|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Buz, you might want to look back. I only just now replied to you - that was anglagard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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 - 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 - 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: Christians perceiving deists as atheists is nothing new. It's not just on EvC that this happens!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024