Morality: Theism vs Deism

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are differences in Morality between Theism and Deism.
Emphasis re theism is on Christianity and Islam since they are about 4.5 out of the 8+ billion at present.

Be fair, guy. I said: I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact. You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy.

Whether we're talkin' Jehovah or Allah or Crom, we're talkin' about The Creator of Reality.

You wanna pick at differences: I focus on the similarities. We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong.
And we all, as free wills, get to decide whether we'll abide or defy.

The above are very good points as conditioned within a Framework and System of Theism or Deism. However, there are differences to be considered.

Morality in Theism
In theism, especially Christianity and Islam [majority of theists], a believer has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a contract [covenant] with God with a promise of avoiding HELL, given eternal life in heaven/paradise and the REWARDS therein in exchange for the believers' compliance [absolute with no compromise] to the commands [terms of contract] of God in the constituted holy texts.
E.g. Thou Shalt not Kill, period!

Believers in these religions has free will [relative] but with very heavy risks attached because if they do not comply with the terms of the contract with God, they would have sinned thus risk getting the chance of avoiding HELL and eternal life in heaven/paradise.

However, believers still have the last say in whether they want to comply or not. If they decide not to comply, then they would have recognized they have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract they have 'signed' with God, thus risking God's wrath and their chances of avoiding HELL and getting eternal life in heaven/paradise.

Those theists who committed sins deliberately, unknowingly or has no choice in life or death situations will have to face the omniscient God on Judgment Day to judge their compliance to the terms of contract [covenant].

God have the final say, and all those who deliberately sinned will have to hope for God's mercy for a lighter punishment or total forgiveness if they had to sin because they faced a life or death situation or had sinned in the good cause for the religion [e.g. joining the crusades].

Morality in Deism
As for deists [and also pantheists, panentheists] who reasoned out God's existence inferred from intuitions and experiences, they have a free will and choice to do what they want which is inhibited only by their very thin intuitions and moral conscience which can easily be overwhelmed by evil forces.
If their intuitions and conscience give way [dam burst], deists can turned evil.
As such, deists need to develop & improve [how?] their moral potential and function within the moral faculty to be more effective and progressively.

Morality is innate and inherent within human nature.
Whether one is a theist, deist, agnostic or non-theistic, the moral function and potential exist in ALL humans as a physical moral fact and in degrees of objectivity [as conditioned within a moral FSK].

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: T.B.A.

[Iwannaplato]

Morality in Deism
As for deists [pantheists, panentheists]

This is very odd, though I suppose it could be some idiosyncratic use of brackets. Pantheists and Panentheists are not deists. Pretty much by definition.

who reasoned out God's existence inferred from intuitions and experiences, they have a free will and choice to do what they want which is inhibited only by their very thin intuitions and moral conscience which can easily be overwhelmed by evil forces.
If their intuitions and conscience give way [dam burst], deists can turned evil.
As such, deists need to develop & improve [how?] their moral potential and function within the moral faculty to be more effective and progressively.

Again, merely using unexplained pseudodeduction to arrive at an unjustified conclusion that deists, unlike say, VA himself, have some potential for violence he does not have.

Making up stuff.

[Atla]

Notes: T.B.A.

Gonna be honest here, I liked 'Notes: KIV' more.

It's so much more assertive, more confident. Tells people to boomark the page, keep opening it every day, scroll down to comment two and check if there are any more important details available there. Because the whole topic is so important. It's our duty to read every drop of wisdom VA posts there. By missing anything important, we would betray ourselves. Personally, I have bookmarked over 50 VA topics and keep them all in view every day, sometimes twice a day. Doesn't take more then 10-20 minutes.

'Notes: T.B.A.' though? Not so much. What a weak, passive announcement. It doesn't ask to do anything. The audience feels slightly betrayed. It's as if these topics don't matter all that much after all, and never have.

Bring back 'Notes: KIV'.

Views??

[Iwannaplato]

Notes: T.B.A.

Gonna be honest here, I liked 'Notes: KIV' more.

It's so much more assertive, more confident. Tells people to boomark the page, keep opening it every day, scroll down to comment two and check if there are any more important details available there. Because the whole topic is so important. It's our duty to read every drop of wisdom VA posts there. By missing anything important, we would betray ourselves. Personally, I have bookmarked over 50 VA topics and keep them all in view every day, sometimes twice a day. Doesn't take more then 10-20 minutes.

'Notes: T.B.A.' though? Not so much. What a weak, passive announcement. It doesn't ask to do anything. The audience feels slightly betrayed. It's as if these topics don't matter all that much after all, and never have.

Bring back 'Notes: KIV'.

Views??

You're missing VA's subtle irony. Look at the context. Theism vs. Deism.

Keep in View is the ongoing presence of God, who can at any time perform miracles.
To Be Announced is a Waiting for Godot type observation of the deist. God is not visible and all these theists are waiting around for revelation, judgment day, divine intervention, etc.

While bringing up deism VA had to switch to the sarcastic phrase deists call out when heckling theist preachers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Omission:

As for deists [ pantheists, panentheists]......
edited to:
As for deists [and also pantheists, panentheists]......

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Notes: T.B.A" or "Notes: KIV" is for my personal interests.

As I had stated, my participation in this particular forum is for my own VERY SELFISH reason to refresh or add-to what I have learned in my knowledge database.
I am indifferent to whether my discussions and posts benefit or offend [within rules of the forum and common courtesy] other posters.

I agree "Notes: KIV" is more appropriate which is to add new thoughts and information relevant to the OP in the next post for MY future references; this is to avoid me searching for these new thoughts and information when the thread is turned into a dumpster of rubbish [as evident] by various posters.

[Iwannaplato]

Omission:

As for deists [ pantheists, panentheists]......
edited to:
As for deists [and also pantheists, panentheists]......

And that of course is better, but then what follows doesn't apply well to pantheists and panentheists...

who reasoned out God's existence inferred from intuitions and experiences, they have a free will and choice to do what they want which is inhibited only by their very thin intuitions and moral conscience which can easily be overwhelmed by evil forces.
If their intuitions and conscience give way [dam burst], deists can turned evil.
As such, deists need to develop & improve [how?] their moral potential and function within the moral faculty to be more effective and progressively.

Spinoza, for example, did not believe in free will.
It is not necessary that pantheists reasoned their way to their philosophical positions. (and it's an interesting description of their reasoning in VA's text)Panentheists are more likely to have reasoned their way to that position. But Hindus and Taoists, for example, may simply have been raised in these belief systems.

And, as usual, when telling us that group X is a danger for being violent, we are just supposed to go on VA's hunches, presented as they are as some kind of not clearly laid out deduction.

[Iwannaplato]

I am indifferent to whether my discussions and posts benefit or offend [within rules of the forum and common courtesy] other posters.

Indiffence is always the foundation of any objective morality.
Primarily because showing that one is unmoved by criticism or mockery is much more important than other moral values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I always qualify my OPs with the following default;

Discuss?? Views??

(if missing in any of my posts, it is an omission of my default intention).

So, just discuss and express your views.
If anyone do not like my views, just give your counter views or balanced views or ignore it.
It is childish to give silly remarks contrary to the above.

[Iwannaplato]

I always qualify my OPs with the following default;

Discuss?? Views??

(if missing in any of my posts, it is an omission of my default intention).

So, just discuss and express your views.
If anyone do not like my views, just give your counter views or balanced views or ignore it.
It is childish to give silly remarks contrary to the above.

I presented a counter view to the implicit conclusion that we can deduce that deists, as opposed to theists or atheists, are more prone to violence. I don't think this is justified in any way by the OP. And it is classifying people in an insulting way, including at least one deist we have here in the forum who is quoted in the OP.
I presented a counter view to the idea that pantheism and panentheism are somehow related to deism in the ways described in the OP.

Silly remarks were also present.

[Iwannaplato]

Deduction is often used in a facile manner. X has this quality. Y doesn't. It would seem that X might lead to Z happening.
So, we deduce that X is more likely to Z.
But X often has thousands of qualities, many of them different from Y. These are not focused on.
We focus just on that attribute which leads to the conclusion we like and ignore the others.
We do not even make an attempt to see if any empirical research supports out claim.

And in the case of the OP, if people actually took such an argument seriously, it would lead to prejudice against a group on extremely poor grounds.

I'm not concerned that Henry Q and other deists will suddenly become victims of oppression.

But I think the pattern is important, because this kind of weak or even non-deduction is used in situations where it does lead to oppression and unwarrented us/them thinking.

So, I point out that the OP contains implicit insults and accusations with the facade of logic and reason 'behind' them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the OP, the reference to 'free will' is "relative free will", not the contentious absolute free will.

All humans has relative free-will to do whatever the want within qualified conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists but there are differences between them.

Here's ChatGpt views [with reservations];

Sure, let's break down the differences between deism, pantheism, and panentheism in simple terms:

Deism:
Idea in a Creator: Deists believe in a higher power or a Creator who set the universe in motion but doesn't actively interfere in human affairs.
Distant Creator: This Creator is often seen as distant, having created the world and its laws but not involved in day-to-day events.
Nature of God: The focus is on a more impersonal and transcendent God.

Pantheism:
God is Everything: Pantheists believe that everything is God, and God is everything.
No Separation: There's no distinction between the divine and the world; they are considered one and the same.
Immanence: God is seen as immanent, meaning present in every aspect of the world.

Panentheism:
God in Everything and Beyond: Panentheists believe that God is in everything (immanent) but also extends beyond the world (transcendent).
World as Part of God: The world is considered a part of God, but God is not limited to the world.
Dynamic Relationship: There's a dynamic relationship between God and the world, with the world being an expression or aspect of God.
In summary:

Deism: There's a distant Creator who set things in motion but doesn't intervene.
Pantheism: Everything is God; there's no separation between the divine and the world.
Panentheism: God is in everything, but there's also a transcendent aspect beyond the world.

Each of these perspectives offers a different understanding of the relationship between the divine and the world. Deism emphasizes a distant Creator, pantheism identifies everything with God, and panentheism sees God in everything while acknowledging a transcendent aspect.

[Iwannaplato]

In the OP, the reference to 'free will' is "relative free will", not the contentious absolute free will.

All humans has relative free-will to do whatever the want within qualified conditions.

Well, Spinoza was a decided determined and denied free will specifically. It would be good to use another term in a philosophical context, if you are describing pantheists in general. Deists tend to believe in free will. Hinduism is mixed.
And, again, while Spinoza likely reasoned his way to his position - or at least later reasoned to its justification. Pantheists need not have done this. I doubt most throughout human history have. Most religious people grew up in their worldviews.