Ask a Deist

[Iconoclastithon]

So, I'm not quite a PURE Deist{was once though}
I am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist.
On that note, ask me anything you wish about deistic theory.

In Reason:
Icono

[Ratnat]

So, I'm not quite a PURE Deist{was once though}
I am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist.
On that note, ask me anything you wish about deistic theory.

In Reason:
Icono

Why do you call yourself an anti-theist?

I too consider myself a deist but have adopted the label atheist since deists have been categorized as theists lately.

[Iconoclastithon]

Why do you call yourself an anti-theist?

I too consider myself a deist but have adopted the label atheist since deists have been categorized as theists lately.

I call myself an "Anti-theist" because I oppose theism.

I have no problem with Classic Deists, but I do with classic deism. Bu this I mean, the Classic Deists by and large were borderline liberal theists; because of the existence of "liberal theism" today, I'm of the opinion that Classic Deists that exist today should just call themselves "theists/liberal theists".
To me, Modern Deism needs to evolve with the times; that's how deism was originally built to grow{with new evidence and new arguments}. Modern Deism is exemplified by people such as myself and John Armstrong{author "God Vs The Bible"; whom also had a debate with that Holding guy on these forums}. Modern Deism must have agnostic and anti-theistic components to be rational rather than faith-based.

On that note, I do not actively oppose Classic Deists today, nor liberal theists; nor ALL religions and faiths. I do oppose the CONCEPTS of "faith" and "theism" and "revealed religion" though.
Theism, is faith-based, it is anthropomorphic/centric{to some degree at least}.
I oppose these ideas as irrational and potentially dangerous; I am an Anti-Theist.
However, I am Agnostic and lean heavily towards Deism, but I would;bt place my faith in the "theory" of deism, intellectually it just makes more sense to me personally than outright atheism and PURE agnosticism{I'm a soft Agnostic and Soft Deist; HARD Anti-theist}.

I focus on Anti-theism more because well...I spend more time critisizing faith-based theism than I do promoting Deistic theory{though I do this as well; but always emphasizing that in my opinion deism and atheism are of equal substance- and are FAITH-BASED both unless they include a degree of Agnosticism}.

I sometimes say that I can be thought of as a mixture of Thomas Paine{Deist}, Christopher Hitchens{Anti-theistic atheist; emphasis on Anti-theism}, and Bill Maher{Agnostic Apatheist}.

I see why you have adopted the label "Atheist", though you consider yourself Deist, because of deists beeing equated with theists lately{largely by Dawkinists; Strong Atheists parroting Dawkins; all of whom seem to think Deism stops with the borderline theism of the "Classic Deists" of the enlightenment and the sheep whom parrot them today without evolving; for that time it was rational, this was before Darwin and many other discoveries, but not now}.
Indeed by the classic ethymologyical origin of Atheist, the greek "Atheos"{godless,without a god,etc} we are De-facto Atheists; however as Atheism has been redefined in modern times by most Atheists{and rightfully so, because it distinguishes them and Atheism from Agnostics and Deists,other forms of non-theism and non-theistic rationalism}- now meaning "without BELIEF IN god/s"{of any sort; theos or deus}.

It could be said that we ARE De-facto Atheists; however in order to make them happy I distiguish myself by not calling myself such, but beeing much more precise about my intellectual views and practices; hence Anti-Theistic Agnostic-Deist

P.S. my comments above should not be seen as an insult to Dawkins himself. I hold him is high regard; I do think his view of rationalism is skewed and baised a little though.
I'm a much bigger fan of Hitchens and Harris myself.

I think it is our job as Modern Deists{Agnostic-Deists whom may or may not be blatantly ANTI-theistic} to support the Modern Atheist movement, to befriend them, to make it clear to them how Modern Deism is NOT a watered down form of theism{watered down agnosticism MAYBE,LoL}, just as Pantheism BY DEFINITION CANNOT be "sexed up atheism".
We need to define to them as fellow rationalists what Modern Deism is, so they seperate it from "Classic Deism" and begin to realize how much we are Allies{or should be} to one another.

In Reason:
Icono

[Iconoclastithon]

heck, just call yourself a deist, it really reduces confusion.

LoL!!!

See my response to Ratnat.

I believe it is VERY important to be be "specific" and define terms,ideas, leanings, and practice/style/etc- accurately.

In Reason:
Icono

[Ratnat]

I call myself an "Anti-theist" because I oppose theism.

I have no problem with Classic Deists, but I do with classic deism. Bu this I mean, the Classic Deists by and large were borderline liberal theists; because of the existence of "liberal theism" today, I'm of the opinion that Classic Deists that exist today should just call themselves "theists/liberal theists".
To me, Modern Deism needs to evolve with the times; that's how deism was originally built to grow{with new evidence and new arguments}. Modern Deism is exemplified by people such as myself and John Armstrong{author "God Vs The Bible"; whom also had a debate with that Holding guy on these forums}. Modern Deism must have agnostic and anti-theistic components to be rational rather than faith-based.

On that note, I do not actively oppose Classic Deists today, nor liberal theists; nor ALL religions and faiths. I do oppose the CONCEPTS of "faith" and "theism" and "revealed religion" though.
Theism, is faith-based, it is anthropomorphic/centric{to some degree at least}.
I oppose these ideas as irrational and potentially dangerous; I am an Anti-Theist.
However, I am Agnostic and lean heavily towards Deism, but I would;bt place my faith in the "theory" of deism, intellectually it just makes more sense to me personally than outright atheism and PURE agnosticism{I'm a soft Agnostic and Soft Deist; HARD Anti-theist}.

I focus on Anti-theism more because well...I spend more time critisizing faith-based theism than I do promoting Deistic theory{though I do this as well; but always emphasizing that in my opinion deism and atheism are of equal substance- and are FAITH-BASED both unless they include a degree of Agnosticism}.

I sometimes say that I can be thought of as a mixture of Thomas Paine{Deist}, Christopher Hitchens{Anti-theistic atheist; emphasis on Anti-theism}, and Bill Maher{Agnostic Apatheist}.

I see why you have adopted the label "Atheist", though you consider yourself Deist, because of deists beeing equated with theists lately{largely by Dawkinists; Strong Atheists parroting Dawkins; all of whom seem to think Deism stops with the borderline theism of the "Classic Deists" of the enlightenment and the sheep whom parrot them today without evolving; for that time it was rational, this was before Darwin and many other discoveries, but not now}.
Indeed by the classic ethymologyical origin of Atheist, the greek "Atheos"{godless,without a god,etc} we are De-facto Atheists; however as Atheism has been redefined in modern times by most Atheists{and rightfully so, because it distinguishes them and Atheism from Agnostics and Deists,other forms of non-theism and non-theistic rationalism}- now meaning "without BELIEF IN god/s"{of any sort; theos or deus}.

It could be said that we ARE De-facto Atheists; however in order to make them happy I distiguish myself by not calling myself such, but beeing much more precise about my intellectual views and practices; hence Anti-Theistic Agnostic-Deist

P.S. my comments above should not be seen as an insult to Dawkins himself. I hold him is high regard; I do think his view of rationalism is skewed and baised a little though.
I'm a much bigger fan of Hitchens and Harris myself.

I think it is our job as Modern Deists{Agnostic-Deists whom may or may not be blatantly ANTI-theistic} to support the Modern Atheist movement, to befriend them, to make it clear to them how Modern Deism is NOT a watered down form of theism{watered down agnosticism MAYBE,LoL}, just as Pantheism BY DEFINITION CANNOT be "sexed up atheism".
We need to define to them as fellow rationalists what Modern Deism is, so they seperate it from "Classic Deism" and begin to realize how much we are Allies{or should be} to one another.

In Reason:
Icono

I think by creating so many labels and sub-labels we non-theists are making it very confusing to seekers, especially the younger ones. Atheist sectarianism, perhaps?lol

The prefix "anti" denotes being against something and IMO feeds the paranoia of some theists that we are out to get them... I am anti-dominionist but without the help of some theists, that battle cannot be won.

I don't agree with you about classic deists ...although I do agree some of them were akin to liberal theists. I don't agree that Dawkins had anything to do with it though...it was the theists who adopted any historical rationalist that mentioned a higher power into their camp. They see no difference in Spinoza's god and their own, apparently.