheists.

Which branch of substance theory do you subscribe to in which praxis is irrelevant?

What does the substance of a non-interventionist deity has fuck all to do with whether a deist believes a deity exists or not?

[Stormaen]

Deism rejects the afterlife, miracles, and the idea of god answering prayers or fiddling with creation. It's atheism from a practical standpoint.

No it isn't. The sadducees did not believe in the afterlife either. The only God is a natural one, whil you atheist don't believe in God. The difference is between night and day!

Deism =/= atheism.

There are four basic (ir)religious points of view:
Theist believes God made the universe and governs the universe. They don't necessarily believe in dogma or specific religious scripture.

Deist believes God made the universe but does not govern it or otherwise intervene in it, i.e. he made the watch but it operates independently of him. They also reject dogma and religious texts.

Agnostic believes only what is knowable. Essentially someone who "thinks something could be there but we can't know what".

Atheist we all know believes there is no God or other supreme being that either created or governs the universe. Likewise, they reject all religious scripture.

[Morr]

And yet they are not atheists.

The fact deists believe in a non-interventionist deity does not make it a non-belief of a deity.

I find it funny that someone is trying to "broaden" the term atheist to include some theists, especially when most theists want to use the narrow definition to be atheists think gods do not exist.

I'm saying that deism in government would be effectively the same as having an atheist government. It would mean the government's official position is that there is no afterlife, that there is no intervening God, and that prayers are pointless apart from placebo. It would officially recognize God as creating the universe, but from my perspective, it would nonetheless be an effectively atheist government in ways that a secular government is not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it isn't. The sadducees did not believe in the afterlife either. The only God is a natural one, whil you atheist don't believe in God. The difference is between night and day!

Deism =/= atheism.

There are four basic (ir)religious points of view:
Theist believes God made the universe and governs the universe. They don't necessarily believe in dogma or specific religious scripture.

Deist believes God made the universe but does not govern it or otherwise intervene in it, i.e. he made the watch but it operates independently of him. They also reject dogma and religious texts.

Agnostic believes only what is knowable. Essentially someone who "thinks something is there but doesn't know what".

Atheist we all know believes there is no God or other supreme being that either created or governs the universe. Likewise, they reject all religious scripture.

Deism doesn't necessarily reject dogma and religious texts. They just don't see them as something of primary authority given the fact that these books were written in a human language by human men.

In other words, a deist can accept a religion, they just do not see any reason to believe the religious teachings of said religion were inspired by a particular deity given said deity doesn't intervene in their point of view.

[Neutraligon]

No it isn't. The sadducees did not believe in the afterlife either. The only God is a natural one, whil you atheist don't believe in God. The difference is between night and day!

Deism =/= atheism.

There are four basic (ir)religious points of view:
Theist believes God made the universe and governs the universe. They don't necessarily believe in dogma or specific religious scripture.

Deist believes God made the universe but does not govern it or otherwise intervene in it, i.e. he made the watch but it operates independently of him. They also reject dogma and religious texts.

Agnostic believes only what is knowable. Essentially someone who "thinks something could be there but we can't know what".

Atheist we all know believes there is no God or other supreme being that either created or governs the universe. Likewise, they reject all religious scripture.

Wrong. You are correct about Theist. An atheist is not the believe that there is no gods,, rather it is a rejection of the theist claim. An atheist can be an agnostic atheist, that is they lack belief in a god or a gnostic atheist, meaning they actively believe there are no gods. A theist can be a gnostic theist that is they absolutely believe a god exists, and an agnostic theist, meaning they believe a god exists but are not certain.

Deism is a subset of theism.

[Morr]

Which branch of substance theory do you subscribe to in which praxis is irrelevant?

What does the substance of a non-interventionist deity has fuck all to do with whether a deist believes a deity exists or not?

I'm talking about individual substance, not about God's substance.

[Norstal]

I think you need to realize that the liberalism of the 1700's wouldn't have prevented the ruination of outspoken atheists as far as public office is concerned. Deism God stripped down to the barest lip service, it is a purely theoretical and useless theism that allows someone to behave as if they didn't believe in God, but say technically there is a God. Most influential deists would not have been influential if they were atheists.

I'm always amused by this apparent need on the part of a small subset of atheists to argue that 18th-century deists were actually atheists in disguise.

Really? More Christians argue this than atheists do. Probably because atheists are sick and tired of having to explain what atheism is so much they'd know the difference.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I find it funny that someone is trying to "broaden" the term atheist to include some theists, especially when most theists want to use the narrow definition to be atheists think gods do not exist.

I'm saying that deism in government would be effectively the same as having an atheist government. It would mean the government's official position is that there is no afterlife, that there is no intervening God, and that prayers are pointless apart from placebo. It would officially recognize God as creating the universe, but from my perspective, it would nonetheless be an effectively atheist government in ways that a secular government is not.

Which, quite frankly, are not questions the government should be dwelling into.

The function of the government is to govern a group of people in a geographical area and to protect and foster their rights and practice of said rights, not whether there is an afterlife or not.

[Neutraligon]

I find it funny that someone is trying to "broaden" the term atheist to include some theists, especially when most theists want to use the narrow definition to be atheists think gods do not exist.

I'm saying that deism in government would be effectively the same as having an atheist government. It would mean the government's official position is that there is no afterlife, that there is no intervening God, and that prayers are pointless apart from placebo. It would officially recognize God as creating the universe, but from my perspective, it would nonetheless be an effectively atheist government in ways that a secular government is not.

that is the difference right there. An atheist does not hold that belief.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What does the substance of a non-interventionist deity has fuck all to do with whether a deist believes a deity exists or not?

I'm talking about individual substance, not about God's substance.

I just described to you that non-interventionism =/= rejection.

Does that mean that if the United States takes a non-interventionist policy that the United States doesn't exist?