Deists Joining FTAA? A Poll

[Trance Gemini]

Hi all,

Pandeism Fish from ACRD and occasionally AvC has applied to join FTAA.

Since we have a no theist policy I have kept him/her in Moderation so
that he/she can participate in this thread.

However, given that Freethinkers can be Deist and that there is
nothing in Deism that works against the naturalist/materialist/
critical thinker approach and that they are natural allies of atheism,
I'm proposing that we discuss this further.

Perhaps Pandeism Fish could start by explaining why he/she wants to
join an atheist only site and present a case for why he/she should be
included as a full member.

The purpose of this group is to discuss issues from the atheist
perspective only. Exchange opinions and hone our arguments.

It's not a debating group and we don't debate or discuss theism here
since most of us are members of AvC and perfectly happy doing our
debating there.

[Dead Kennedy]

I was going to say welcome aboard, but the spirit of the universe
hardend my heart.

Soz, no deists.

[Dead Kennedy]

oh, just thought id better point out it aint personal, i like p-fish
but y'know :0(

On 4 Aug, 14:57, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

Well you said it, basically. "No theist/Atheist only."

Is there a convincing argument that deism is not a form of theism? I
doubt that there is.

[dali_70]

On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well you said it, basically. "No theist/Atheist only."
>
> Is there a convincing argument that deism is not a form of theism? I
> doubt that there is.

Agreed.

[Pandeism Fish]

Didn't realize it's a problem -- I'm not here to proselytize (which
would, according to my own beliefs, be an absurd action in this case),
I just noticed an amusing thread about a conversation that I'm
involved in elsewhere and felt like commenting on it.... I surely do
not consider myself a "theist" (and theists sure as hell don't count
me among there ranks, which is funny given their scramble to embrace
Antony Flew, who still rejects theism as well)....

On Aug 4, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>

> PandeismFish from ACRD and occasionally AvC has applied to join FTAA.

>
> Since we have a no theist policy I have kept him/her in Moderation so
> that he/she can participate in this thread.
>
> However, given that Freethinkers can be Deist and that there is
> nothing in Deism that works against the naturalist/materialist/
> critical thinker approach and that they are natural allies of atheism,
> I'm proposing that we discuss this further.
>

> PerhapsPandeismFish could start by explaining why he/she wants to

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Pandeism Fish <knujon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Didn't realize it's a problem -- I'm not here to proselytize (which
would, according to my own beliefs, be an absurd action in this case),
I just noticed an amusing thread about a conversation that I'm
involved in elsewhere and felt like commenting on it.... I surely do
not consider myself a "theist" (and theists sure as hell don't count
me among there ranks, which is funny given their scramble to embrace
Antony Flew, who still rejects theism as well)....

 

Hi PF

 

I'm the owner that initiated the no theists rule, but I'm going to stay out of this and let the group decide this one.

 

I sort of presented both positions but you have the opportunity to make your case.

 

It looks like you'll have to change some minds because the three who have responded so far are all very good, very regular, and well respected posters here whose opinions will carry substantial weight.

 

 

On Aug 4, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>

> PandeismFish from ACRD and occasionally AvC has applied to join FTAA.

>
> Since we have a no theist policy I have kept him/her in Moderation so
> that he/she can participate in this thread.
>
> However, given that Freethinkers can be Deist and that there is
> nothing in Deism that works against the naturalist/materialist/
> critical thinker approach and that they are natural allies of atheism,
> I'm proposing that we discuss this further.
>

> PerhapsPandeismFish could start by explaining why he/she wants to

> join an atheist only site and present a case for why he/she should be
> included as a full member.
>
> The purpose of this group is to discuss issues from the atheist
> perspective only. Exchange opinions and hone our arguments.
>
> It's not a debating group and we don't debate or discuss theism here
> since most of us are members of AvC and perfectly happy doing our
> debating there.

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Trance Gemini]

I've taken you off Moderation temporarily so that you can respond
without waiting for one of the Mods to put you through.

However, your membership here is conditional on the other atheists
agreeing to accept a Deist into this atheist only group.

So far, there is no support for your membership but I'm going to give
this a few days to see how it develops.

> > debating there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Aug 4, 10:57 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't realize it's a problem -- I'm not here to proselytize (which
> would, according to my own beliefs, be an absurd action in this case),

This would be relevant if the rule was "no proselytizing". But isn't,
it's "no theists"/"atheists only"

> I just noticed an amusing thread about a conversation that I'm
> involved in elsewhere and felt like commenting on it.... I surely do
> not consider myself a "theist" (and theists sure as hell don't count
> me among there ranks, which is funny given their scramble to embrace
> Antony Flew, who still rejects theism as well)....

Well, it would seem that you have something in common with typical
theists with this notion that words are determined by personal
feelings.

As it is:

Theism - The belief in the existence of a god or gods
Deism - The belief in a god that can be known through reason and
rationality

Yes, there are finer points not mentioned here but the key point is
that Deism is a system belief that deals with specific details
regarding a god that is presumed to exist (how you can know that god,
that god's relationship with the universe, etc.) As a prerequisite for
this belief system you MUST belief in the existence of a god
(otherwise what are you scrutinizing?). This general belief in a god
or gods makes you a theist, by definition, whether or not you consider
yourself a theist and whether or not theists consider you a theist.

Now, perhaps you aren't actually a theist. Perhaps your mistaken about
the meaning of the words. But if you are a deist by the definition of
the word then, necessarily, you are a theist, by the definition of the
word.

Bye.

>
> On Aug 4, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > PandeismFish from ACRD and occasionally AvC has applied to join FTAA.
>
> > Since we have a no theist policy I have kept him/her in Moderation so
> > that he/she can participate in this thread.
>
> > However, given that Freethinkers can be Deist and that there is
> > nothing in Deism that works against the naturalist/materialist/
> > critical thinker approach and that they are natural allies of atheism,
> > I'm proposing that we discuss this further.
>
> > PerhapsPandeismFish could start by explaining why he/she wants to
> > join an atheist only site and present a case for why he/she should be
> > included as a full member.
>
> > The purpose of this group is to discuss issues from the atheist
> > perspective only. Exchange opinions and hone our arguments.
>
> > It's not a debating group and we don't debate or discuss theism here
> > since most of us are members of AvC and perfectly happy doing our

[Drafterman]

Is there a case to be made? Deism is a subset of Theism. Theism is not
allowed here. Unless that rule is changing (which would seem to be
contrary everyone elses decision) it seems like an open-and-shut case.

You've allowed Pandeism to present his "case" and it's nothing more
than "I dont' consider myself a theist."

I mean, seriously? If I bound myself to theist's redefinition of basic
words then I might as well just jump off the nearest tall building for
all the good it would have on my long-term survivability.

I can understand your intent here. He seems to be a person that is not
overly insane with regards to this theism, has some interesting things
to discuss, and is not a loathable example of a human being.

That's fine. He can engage any of us over at AvC. I like that this
group is atheist only. I can talk to other atheists knowing that we're
all on that same basic ground - no belief in god.

Pandeism, as a deist, believes in a god. It may be a unique
description, it may be one that is not held by anyone else, it may be
so vague as to be nothing more than "sexed up" atheism but he still
believes in a god.

I'm not sure what a few days will allow for.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there a case to be made? Deism is a subset of Theism. Theism is not
allowed here. Unless that rule is changing (which would seem to be
contrary everyone elses decision) it seems like an open-and-shut case.

 

It is. I just thought the discussion would be good.

 

You've allowed Pandeism to present his "case" and it's nothing more
than "I dont' consider myself a theist."

 

True. Not the best argument. There are better that could be made.

 

I mean, seriously? If I bound myself to theist's redefinition of basic
words then I might as well just jump off the nearest tall building for
all the good it would have on my long-term survivability.

I can understand your intent here. He seems to be a person that is not
overly insane with regards to this theism, has some interesting things
to discuss, and is not a loathable example of a human being.

 

Exactly. And there is an argument to be made that Freethinkers can be Deists.

 

So are we being too restrictive by calling ourselves Freethinkers but not accepting Deists?

 

That's fine. He can engage any of us over at AvC. I like that this
group is atheist only. I can talk to other atheists knowing that we're
all on that same basic ground - no belief in god.

 

I like that and prefer that too.

 

Pandeism, as a deist, believes in a god. It may be a unique
description, it may be one that is not held by anyone else, it may be
so vague as to be nothing more than "sexed up" atheism but he still
believes in a god.

I'm not sure what a few days will allow for.

 

An interesting discussion that might plug a little life into this group that's been a bit dead for a while. Lol.

[Pandeism Fish]

Now I am curious per TG's point, what is a "Freethinker" and how is
that different from an Atheist (and if no different, why is the group
called Freethinkers and Atheists, and not just "Atheists")?

> > > Pandeism Fish from ACRD and occasionally AvC has applied to join FTAA.

>
> > > Since we have a no theist policy I have kept him/her in Moderation so
> > > that he/she can participate in this thread.
>
> > > However, given that Freethinkers can be Deist and that there is
> > > nothing in Deism that works against the naturalist/materialist/
> > > critical thinker approach and that they are natural allies of atheism,
> > > I'm proposing that we discuss this further.
>

> > > Perhaps Pandeism Fish could start by explaining why he/she wants to

[Drafterman]

On Aug 5, 1:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there a case to be made? Deism is a subset of Theism. Theism is not
> > allowed here. Unless that rule is changing (which would seem to be
> > contrary everyone elses decision) it seems like an open-and-shut case.
>
> It is. I just thought the discussion would be good.
>
>
>
> > You've allowed Pandeism to present his "case" and it's nothing more
> > than "I dont' consider myself a theist."
>
> True. Not the best argument. There are better that could be made.
>
>
>
> > I mean, seriously? If I bound myself to theist's redefinition of basic
> > words then I might as well just jump off the nearest tall building for
> > all the good it would have on my long-term survivability.
>
> > I can understand your intent here. He seems to be a person that is not
> > overly insane with regards to this theism, has some interesting things
> > to discuss, and is not a loathable example of a human being.
>
> Exactly. And there is an argument to be made that Freethinkers can be
> Deists.
>
> So are we being too restrictive by calling ourselves Freethinkers but not
> accepting Deists?

Well, permit me to be pedantic and note that the site name is
"Freethinkers AND Atheists" not "Freethinkers OR Atheists". Regardless
of the group name, the atheist only rule exists. I happen to like it,
and it seems others do as well.

To be consistent, perhaps we should enforce the Freethinking side as
well? Technically being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a
Free Thinker. Walt (if he's serious about being an atheist) does not
qualify, I think.

>
>
>
> > That's fine. He can engage any of us over at AvC. I like that this
> > group is atheist only. I can talk to other atheists knowing that we're
> > all on that same basic ground - no belief in god.
>
> I like that and prefer that too.
>
>
>
> > Pandeism, as a deist, believes in a god. It may be a unique
> > description, it may be one that is not held by anyone else, it may be
> > so vague as to be nothing more than "sexed up" atheism but he still
> > believes in a god.
>
> > I'm not sure what a few days will allow for.
>
> An interesting discussion that might plug a little life into this group
> that's been a bit dead for a while. Lol.

I don't mind, actually. I think it gives the group more of a casual
feel.

> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Freethinker.

 

free·think·er

Pronunciation:

\-ˈthiŋ-kər\

Function:

noun

Date:

1692

: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority ; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

While it's true that a Free Thinker doesn't have to be an atheist, our group has decided to restrict itself to atheists.

 

We haven't really discussed restricting ourselves to FreeThinkers but I think that's a given.

 

So, we are actually an atheist Free Thinkers group.

 

I doubt anyone who wasn't a Free Thinker would find this group a comfortable one for them.

 

We also do ban trolls and flamers.

 

We enjoy a casual group where there is basic agreement on the fundamentals and we discuss and debate everything from that perspective.

 

Drafterman's comments are an accurate reflection of the general attitudes here.

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 5, 1:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there a case to be made? Deism is a subset of Theism. Theism is not
> > allowed here. Unless that rule is changing (which would seem to be
> > contrary everyone elses decision) it seems like an open-and-shut case.
>
> It is. I just thought the discussion would be good.
>
>
>
> > You've allowed Pandeism to present his "case" and it's nothing more
> > than "I dont' consider myself a theist."
>
> True. Not the best argument. There are better that could be made.
>
>
>
> > I mean, seriously? If I bound myself to theist's redefinition of basic
> > words then I might as well just jump off the nearest tall building for
> > all the good it would have on my long-term survivability.
>
> > I can understand your intent here. He seems to be a person that is not
> > overly insane with regards to this theism, has some interesting things
> > to discuss, and is not a loathable example of a human being.
>
> Exactly. And there is an argument to be made that Freethinkers can be
> Deists.
>
> So are we being too restrictive by calling ourselves Freethinkers but not
> accepting Deists?

Well, permit me to be pedantic and note that the site name is
"Freethinkers AND Atheists" not "Freethinkers OR Atheists". Regardless
of the group name, the atheist only rule exists. I happen to like it,
and it seems others do as well.

 

Point taken.

 

To be consistent, perhaps we should enforce the Freethinking side as
well? Technically being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a
Free Thinker. Walt (if he's serious about being an atheist) does not
qualify, I think.

 

I agree that we should do that.

 

Atheists who are not Freethinkers wouldn't qualify but you would be ruining Dev's deep desire to get Walt to join so that we can ban him as a theist. LOL. (Joking ... sort of)

[Greywolf]

At first I thought deism is pretty darn close to agnosticism. But your
words are true. Deism *is* a subset of theism. There's no doubt about
that, So the venue for deism contra atheism is over at AvC,

That said, some dang brilliant founding fathers were deists. But
having said *that* I would just add that I doubt some of them would
remain deists if they knew what we atheists now know about the bible
and things theological.

[Dev]

I don't see anybody really trying to grasp what pandeism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

---

Since at least as early as 1859, it has delineated syncretist concepts
incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical
to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the
Universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can
instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most
particularly "the belief that God precedes the Universe and is the
Universe's creator, [and] that the Universe is currently the entirety
of God",[1][2] with some adding the contention that "the Universe will
one day coalesce back into a single being, God".

---

Honestly, that wasn't helpful at all. I think Pandeism Fish should
explain what pandeism means to him, and then we can decide if it's
theism.

On Aug 5, 11:27 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

I don't see anybody really trying to grasp what pandeism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

---

Since at least as early as 1859, it has delineated syncretist concepts
incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical
to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the
Universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can
instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most
particularly "the belief that God precedes the Universe and is the
Universe's creator, [and] that the Universe is currently the entirety
of God",[1][2] with some adding the contention that "the Universe will
one day coalesce back into a single being, God".

---

Honestly, that wasn't helpful at all. I think Pandeism Fish should
explain what pandeism means to him, and then we can decide if it's
theism.

I've asked him to do that so it's up to him if he wants to.

He has a detailed post on ACRD if you want to read it there ;-).
 

--
"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause...." --Eric Hoffer.

[Turner Hayes]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 5, 1:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there a case to be made? Deism is a subset of Theism. Theism is not
> > allowed here. Unless that rule is changing (which would seem to be
> > contrary everyone elses decision) it seems like an open-and-shut case.
>
> It is. I just thought the discussion would be good.
>
>
>
> > You've allowed Pandeism to present his "case" and it's nothing more
> > than "I dont' consider myself a theist."
>
> True. Not the best argument. There are better that could be made.
>
>
>
> > I mean, seriously? If I bound myself to theist's redefinition of basic
> > words then I might as well just jump off the nearest tall building for
> > all the good it would have on my long-term survivability.
>
> > I can understand your intent here. He seems to be a person that is not
> > overly insane with regards to this theism, has some interesting things
> > to discuss, and is not a loathable example of a human being.
>
> Exactly. And there is an argument to be made that Freethinkers can be
> Deists.
>
> So are we being too restrictive by calling ourselves Freethinkers but not
> accepting Deists?

Well, permit me to be pedantic and note that the site name is
"Freethinkers AND Atheists" not "Freethinkers OR Atheists".

To be even more pedantic, to me, "Freethinkers AND Atheists" seems to signify the union of the sets of atheists and freethinkers, rather than the intersection.


With regards to the original topic, I'd have to cast my vote on the "no deists" side, after some thought. I mean, in all probability, PF would probably be virtually indistinguishable from your average household atheist, but he's not, so this doesn't seem to be the group for him.
 

[Drafterman]

On Aug 10, 12:51 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, I thought of that too after I posted. So you get points for out-
pedanting me!

[Turner Hayes]

This is the proudest achievement of my life!
 

[Multiverse]

since there is a vote,

atheist only is my vote.

On Aug 4, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

since there is a vote,

atheist only is my vote.

Well so far it's unanimous and he hasn't returned to respond to the comments so I'll unsubscribe him if he hasn't already unsubscribed himself.
 

[Trance Gemini]

Hi PF,

Since you haven't been back and since the vote is pretty much unanimous against allowing theists of any kind including deists or pandeists to join FTAA I'm unsubscribing you as of now.

Wish you well and we'll be happy to have you on AvC.

[uncleryles (owner)]

Ruling agreed, no deists.

On Aug 14, 3:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi PF,
>
> Since you haven't been back and since the vote is pretty much unanimous
> against allowing theists of any kind including deists or pandeists to join
> FTAA I'm unsubscribing you as of now.
>
> Wish you well and we'll be happy to have you on AvC.
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:28 PM, uncleryles (owner) <uncle...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ruling agreed, no deists.

Thanks Unc. I didn't vote in this one either but I agree as well.