quote: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}.
Who, exactly, is 'the atheist'? At the risk of repeating what has been said many times, all atheism requires is a lack of belief in God. The above is clearly a strawman of the position advocated by most (or at least a sizeable proportion of) atheists on this forum.
I certainly do not believe I know all {A}; and yet - like everybody else - I do not require a rigorous proof before I will believe in the existence of thelaptop I'm typing on; nor before I will say I do not believe in the evil monkey in my closet.
To return to your Loch Ness analogy, and what I assume you were trying to put across, then no - of course demonstrating the God of the Torah to be a myth would not demonstrate all concepts of deity to be a myth. No matter how many gods we dismissed, we haven't dismissed all possible concepts of god. But this is simply an argument for agnosticism, and doesn't really tell us anything of value. We all know that we cannot describe the real world with the same certainty we can prove a mathematical theorem, but so what? You can't prove you're not a brain in a jar, either. What support does all this offer for the idea of a deity?
In summary, to qualify as an atheist, one has to lack belief in God. One does not need to be unshakeably certain that no concept anyone, anywhere described as God could or does exist.
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.
You asserted this before, I corrected you then, yet you continue to misrepresent the position. You may believe we are wrong in thinking that the evidence demonstrates to a high level of confidence that there is no god or other supernatural wotsits, but that does mean that the form of our argument follows your misrepresentation.
We don't have an absence of evidence, everywhere there should be evidence of god there isn't. Everywhere we look we don't find supernatural bibbles we find the regular operation of simple interacting parts operating according to repeated principles; and the closer we study the more accurately our models explain and predict. Deism, theism or any other supernaturalism requires that fundamentally the universe is not as it is revealed to us by our finest means of investigation. I don't see any coherent reason to believe that is so.
They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
You're {A} and {B} examples do not clarify what you're trying to say. What are A and B here?
Deism, theism or any other supernaturalism requires that fundamentally the universe is not as it is revealed to us by our finest means of investigation.
This is a minor point, but I would guess that many deists are like myself in that we believe a scientific approach is the best means we have for gaining an accurate understanding of the nature of the universe. Supernaturalism is not a forgone conclusion for all deists. This is why I say I believe in a higher purpose rather than in a God who created the universe, even though I do believe in God. From here descriptions of my position have to dissolve into ambiguity since I'm well aware of the irresolvable contradictions. Who can explain one's inner beliefs?
I've been thinking whether there's anything meaningful I can say about how my beliefs differ from atheists. This could get complicated since as has been noted in this thread there is considerable variation among atheists (strong and weak, for example), but I prefer to keep things simple, so I'll just go back to what I said before about believing in a higher purpose. I think most atheists probably believe there is no higher purpose, that there is no reason we're here, we're just an example of what can happen in a reality that happens to have something instead of nothing. I believe in my heart that we're here for a reason, but that there is no way we can ever discover or understand what that reason is.
I think most atheists probably believe there is no higher purpose, that there is no reason we're here, we're just an example of what can happen in a reality that happens to have something instead of nothing.
I am an atheist but I do share this opinion. I think though, to some extent, that the purpose may just be existance itself, or "something" instead of "nothing", as you put it.
However, I do not share your belief in a God. I do not think that "purpose" necessarily needs a God.
I believe in my heart that we're here for a reason, but that there is no way we can ever discover or understand what that reason is.
Well if we evaluate that statement, 'heart' is replaced with 'brain'.
What you're saying is that from what you've gathered in your experiences throughout life your brain has developed a sense of "reason" for your existance, does that really seem like something that requires further investigation?
It should be suffice that YOU feel it for YOUR existance, any further 'discover' into that realm can only be done by those who feel this since such feelings are purely subjective.
I don't think that "purpose" or "reason" are necessarily things that SHOULD be discovered, these are not objective things, they are subjective and should be viewed that way...and left to the person who feels it.
Just my thoughts,
- Oni
"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
I think most atheists probably believe there is no higher purpose, that there is no reason we're here, we're just an example of what can happen in a reality that happens to have something instead of nothing.
I think "higher purpose" is a misnomer.
It should really just be "initial purpose," or "a purpose from an entity beyond this universe."
It is rather trivial to show that such things are hardly "higher" in any form of the word.
The entity may not even be beneficial. Or, even if it was, any purpose recently given for any present situation is automatically "higher" and more relevant than any previous purpose. Regardless of who or what bestowed the original purpose.
I really don't even understand how a purpose can be put onto another intelligent being and be beneficial in any way. Such a purpose would seem almost slave-like in the "I made you, your purpose is xxx!" kind of way. Seems very selfish and petty, really.
It would seem to me that the only "good" (non-slave-like) initial purpose that can be bestowed upon an intelligent being is "to find your own purpose." In which case, is that really a "higher" purpose?
I just don't see how any purpose can be forced upon an intelligent being and also be called a "higher" purpose. It seems rather contradictory and very anti-free-will.
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.
What do you call someone who does not believe that absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence?
What if someone thinks it would be cool if the supernatural actually did exist and wasn't simply the result of human imagination? But they need some sort of verifiable evidence in order to believe in such a thing. The kind of verifiable evidence that exists for anything and everything else in this universe that actually does exist. The same kind of evidence that imaginary things never actually have.
Since this verifiable evidence of anything supernatural doesn't exist, they cannot believe, and therefore cannot be a deist.
However they do not absolutely reject the possibility of the supernatural 100%, so they cannot be an atheist (by your definition, anyway).
And they do not think the question is unsolvable, or nothing to care about, so they are definitely not an agnostic.
Of course, I am talking about myself.
I am not agnostic. I am not a deist. By your definition of "atheist", I am not an atheist.
What would you call me?
Personally, I call myself an atheist because I do fit into the simple defintion of "not having a belief in God".
This is why I say I believe in a higher purpose . . .
Percy writes:
I believe in my heart that we're here for a reason, but that there is no way we can ever discover or understand what that reason is.
I usually admire your posts Percy, but your above statement seems somewhat infantile at best, and maybe even intellectually dishonest at worst. Your position seems to dissolve into ambiguity from the very beginning.
We are here for a reason?
About three thousand children die everyday from starvation EVERY DAY. It is a horrible way over a long period of time to die? What's the "higher purpose" for that?
About three thousand children die of malaria EVERY DAY. Consider all the other terrible diseases that kill children every day. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
Thousands of women are raped and murdered everyday. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
I think every time man willfully chooses ANY supernatural "reason or purpose," man DISPLACES rational thinking and empathy. In ancient times, before modern medicine, one in four children died before age five. I am so glad mankind stopped believing there was a "higher reason" for this and got down to critical thinking and science.
Doesn't mean there isn't a god(s). Only evidence of not a caring/personal/higher purpose god(s).
Deism is also a broad church, it is individualistic, there is no "church" or standard belief. One wonders how anyone could conclude that there is a single god if you believe that understanding god is outside human capability and there is no communication.
We're all born pure atheists, then absurd cultural influences corrupt most.
And I thought the first god was the supplier of food and comfort (hi mom ).
The topic is what the difference is between deist and atheist, and from reading the posts from atheists here it appears that a consistent element is to deny that any evidence of spirituality is anything other than hallucination and an effect of the way the human brain works. The claim is that this is a rational conclusion.
Atheists do not necessarily believe any of what you've said above.
When you claim that it is a rational conclusion, then that is what you do believe. To me it is one salted with confirmation bias (the only evidence is negative) and cognitive dissonance (all evidence that appears positive is hallucination or a product of brain function, NOT of spirituality).
I consider it rational to say that the evidence is not conclusive either way, and that an open mind cannot dismiss it out of hand. I also consider that my belief is not rational, but it is also not contradicted by evidence - it is faith, after all.
But the topic is not what I or Percy or any of the other deists here think or believe, the topic is the difference between d and a,
The defining difference as I see it, is that the deist believes in (some undefined) god/s, while atheists don't.
How broad is the agnostic church anyway? Or is agnostic a bad word?
What do you call someone who does not believe that absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence?
What if someone thinks it would be cool if the supernatural actually did exist and wasn't simply the result of human imagination? But they need some sort of verifiable evidence in order to believe in such a thing. The kind of verifiable evidence that exists for anything and everything else in this universe that actually does exist. The same kind of evidence that imaginary things never actually have.
Since this verifiable evidence of anything supernatural doesn't exist, they cannot believe, and therefore cannot be a deist.
However they do not absolutely reject the possibility of the supernatural 100%, so they cannot be an atheist (by your definition, anyway).
I would say that if you are not convinced of the absence of deities, and not convinced of the presence of a deity, then you are by definition an agnostic.
I am not agnostic.
Going to the "authority" cited for deism (which I disagree with):
quote:Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + ‘ gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims ” particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality ” is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often mistakenly put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.[1]
So you could have "strong" agnostic and "weak" agnostic.
And they do not think the question is unsolvable, or nothing to care about, so they are definitely not an agnostic.
Which would eliminate "strong" but not "weak" agnosticism, where the answer is potentially knowable but currently unknown.
Then we have:
I would also phrase it as "one who is skeptical about the existence or the nonexistence of God or gods," as this is more the understanding of the term that I grew up with.
Notice that this only implies a single god weakly. They don't have an entry for "natural religion" but they do for "natural theology" which is "theology deriving its knowledge of God from the study of nature independent of special revelation" so a deist would be someone who derives their knowledge of god/s from the study of nature.
That pretty much rules out uncertainty, and is much more the definition I grew up with.
Deism can be similar to agnoticism in being uncertain of the nature of god/s, but is not uncertain about the existence. Atheism can be similar to agnoticism in citing the absence of evidence, but not in the conclusion reached from that lack of evidence. Atheism like deism is not uncertain.
I find it curious that many people will hesitate to define themselves as agnostics, yet they will define atheist to include their agnosticism. Based on pure logic alone, agnosticism is more rational than either side of the issue.
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.
I don't know what brand of Christianity you tried. Sadly, something's amiss. As per your analogy, I see pens all over the desk. I described the Exodus one and cited videos of it. Where were you when that was debated? I see the intricately handcrafted designs of all of them. I see the ones lying around on the desk which the prophets said would be there. Sure enough, when I looked, there they were.
I observe these phenomenal pens. Then I corroborate them with the experiences, peace and assurance which the Holy Spirit provides.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
I believe in a higher purpose rather than in a God who created the universe, even though I do believe in God.
Do you believe that God has any relationship to humans to the extent that this god would have an interest in revealing something about his nature, will and purpose to humans?
Do human intelligent creatures such as we are have any responsibility to God?
Does the Bible have any bearing on the fact that you believe in a god? If not, to what do you attribute your belief?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Deism is also a broad church, it is individualistic, there is no "church" or standard belief. One wonders how anyone could conclude that there is a single god if you believe that understanding god is outside human capability and there is no communication.
I'm perfectly happy with the flexibility. The more the better, but it was that Wiki article that consistently used "God" in the singular, and although it does describe different kinds of deism, the belief in a god (singular) seems to be a consistent element. Wiki articles, I recognise, are not necessarily anything to go by!
RAZD writes:
The topic is what the difference is between deist and atheist, and from reading the posts from atheists here it appears that a consistent element is to deny that any evidence of spirituality is anything other than hallucination and an effect of the way the human brain works. The claim is that this is a rational conclusion.
That may be true of most atheists here, but remember the Jains, Buddhists, Animists and babies. Some of the confusion here is because we're pointing out to you that atheists are not a group with a common philosophy, as wiki puts it. Then, each one of us will give personal opinions which are not meant to represent other atheists.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Atheists do not necessarily believe any of what you've said above.
When you claim that it is a rational conclusion, then that is what you do believe. To me it is one salted with confirmation bias (the only evidence is negative) and cognitive dissonance (all evidence that appears positive is hallucination or a product of brain function, NOT of spirituality).
The comment of mine you quoted above was in response to your attempted definition of atheists, and it relates to my point above.
Now, to make it clear, I'll give you a bluegenes opinion on what you call "evidence of spirituality" while emphasising that I speak for no other atheists.
Firstly, from decades of observation of people who talk about having spiritual experiences, I see no evidence that they are tapping into any kind of extra-universal information, but rather, that the experiences, although certainly genuinely felt, are personal, emotional, and highly subjective. When such a person starts talking about confirmation bias on the part of others who don't take the "spiritual experiences" seriously, that person is on very shaky ground, and needs to examine whether the phrase might be used the other way around. If you seriously think that there is not a strong element of desire involved in religious beliefs, then you haven't noticed much about the creationists that you deal with regularly on this site.
But the important thing about these spiritual experiences is that they vary enormously by individuals, and the conclusions drawn from them by one can be the opposite of the conclusions drawn by another. That doesn't fit the hypothesis that there is anything genuine or objective about them. A bluegenes type comment is that there maybe as many gods as there are theists, because I think that there's strong evidence of different people in the same sect of the same religion actually believing in very different gods. They seem like subjective constructions.
It's not something that I've only thought about for a few years, but for a long time. I don't think that there's evidence that we can have short cuts to "truths" through these things called spiritual experiences, and that we should be wary of them. Remember, bluegenes' opinion, not that of all atheists.
I consider it rational to say that the evidence is not conclusive either way, and that an open mind cannot dismiss it out of hand. I also consider that my belief is not rational, but it is also not contradicted by evidence - it is faith, after all.
I agree that it's faith, and I also agree that it should not be dismissed out of hand, but I am claiming decades of observation and thinking about it, which, even if I'm completely wrong, is not "out of hand". I'll also mention a popular misconception about atheism. Not believing in any deities is not the same thing as believing that deities are an impossibility, or that "intent" behind the universe is impossible. I personally don't think that at all.
The defining difference as I see it, is that the deist believes in (some undefined) god/s, while atheists don't.
Quite right. And I'll mention again the reason why this topic's probably here, and that's because most atheists and deists have no philosophical reason to disagree on science, so that creationists often unwittingly compliment deists by calling them atheists.
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).
My topic theme was not to compate deism to theism, thus the pertinent part is:
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)...
But my counter is that the atheist (non)God, in 0% of the time did 100% of the work. You pick a starting point and call it your deistic God, the agnostic/atheist picks the same starting point and calls it "don't know"/"not God".
Your deism is "in the very beginning the was God - since then, no God." Non-guidance except for the very beginning and total non-guidance is essentially if not absolutely the same thing. Thus deism is essentially if not absolutely equivalent to agnosticism/atheism.
Re: How broad is the agnostic church anyway? Or is agnostic a bad word?
I think it's wrong to look at these definitions of atheist and agnostic as if they're contradictory. One can easily be both, as I suppose you could be an agnostic theist or, as yourself, an agnostic deist. 'Belief' and 'certain knowledge' are not synonomous. If I ask two friends which one of them ate my last muffin, and both blame the other, I may well believe Friend A, because he's generally more trustworthy and doesn't really like that flavour of muffin very much. This doesn't mean I know for certain that Friend B took the muffin.
I don't know why anyone would want more details about my religious beliefs because by my own admission they are contradictory. They do not derive from rational reflection. They're just there, a part of me. I can't answer your questions because I would be contradicting myself in every other sentence. The answers don't make sense even to me.
).
™ Version 4.2