The Atheist and the Christian discussion continued part 3.

I have been writing a series of posts that I have titled the Atheist and the Christian discussion.

  1. The first post was on the evangelistic message of both, which you can read here.
  2. The second post was about the true nature of Atheism, which you can read here.

This is my third post in the series in which I will look at the subject of Deism verses Theism.   This is an important subject to discuss, for in the pursuit of truth, the Atheist finds they have to ditch the frame work of Atheism and embrace the frame work of Agnosticism, in which they now admit that there is a possibility of a God that was involved in the creation process.  However unlike the Theist who believes that God is actively involved in the worlds events, will intervene in human affairs and at times suspend what is considered to be natural laws,  they embrace the position of Deism which denies all such involvement.

This is an important nuance to note so as to avoid the misconstruing of each others stance and belief within what each believes in regards to the existence of God. While its important to note there are differences between what is known as ‘Classic’ and ‘Modern’ or ‘Enlightened’ deism, they are bound within the framework of Atheism in which they will scoff at and dismiss any thought or claims to any form of supernatural experience.

This position is no different to that of the Atheist in which they ultimately claim to have the knowledge of all things, dismissing the possibility of there being a variety ways of knowing and experiencing God. This is an important framework to acknowledge; for if the deist was to be honest in their pursuit of truth, they will have to admit that there is a possibility of a Theistic God.

For the reality is that like the Atheist: the Deist cannot know for sure whether another’s supernatural experience is truth or not. They cannot claim with all honesty that God cannot or will not intervene within the framework of humanity and worldly affairs. In many ways this places the Deist in no mans land. They can no longer go back to the internal comfort and delusion of Atheism; for that direction no longer holds any form of intellectual and personal honesty. They now find that their intellectual position of Deism is also tentative and indeed is framed within the dishonest framework of having complete knowledge.

Therefore if the Deist was to be honest in their pursuit of truth, they have to admit to the possibility of a Theistic God, and if they can admit to the possibility of a Theistic God, they can no longer with any form of credible integrity and internal honesty say with any finality that Deism is truth.

Therefore they now find themselves to be in the position of being an Theistic Agnostic.

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in atheism, Christianity, Deism, Theism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Atheist and the Christian discussion continued part 3.

  1. tildeb says:

    Good grief, Craig. When you go off the rails you do so full throttle, eh?

    Once again, theists are defined by having no belief in a monotheistic god, although most of will admit there is a possibility for a deistic one. That doesn’t make atheists deists; all it does is suggest that for some people who have no good reason to believe in any god here and now accept that there is the possibility no matter how sleight of there being some god somewhere out there.

    As far as gnosticism is concerned, I don’t know (that what gnosticism means, by the way, the state of knowing) if an invisible pink elephant lives in your left nostril but I have no good reasons to suspect one does. That doesn’t make me a believer in invisible pink elephants nor suggest that being agnostic about it improves the chances it may be true. Agnostic simply means uncertain, but for all practical purposes I am an atheist about invisible pink elephants altogether. Where they live, what they expect from us, what meaning and purpose they supposedly bring to our lives, how they transmutate themselves into crackers under Latin words for some cannibalistic ritual, really doesn’t interest me. It’s all made up as far as I’m concerned for exactly the same reason I have about invisible pink elephants: I have no good reason to believe they exist. I’m an invisible pink elephant agnostic atheist.

    • tildeb says:

      Sorry, my proofing is getting worse as the hour gets later. That first sentence should read Atheists are defined….

    • Craig Benno says:

      Two things.

      1)I never said Atheists believe in a God. What I said is that if a Atheist was truly honest they would admit they are Agnostic and not Atheist.
      2) My second point is that within the frame work of Agnosticism – which is the position one takes when one admit they don’t know if there is a God or not…. whereas the Atheist point blank declares there is no God…which is a intellectually dishonest position to take.

      I then said within the frame work of Agnosticism, the Agnostic may claim a tentative belief in a Deistic god…

      Tildeb, you plainly said that you believe that there could be the possibility of a Deistic god… by your own words you have admitted you are an Agnostic and not an Atheist.

  2. Pingback: The Atheist and Christian discussion continued… part 4 The Theistic Agnostic. | Trinitarian Dance

  3. Pingback: The Atheist & Christian discussion continued–part 5 Reasons for the faith. | Trinitarian Dance

  4. Never considered it that way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s