Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 375 (498497)
02-11-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by bluegenes
02-11-2009 3:22 AM


Re: Subjective "truths".
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).
Missing the point. If god is unknowable then how do I know which god? How does anyone? The real question is not the probability of a single defined god but of the existence of any god.
Now, do we get a "creationist" probability calculation based on made up numbers to cover unknowns?
Ah, the world of subjective "truths".
As opposed to dogmatic beliefs in absolute truths, yes. If we can't know, all we have are tentative approximations.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2009 3:22 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2009 8:09 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 9:05 AM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 375 (498499)
02-11-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
02-11-2009 7:37 AM


Re: Subjective "truths".
RAZD writes:
Missing the point. If god is unknowable then how do I know which god? How does anyone? The real question is not the probability of a single defined god but of the existence of any god.
I'm not sure if there's a point to be missed. Indeed, as you say, how does anyone know which god? And how does a deist believe in something when he doesn't have a clue what it is that he's believing in, and when he seems to admit that he cannot know whether whatever it might or might not be exists or not? Belief is active, remember.
It sounds as though believing in your deity might require a sense of humour, which I know you have.
You may be close to presenting evidence for Moose's point that there seems little difference between a deist and an atheist, or at least, some deists and some atheists. Perhaps he would have hit the nail on the head if he had suggested that it's a fine line between deism and pantheism as well as atheism. In respect to the word "god", what's the difference in people believing in something that could be everything, or nothing, or anything else, and people who have no beliefs in anything described by the word?
But what I'm objecting to are your Buzsaw-like attempts to justify deism. Humans invent non-theistic religions, polytheistic religions, and mono-theistic religions. That fact is no justification for any individual's religious beliefs. If anything, the opposite.
You claim that all these religions have something in common, but that thing is not a mono-deity. It's the concept of a human soul that seems to exist in every human religious culture, and nothing else.
Would the many independent inventions of the human soul justify a belief in the concept? I say no, because I can think of several reasons why the concept would occur in any group of humans, and why it would appeal and stick in any culture. But what's certain, the only common point in human religions is not a mono-deity, so your argument in no way justifies deism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:16 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 375 (498502)
02-11-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by anglagard
02-11-2009 1:47 AM


Strawman Attempt
anglagard writes:
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?
Your silly strawman totally misses the point. I've never seen a heat wave with my naked eye. I've never seen God with my naked eye. I've observed the effects of both. Get it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2009 1:47 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-11-2009 9:06 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 92 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 2:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 49 of 375 (498509)
02-11-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
02-11-2009 7:37 AM


Re: Subjective "truths".
Bluegenes writes:
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).
Missing the point. If god is unknowable then how do I know which god? How does anyone? The real question is not the probability of a single defined god but of the existence of any god.
Doesn't this ultimately come down to a contest between the probability that human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur in a variety of cultures and the probability that an uncreated, highly complex supernatural being actually exists?
Now, do we get a "creationist" probability calculation based on made up numbers to cover unknowns?
Well we might be able to assess the likelihood of different cultures independently arriving at broadly similar irrational conclusions?
Bluegenes writes:
Ah, the world of subjective "truths".
As opposed to dogmatic beliefs in absolute truths, yes. If we can't know, all we have are tentative approximations.
Is it really a dogmatic belief to suggest that similar irrational conclusions across cultures are more likely to be the result of similarities in human psychology rather than the actual existence of complex, eternal supernatural beings?
Really?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:31 PM Straggler has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 375 (498510)
02-11-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-11-2009 8:29 AM


Re: Strawman Attempt
You missed the point. Anglagard was pointing out that no distinction was being drawn by Rahvin between observations you make with your eyes versus observations you make with your other senses. Obviously anything detectable by the senses is a valid observation of the real world.
When you responded in your Message 42 to Rahvin's simple example of not seeing a pen on his desk, you falsely assumed that Rahvin would not admit non-visual evidence of the pen. That is, of course, false. Nice strawman, though.
What you're trying to say is that you can feel God's presence, but not with any of the five traditional senses. The response seems to be that we only have five senses, and there's no evidence for any more, so whatever you think your sensing must come from your imagination.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 8:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 7:33 PM Percy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 375 (498552)
02-11-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by bluegenes
02-11-2009 8:09 AM


Re: Subjective "truths".
But what I'm objecting to are your Buzsaw-like attempts to justify deism.
Curiously, I was thinking that the blanket rejection of this evidence as mere hallucination, invention, etc, was similar to the creationist rejection of the evidence for evolution: they just don't consider it valid.
Indeed, as you say, how does anyone know which god?
One doesn't. Even whether any concept currently known is even close, just that there is something there that we don't understand and likely never will, something - or somethings - with abilities beyond\outside nature\time.
Belief is active, remember.
Is it?
You claim that all these religions have something in common, but that thing is not a mono-deity. It's the concept of a human soul that seems to exist in every human religious culture, and nothing else.
No, not the religions, the initial spiritual experiences. As noted, these states have been tested in Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns and found - to the extent they can be measured - to be the same.
I say no, because I can think of several reasons why the concept would occur in any group of humans, and why it would appeal and stick in any culture. But what's certain, the only common point in human religions is not a mono-deity, so your argument in no way justifies deism.
You are free to believe that. Not having claimed any mono-deity, this is rather irrelevant.
You feel there isn't sufficient cause to believe, I feel there is. I also feel that everyone needs to find their own path, so I don't ask you to believe what I believe.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2009 8:09 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 7:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2009 8:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 375 (498553)
02-11-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
02-11-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Subjective "truths".
Doesn't this ultimately come down to a contest between the probability that human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur in a variety of cultures and the probability that an uncreated, highly complex supernatural being actually exists?
And that the "human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur" could be intentional, to allow the belief that a "highly complex supernatural being actually exists" could occur.
Well we might be able to assess the likelihood of different cultures independently arriving at broadly similar irrational conclusions?
You can only calculate the probabilities when you know the possibilities.
Is it really a dogmatic belief to suggest that similar irrational conclusions across cultures are more likely to be the result of similarities in human psychology rather than the actual existence of complex, eternal supernatural beings?
I was originally referring to the dogmatic belief of established religions that try to force all their flock into one belief pattern, one controlled by the "church", but yes, to dismiss evidence without consideration is dogmatic. To dismiss something solely because it has\can not be tested is dogmatic.
The problem is dealing with philosophical and untestable concepts where the scientific method is unable to work. We can measure the external effects of a religious experience, but we cannot measure what is inside it. I cannot hand you my experience to let you try it on.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 9:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 375 (498554)
02-11-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
02-11-2009 7:16 PM


Re: Subjective "truths".
Curiously, I was thinking that the blanket rejection of this evidence as mere hallucination, invention, etc, was similar to the creationist rejection of the evidence for evolution: they just don't consider it valid.
Let's be completely explicit here - What evidence are you referring to?
Bluegenes writes:
Indeed, as you say, how does anyone know which god?
One doesn't. Even whether any concept currently known is even close, just that there is something there that we don't understand and likely never will, something - or somethings - with abilities beyond\outside nature\time.
Let's be completely explicit here - What exactly leads you to conclude that things with "abilities beyond\outside nature\time" necessarily or even probably exist?
Bluegenes writes:
Belief is active, remember.
Is it?
Erm... Yes.
Isn't it? Please explain?
Bluegenes writes:
You claim that all these religions have something in common, but that thing is not a mono-deity. It's the concept of a human soul that seems to exist in every human religious culture, and nothing else.
No, not the religions, the initial spiritual experiences. As noted, these states have been tested in Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns and found - to the extent they can be measured - to be the same.
And you genuinely believe that this commonality of experience is better explained by the genuine existence of beings with abilities beyond and outside nature/time than the known commonality of human psychology................?
WTF?
Bluegenes writes:
I say no, because I can think of several reasons why the concept would occur in any group of humans, and why it would appeal and stick in any culture. But what's certain, the only common point in human religions is not a mono-deity, so your argument in no way justifies deism.
You are free to believe that. Not having claimed any mono-deity, this is rather irrelevant.
For the sake of clarification can you state explicitly what exactly it is you are claiming so that any further discussion can be rendered relevant.
If not mono-deity then what........?
Be specific (As Rrhain likes to say )
You feel there isn't sufficient cause to believe, I feel there is. I also feel that everyone needs to find their own path, so I don't ask you to believe what I believe.
You are free to believe whatever you want.
But if you claim that your beliefs are rational..... Well any of us that make that claim can be judged on the basis of reasonable argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 375 (498555)
02-11-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
02-11-2009 9:06 AM


Re: Strawman Attempt
Percy writes:
What you're trying to say is that you can feel God's presence, but not with any of the five traditional senses. The response seems to be that we only have five senses, and there's no evidence for any more, so whatever you think your sensing must come from your imagination.
I said I feel God's presence. That's a spiritual experience. Rahvin's sillyfied wording appeared to be more visually related than feely related. Rahvin knew that I was not applying any of the five physical senses but he chose to play the strawman game, as I see it.
Rahvin wrote:
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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-11-2009 9:06 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rahvin, posted 02-11-2009 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 55 of 375 (498558)
02-11-2009 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-11-2009 7:31 PM


Re: Subjective "truths".
Straggler writes:
Doesn't this ultimately come down to a contest between the probability that human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur in a variety of cultures and the probability that an uncreated, highly complex supernatural being actually exists?
And that the "human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur" could be intentional, to allow the belief that a "highly complex supernatural being actually exists" could occur.
So now you believe in a non-interventionist deity who intervenes to the extent that we can deduce his/her/it's existence if we are willing to subjectively look at the evidence in the manner required to make such a conclusion?
You sound like Buz talking about biblical "evidence"!!! "What if the bible is true? Then it all makes sense! Why can't you see?!"
WTF!!!?
Straggler writes:
Well we might be able to assess the likelihood of different cultures independently arriving at broadly similar irrational conclusions?
You can only calculate the probabilities when you know the possibilities.
If we can demonstrate that human psychology is such that irrational and untrue explanations are inherent and innate then where does that leave the possibility that some of those unevidenced and irrational explanations are actually true as compared to their rational counterparts?
You tell me?
Straggler writes:
Is it really a dogmatic belief to suggest that similar irrational conclusions across cultures are more likely to be the result of similarities in human psychology rather than the actual existence of complex, eternal supernatural beings?
I was originally referring to the dogmatic belief of established religions that try to force all their flock into one belief pattern, one controlled by the "church", but yes, to dismiss evidence without consideration is dogmatic. To dismiss something solely because it has\can not be tested is dogmatic.
  • It's dismissed because it cannot be tested.
  • It's dismissed because a long history of similar claims regarding evidence for supernatural beings have been found to be erroneous.
  • It's dismissed because it begs more questions than it answers.
  • It's dismissed because it leads to a logical regression (why be a deist? Why not be a deist "squared" (so to speak - i.e. Why not worship the eternal deity that created the deity that created our universe? etc. etc. etc.)
  • It's dismissed because there are better explanations that we can actually test (e.g. the commonality of human belief patterns and human psychology)
  • It's dismissed because everything suggests complexity from simplicity rather than the other way round.
  • It's dismissed for reasons which are based on reason. Unlike the various beliefs in the supernatural which form the basis for your assertion that the supernatural must therefore exist.
    It essentially comes down to faith Vs reason.
    You seem to think that enough cultures/people independently have faith in something to suggest that something must exist.
    I reason, based on all the above, that these people/cultures share enough common psychology to independently invent something whether it exists or not.
    Enjoy
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:31 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 9:29 PM Straggler has replied

      
    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2476 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 56 of 375 (498568)
    02-11-2009 8:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
    02-11-2009 7:16 PM


    Re: Subjective "truths".
    RAZD writes:
    Curiously, I was thinking that the blanket rejection of this evidence as mere hallucination, invention, etc, was similar to the creationist rejection of the evidence for evolution: they just don't consider it valid.
    That certainly is curious. I mentioned the widespread belief that evil spirits cause diseases. Your line of thinking means that you should accept this as "evidence". Should medical students study these spirits?
    One doesn't [know which god]. Even whether any concept currently known is even close, just that there is something there that we don't understand and likely never will, something - or somethings - with abilities beyond\outside nature\time.
    (My brackets above) We could be in a multidimensional multiverse, and many things could be possible, but:
    RAZD writes:
    bluegenes writes:
    Belief is active, remember.
    Is it?
    Yes. If there are things we don't know (and there are) and things we cannot know, we have no need to play "god of the gaps". Mysteries do not equal deities.
    No, not the religions, the initial spiritual experiences. As noted, these states have been tested in Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns and found - to the extent they can be measured - to be the same.
    I don't doubt it. Brains don't differ from east to west. I've had many strange mental experiences, some even not involving drugs , but I've no reason to believe there was any magic involved.
    RAZD writes:
    You are free to believe that. Not having claimed any mono-deity, this is rather irrelevant.
    You feel there isn't sufficient cause to believe, I feel there is. I also feel that everyone needs to find their own path, so I don't ask you to believe what I believe.
    I feel there's no evidence for deities, and no pressure to believe in anything unless or until there's evidence. I'm also pointing out that the kind of thing that leads our species to have "spiritual" beliefs does not involve deities. The non-theistic religions illustrate that deities are cultural. Monotheism is definitely not innate in anyway, as evidenced by the fact that it took Christianity about 8 centuries to take over in Europe from numerous other beliefs.
    So, the common trances of Catholic nuns, Buddhist monks, Shamans and many others do not have anything to do with deism, which is a cultural phenomenon.
    My apologies for assuming that you are a mono-deist, but deists generally are.
    Deism - Wikipedia

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 7:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 57 of 375 (498573)
    02-11-2009 9:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
    02-10-2009 9:57 PM


    quote:
    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.
    An analogy is not intended to cover all possibilities, but rather to make a point - one you have either missed, or intentionally ignored.
    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.
    I was a Christian for most of my life, Buz. I had the same sort of "evidence" you and others claim to have. I've simply analyzed that "evidence" with a critical mind and concluded that all of my "evidence" was subjective in nature at best.
    Objective evidence has been searched for, and is absent.
    For example, the Creation myth in Genesis is objectively false. The Exodus is objectively false. The Flood myth is objectively false. If the Christian deity as put forth in the Bible were real, we should expect to find evidence confirming it's extraordinary claims. Instead we find none.
    Double-blind studies on the effects of prayer consistently find that there is no significant effect from prayer - or at least nothing greater than a placebo group. If a benevolent, omnipotent deity who answers prayer (as suggested by the Bible) were to exist, we should be able to detect its effect on the world. Instead, we find nothing.
    We've looked. We've found nothing. There are plenty of rationalizations for why we haven't found anything, and of course your typical prophesy arguments...but invariably such arguments hold very little water, being either an extremely liberal interpretation that requires dismissing the original words, and/or so laden with confirmation bias that they amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable tripe resulting from obvious cognitive dissonance.
    I've looked for evidence of deities. What I've found instead was evidence of a Universe that is internally consistent, and while amazing, not in any way directly indicative of any supernatural "power" behind it.
    I've looked for God, Buzsaw, and I used more than my eyes. To re-use the pen analogy, I cannot see the pen, I cannot smell the pen, I cannot feel the pen, I cannot taste the pen, and I cannot hear the pen. I have a typewritten document saying that the pen is on my desk, and a bunch of people who claim I need to have "faith" and that I'll be able to "feel" the pen's presence - but not in any objective, tactile way. Those same people claim that the typewritten document was "inspired" by the pen, but the typewritten document was typed by multiple people over a long period of time. And it's filled with corrections where the copy machine didn't copy a word correctly, and somebody else corrected the copy error. And there are many different versions of the typewritten document, though they all at least agree that the pen is on my desk. Of course, the document also gives the address for the building, and that's wrong, as is the name of the actual company that owns the building. It also says that the pen has been there for over 20 years, when I know that the building itself was built 5 years ago.
    Why should I believe that there's a pen on my desk? I don't see any reason to. It might be there, but the evidence I do have suggests otherwise, and all I have in support of the pen's existence is that royally messed up document and a bunch of loons ranting about how I need to "believe," in much the way children are told they need to "believe" in Santa Claus in Christmas movies.
    So I's an atheist.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2009 9:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2009 8:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 58 of 375 (498574)
    02-11-2009 9:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Straggler
    02-11-2009 8:00 PM


    To summarize then
    Seeing as we are all just repeating ourselves to no avail, and starting to use disparaging comments, it seems like it's time to summarize:
    The difference between an atheist and a deist:
    The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
    The deist believes there is/are god/s, whether it is rational or not.
    It essentially comes down to faith Vs reason.
    So you believe.
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 8:00 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2009 11:36 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 61 by caffeine, posted 02-12-2009 7:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 02-12-2009 8:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 66 by Stile, posted 02-12-2009 12:40 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 82 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 4:41 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 59 of 375 (498575)
    02-11-2009 9:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
    02-11-2009 7:33 PM


    Re: Strawman Attempt
    Buz, you might want to look back. I only just now replied to you - that was anglagard.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 7:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2476 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 60 of 375 (498583)
    02-11-2009 11:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
    02-11-2009 9:29 PM


    Re: To summarize then
    RAZD writes:
    The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
    quote:
    Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism
    Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.
    Atheism - Wikipedia
    We're a broad church RAZD, and wiki does a lot better with its definition than you do. Atheists do not necessarily believe any of what you've said above.
    We're all born pure atheists, then absurd cultural influences corrupt most.
    As for deism:
    quote:
    Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian, Islamic and Judaic teachings.
    Deism - Wikipedia
    Intelligent Design! God is evident when we look at nature, the bacterial flagellum for example!
    Deism, as described in that article, is certainly monotheism, and certainly not atheism. However:
    quote:
    Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.
    Christians perceiving deists as atheists is nothing new. It's not just on EvC that this happens!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 9:29 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 68 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2009 6:44 PM bluegenes has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024