Fire & Brimstone Deism

[ThePainefulTruth]

As far as I know, there is no deist church as such, nor is there a standard belief in a Hereafter, much less one resorting to the tactic fear via eternal hellfire which would certainly be offensive to God and a Heavenly Host. What I mean by the title is that while deists believe in the use of reason rather than high pressure proselytizing--usually accompanied by the collection of contributions, there is nonetheless a passion for religious/philosophical objective belief. The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that such as pandeism, panendeism, however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation.

You may ask, why the passion? The answer is that any society will be stronger if it's citizens guide their hearts with their minds instead of letting the emotions run rampant which leads to blind faith, blindly seeking unreasoned self/group gratification which always leads to a moral/legal double standard--THE root of all evil and corruption. Some will say that deism is no different than atheism, to which I would agree except for one aspect: deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't; while atheism would mean oblivion for all. If there is no Hereafter, then for us, God would be totally irrelevant.

And don't let the fact that some of us are having a pretty good life, lead us to believe that there are many who, through no fault of their own, don't. Others also let this good life lead them to the conclusion that eternity would eventually be boring. To them I say, an infinite number of souls (+God?) can come up with an infinite number of paths for (eternal?) fulfillment; but if not, I think we can assume there's always the oblivion option for those who desire it.

 

[George-ananda]

Any beliefs beyond that such as pandeism, panendeism, however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation.

As a Vedic (Hindu) pantheist myself who wouldn't wish to believe 'irrelevant speculation', I believe there is sufficient evidence (not 'proof') for my beliefs (from the collected study of the human experience; beyond the normal phenomena and those who claim direct insight beyond the physical senses). If one requires 'proof' then one I would think would be an agnostic and not a deist.

Some will say that deism is no different than atheism, to which I would agree except for one aspect: deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't; while atheism would mean oblivion for all. If there is no Hereafter, then for us, God would be totally irrelevant.

And don't let the fact that some of us are having a pretty good life, lead us to believe that there are many who, through no fault of their own, don't. Others also let this good life lead them to the conclusion that eternity would eventually be boring. To them I say, an infinite number of souls (+God?) can come up with an infinite number of paths for (eternal?) fulfillment; but if not, I think we can assume there's always the oblivion option for those who desire it.

As one who believes in an afterlife based on evidence, our beliefs only effect the initial stage of our afterlife experience. It really is not that important if you are an atheist, deist, or pantheist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As a Vedic (Hindu) pantheist myself who wouldn't wish to believe 'irrelevant speculation', I believe there is sufficient evidence (not 'proof') for my beliefs (from the collected study of the human experience; beyond the normal phenomena and those who claim direct insight beyond the physical senses). If one requires 'proof' then one I would think would be an agnostic and not a deist.

As listed under my avatar, I am an agnostic-deist--that is what I believe, but claim no knowledge of, and the only evidence is the total lack of evidence except the existence of the universe. That evidence only supports deism or atheism without further evidence for an interactive God, of which there is none for any revealed religion, including Hindu, beyond hearsay, which is of no value on it's own. I don't believe there's any such non-hearsay evidence out there, but if there is, it's of no reasonable value to anyone else, and that evidence for one's self should be suspect on the basis of our many human fallibilities. It is can't be rationally communicated to others, it is highly suspect.

As one who believes in an afterlife based on evidence, our beliefs only effect the initial stage of our afterlife experience. It really is not that important if you are an atheist, deist, or pantheist.

Initial stage, where does that come from????......and what evidence for an afterlife, besides hearsay.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

As far as I know, there is no deist church as such, nor is there a standard belief in a Hereafter, much less one resorting to the tactic fear via eternal hellfire which would certainly be offensive to God and a Heavenly Host. What I mean by the title is that while deists believe in the use of reason rather than high pressure proselytizing--usually accompanied by the collection of contributions, there is nonetheless a passion for religious/philosophical objective belief. The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that such as pandeism, panendeism, however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation.

You may ask, why the passion? The answer is that any society will be stronger if it's citizens guide their hearts with their minds instead of letting the emotions run rampant which leads to blind faith, blindly seeking unreasoned self/group gratification which always leads to a moral/legal double standard--THE root of all evil and corruption. Some will say that deism is no different than atheism, to which I would agree except for one aspect: deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't; while atheism would mean oblivion for all. If there is no Hereafter, then for us, God would be totally irrelevant.

And don't let the fact that some of us are having a pretty good life, lead us to believe that there are many who, through no fault of their own, don't. Others also let this good life lead them to the conclusion that eternity would eventually be boring. To them I say, an infinite number of souls (+God?) can come up with an infinite number of paths for (eternal?) fulfillment; but if not, I think we can assume there's always the oblivion option for those who desire it.

Atheism = There is no god.

An atheist could technically believe in an afterlife, they are just not likely to because most atheist are atheist because they require evidence before belief.

 

[RRex]

I don't want to live forever anyway. I'm bloody tired.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism = There is no god.

An atheist could technically believe in an afterlife, they are just not likely to because most atheist are atheist because they require evidence before belief.

But the only evidence available is the perfect lack of evidence concerning the origin of the universe, or what came "before". I understand atheism, and as I've said, it's as reasonable as deism. So given that, atheism is 100% individual preference. My question is why reject hope--fear of disappointment and betrayal as happens with revealed religions? Better to resign yourself to the pessimistic possibility rather than be jilted again?

I don't want to live forever anyway. I'm bloody tired.

That response is far too glib. Why not check it out, whether God is there or not, then, if you're still tired, bored or whatever, just opt for oblivion. Would you dismiss trading in your car for a new flying yacht for free without even testing it in a similar cavalier fashion? Or are you worried about "qualifying" given all those residual revealed religious qualifications you were brought up to believe in? Or....were you originally brought up (read indoctrinated) as an atheist?

Yet you label yourself a deist????

 

[RRex]

That response is far too glib. Why not check it out, whether God is there or not, then, if you're still tired, bored or whatever, just opt for oblivion. Would you dismiss trading in your car for a new flying yacht for free without even testing it in a similar cavalier fashion?

You don't understand just how tired I am.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You don't understand just how tired I am.

Why do you call yourself a deist? Is it not possible that if there is a Hereafter, there would be rejuvenation? I am very baffled.

 

[RRex]

Why do you call yourself a deist? Is it not possible that if there is a Hereafter, there would be rejuvenation? I am very baffled.

I call myself a Deist because I believe that something, some entity created all this then sat back to watch it all unfold. It doesn't interfere, but it wrote the story and is a spectator of its own creation.

As regards what happens after my death, I don't care. I want it over. I have suffered terribly for 50+ years. I want it OVER.

One edit - I would like to see my father again. I guess, if I could spend eternity with my father, I might not mind continuing in the afterlife. He was a very kind man who loved me very much.



Two edit - I'd also like to spend eternity with all my dead kitties.

Thank you for making me think about it a little deeper.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I call myself a Deist because I believe that something, some entity created all this then sat back to watch it all unfold. It doesn't interfere, but it wrote the story and is a spectator of its own creation.

As regards what happens after my death, I don't care. I want it over. I have suffered terribly for 50+ years. I want it OVER.

One edit - I would like to see my father again. I guess, if I could spend eternity with my father, I might not mind continuing in the afterlife. He was a very kind man who loved me very much.



Two edit - I'd also like to spend eternity with all my dead kitties.

Thank you for making me think about it a little deeper.

And given the wonders, for most of us, in this natural creation, we can barely imagine the possibilities in a supernatural one. Think father and kittens x infinity x an infinity of other positive possibilities. I would think having a consciousness free from your suffering would be an enormous plus all by itself. Your situation calls to mind Stephen Hawking, who as an atheist, was forced to admit that there was no proof that there was no God, leaving him to have to begrudgingly admit that a hands off God is possible.

 

[George-ananda]

That evidence only supports deism or atheism without further evidence for an interactive God, of which there is none for any revealed religion, including Hindu, beyond hearsay, which is of no value on it's own.
What does it take for you to consider something evidence?
I don't believe there's any such non-hearsay evidence out there, but if there is, it's of no reasonable value to anyone else, and that evidence for one's self should be suspect on the basis of our many human fallibilities. It is can't be rationally communicated to others, it is highly suspect.

We disagree about the value of 'hearsay' (anecdotal) evidence on non-reproducible events. We should consider this evidence and make a rational analysis of what we think is going on.

Initial stage, where does that come from????......and what evidence for an afterlife, besides hearsay.

Here's a good link:

Afterlife Evidence

Here is the first paragraph from the site:

If you've never investigated the scientific evidence, proving the existence of spirits and the afterlife you might be surprised to learn how much solid evidence there is. There was sufficient evidence reported by highly reputable scientists for afterlife research to have been accepted by mainstream science as long ago as 1922. It is very easy to read a brief description of the evidence for the paranormal and dismiss it by assuming some normal explanation. However, if you put in the time and effort to learn more, you will find that there have been many careful investigations that rule out the conventional explanations. A good way to learn more about this evidence is to look at these free e-books and other sources of information:

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We disagree about the value of 'hearsay' (anecdotal) evidence on non-reproducible events. We should consider this evidence and make a rational analysis of what we think is going on.

There's no basis for making a rational analysis, especially when it happened 2000 years ago.

If you've never investigated the

scientific evidence, proving the existence of spirits and the afterlife you might be surprised to learn how much solid evidence there is. There was sufficient evidence reported by highly reputable scientists for afterlife research to have been accepted by mainstream science as long ago as 1922. It is very easy to read a brief description of the evidence for the paranormal and dismiss it by assuming some normal explanation. However, if you put in the time and effort to learn more, you will find that there have been many careful investigations that rule out the conventional explanations. A good way to learn more about this evidence is to look at these free e-books and other sources of information:

When someone has a NDE which includes a verifiable alibi-event from hundreds or thousands of miles away, then I'll not dismiss it as hearsay. Pinpointing the location of the Arc of the Covenant on the Moon would wow me. Anything that doesn't have an alternate explanation, anything.

 

[George-ananda]

There's no basis for making a rational analysis, especially when it happened 2000 years ago.

I wasn't even talking about Christianity. I was talking about modern parapsychological research and today only.

When someone has a NDE which includes a verifiable alibi-event from hundreds or thousands of miles away, then I'll not dismiss it as hearsay. Pinpointing the location of the Arc of the Covenant on the Moon would wow me. Anything that doesn't have an alternate explanation, anything.

OK fine, that can be your level for acceptance. My position is to engage in the most intelligent and rational analysis using all the evidence and the argumentation from all sides and then accepting the position that makes the most sense. I do believe something dramatic is going on with NDE's beyond the knowledge of our current science that indicates consciousness is not dependent on brain functioning. And I believe this evidence dovetails well with other types of beyond the normal phenomena and the teachings of one of the world's major wisdom traditions (eastern/Indian).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I wasn't even talking about Christianity. I was talking about modern parapsychological research and today only.

That line of study has faded beyond significance. It was a wellspring that trickled down to nothing.

My position is to engage in the most intelligent and rational analysis using all the evidence and the argumentation from all sides and then accepting the position that makes the most sense.

How is 100% hearsay intelligent and rational? I'm not being snide here, but that's all I see any philosophy based on revelation and visions as offering.

I do believe something dramatic is going on with NDE's beyond the knowledge of our current science that indicates consciousness is not dependent on brain functioning. And I believe this evidence dovetails well with other types of beyond the normal phenomena and the teachings of one of the world's major wisdom traditions (eastern/Indian).

And I am open minded to it, but so far there's been nothing beyond, I'm sorry, hearsay.

 

[George-ananda]

That line of study has faded beyond significance. It was a wellspring that trickled down to nothing.

I strongly disagree, actually quite the opposite. I have posted evidence before but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears in this case.

How is 100% hearsay intelligent and rational? I'm not being snide here, but that's all I see any philosophy based on revelation and visions as offering.
It is how one analyses non-reproducible events. Our knowledge of history for example is based on the collection of 'hearsay' evidence. George Washington's existence is hearsay to us.
And I am open minded to it, but so far there's been nothing beyond, I'm sorry, hearsay.

It is how one analyses non-reproducible events. Our knowledge of history for example is based on the collection of 'hearsay' evidence. George Washington's existence is hearsay to us.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I strongly disagree, actually quite the opposite. I have posted evidence before but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears in this case.



It is how one analyses non-reproducible events. Our knowledge of history for example is based on the collection of 'hearsay' evidence. George Washington's existence is hearsay to us.

History is supported by hard evidence, yes, some of it's slanted and even wrong, but there's still evidence that always points toward the Truth of natural law. There is evesn much history in the Bible which has been backed up by evidence. It looks like Sodom and Gomorrah really happened, naturally, and the Flood was sea level rising 400' over now submerged coasts since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago. But none of that evidence validates any revelation or supernatural event, not once. All the history we have, is natural history...all of it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As a Vedic (Hindu) pantheist myself who wouldn't wish to believe 'irrelevant speculation', I believe there is sufficient evidence (not 'proof') for my beliefs (from the collected study of the human experience; beyond the normal phenomena and those who claim direct insight beyond the physical senses). If one requires 'proof' then one I would think would be an agnostic and not a deist.


As one who believes in an afterlife based on evidence, our beliefs only effect the initial stage of our afterlife experience. It really is not that important if you are an atheist, deist, or pantheist.

Just curious, what is your evidence?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Just curious, what is your evidence?

Aye, there's the rub.

About your signature, I wonder if Galileo would have said that if he'd been faced with Quantum Mechanics. We have discovered and use it's laws regularly to good effect, but we're still completely in the dark as to understanding it. Just sayin'.

 

[George-ananda]

Just curious, what is your evidence?

Here's a pretty good link:

Afterlife Evidence

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Here's a pretty good link:

Afterlife Evidence

"....poltergeists and all of the other evidence...." That's as far as I got.