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

I didn't see those at all as contradictions, rather, they were two ways of saying the same thing. I gave those arbitrary values for "starting the universe" versus "everything that happened since said start". From the theist perspective, I would think that "starting the universe" is a relatively very small part of the collected "works of God".Moose

If 0.1% theism is the biggest rival of theism, then why wouldn't 0% theism be bigger? If atheism is not a bigger rival then that small difference is critical. The problem here, is that the universe was created at the start to cause "everything that happened since said start" and thus it is also included in the package. Yet we only know one very small portion of one part of the curriculum vitae, and you assume theists know the rest?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : rest

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The quote is:

quote:

---

In Western society, one of theism’s strongest rivals, historically speaking, has been deism.

---

It does not say deism is THE strongest/biggest rival - It says ONE OF the strongest rivals. Certainly, now atheism is a stronger and more prominent rival - How much of the general population has any idea of what deism is? Before my participation in , I had never heard of such a thing.Also, they say "historically". At the beginnings of the United States, wasn't deism a big thing? And atheism probably a small thing?The essence of it all is, I'm calling deism to be essentially the same thing as agnosticism and/or atheism. To what degree that is true is the topic title question. You seem to be saying God had things preprogrammed towards exactly the results we now have. He did not at all "roll the dice". God could start the universe again and have things replay the exact same way.That sure sounds like a micro-manager God - Highly theistic and not what I understand to be deistic. Theistic extremists do come off a being highly non-agnostic. I think they're wrong, and most any thinking and honest theist would have a fair chunk of agnostic in him or her. A deist does have that big chuck of agnostic in him or her.Moose

We're often told by theists (and deists are a sub-category of theists) what atheists believe. In fact, an atheist is just anyone who lacks Faith/belief in any gods. In the same way that a weak agnostic will tell you, as an irrefutable statement of fact, that he or she personally does not know if there are any gods, I can tell you, as an irrefutable fact, that I personally don't believe in any gods.Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. If you do not know whether there are any gods or not, then you do not believe in any gods. It is strong agnosticism and weak atheism that are close to being the same, not deism and atheism.It must always be remembered that belief in evidenceless supernatural propositions is what requires Faith, and this belief is active. Atheism is passive. Anti-theism is politically active, but requires no Faith. Not all atheists are anti-theists or anti-religious by any means. Perhaps most atheists are just people who don't require a father figure or an imaginary guiding friend, and the various positions have more to do with emotion than reason.So, in answer to the O.P., deism and atheism are clearly not the same things, but they are seldom in practical conflict, because the universe would be the same either way, so both groups are very likely to accept methodological naturalism as the way in which to discover our environment. That's the reason for the confusion. We only come into disagreement when talking metaphysics, not when talking physics, and that shows clearly on EvC science threads.The non-theists and deists sound the same on science, with people like Percy and RAZD often accused of atheism by our creationist members. It makes sense, and is in accordance with the two "philosophies" that it should be that way. The deists are certainly not contradicting themselves, because methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism.

Yes, it was a major factor in framing the Declaration of Independence and the religious freedom in the constitution. You can call it whatever you like, it is, after all, your opinion.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I've always assumed that atheists come to that position because they truly don't believe supernatural beings exist, but maybe some atheists come to that position out of a repugnance for organized religion? Just speculating, I'm not an atheist myself. Yeah, though I wouldn't describe it this way, that's probably me.--Percy

The atheist believes there is no evidence for the clock maker and denies the existence of the clock. The atheist perceives the clock to be simply a series of mechanisms that work together through natural laws to resemble order in the myst of chaos. Whether this series of mechanisms that has been named "The Clock" has a creator or not is unknown.Why not be an agnostic then, one might ask? Well, it's less of a headache to be an atheist. Why? Imagine if you have to be neutral on every possible fairy tale creature that has ever been thought of by people in the past. You can go ahead being neutral about the immaterial pink unicorns, goblins, witches, and what else have you's if you want. For me, it's less of a headache to simply deny the existence of something because there is absolutely no evidence for its existence in the first place. No

That deists believe in a god indicates that they must have a sense that the supernatural exists.I would assume that there is an element of agnosticism in deists who have no particular god which they believe in. By and large, do deists in the Western world identify the Biblical god as their god?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I would feel that they probably identify their concept of god as similar to early man before man anthropomorphed god.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Atheists believe no such thing. We believe there is plentiful evidence that there is no god. In fact, my atheism has little to do with god or no god, I simply believe in a world without any supernatural elements.That's the key difference between deism and atheism: deists are happy to accept the existence of the supernatural.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't say I'm happy about accepting the possibility of the supernatural. Conflicted is more like it, which is why I prefer to describe myself as believing in a higher purpose, becoming more ambiguous after that.--Percy

I think you're a metaphysical naturalist, which would include being an atheist, of course. But, although I'm sure most atheists are metaphysical naturalists, quite a lot aren't. I know that Wiki is not necessarily an authority, but this article's quite good on the evolution of the word atheist into its modern sense (or senses!).Atheism - Wikipedia Therefore, no, it's not. The difference is that one lot believe in some kind of deity, and the other lot doesn't.

The atheist (or at least this one) sees neither evidence nor a logical requirement for any clockmaker at all. Good or bad.The atheist (or at least this one) also sees the proposed need for a clockmaker to be in itself irrational as it inevitably leads to the question of who or what fulfills the role of the clockmaker maker.The question of how that which we actually know exists came to exist (or even if this is a valid and meaningful question) is a difficult enough task.Trying to work out the nature of existence of beings that we cannot even know actually exist is a just an unnecessary complication and a question too far.In my opinion.

On this basis how many things should we be agnostic about?I am "atheistic" about fairies living at the botttom of my garden.
This "atheism" towards fairies is based on the absence of evidence. Logically speaking should I be agnostic about fairies?
Would you say that you are agnostic about fairies?Are you really agnostic about everything for which there is absolutely no evidence? Really?The list of possibilities is literally infinite (or as finite as our imagination) with regard to the things for which there is no evidence.Whilst you might claim agnosticism for fairies, leprechauns etc. on strictly logical grounds, in any practical assessment of likelihood and possibility, it is my guess that you are essentially atheistsic regarding a whole host of things for which the absence of evidence is the only evidence we have.Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe the only rational conclusion regarding the existence of little green men that live in the toilet but who are magically undetectable to all human forms of detection is indeed to say "I don't know".You tell me?

quote:

---

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

---

--Betrand RussellI know Moose wanted to avoid a battle of the metaphysics, but RAZD started it How fine is the line betwixt deist and atheist? It depends on your own personal assessment on the importance of believing or not believing in a deity turns out to be. If it is crucial to believe, there is a chasm of difference between the two. If it is not, then the line is as fine as it can be. There's no normative conclusions that are derived from deism, it seems to me to be simply a difference purely in the realm of description.On the other hand, there is a world of difference between"I believe a god did x"
and
"I do not believe a god did x"They are indeed, mutually exclusive positions. Does it matter whether god did x? It might do in some cases at some times, other times no. The line is thick or thin depending on context.