RAZD writes:
The similarity between deist and atheist is that we both feel there is sufficient subjective evidence to logically conclude that our opinions are valid.
For the deist this justifies faith.
For the atheist this justifies no need for faith.
Mark24,addressing RAZD writes:
It matters not one iota that you consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the God-Of-Things-Locked-In-Drawers, & asteroids made of chocolate etc. a ridiculous comparison. The fact is that evidentially they are equivalent, & that no matter how much you wish it weren't so, you are operating a double standard in what you accept based on evidence. Therefore you are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading. Conclusions based on logical fallacies are not reasonable, your view is based on one, therefore it is not reasonable.
The old absense of evidence argument again, eh? Logic does not rule the world in every case. Belief is belief, and while I will concede that belief is often illogical, I won't concede that logic is the yardstick to measure rationality. As RAZD points out, people can and
do have different world views and at times the only evidence of sanity or lack of same is the observation of the life of the individual. Out of everyone in these forums that I have ever argued with, jar had the most logical argument in regards to Theism. Atheists have never shown me anything that would change my mind on the issue, "special pleading" or not. Special pleading only makes sense in the context of logic being the ultimate authority.