Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 142 of 375 (499544)
02-19-2009 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by mark24
02-19-2009 5:37 AM


Re: magnum opus response
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 5:37 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 6:46 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 145 of 375 (499548)
02-19-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by bluegenes
02-18-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
bluegenes writes:
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
I don't follow. Why must?
See, any basic argument either concludes with an assertion or a quastion. Observe:
I. Bill: "God exists."
Phil: "Which God"? or..."How do you know"?
conclusion: Make an assertion=provide the evidence.
II: Bill: "There is no evidence for God. Logic is the basis for reality. Therefore, there is no God.
Phil: Logic is not the basis for all reality. Truth is. God either exists or does not exist.
Bill: Which God are we talking about, first of all? As we go down the evidential checklist, I find none of the candidates qualify so far.
Phil: Can we know? Must we know? Is belief not enough?
Conclusion: Argument either ends on a question or on an answer. Follow the many possible routes the argument could take.
My 2 cents is that any argument can either end with a question or an assertion. Any arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 5:42 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2009 7:58 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 152 by Stile, posted 02-19-2009 8:25 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 146 of 375 (499550)
02-19-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by mark24
02-19-2009 6:46 AM


Re: magnum opus response
Mark24 writes:
Absence of evidence = no acceptance, just like you do with everything else that has no evidence, you don't accept it as true. That is different from saying it is untrue.
Absence of evidence = whatever conclusion an individual prefers to be acceptable for them. I have the right to accept any conclusion I choose.
Why is no acceptance always logical?
There is a woman who, according to our best evidence, does not love you. Do you reject your love for her, or do you love in spite of the lack of evidence reciprocating?
Edited by Phat, : add

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 6:46 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 7:21 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 148 of 375 (499558)
02-19-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by mark24
02-19-2009 7:21 AM


Re: magnum opus response
Mark24 writes:
This has nothing to do with it. If I love someone who doesn't love me how have I accepted something without evidence?
To begin with, you have accepted my hypothetical woman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 7:21 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 02-19-2009 7:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 181 of 375 (499926)
02-21-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by cavediver
02-21-2009 11:11 AM


Determination of World View
cavediver writes:
My spiritual journey is by no means over, and I may end up somewhere completely different, if evidence leads me there. Evidence determines my world-view... simple really.
Interesting. Feelings and intuition are what determine my world-view. I realize that feelings can be deceptive and intuition unprovable...but that's the way I roll.
Straggler writes:
Gods actually existing or gods not actually existing and being the product of human invention are two mutually exclusive alternatives.
Exactly. My belief is that either we initially imagined God(gods, spaghetti, etc) or God imagined/created us initially. I lean towards belief in the latter, though the former seems more logical from a strictly logical perspective.
Edited by Phat, : added features

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2009 11:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024