|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
As another resident Deist, let me reply. The rational conclusion based on evidence is agnosticism, the uncertainty of existence of god/s. Atheists are on one side of the line of agnosticism, deists are on the other. This may be a fine line, but the distinction is real, like the difference between negative numbers and positive numbers, with the zero position being your fine line. There are more fine lines than that, becasue atheism isn't a very specific position - it only means that one doesn't believe in god(s), but doesn't necessarily mean that one believes that there are no god(s). I (and many others around here) am what you'd probably call an "agnostic atheist." I see no reason to believe in a deity, and so I don't. But I don't actively believe that god(s) doesn't exist. I think that in the absence of evidence I cannot know for sure, but I won't believe in something for which there is no evidence. I consider the question of the existence of god(s) identical to the question of the existence of fairies or invisible pink unicorns. Technically speaking we have no evidence one way or the other - we don't know that they don't exist. But we don't have any reason to think that they do, and so I simply don't have that active belief that such things exist. So too with god(s). Deities could exist, and I simply don't know. But until I have a reason to think they do exist, I have to conclude "probably not," or at least "I don't have any reason to think so."
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy). Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, you know, so long as a thorough and appropriate search has been undertaken and failed. If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, which is a stronger distinction, and is what your logical statement actually refers to. If you look thoroughly for something and find no evidence of it, the absence of evidence is supporting evidence that the thing does not exist - it's simply not proof that the thing doesn't exist. Splitting hairs? Sure - but the rationale behind different flavors of atheism is all about hair-thin distinctions, an absence of faith versus faith in absence. I have no faith in the nonexistence of god(s). I simply have no faith at all, which forces me to respond "no" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" in the absence of any evidence. Conversely, if you were to ask me "do you believe that god(s) do not exist?" I would have to respond "I have no reason to think they do, but I have no active belief one way or another." The reason I'm an atheist is because I simply and completely reject faith as a method of drawing conclusions. My default position for any proposed entity (from deities to ghosts to pink unicorns) is that I don't think exists until I have a reason to think it does in the form of supporting evidence, with the strength of evidence required being based on how extraordinary the claim is. I don't require much evidence to believe that a cat exists in my neighbor's house, for instance, but I'd require more extraordinary evidence to support the existence of a brown, furry, small humanoid alien who speaks English and eats cats in my neighbor's house. I find perpetual neutrality about every imagined entity to be untenable - while technically we cannot know whether Alf exists in my neighbor's house, if I look for him and he's not there (and there is no other evidence to be found), the reasonable conclusion is that it is more likely that he does not exist. Full agnostics require absolute proof one way or the other, and so perpetually trap themselves on the fence. I'm willing to see shades of gray, and say "I don't know, but more likely not."
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works. Why believe in any deities at all, though? What prompts your belief that even an "unknowable" supernatural entity exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
"I believe a god did x" and "I do not believe a god did x" If I am understanding correctly the deists here seem to define x as creating the first something or setting the universe in motion (so to speak) with no further intervention. They thus believe that a supernatural deity did indeed do x. I do not believe that any deity did create the first something or set the universe in motion. I don't know this for a fact. How could I? I cannot prove it. I just see no reason to believe that this is the case. Hence I do not believe that a deity 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. I suppose it only matters in the context of discussing the requirement or likelihood of a supernatural entity doing x. I am interetsed to know what our residents deists do think 'x' actually is and on what basis they conclude that a supernatural deity did indeed do 'x'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Atheists believe no such thing. We believe there is plentiful evidence that there is no god. Ah. You believe there is no "B" that is not "A" ... one wonders "why so friggin confident?" Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By and large, do deists in the Western world identify the Biblical god as their god? Some may, some may not, however those that do would only use a heavily modified version (no miracles, no revealed truths). It is more a philosophy of belief than a religion, there is no central "church" and no "dogma" to follow. Each is pretty much on their own. For me, personally, it seems that the truth lies somewhere between Buddhism and Pantheism. It seems to me that the enlightenment of Buddha is similar to the prophets of other religions, and that this is also seen in Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau. This state of heightened spiritual awareness exists in all religions, is common to all cultures. The way I see it is that religions have formed afterward, by the followers of enlightened people, and those followers have interpreted things according to their cultures and their understanding of reality. Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, all had followers that created the religions based on their interpretations of these people. Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns reach the same state of spiritual awareness in tests that compare them, and I would not be surprised to find sufi dervishes also compare the same. In native america we had spirit walks, and in australia there is the walk-about. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
On this basis how many things should we be agnostic about? I've been around this issue several times with Modulus and others. Simply put, if you know all {A} and all {B} and you can show that {A} == {B} then you can reasonably conclude that there is no {B} that is not{A}. The degree of confidence you can have in a conclusion that {B} = {A} is the degree you have confidence in your knowledge of {A} and {B}.
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? That depends on what you define as "fairies" - are they visions by people who interpret them as fairies because that fits their culture (and there is certainly evidence of people believing in fairies)? Then yes, fairies probably exist in some form: visions are common. Some people dismiss them as hallucinations, and other don't.
Are you really agnostic about everything for which there is absolutely no evidence? Really? But if you are talking about people seeing fairies, there is evidence that people see fairies - they just may not really understand what they see due to limitations in their understanding of reality. The issue is one of open-minded skepticism, applying both to the question at hand. Does the Loch Ness monster exist? It is possible that someone saw something they didn't understand, and somebody else embellished the story, but that the original sighting was real. Some people feel they have eliminated the possibility of a large plesiosaur like animal, but that doesn't mean they have dealt with the original vision.
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". This is called the Ad lapidem fallacy, coupled with a straw man. Nobody is claiming that little green men live in toilets as part of any spiritual belief. Instead every culture has spiritual beliefs, ones interpreted within their culture but displaying similarities that transcend cultures. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Sorry if this is getting off topic, but I don't really see how the fact that different people experience the world in the same ways is much evidence for anything. When different people take the same hallucigonice drug, it affects their perception of the world in similar ways (set and setting permitting), and many people throughout history have interpreted this fact as meaning that the drug enabled different people to perceive the same, hidden aspects of reality.
I'm guessing you'd agree that this view is incorrect. People all have essentually similar brains, so the psychoactive chemical simply causes the same type of altered perceptions. Why should altered states of consciousness not induced by drugs be considered differently? That the meditations of the Catholic nun, the Buddhist monk and the reductionist materialist can all produce the same effects says nothing more than that people all have human brains. And are the teachings of these various enlightened folk all so similar? I don't see how you could argue that except by cherry-picking near universal standards of morality like reciprocity; and dismissing much that is contradictory as the work of followers, rather than the original prophet. Is there any real reason for doing so, excpet to support your argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
quote: It's entirely possible that there was a genuine original vision that inspired the Loch Ness Monster stories. Still, if you establish that there is no large, pleisiosaur-like animal, then you have established that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. 'Loch Ness Monster' doesn't refer to the original sighting that may have inspired the stories. 'Loch Ness Monster' refers to the subject of the stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I think the first point that needs to be established is "What do deist mean by God"...?
Would deist be satisfied with saying "the entity/being that created the universe"...? If that is it, then it can be seen as reasoning from incredulity. Also, it is a primitive basis for original religions. Where did such a belief originate and for what reasons did it originate? There is absolutely no need to invoke anything beyond natural law to our universe. We are ALL born atheist, it is inherent in humans to be this way. However, indoctrination isn't always so in-your-face as with organized religion, it can be suttle and almost unnoticable. But, by simply saying that "maybe" there is something that created the universe, you have shown signs of being indoctrinated into a non-rational train of thought. If nature is all you see and know, how could anyone postulate anything beyond it? Sure, our imaginations may be able to postulate a pink unicorn, or a God, but neither one has any rational basis for existing. RAZD writes,
RAZD writes: The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy I do not believe this, well sort of. Yes, as an atheist I believe there is no evidence for god. But, I also feel that there is no basis for believing there IS a god. It was a primitive answer to a complex question. If there had never been any organized religion, no concept of gods, AND, you knew everything you knew about science, would you even postulate a god? Keep in mind, that just hearing the term god as a child, even if you are not in any religion, is a form of indoctrination. At least in that you'll give the concept of god more relevance than that of unicorns, which we've always associated with a made-up fictional thing. Why more relevance to god then unicorns...? In my opinion, a deist is an atheist who has heard the term god all their lives and always associated it, to some degree, with something plausable, so they keep it kinda on the "I don't know" level. Where as if you asked them about unicorns, since it has always been thought of as fictional, they have no problem with telling you "they don't exist". "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Rahvin,
There are more fine lines than that, becasue atheism isn't a very specific position ... Neither is deism, it's only as you move away from the line that the distinction becomes more clear - either theistic or antitheistic. It is more of a spectrum than a quantum phenomena.
I (and many others around here) am what you'd probably call an "agnostic atheist." I see no reason to believe in a deity, and so I don't. I have a friend that describes himself as an apatheist - he just doesn't care whether there is or is not god/s.
Technically speaking we have no evidence one way or the other - we don't know that they don't exist. Technically speaking we have evidence of religious beliefs in all cultures. We don't have evidence of faith in invisible pink unicorns or tiny green toilet goblins in any cultures (although one might wonder when watching TV ads)
If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen. And yet this does not mean that your pen has disappeared from the haunts of men, carted off by invisible pink unicorns or tidy-bowl goblins. This just means that the pen is not in the area of {A} that you have confirmed is {B}.
If you look thoroughly for something and find no evidence of it, the absence of evidence is supporting evidence that the thing does not exist - it's simply not proof that the thing doesn't exist. Splitting hairs? Sure - but the rationale behind different flavors of atheism is all about hair-thin distinctions, an absence of faith versus faith in absence. The confidence you can have is proportional to the confidence you have that you know all {A} and all {B}.
I find perpetual neutrality about every imagined entity to be untenable ... Which, curiously, explains why you, and many people, make the choice you do, not that the choice is one based purely on reason.
Why believe in any deities at all, though? What prompts your belief that even an "unknowable" supernatural entity exists? Because I am open-minded about spirituality, I've had spiritual experiences, and I remain skeptical of all claims of positive knowledge in this area. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
'Loch Ness Monster' doesn't refer to the original sighting that may have inspired the stories. 'Loch Ness Monster' refers to the subject of the stories. This is equivocating on the issue. Without the original sighting there is no Nessie story, it does not matter how much the "religion" of Nessie has evolved from the first sighting, for the first sighting to be valid. Some may dismiss the evidence as hallucinations, or drugs, tell themselves it is just a common brain pattern, but that doesn't really answer the question. And this also answers your Message 36 Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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 would be one interpretation. Another would be that it has the same desired result, a species developing increasing intelligence and awareness, although the species could change, the location could change. Either way, I could also counter your assumed numbers by saying that in 0.1% of the time, the deist god/s did 100% of the work (job done, no need to interfere) while the theist god in 99.9% of the time has only accomplished 50% of the work (job half done, gotta keep adding things, redesigning things, scratch and start over). Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, you know, so long as a thorough and appropriate search has been undertaken and failed. If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen. Pens are visible to the naked eye. Things like heat rays are not. Try observing a heat ray on your desk with the naked eye. It may be there but you don't see it with the naked eye. You may, however, feel heat in the area of your desk. Some of us who have been born of the spirit of God and have experienced the effects of God know that God exists similarly as you may know that heat exists on your desk. Perhaps you have yet to make an appropriate search for God. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 859 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Pens are visible to the naked eye. Things like heat rays are not. Try observing a heat ray on your desk with the naked eye. It may be there but you don't see it with the naked eye. You may, however, feel heat in the area of your desk. Some of us who have been born of the spirit of God and have experienced the effects of God know that God exists similarly as you may know that heat exists on your desk. Perhaps you have yet to make an appropriate search for God. Perhaps you should use a different analogy as many do not consider one sense, eyesight, superior to another, namely feeling heat or cold. However, it is obvious that a nematode worm would consider feeling superior to eyesight as the worm lacks not just eyes but indeed any concept of eyes. So since you have seen god with your own eyes, as a self-proclaimed ubermensch, or at least the 'feeling' of your own eyes, as per this post I must ask, is he as Caucasian as you expected? Did he have wavy hair and blue eyes as our genetic purity post-Vikings would demand? Edited by anglagard, : Correct bad brackets Edited by anglagard, : Clarity Edited by anglagard, : pure spite and rationality Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: Some may, some may not, however those that do would only use a heavily modified version (no miracles, no revealed truths). It is more a philosophy of belief than a religion, there is no central "church" and no "dogma" to follow. Each is pretty much on their own. No surprises. So there are lots of different deists believing in lots of different deities. How should we then estimate the probability of a particular one of these deities actually existing? Taking one at random, the RAZD deity, for example, the estimated probability would be very low. Far to low to justify an active belief in the thing (whatever it is).
For me, personally,.... Ah, the world of subjective "truths".
The way I see it is that religions have formed afterward, by the followers of enlightened people, and those followers have interpreted things according to their cultures and their understanding of reality. Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, all had followers that created the religions based on their interpretations of these people. Those three have teachings that contradict one another. Mohamed's are about as enlightened as the rantings of your average psychopath. What about L. Ron Hubbard? Was he enlightened? And John Smith? And the inventors of religions that involve human sacrifice?
Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns reach the same state of spiritual awareness in tests that compare them, and I would not be surprised to find sufi dervishes also compare the same. In native america we had spirit walks, and in australia there is the walk-about. Which tells us that all Homo Sapiens have Homo Sapiens' brains. Similar phenomena occurring in different cultures is hardly surprising. Many cultures have invented the idea that evil spirits cause contagious diseases and mental illnesses, which is clear evidence of the human capacity to invent mystical bullshit. Many different deities have been invented in many different cultures. That's hardly a reason to invent your own, and then believe in it. Having said all that, if people feel they have to be religious, I wish they'd all be deists! {ABE} Or perhaps even better, animists. Edited by bluegenes, : addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Raz writes: But if you are talking about people seeing fairies, there is evidence that people see fairies - they just may not really understand what they see due to limitations in their understanding of reality. Straggler writes: 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". This is called the Ad lapidem fallacy, coupled with a straw man. Nobody is claiming that little green men live in toilets as part of any spiritual belief. Instead every culture has spiritual beliefs, ones interpreted within their culture but displaying similarities that transcend cultures. Well how much "evidence" do we need before agnosticism rather than "atheistic" dismissal is the rational conclusion? If I genuinely feel the presence of physically undetectable magical little green men in the toilet is that enough to conclude that there must be something about which we should be agnostic? Or not? After all I may not really grasp what the source of this feeling is due to limitations in my understanding of reality but that feeling is enough to suggest something worth being agnostic about rather than dismissing the whole thing as nonsense. Or not? Where is the dividing line between that which can be dismissed as imagined nonsense and that which is a poorly understood manifestation of something worth being agnostic about? It seems very very unclear. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024