Unified Deism

DanDare · #1 by **DanDare** » Jul 22, 2010 8:43 pm

Over at the Atheist Foundation of Australia we have recently engaged with the Unified Deists.

From their home page:

We believe the universe has a Creator, but the nature of that Creator is something we must all discover for ourselves. Unified Deism seeks to balance reason and spirituality, enabling each of us to chart a steady course away from the rocky shores of dogma and the treacherous currents of fundamentalism. Welcome to the Age of Unified Deism.

This church is just forming and they have an interesting submission to the IRS that's worth a read.

These guys are trying to be rationalists and I have some hopes that they will join various secular alliances as they get going. However our first encounters have been very rocky, as the thread Desit Discussion will show.

The difficulty seems to be that they don't quite get how scepticism and logic work and feel that our challenges from within those frameworks are belligerent and close minded (where have I seen that before?). I think there are useful links to be had with these guys and interesting conversations to be engaged in but I don't know how to find common ground with them without deferring to the things I consider ill founded or illogical.

HughMcB · #2 by **HughMcB** » Jul 22, 2010 9:10 pm

*cough* *cough* aresholes *cough*

DanDare · #3 by **DanDare** » Jul 22, 2010 10:24 pm

Bit of a sore throat there Hugh?

Thommo · #4 by **Thommo** » Jul 22, 2010 10:30 pm

I tried to read that thread, but frankly I couldn't get past a few pages.

The youtube clip is earaching with the dull monotone random inflection computer drone voice, the argument is shocking full of empty assertions and philosowibble. Then the guy gets really antzy when a few of your skeptic blokes offer valid criticism and point out that it's full of empty assertions. Not promising.

DanDare · #5 by **DanDare** » Jul 22, 2010 10:34 pm

No, their arguments are not good. But there desire for a more reasoned and rational approach to society suggests they are not fuckwits.

Atheist PhD · #6 by **Atheist PhD** » Jul 23, 2010 11:45 pm

As Hitchens says, and I totally agree, and I am not quoting here, old time religion is a thing of the past. Never again will religous groups have the same hold on society that they once held. As new groups begin to emerge, I think they will be best served by having skeptics and rationalist at least have some input into what their belief systems might be. Otherwise, they will simply be the same as everyone else, and keep getting ripped for it.

Goldenmane · #7 by **Goldenmane** » Jul 24, 2010 12:08 am

I invited them to come here and engage (since the AFA board is really actually an atheist hangout, not intended to be as broad in discussion as this place).

So far, no takers.

They don't seem to get Rule #fucking 3, though.

DanDare · #8 by **DanDare** » Jul 24, 2010 12:31 pm

You will love this bit just in from the thread:

iDeismFounder wrote: Here are my takeaways for atheism and atheists as represented by the majority of this community:

- Atheists are unwilling to commit to even the most widely accepted scientific theories if it might undermine the atheist’s materialist doctrine, which despite your forthcoming denial is real. Atheists caveat and hedge. Atheists want to keep all options open so they can never be wrong. The honest ones simply say “I don’t know.” It is not credible to make declarative statements against another’s ideas or hypotheses from a position of “I don’t know” or some nebulous “maybe or maybe not” viewpoint, particularly with the vitriol that characterizes this community. There is clearly no humility among atheists as they simply believe their conclusions are superior without realizing they are so only to themselves.

- Atheists love to play games with semantics in an attempt to discredit others, even when they know full well what is intended. This is a tactic to avoid, finally admitting the point above: “they don’t know” and have no higher intellectual authority on which to base their own opinions or on which to ridicule others.

- Atheists are extremely rude and immature, refusing to acknowledge this point even when indisputable evidence stis in front of their faces. They appear to be simply incapable of respectful dialogue. For some reason, atheists feel they are empowered to dictate the terms of any conversation.

- Atheists tend to be shallow thinkers. They know a lot of basic scientific buzzwords and simply stop there. I have seen no evidence of the atheist’s ability to discuss life’s deeper questions or the philosophical implications of scientific observations. Moreover, atheist try but fail to use science to disprove God when science does not, by definition, deal with God.

- Atheists have anointed themselves the keepers of reason. Atheists hold as doctrine that God does not exist. They attempt to water it down with phrases like there is “no evidence” or “I am not denying God could exist” when in actuality they passionately believe God does not exist. Regardless of the credentials of the speaker, they attack as soon as the possibility of intelligent agency is mentioned. Though the atheist will deny it, they are fundamentalist believers in the absence of anything (intelligent or otherwise) beyond the physical world they see.

Now have fun reinforcing your own ideas and self worth...they won't change my conclusions about you.

MrGray · #9 by **MrGray** » Jul 24, 2010 1:12 pm

DanDare wrote:You will love this bit just in from the thread:
iDeismFounder wrote:

<snip>

Atheists are unwilling to commit to even the most widely accepted scientific theories if it might undermine the atheist’s materialist doctrine, which despite your forthcoming denial is real.

<snip>

There is clearly no humility among atheists as they simply believe their conclusions are superior without realizing they are so only to themselves.

<snip>

Now have fun reinforcing your own ideas and self worth...they won't change my conclusions about you.

Atheist PhD · **#10** by **Atheist PhD** » Jul 25, 2010 3:41 am

DanDare wrote:You will love this bit just in from the thread:
iDeismFounder wrote: Here are my takeaways for atheism and atheists as represented by the majority of this community:

- Atheists are unwilling to commit to even the most widely accepted scientific theories if it might undermine the atheist’s materialist doctrine, which despite your forthcoming denial is real. Atheists caveat and hedge. Atheists want to keep all options open so they can never be wrong. The honest ones simply say “I don’t know.” It is not credible to make declarative statements against another’s ideas or hypotheses from a position of “I don’t know” or some nebulous “maybe or maybe not” viewpoint, particularly with the vitriol that characterizes this community. There is clearly no humility among atheists as they simply believe their conclusions are superior without realizing they are so only to themselves.

- Atheists love to play games with semantics in an attempt to discredit others, even when they know full well what is intended. This is a tactic to avoid, finally admitting the point above: “they don’t know” and have no higher intellectual authority on which to base their own opinions or on which to ridicule others.

- Atheists are extremely rude and immature, refusing to acknowledge this point even when indisputable evidence stis in front of their faces. They appear to be simply incapable of respectful dialogue. For some reason, atheists feel they are empowered to dictate the terms of any conversation.

- Atheists tend to be shallow thinkers. They know a lot of basic scientific buzzwords and simply stop there. I have seen no evidence of the atheist’s ability to discuss life’s deeper questions or the philosophical implications of scientific observations. Moreover, atheist try but fail to use science to disprove God when science does not, by definition, deal with God.

- Atheists have anointed themselves the keepers of reason. Atheists hold as doctrine that God does not exist. They attempt to water it down with phrases like there is “no evidence” or “I am not denying God could exist” when in actuality they passionately believe God does not exist. Regardless of the credentials of the speaker, they attack as soon as the possibility of intelligent agency is mentioned. Though the atheist will deny it, they are fundamentalist believers in the absence of anything (intelligent or otherwise) beyond the physical world they see.

Now have fun reinforcing your own ideas and self worth...they won't change my conclusions about you.

WOW, how do I get to this guy, there is SO much wrong with the above statement that it makes my butt twitch.

I do agree with at least ONE thing the idiot said, I DO passionately believe that god does NOT exist. I'm not too sure how one believes in the absence of anything, wouldn't that be the same as believing in the presence of everything???

And science doesn't have to disprove god, that's not what science does, anyway. The proof of god is on those who make the claim that he exists, that's it. It just happens to be a byproduct of science, that god disappears.

As for the rude thing and the whole empowered argument, that is exactly what Christians do. Religion has been getting the benefit of the doubt for centuries. I don't think atheists are shallow thinkers, at least not the one's I hang out with.

Oh well, this guy is obviously a Wing-nut, Faith-Head.... so, he gets a pass, for now. Wish he had the balls to show up here.

King David · **#11** by **King David** » Aug 26, 2010 3:57 pm

I get tired of arguing with people like that. Most of the argument is centered around trying to dismantle their misconceived straw men of your position, then once you are thoroughly exasperated they want to get to the heart of the matter.

gainesvillecathy · **#12** by **gainesvillecathy** » Mar 11, 2011 9:58 pm

Good day

At the risk of being totally attacked here (some of you may recognize my name), I just wanted to mention what I think is a very valid point.

When organized religion has had a hold on so many worldwide communities throughout the history of man, I cannot fathom how our entire planet could suddenly see the light to secularism over night. As with everything in our biological and social history, change comes about by going through a process. Each mind is stimulated by what they are exposed to. Standing on the sidelines and holding up your sign of opinion is not going to change the masses who are at so many places on the spectrum of belief or disbelief.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that you maintain this and other forums to offer those of like minds to express their position on these issues. However, perhaps it is just as valuable to have other forums available to those individuals who are looking for a "lifeboat" to carry them to another frame of mind.

I shopped the terminal of Positve Desim and Unified Deism as a means to learn about others and their views. All I am trying to point out is that some of you here might make more progress (if that is your intent) with others and their journeys toward secular points of view if you are a little less judgmental of where they have been.

I have not been on either the PD or UD forums in many months, and I am no longer welcome there, but I have nothing against them, and I wish them well on their INDIVIDUAL journeys. I really think they will not be successful in their endeavors to gather masses. Deism by nature is only an aspect of many different views. It only means that they do not believe in religions that follow revelations by others or by holy books. Other than that, there are MANY different worldviews and beliefs with that one aspect included. Those MANY different viewpoints are very independent and individualistic. I will be very surprised if they are able to agree on enough points to create a community or a wave of change across the globe. However, I do think they have a place in the journey, a stop in the terminal as such for many people trying to move forward. In a way, they are actually helping the same cause many of you profess, the move away from organized religion.

Thanks for letting stop by and post. I might hang around a bit if I'm not attacked.

Goldenmane · **#13** by **Goldenmane** » Mar 14, 2011 2:30 am

gainesvillecathy wrote:
I have not been on either the PD or UD forums in many months, and I am no longer welcome there, but I have nothing against them, and I wish them well on their INDIVIDUAL journeys. I really think they will not be successful in their endeavors to gather masses. Deism by nature is only an aspect of many different views. It only means that they do not believe in religions that follow revelations by others or by holy books. Other than that, there are MANY different worldviews and beliefs with that one aspect included. Those MANY different viewpoints are very independent and individualistic. I will be very surprised if they are able to agree on enough points to create a community or a wave of change across the globe. However, I do think they have a place in the journey, a stop in the terminal as such for many people trying to move forward. In a way, they are actually helping the same cause many of you profess, the move away from organized religion.

Thanks for letting stop by and post. I might hang around a bit if I'm not attacked.

G'day Cathy,

The first thing I need to point out is that personal attacks are, here, not allowed, and if you are attacked then you can and should report it to the mods, who will take appropriate action. The corollary to this, though - and it's something many people often seem to have difficulty grasping - is that ideas are fair game, and you are not your ideas. That being said, you're welcome here, and I hope your participation here turns out positively.

I find that I'm curious as to why you are no longer welcome at the PD or UD forums? You don't have to answer that, of course, as it is not necessarily anyone else's business.

Regarding your point about deism being a sort of step along the way: this may be a valid point, but that doesn't render it any less subject to rigorous examination and questioning, nor does it lend it more validity as an idea than, say, fundamentalist Christianity... or any other idea, for that matter. The fact that those who profess deism may be very nice people doesn't mean anything either, since the entire point is that it isn't the people who are under examination but the opinions, viewpoints... in short, the ideas they express and profess to adhere to.

For the record, my own experience as one of the AFA board members who was involved with the discussions over there indicates that many on the deist side seemed incapable of dealing with their ideas being challenged without becoming personally offended. 'streetmediq', for example, started flinging shit around when someone asked him to support the premise that attributes of a set of 'all there is' can be determined from the attributes of some elements of that set, and then it went downhill fast when someone else bothered to examine his arguments in even slightly more depth.

Anyway, the point is that whilst those who proclaim deism don't also, for example, tend to use that as a basis for calling for the death of infidels and other such behaviour, it still doesn't mean that deism is a position which actually has anything much in the way of intellectual robustness or value - it still needs support, and far better support than was offered at the AFA forum, if it is going to be espoused or accepted.

Again, though, welcome to the lifeboat.

Steve · **#14** by **Steve** » Mar 14, 2011 2:56 am

gainesvillecathy wrote:Good day

At the risk of being totally attacked here (some of you may recognize my name), I just wanted to mention what I think is a very valid point.

When organized religion has had a hold on so many worldwide communities throughout the history of man, I cannot fathom how our entire planet could suddenly see the light to secularism over night. As with everything in our biological and social history, change comes about by going through a process. Each mind is stimulated by what they are exposed to. Standing on the sidelines and holding up your sign of opinion is not going to change the masses who are at so many places on the spectrum of belief or disbelief.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that you maintain this and other forums to offer those of like minds to express their position on these issues. However, perhaps it is just as valuable to have other forums available to those individuals who are looking for a "lifeboat" to carry them to another frame of mind.

I shopped the terminal of Positve Desim and Unified Deism as a means to learn about others and their views. All I am trying to point out is that some of you here might make more progress (if that is your intent) with others and their journeys toward secular points of view if you are a little less judgmental of where they have been.

I have not been on either the PD or UD forums in many months, and I am no longer welcome there, but I have nothing against them, and I wish them well on their INDIVIDUAL journeys. I really think they will not be successful in their endeavors to gather masses. Deism by nature is only an aspect of many different views. It only means that they do not believe in religions that follow revelations by others or by holy books. Other than that, there are MANY different worldviews and beliefs with that one aspect included. Those MANY different viewpoints are very independent and individualistic. I will be very surprised if they are able to agree on enough points to create a community or a wave of change across the globe. However, I do think they have a place in the journey, a stop in the terminal as such for many people trying to move forward. In a way, they are actually helping the same cause many of you profess, the move away from organized religion.

Thanks for letting stop by and post. I might hang around a bit if I'm not attacked.

Welcome to RatSkep.

I do agree we should be respectful. I do not agree we should not be judgmental. We are judgmental by nature, the problem comes when we cannot accept that, as then we start bullshitting. I love having my delusions attacked - my own opinions are such that I need some pretty strong slaps upside the intellect to get them straight. The little dents got knocked out long ago - the ones that are left are pretty deep seated.

One of the ways to explore this is to explore your own ability to go nuclear without being in the slightest disrespectful. Get really pissed, but remain compassionate. As they might say - it's good for the soul.

gainesvillecathy · **#15** by **gainesvillecathy** » Mar 14, 2011 10:04 pm

Thank you Goldenmane and Steve.

Goldenmane, perhaps sometime I can explain further about my no longer being a member of PD or UD in a less public format. I will tell you now that I left of my own accord, but it has been made pretty clear to me that I would not be welcomed back. So please do not be concerned that I might do something disruptive on this forum. Perhaps their issue with me is that I am too questioning and open to others perspectives. I'm really not sure. Most of the problems arose after the posts on the AFA forum.

Steve, I can understand having an opinion toward others views if you feel your experience leads you to believe or think something else, but it is my opinion that others are more likely to be open to new ways of thinking if they do not feel ridiculed or patronized. I just feel that if you're going to expend the energy in telling someone why you don't agree with them, you might as well make it count for something rather than run them off.

Anyway, thank you both for engaging in conversation with me. I was not sure what kind of reception I might get here.

THWOTH · **#16** by **THWOTH** » Mar 19, 2011 1:04 am

Hiya gainesvillecathy, welcome aboard! :wave:

I'd just like to pick up on something you mentioned in your earlier reply if I may..

gainesvillecathy wrote:...I can understand having an opinion toward others views if you feel your experience leads you to believe or think something else, but it is my opinion that others are more likely to be open to new ways of thinking if they do not feel ridiculed or patronized. I just feel that if you're going to expend the energy in telling someone why you don't agree with them, you might as well make it count for something rather than run them off.

Though I agree with your sentiments that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar we cannot all always be sensitive and accommodating to what others think of as appropriate. Somebody may feel ridiculed and patronised out of turn where it is not intended, or declare such feelings of slight and hurt at another's view even when and where it none exists. We cannot make it a condition of discourse that those whom we engage with must not have any cause to feel aggrieved by either the content or context of our comments, to do otherwise and temper our comments to their satisfaction leads only to onesidedness.

Having said that, we don't go around calling people a tunty-climp for merely expressing a views - we simply emphasis that we find their ideas rather tunty or a bit on the climpish side instead.

But some ideas are plainly and obviously totally tunty in their content and completely climpish in their exposition, and when such ridiculous ideas are presented as straight-faced and honest facts then it seem only right that we expose them to harsh criticism and yes, even ridicule. The alternative would be an obligation to take the declarer and the declared seriously and grant them both a false and undeserving respect. The fact that people personally identify with the dubious, the errant, and the spurious, and are often offended by just criticism, should not really be our concern, for if it were much in life would go without the robust criticism necessary in the pursuit of honesty and truthfulness.

:cool:

Alan B · **#17** by **Alan B** » Apr 09, 2011 9:28 am

DanDare wrote:You will love this bit just in from the thread:
iDeismFounder wrote: Here are my takeaways for atheism and atheists as represented by the majority of this community:

- Atheists are unwilling to commit to even the most widely accepted scientific theories if it might undermine the atheist’s materialist doctrine, which despite your forthcoming denial is real. Atheists caveat and hedge. Atheists want to keep all options open so they can never be wrong. The honest ones simply say “I don’t know.” It is not credible to make declarative statements against another’s ideas or hypotheses from a position of “I don’t know” or some nebulous “maybe or maybe not” viewpoint, particularly with the vitriol that characterizes this community. There is clearly no humility among atheists as they simply believe their conclusions are superior without realizing they are so only to themselves.

- Atheists love to play games with semantics in an attempt to discredit others, even when they know full well what is intended. This is a tactic to avoid, finally admitting the point above: “they don’t know” and have no higher intellectual authority on which to base their own opinions or on which to ridicule others.

- Atheists are extremely rude and immature, refusing to acknowledge this point even when indisputable evidence stis in front of their faces. They appear to be simply incapable of respectful dialogue. For some reason, atheists feel they are empowered to dictate the terms of any conversation.

- Atheists tend to be shallow thinkers. They know a lot of basic scientific buzzwords and simply stop there. I have seen no evidence of the atheist’s ability to discuss life’s deeper questions or the philosophical implications of scientific observations. Moreover, atheist try but fail to use science to disprove God when science does not, by definition, deal with God.

- Atheists have anointed themselves the keepers of reason. Atheists hold as doctrine that God does not exist. They attempt to water it down with phrases like there is “no evidence” or “I am not denying God could exist” when in actuality they passionately believe God does not exist. Regardless of the credentials of the speaker, they attack as soon as the possibility of intelligent agency is mentioned. Though the atheist will deny it, they are fundamentalist believers in the absence of anything (intelligent or otherwise) beyond the physical world they see.

Now have fun reinforcing your own ideas and self worth...they won't change my conclusions about you.

Something 'odd' about this guys approach and thinking processes. Seems like the same sort of 'logical positivism' that is employed by the Scientologists - full of crap but presented forcefully to give an aura of 'authority'.
Are you sure these Unified Deists aren't them Scientologists trying to get Charity Status by the back door?

andrewk · **#18** by **andrewk** » May 05, 2011 12:15 pm

The criticism I would make of atheists is that they use WAY too many obscure abbreviations, in-jargon and sets of initials.

Can somebody please explain what the PD forum and UD forum are and what a tunty-climp is?

And welcome, gainesvillecathy. I'll look forward to hearing your views, as we don't get many deists in these parts.

tnjrp · **#19** by **tnjrp** » May 05, 2011 12:30 pm

Alan B wrote:Something 'odd' about this guys approach and thinking processes. Seems like the same sort of 'logical positivism' that is employed by the Scientologists - full of crap but presented forcefully to give an aura of 'authority'

Looks like it could've been copied verbatim from any number of Xtian stormtroopers for doctrine, actually, so am not sure about the Scientology connection.

Also, doesn't "logical positivism" actually imply strong verificationism and all-around skeptisism towards any kind of metaphysics? I just can't see how that works with either deism (of any sort) or Scientology :scratch:

John P. M. · **#20** by **John P. M.** » May 05, 2011 3:02 pm

iDeismFounder wrote:
- Atheists are unwilling to commit to even the most widely accepted scientific theories if it might undermine the atheist’s materialist doctrine, which despite your forthcoming denial is real.

What widely accepted scientific theories am I - as a materialist atheist - unwilling to commit to?

iDeismFounder wrote:
Atheists caveat and hedge. Atheists want to keep all options open so they can never be wrong. The honest ones simply say “I don’t know.” It is not credible to make declarative statements against another’s ideas or hypotheses from a position of “I don’t know” or some nebulous “maybe or maybe not” viewpoint, particularly with the vitriol that characterizes this community. There is clearly no humility among atheists as they simply believe their conclusions are superior without realizing they are so only to themselves.

It's more along the lines of "We cannot assert, and neither can you, but we can have a look at the validity of your claims", and the rest is due to being scientifically minded I think, with due attention to scientific underpinnings like methodological naturalism, parsimony, testability and falsifiability.

Oh - and this whole 'piece' sounds a bit like "I'm sure atheists would be nice to discuss with, if they'd only have the same views as I do about the supernatural". Well - that's part of meeting and discussing with people who have opposing views. Their views will... oppose those of your own.

iDeismFounder wrote:
- Atheists love to play games with semantics in an attempt to discredit others, even when they know full well what is intended.

I do see this sometimes. Hey - atheists aren't perfect. Some are even assholes. Then again - some of it may be honest misunderstandings.

iDeismFounder wrote:
This is a tactic to avoid, finally admitting the point above: “they don’t know” and have no higher intellectual authority on which to base their own opinions or on which to ridicule others.

This of course depends on the claims made, and how well they stand up to scrutiny.

iDeismFounder wrote:
- Atheists are extremely rude and immature, refusing to acknowledge this point even when indisputable evidence stis in front of their faces. They appear to be simply incapable of respectful dialogue. For some reason, atheists feel they are empowered to dictate the terms of any conversation.

Depends, but again - some are assholes. The comment is a bit... what would be analogous to 'racist' here, only about atheists? Atheists are individuals, I guess is my point.

iDeismFounder wrote:
- Atheists tend to be shallow thinkers. They know a lot of basic scientific buzzwords and simply stop there. I have seen no evidence of the atheist’s ability to discuss life’s deeper questions or the philosophical implications of scientific observations.

Interestingly, I usually see the opposite. Atheists tend not to go off on a tangent and invent fanciful mind castles out of scientific theories and findings though, but are usually rather pragmatic about them. Atheists rarely run off and make a "What the bleep..." video, for instance. Although, I should hasten to add, that Raelians for instance are de facto atheists, so there are some screwballs among atheists too.

iDeismFounder wrote:
Moreover, atheist try but fail to use science to disprove God when science does not, by definition, deal with God.

Depends on the God concept the person in question is trying to talk about. Some God concepts are within the remit of science, or at least their alleged actions would/could be.

iDeismFounder wrote:
- Atheists have anointed themselves the keepers of reason. Atheists hold as doctrine that God does not exist. They attempt to water it down with phrases like there is “no evidence” or “I am not denying God could exist” when in actuality they passionately believe God does not exist.

That kinda hurts. Here I've been trying not to be strident and shrill, and somewhat accommodationist, and this is the thanks I get?

Yes - I think it's possible to be a 'weak' atheist, and at the same time be "passionate" about not believing there is a God. Just as one may be a 'weak' aunicornist, and at the same time be "passionate" about not believing there are any unicorns. Both views can change 'without further notice', if sufficient evidence should surface. I must admit though, that 'evidence' and 'God' is a hard nut to crack (what could constitute evidence?).

iDeismFounder wrote:
Regardless of the credentials of the speaker, they attack as soon as the possibility of intelligent agency is mentioned. Though the atheist will deny it, they are fundamentalist believers in the absence of anything (intelligent or otherwise) beyond the physical world they see.

See above.

iDeismFounder wrote:
Now have fun reinforcing your own ideas and self worth...they won't change my conclusions about you.

Oh. I guess participating on a discussion forum is not in the cards, then. :coffee:

Unified Deism

Unified Deism

Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Re: Unified Deism

Topic Tags

Who is online