Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?

quote:

---

No, amused because (1) logic will never refute a personal experience, and (2) logic can never disprove reality.

---

1) "You experience your significant other being pasted by a passing bus; it is quite real and visceral. A moment later you find yourself in a cold sweat, lying in your bed. The experience is as fresh as if you had just seen it, but the presence of your quite alive significant other next to you in bed logically leads you to conclude it was just a dream."There, we see how logic and past experience can be used to refute a personal experience. While you have no evidence to say it is not possible your significant other was instantly reconstructed, reanimated, and placed back in the bed beside you I suspect you will not lose sleep over the subject. This example can be applied to any dream you experienced but did not accept as real, assuming of course that you can distinguish your dreams from reality.2) "All clowns can fly. Bucko is a clown. Therefore, Bucko can fly."Valid logic will never disprove reality when provided with sound evidence, but it *can* disprove reality when unsound evidence is used. The logic in the above example is valid, it is simply the premise that all clowns can fly that is unsound.Previously when the deist "saw" the UFO it is reasonable that the atheist would question the experience of the deist. All the evidence that the atheist had access to suggested that what the deist claimed to observe was a fabrication or a mistake. In a more topical situation it could also be argued that the deist had a history of poor interpretation of evidence and a propensity for hallucinations, along with a strong conflict of interest.Even the deist should question his/her own experience; after all it is possible that they were mistaken. Scientists prefer that experiments be replicated by independent researchers, or at the very least the available evidence be verified and interpreted by others. Your argument seems to be that you consider personal experiences to be infallible and incapable of misinterpretation, which is of course a laughable assumption.

The problem with the third group is that subjective "evidence" cannot be evaluated by an observer. An example of what you are calling subjective evidence would be "Mark says he feels funny." We don't really have a clearly defined concept of what "funny" is, and we don't have any practical method to test if Mark is actually feeling it or simply lying or confused. Subjective evidence is impossible to assess unless you are the generator of said subjective evidence, in which case it is synonymous with "preference".Straggler is dismissing out of hand your claim that a theory based on personal preference is valid, and I am inclined to agree. Why would you ever attempt to get someone else to acknowledge the merit of something that only exists in your own mind?

Not so, I am associating it with my willingness to accept the veracity of the evidence. I'm not saying that it cannot be true, I am saying that there is no reason for me or anyone else other than you to think that it is true. It does open up an avenue of investigation, an investigation where you start looking for objective evidence to bring it out of the realm of hearsay. The odd thing is you seem to be treating this like it is a new issue; "News flash, there are rumors of a God character! More at 11!" The investigation didn't start yesterday, it has been going on for thousands of years! Don't you think that if something was going to be discovered to back up these experiences it would have been presented by now? I know, I know, it does not definitively disprove the concept but it has become something of a factor when considering it. You are saying "Hey, give it a chance," but it has *had* a chance. It has had many chances! At this point it is appropriate to go with people making it up and only readdress the issue if we get some objective evidence.It is also about time to quit parroting the same subjective opinions. We have heard it, we know, and we don't care. Unless you provide objective you are not bringing anything new or useful to the table, and if anything lessening the chances that people will listen if objective evidence is found.

And yet you *also* complain at incredibly long threads that don't lead anywhere. Perhaps if you TOLD US about your beliefs and their root we could understand your position better. I believe that Straggler has already indicated in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with you. The second part, where you seem to suggest you simply acknowledge a difference of opinion and part ways amicably, I take issue with. In other circumstances such action would be appropriate but in this case, not so much. This is a discussion forum. It is not a poll, or show and tell. People come here to discuss their views and if you are unwilling or unable to discuss them then you have no reason to post.Straggler has attempted to discuss the differences between your viewpoints and in doing so talked about his beliefs and their roots, in great detail. You have apparently not done so, and when you ask what more is needed to distinguish your viewpoints it is exactly that. Explain the root of your beliefs and perhaps we will get somewhere rather than dancing around the issue. I won't even bother getting annoyed that it has taken this long for you to get around to it.You say that you use "subjective evidence" as an indicator of possible truth but you do not explain how you evaluate subjective evidence. Some have assumed that because you do not explain your process that you have none, but since we already have established that you are holding things back I will ask you directly. You say you use subjective evidence as an indicator of possible truth, but I trust you do not believe all subjective evidence in equal strength. For instance, if you believe in a single religion due to subjective evidence then you must necessarily have rejected subjective evidence for all other religions. Kindly explain to us in what manner you decided to accept some subjective evidence and reject others, in the absence of any objective evidence?