The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Am I a Deist?

before im really sure that god dont exist because of history and evidence but now i think there is god. he, she, or it leave the world after he,she, or it created.i believe there is creator but he doesnt communicate in humanity, he dont make miracles. am i deist? do you have these thoughts? any advice?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greta K. on February 17, 2010 at 3:33pm

What has sudddenly made you think there is a god? wouldn't some creator who just stepped away beg the question, who made the creatotor, etc.
Yes, this belief of yours does make you a deist.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roxanne on February 17, 2010 at 3:48pm

I would agree, that you would be a Deist. And I also would like to know what made you believe in a creator? I once believed in a creator like you, but found the lack of evidence a compelling case to become an atheist. I am not however, opposed to the idea of a creator. If strong enough evidence existed I would have to keep myself more open to the possibilities of a God and/or supernatural occurrences.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on February 18, 2010 at 6:16pm

Asking_advice: i think these because one day i thought there are things we cant understand. im against in religion. it dont make any good in humanity.

What I have never understood is why things one can't understand leads one to posit a god or a deity or anything supernatural at all. If you are atheist, then you do not believe in such supernatural creator beings. If you are a deep-thinking atheist, then you will wonder about how it all began. You will want to be able to answer the philosophical questions. And if you are an atheist, you will want the answers in atheistic terms.

The best way to understand the universe, and how it came to be as it is, and how life came to be, and how humans came to be as they are, is through science. I think like that, because science has a philosophy, and that philosophy ensures that science is based on evidence, corroboration, rigorous testing and so on.

In this world view, humans came to be as they are via evolution, and the spark of life was, (hypothetically), via abiogenesis; (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Thus humans are the product of evolution, and so is our knowledge. In other words what we understand about the universe is like an opening flower. Our knowledge began as a fully enclosed bud, with the real understanding hidden.

In early human history people invented explanations for what they saw happening. Since the explanations were invented, they included supernatural things like magic and gods. The understanding was quite removed from reality. But over the millennia, we have developed the scientific way of discovering knowledge about reality.

This means that the flower of knowledge has been opening, to reveal the petals of more realistic understanding inside. What all this boils down to is that we know a lot more now about how the universe is, and how it operates, than we, (humanity), once did. But in this opening flower bud analogy, the process continues. The flower of knowledge and understanding is not yet in full bloom.

We still don't know or understand everything, nor may we ever know and understand everything. But historically, we can see that what was once thought to be magical in the supernatural sense, can be understood in a natural physical law-driven way. The origin of the universe, one might postulate, is due to a deity. However, scientists are avidly looking for & at explanations which do not include a god, deity or supernatural mumbo jumbo.

The flower of knowledge continues to unfurl, and as an atheist, I see no reason to invent an explanation, and postulate that it will need a deity to complete the picture of existence. For the lay person there is the problem of having to trust that what scientists tell us is true. But we are generally capable of understanding at least some aspects of science, and the principles of scientific investigation to a level which allows us to find that science can be trusted as a rigorously produced body of knowledge about reality.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skeptic on February 17, 2010 at 3:54pm

Yep...that’s deism. I can’t even begin to understand your position.
When contemplating the possibility of a deistic god, I have to admit to myself that one certainly could exist. But with a non-personal god, who doesn't expect you to do anything in particular while you are on earth, no rewards, no punishment, no rules, no vicarious redemption and miracles….I say who gives a shit? Being a theist almost makes more sense to me than the idea of deism. At least with theism you operate under the assumption that you can earn eternal rewards simply for being ignorant enough to believe in something without any evidence (on faith alone)...not to mention the fact that your ghostly friend will be happy to help you find your lost car keys if you only ask. Where does deism get you? Certainly no eternal rewards….and you’ll probably want to pick up a bus pass because you’ll never find your car keys.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on February 17, 2010 at 4:20pm

Deism is probably a 'so what?' proposition.

It should be noted that it doesn't have to be a 'creator' scenario in any common use of the term. One form of deism describes the universe as aware of itself and creating itself in a way analogous but completely alien to how we are self-aware and grow. Some call this a form of pantheism - but it is only vaguely related.

I'm not a deist, per se. I only accept as real things that can substantively interact. However, we do know that how substances are structured, configured, are inter-related, etc. results in variability of properties and attributes such that, for example, carbon may be a majority component of both coal and diamonds, or a significant component of carbon-dioxide and human beings.

It is very difficult to say what attributes the universe may exhibit as a whole when seen from the vantage point of a very brief and tiny speck within it - no matter how remarkable our tools for observing and measuring it have become.

Nevertheless, an existential deistic approach might be healthier in that, rather than promoting the theistic idea that we, as individuals, live forever while this reality is a sham, it promotes the idea that the universe lives on while our individual 'selves' are temporary.

Deism gets you no more or less than atheism - with the possible exception of a more profound reverence for existence. I see no harm in it whatsoever.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SecularCortex13.x on February 17, 2010 at 8:34pm

the deities that catch my attention from time to time have nice hips, 5'5" and strong legs
dough!?!?

I had to. Don't hate me, just sigh.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timothy W. Brown on February 18, 2010 at 9:32am

Why choose to believe in a god if you are in an atheistic site?

The thought of a personal god is around the same as believing in a deity of a much larger religion - there is absolutely no proof for the Muslim god, no proof for the Christian god, no proof for Zeus, Krishna... no deity that has ever existed has displayed a single shard of proof, so how does your personal god differ?

My belief is that you can "feel" some sort of presence, or you just can't imagine how everything got here without a god.

It's a very odd thing to ponder about, I know - but it is certainly nothing to explain with an invisible man in the sky. Science has explained absolutely everything logically and with indisputable facts up till now, and until it ceases doing so it will be my only explanation for anything.

We will always have a scientific, logical explanation for everything. We just have to find it first.