Deism, the skeptic's religion.

[Space Marine]

A brief tale of my adventures in religious-land, to start with:

 

I was never a religious person until around 2000 when I met a Christian girl and fell in love with her and had already been questioning the whole Jesus thing. It worked out well for a few years until we broke up and I decided that Christians are largely judgmental and ever eager to argue the existence of Christ just because, often getting mad at you if you even question it.

 

As a kid, I didn't know about Jesus. The only thing I remember was a photo of the Sacred Heart in my (now deceased) sister's closet, and to be quite honest, it freaked me out (hey, I was a kid and it's a picture of a guy with a heart with thorns around it hovering in front of him). However, as young as I can remember, I've always believed in God, without anyone having to tell me or remind me.

 

In 2003, when I realized that Christianity was not right for me, I still felt upset that I hadn't found what I was truly looking for. Something that made more sense spiritually. The books of the Bible provide great lessons, but I didn't believe the Bible was nearly 100% true or even divine. So I was talking to a friend late last year and through our conversation, discovered Deism. She briefly explained it and in that brief explanation I was intrigued and decided to look up more information on it. What I found was enthralling.

 

Not only was America founded largely by those of Deistic "faith" and not Christians as many seem to think it was, but it makes perfect sense to me. For those of you who do not know what Deism is (because it appears to be a very unpopular belief system), here are some quotes that explain it from its founders' (and Wikipedia's) points of view better than I could with my own:

 

Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience. This is in contrast to fideism which is found in many forms of Christianity[1]. Islamic and Judaic teachings hold that religion relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

The bolded text really set me thinking. Why should we believe that an ordinary book was divinely inspired, when mankind is well known to try and control the masses in such ways? We shouldn't. Even Buddha has a quote referring to why we should not believe simply because others believe, the very nature of Deism, or rather: We shouldn't believe because someone wrote what could simply be an amusing story with tried and true morals throughout (except the subjugation of women and slaves that the first testament is so fond of).

 

Another definition of Deism:

 

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."

Another very important bit of information is as follows:

 

Most deists saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general.

 

 

According to this world view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and "mysteries" — irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on the priests' authority. This kept the laity baffled by the nonsensical "mysteries", confused, and dependent on the priests for information about the requirements for salvation. The priests consequently enjoyed a position of considerable power over the laity, which they strove to maintain and increase. Deists referred to this kind of manipulation of religious doctrine as "priestcraft", a highly derogatory term.

Did you know that much of the Bible has been manipulated by the Catholic church to take out things which would hurt their efforts to control the populace? Hell, Christianity never even truly existed once Constantine mixed Christ's word with Pagan traditions so that it could be deemed "legal" to practice, and that was before any of you or your parents or their parents ever heard of Jesus.

 

I am not flaming or criticizing any particular religion in this post, I'm simply letting people know about the intelligent alternative to believing what could effectively be a series of stories written by bored old men that are now as outdated as drilling a hole in your head to cure a migraine.

 

I believe in God through my experiences and through my God-given reason, not because the Bible told me to.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Space Marine

[ahoydave]

I had a look at this Deism and read some of the things from some Deistic website. I'm not going to try and argue with all the stuff that they have there because it would take forever and I doubt I'd convince anyone. You have to decide this sort of thing for yourself but please note that in saying that I am not saying that it doesn't matter what you decide. The question of whether God exists and our relationship with Him is something which potentially makes a HUGE difference. If the bible is true and Christians are right, then rejecting what it says has eternal consequences. That is not a reason to believe the bible but it IS a reason to be careful what you decide. Also don't fall into the trap of excluding the possibility that God HAS revealed himself in the bible (or in some other way).

 

Deists say that we should be careful that we don't end up listening to and trusting the words of mere man. I'd like to second that because it applies to their arguments too. Clever arguments and well written papers exist on both sides of many arguments. One side is still wrong and one is right. Look at both sides carefully and decide for yourself. Oh and as a side note, reason IS God-given so use it. But make sure you are actually using it and not just saying so.

 

A problem that I have with the deist view is that it seems to be a good way of removing consequence from belief in God. They end up with a God who they can believe in (satisfying their inescapable belief in God) but who requires nothing of them. It smacks a little of the easy way out. That of course doesn't make it false, but it is consistent with man's general pattern of NOT doing what God says.

Edited February 25, 2008 by ahoydave
can't spell properly

[Geishawhelk]

I'm not a christian, I'm Buddhist. I agree though, with what ahoydave says, particularly this bit:

 

A problem that I have with the deist view is that it seems to be a good way of removing consequence from belief in God. They end up with a God who they can believe in (satisfying their inescapable belief in God) but who requires nothing of them. It smacks a little of the easy way out. That of course doesn't make it false, but it is consistent with man's general pattern of NOT doing what God says

.

 

First of all, wikipedia is one of the least reliable sources of information going. You could go into that entry yourself, and alter or add anything you wish to.

The fact that it's written by the founder, is further evidence, if you like, of how 'one-sided' the article is. it's hardly unbiased and objective, is it?

 

To be perfectly honest - this sounds like "Buddhism-but-don't-let-go-of-God-just-in-case".....

 

having your cake and eating it too.

 

Namaste.

 

GW.

[Space Marine]

First off, Wikipedia is not nearly as unreliable as most want to think it is. Yes, you can edit anything you want into an article, but if it's not found to be accurate by the majority of people who specialize in researching that particular kind of information, then it is promptly edited out.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10478207/?GT1=7516

 

To say that Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information is not only incorrect, but ignorant, seeing as the most pressing articles cite their sources and vandalism is cleaned up on an hourly basis. The "owner" has nothing to do with what people write on Wikipedia, and has even been the target of a smear campaign, probably from people who also dispute the site's factual content.

 

Now, onto Deism. I expect that people who have been fed religion all of their lives will be "spiritually" (ie: not spiritually) compelled to disagree with its tenets, but I'll touch on the negative aspects you bring up, regardless of whether your mind is open enough to accept the possibility they might be true:

 

Belief without consequence: This is a perfect reason I stopped practicing Christianity. Who says there should be consequences, and why are Deists any less faithful for believing that God created the universe, but did not happen to wrestle Jacob in the wilderness and burned people in holy fire for not stoning their kids to death on His command? That's ludicrous. So is this reason:

 

Better safe than sorry: The problem I have with that is that it shows you have no will of your own if you allow yourself to believe in words that were probably not written by anyone but a mere mortal. So scared are you to be cast into the fire, that you will be a "slave". No one that believes just because the Bible says so actually gives God enough credit. I think God would be far more intelligent than to give us no proof that He exists, then torture us for not doing so. Many people believe because they are afraid not to.

 

Furthermore, why didn't either of you touch upon the very sound truths about the clergy and their manipulation of people over the ages, something that still happens to this day? Are Deists wrong in this aspect too?

 

No. As far as I can see, they're completely right. Take for example, that they believe man has corrupted a central religion. Man actually has done this. As blasphemous as it may sound to some of you, the Bible takes several stories from older religions and makes them their own. Emperor Constantine pretty much trashed Christianity as it should have been simply by making it legal and then mixing it with Pagan traditions, something the God of the Bible would most certainly frown upon, given His opinion of paganism.

 

Deism's slogan, as it were, is "God gave us reason, not religion." If you want to argue with that, be my guest, but man gave us religion, and by buying into it completely because they say so, you're betraying yourself, IMO.

[Space Marine]

I'm not a christian, I'm Buddhist. I agree though, with what ahoydave says, particularly this bit:

 

.

 

First of all, wikipedia is one of the least reliable sources of information going. You could go into that entry yourself, and alter or add anything you wish to.

The fact that it's written by the founder, is further evidence, if you like, of how 'one-sided' the article is. it's hardly unbiased and objective, is it?

 

To be perfectly honest - this sounds like "Buddhism-but-don't-let-go-of-God-just-in-case".....

 

having your cake and eating it too.

 

Namaste.

 

GW.

 

No offense, but do you know what you're talking about? Honestly. When you make a statement such as "Wikipedia is written by the founder", I question your logic bigtime. So he writes every entry? Do you know how many edits take place per day on Wikipedia? Probably more than the entire sum of posts on this forum.

 

But they're apparently biased because ... why, again?

[sb129]

Sounds all a bit DIY to me. Its not that different to those who made up their own religions (eg mormonism, scientology) when the traditional ones didn't quite suit their "requirements".

 

If you tried to use Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper in any respected academic institution, you would be laughed at.

 

Wikipedia is a useful quick reference tool, but should never be used as the ONLY reference tool.

[sb129]

PS- I am a sceptic, hence the reason why I am an atheist. No need to believe here.

[Space Marine]

Sounds all a bit DIY to me. Its not that different to those who made up their own religions (eg mormonism, scientology) when the traditional ones didn't quite suit their "requirements".

 

If you tried to use Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper in any respected academic institution, you would be laughed at.

 

Wikipedia is a useful quick reference tool, but should never be used as the ONLY reference tool.

 

Then all one need do is look up Deism on Google, or hell, go to the library if you don't trust the internet and the sources Wikipedia gives at the ends of their articles.

 

And all religion is "DIY". Does "tradition" equal "truth"? What makes old men writing the tenets of Christianity anymore valid than someone doing something similar hundreds of years later, without the miracles, angels and oh yeah, burning in Hell for not accepting what they wrote?

 

I used to get religious people, but now I understand I misunderstood (generalization, not directed at the atheist poster, who would, by most accounts, not be considered religious).

[Geishawhelk]

No offense, but do you know what you're talking about? Honestly. When you make a statement such as "Wikipedia is written by the founder", I question your logic bigtime. So he writes every entry? Do you know how many edits take place per day on Wikipedia? Probably more than the entire sum of posts on this forum.

 

But they're apparently biased because ... why, again?

 

Yes, I do know what I am talking about. An awful ot of information on Wikipedia is discounted... if you look at many entries, you will see "Citation needed" all over the place, because the information has not been substantiated.

I happen to know one of the people who edit wikipedia and he says it's fast becoming a logistical nightmare, so that they are now relying on reports from readers to point out glaring errors. ut the site is so vast, they can't keep up. He admits there is probably a good quarter of it they should erase completely... And I didn't say wikipedia was written by the founder, I'm talking about the Deism article. You said yourself content was submitted by the founders. My friend states that people promoting their own ideology should not post at all, due to obvious bias.

 

Wikipedia as a reliable, incontestable source of reference is banned by most education establishments for these reasons.

 

I don't know whay you're getting so defensive about it. It's a well-known fact. And we're not condemning you, just wiki.

[Geishawhelk]

Also, I don't know to whom you are addressing your post #4, so I can't presume to answer you on any points, there....

[sb129]

Then all one need do is look up Deism on Google, or hell, go to the library if you don't trust the internet and the sources Wikipedia gives at the ends of their articles.

 

I didn't say I didn't TRUST it. I just said you shouldn't use it as the ONLY source of information, and that in academic circles, its not a respected information source.

I am quite capable and well aware of where else to get further information, thank you.

 

Sheesh- I use wikipedia all the time. The difference is I am not trying to convince people of anything nor am I writing research.

 

And all religion is "DIY". Does "tradition" equal "truth"? What makes old men writing the tenets of Christianity anymore valid than someone doing something similar hundreds of years later, without the miracles, angels and oh yeah, burning in Hell for not accepting what they wrote?

Precisely.

 

It doesn't. Both sets of people are inventing things as they go along. I don't believe in any of it. Deism sounds like a pre-cursor to a new religion.

 

How is Deism any different from agnosticism? Or "on the fence-ism"

 

 

I used to get religious people, but now I understand I misunderstood (generalization, not directed at the atheist poster, who would, by most accounts, not be considered religious).

 

I am religiously an atheist.

[blind_otter]

 

To be perfectly honest - this sounds like "Buddhism-but-don't-let-go-of-God-just-in-case".....

 

having your cake and eating it too.

 

Namaste.

 

GW.

 

Hee hee. Sorta like pure land buddhism?

 

OP - Anyways I've always liked Deism. I've vascillated when it comes to religion throughout my life. Even converted to Buddhism for a few years, but personal experience with divinity changed my heart. I feel divinity very viscerally, it's not something I can explain with words very clearly. But since I was a very small child I have always had an understanding of God.

 

I definitely look up to a lot of famous deists, too. Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, good ol' crazy Benjamin Franklin.

[Space Marine]

You misread me. I said that on Wikipedia you will find quotes from the founders of Deism, not Wikipedia's founders, sources provided.

 

And once again, if Wikipedia is so wrong, find another source or click the links provided in the articles, but they're going to tell you the same thing in different words.

[sb129]

Yes, I do know what I am talking about. An awful ot of information on Wikipedia is discounted... if you look at many entries, you will see "Citation needed" all over the place, because the information has not been substantiated.

I happen to know one of the people who edit wikipedia and he says it's fast becoming a logistical nightmare, so that they are now relying on reports from readers to point out glaring errors. ut the site is so vast, they can't keep up. He admits there is probably a good quarter of it they should erase completely... And I didn't say wikipedia was written by the founder, I'm talking about the Deism article.

 

This doesn't surprise me at all. I tend to stay away from any topics that might need further citations....there are loads more resources out there if you really need accurate information.

It is good for travel info, pictures and celeb info and other such trivialties though.

 

I haven't looked up deism- I tend to get swamped by the millions of cross references... I remember looking up scientology and spent a good few hours reading all the cross references, and ended up wondering why i had wasted my time, as I didn't really even care enough about it!

 

Like anything, it sucks you in...

[Space Marine]

I didn't say I didn't TRUST it. I just said you shouldn't use it as the ONLY source of information, and that in academic circles, its not a respected information source.

I am quite capable and well aware of where else to get further information, thank you.

 

Sheesh- I use wikipedia all the time. The difference is I am not trying to convince people of anything nor am I writing research.

 

I was speaking to everyone when I said they should find a source they're comfortable with. I trust Wikipedia as well, but despite my posts here, I do realize that there is a margin for error on the part of the editors and the site itself. I just think simply because they're not being paid to write the articles doesn't mean they know less.

 

Deism sounds like a pre-cursor to a new religion.

A bit late for that. Deism has been around for a long time now, a number of the founders of this country (USA) were some hardcore Deists. Deism may be a popular alternative to the "big" religions, ie: revealed religions, someday, but if you notice, when you go to a dating site or just about anywhere else, they list pretty much every religion you've heard of, but Deism falls under "Other". It's one of the things that irritates me. People will accept Christianity because of two reasons:

 

1.) So many people believe in it (thanks to the murderous Crusades, yay!)

 

2.) A book tells them to.

 

Yet Deism asks that one uses reason in place of revelation and it's not even taken seriously.

 

I am religiously an atheist.

lol. Touché.

[sb129]

 

A bit late for that. Deism has been around for a long time now, a number of the founders of this country (USA) were some hardcore Deists. Deism may be a popular alternative to the "big" religions, ie: revealed religions, someday, but if you notice, when you go to a dating site or just about anywhere else, they list pretty much every religion you've heard of, but Deism falls under "Other". It's one of the things that irritates me

.

 

Let me rephrase.

 

Deism sounds like it most likely has been a precursor to some of the newer religions.

 

Its still a bit contradictory. True reason doesn't support evidence for any kind of deity IMO.

[Space Marine]

I dunno, you compared it to scientology. Scientology is not reason, that's fiction. Now I feel like bashing Scientology. I'm all for religious tolerance, but scientology (you know what, I'm not even going to go back and captialize it) is not a religion, it's a cult. It's a scam. I ..... wait a minute, why did my spell check underline scientology but not Scientology?

 

That's ****ing creepy.

[Geishawhelk]

Hee hee. Sorta like pure land buddhism?

 

 

Yes, personally, I wouldn't touch PLB with your barge-pole, let alone mine!!

[sb129]

I dunno, you compared it to scientology.

 

I didn't really compare it to scientology! i just used scientology as an example of a newer made up religion and how I got sucked into wasting a few hours on wikipedia.

 

Deism does sound a little bit like what some people get into before they then start their own religion to suit their own beliefs a bit more.

 

Scientology is not reason, that's fiction. Now I feel like bashing Scientology. I'm all for religious tolerance, but scientology (you know what, I'm not even going to go back and captialize it) is not a religion, it's a cult. It's a scam..

 

Hey, I am with you on this. Out of all the religions, (most of which to me are not reason and have cult-ishness) this is by far and away the wackiest.

[Geishawhelk]

Space Marine, just as a point of interest, have you explored Buddhism?

There isn't even a God there to manifest, so there is an even greater sense of personal freedom.

Just asking out of curiosity, honestly. That's all.

If you'd prefer, you can PM me.

 

[Space Marine]

Good question. To be honest, I am thinking very strongly of exploring Buddhism deeper. Deism, though agreeable to me, doesn't have quite the "spiritual" depth one who is not a nonbeliever tends to seek in life, and I agree with many Buddhist tenets and practices. It's going to be a tough decision in the end. I've always been more intellectual than spiritual, so Deism and its love of science and reason draw me in.

 

Buddhism, however, sounds very peaceful. I'd probably have to give up being angry. I don't know if I'm prepared to do that yet. lol

 

By the way, I can't PM yet. Not an established member.

[Geishawhelk]

No - you don't have to give up being angry at all. You can be as angry as you like.

you just have to give up 'Holding on' to anger. There's a difference....

 

I would give you a couple of websites to visit, if you want. It's up to you. That way, you could garner the opinions, views and knowledge , in answer to any questions you might have, from people far more knowledgeable and studious than I. They would offer everything they could to give you satisfactory replies.

 

But only if you want.

 

And as we say in Buddhism, Ehi Passiko.

You'd have to see, weigh up, examine, decide and conclude everything for yourself.

[Space Marine]

Actually yes, I would like that very much, seeing as when I look up Buddhism on Google, I don't always get the deepest sites on the subject. Sites like Religious Tolerance. org are more of a jack of all trades information site, and maybe you know of somewhere else I could peruse.

 

Thanks. You can post them in this thread, I don't mind. We've already gone off onto Christianity, scientology, a little Buddha never hurt.

[sb129]

Actually yes, I would like that very much, seeing as when I look up Buddhism on Google, I don't always get the deepest sites on the subject. Sites like Religious Tolerance. org are more of a jack of all trades information site, and maybe you know of somewhere else I could peruse.

 

Thanks. You can post them in this thread, I don't mind. We've already gone off onto Christianity, scientology, a little Buddha never hurt.

 

 

You might be better off to start a new thread about buddhism. The mods are pretty strict about staying on topic. Just some friendly advice! You might get some more perspectives too...

[Geishawhelk]

You might be better off to start a new thread about buddhism. The mods are pretty strict about staying on topic. Just some friendly advice! You might get some more perspectives too...

 

You're absolutely right.....there's this one, and this one too...

 

I'll post the links at the end of the first one....

 

Thanks for the timely reminder, sb129....