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

Thanks for once again proving my point. Hence the distinction of logic based on unconfirmed untested premises in philosophy and the simple step to belief without evidence or dependence on logic in faith. Thanks again for your tact and consideration. Curious how atheists feel they need to insult those that don't conform to their beliefs, resorting to the ad hominem argument is usually a sign of a failed position, isn't it?The problem is that I am not trying to explain anything to you here. All we are talking about here is the distinction between atheists and deists, and all you have done is, again, confirm the conclusion in Message 4, Message 84 and Message 89:

quote:

---

We don't have evidence one way or the other on the existence of god/s, and thus the belief in god/s is not contradicted by the evidence of reality. You can belittle and deride the possibility all you want to, pat yourself on the back and call it rational versus irrational, but that does not make any difference to the basic distinction as originally posted in Message 4:

quote:

---

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).

​

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.

---

And again in Message 84

quote:

---

Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.

---

You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.

---

So do you disagree with this distinction or not?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clarity

---

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) • • •

Parent: Verbal definition; Online Dictionary:v. par·ent·ed, par·ent·ing, par·ents
v.tr.
1. To act as a parent to; raise and nurture: "A genitor who does not parent the child is not its parent" Ashley Montagu."The mother and I of our children, as parents, nurtured and raised our children in a manner which we as parents deemed best for their welfare and success as citizens. Both of my boys received Boy's State Honors and one was a West Point Cadet. They both have successful secular careers, nice home and families.At the age of accountability, my boys were free to go their own ways. They wisely chose the ways that they were brought up in. The Biblical principals which we had brought them up in were significant factors in their success and in the fact that they avoided many of the pitfalls which ruined the lives of some of their old school friends.No, Anglagard, no abuse to our children. Abused children, by and large, have parents who have failed to apply Biblical principals to the task of parenting their children. Sadly, their parents had no knowledge of how to successfully parent their children.

---

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

Going to close it down. Maybe I'll open it later and hide dozens of messages and plaster dozens of off-topic banners.Might even throw in some suspensions.Adminnemooseus

---

Since neither Moose nor I should be playing a moderator role in this thread, I posted a request for moderator help in the admin forum this morning, but I guess no one else is around, so I'm reopening this thread.It isn't clear to me where Adminnemooseus sees a problem. If he could clarify then perhaps this thread could nudge back on track while still maintaining the current focus.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Not sure I completely understand. Elaborate? Religious faith ignores blatant contradictions in reality. Philosophy usually doesn't.If it does, then it's a dead philosophy with no practical applications. Yes, I agree that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, in the same exact way that I consider the existence of an invisible four-eyed jellyfish raping my face as we speak unknowable.Both are unlikely and have no supporting evidence, as well as providing no practical applications to the real world. Why believe something if it changes nothing in your outlook? It's wasted energy.

Fine so your deism is the result of belief not evidence. In that at least we agree. This is the straw man you keep presenting. Nobody is claiming that 100% certainty or any sort of philosophical elimination by disproof is possible. But that does no mean that all claims not actually contradicted by evidence are equal in practical terms. The problem with this is a practical one.By applying this reasoning agnosticism is the only possible answer to each and every specific imaginary being that it is possible to conceive of. No matter how evidently stupid, silly or delusional any such claim may be.For example. Let's create a god. The sillier the better. Wagwah the god of PC freezes, crashes and bluescreens. Any such PC incident that has not been explained by rational means is the result of his will. He is supernatural, undetectable and not contradicted by any evidence.Have I just invented the mighty Wagwah for the purposes of making a point on a debate website? Well possibly. But it is also possible that Wagwah does actually exist and that he has divinely revealed himself to me and that it is my mis-interpretation of this revelation that leads me to think I have invented the whole concept of Wagwah.Does Wagwah exist?That is the question both the atheistic and deistic sides of the debate need to answer in order to determine the practical results of each position.ATHEIST RESPONSE
The formal atheistic answer would be - Despite the inability to disprove the existence of Wagwah and taking into account the fact that 100% certainty is not possible the answer is still "No Wagwah does not exist". I accept the philosophical possibility that Wagwah may exist but this is so negligible as to be completely redundant to all practical intents and purposes. Thus I do not believe that Wagwah exists.The informal (and admittedly rather arrogant even if justified atheistic answer) is: Of course not. Don't be so bloody stupid.RAZD DEISTIC RESPONSE
As far as I can tell from your logically derived Venn diagram summation the RAZD deist answer to the question of Wagwah's existence would be - "This contradicts no evidence so we cannot know whether Wagwah exits or not. Thus Wagwah may exist or he may not. We do not know and cannot say."Is this a fair summary or not?If it is a fair summary I ask the question - Do you really have any more belief in the existence of Wagwah than I do? Or would you agree that agnosticism towards Wagwah is taking open mindedness to ridiculous lengths? We have all the evidence we could ever hope for in favour of the fact that people make stupid things up and then believe that they are true.It is this evidence that your Venn-diagram logicism seems unable to cope with.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That atheists usually reject consideration of the possibility of god/s out of hand, usually with attitude and logical fallacies, like the argument from ridicule: However, we are not talking about beliefs in ad hoc straw man arguments that nobody uses as a basis for religions nor have claimed to be part of a religious experience, nor are there any people with faith in the existence of such a silly vision jellyfish , etc.We are talking about the distinction between atheism and deism. If you don't know much about deism then perhaps you should bow out of the conversation or become educated\informed. Curiously that does not mean than none exist, and does not answer the question - do you or don't you agree with the distinction posted in Message 84:

quote:

---

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).

​

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.

---

Agreeing that god/s are unknowable would be agreeing with deists. The typical deist has faith that god/s exist, but that it\they are unknowable, and that all natural laws etc are the result of the way the universe was created. Thus everything is evidence of creation, but doesn't prove a creator - we only have a sample of 1, and cannot compare a created universe with a non-created one.Would you say that the atheist position is that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, and therefore they don't exist?After all, from your analogy we are intended to believe that your silly vision jellyfish does not exist, yes?Enjoy.psBox jellyfish - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The box jellyfish is the only jellyfish with an active visual system. It possesses four sets of eyes, in clusters known as "rhopaliea", one centered on each of the four lateral faces of its bell.

​

Each cluster consists of six eyes: Four simple photoreceptors capable of distinguishing light from dark, and two more sophisticated "camera eyes"--an "upper" and a "lower"--both comprising a cornea, lens and retina. The lower camera eye also possesses a mobile iris, which expands and contracts in response to light.

---

Curious that they have 16 light sensors and 8 focusing eyes but no brain, don't you think?

---

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) • • •

Not sure how far off topic we can go here, seeing as moose was initially very strict about the topic and closed it down due to off-topic discussion. I'm assuming he reopened it per your request, but not to allow it to stray too far again. Yes, it starts with faith. This is similar to what Percy said, in Message 26

quote:

---

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

---

My position here can also be compared with what Percy said in Message 34

quote:

---

... Thinking scientifically, I cannot prove anything. I can only support my position with evidence that can never become "proof", a concept that doesn't exist within science..

---

His take on the distinction between atheist and deist is belief in a higher purpose (Message 63):

quote:

---

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?

---

Yet any mention of anything that could be taken as supportive evidence is met with ridicule and dismissed as hallucination or the workings of the brain (which can explain how but not why). See what I mean? You are predisposed to consider the concept silly or delusional rather than possible. You then go on - as is typical in these discussions - to create\fabricate\invent as silly or delusional a god as you can think of ad hoc with the pretense that it is a reasonable analogy for the faith people have.This rejection by ridicule is also typical of cognitive dissonance behavior. Here I suspect that the dissonance is between the stated position of being open conflicting with the behavior of rejecting the concept of a reasonable god, thus having to make it seem silly to believe. Typical. Predictable. The question is whether you can take what someone actually believes and demonstrate that it is silly\delusional.Is Percy's belief in a higher purpose silly or delusional? Strangely that does not deal with the issue of actual deists having actual faith in god/s other than to imply that it is stupid and made up, once again getting back to what seems to be the atheist knee-jerk reaction to ridicule and belittle any belief, while claiming to be unbiased.As far as this thread topic goes, we still have (Message 4):

quote:

---

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).

​

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.

---

With the addendum that atheists think that any evidence that deists consider supportive is silly, ridiculous, delusional and not worth consideration.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : engish

---

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) • • •

No, I don't. Like other Radiata and some simple Bilatera they have a nerve net distributed through their body rather than a nervous system centralised to a nerve cord. There's nothing particularly surprising about a jellyfish having sensory receptors and no brains; that puts them in common with all other similar creatures.There's also numerous unicellular organisms, such as the protoctist Euglena, that manage to have "eyes" with not even a neuron in sight.Edited by Mr Jack, : Retitle + unicellular example

Hi RAZD, Well, in order to demonstrate delusion we'd have to show that the position is held contrary to available evidence. Although we can do that with religions that claim omnibenevolent, omniscient, & omnipotent gods, we can't with a deists "god". So delusion is out of the window."Silly" isn't.Most deists I know differ from me in that they accept theres some kind of creator spirit supernatural thingy. The problem is that in all other walks of life they essentially live as atheists, they don't accept things without evidence. They would accept that you can't rule out the flying teapot, so to speak, so they put it in that place in their minds with all the other quadrillions of things that might exist but we have no evidence for. Fairies, Kraken, little green men, etc. In suspending this eminently reasonable standard for one thing only, it represents intellectual hypocrisy, intellectual inconsistency & it therefore follows that it is illogical. This, I think, meets the standard of "silly". That would be agnostics of any stripe. Deism doesn't require god is unknowable. That would be agnostic deists only. That's an agnostic atheists position. It's not my position, nor is it the position of most atheists of whose books I've read. If god exists, then it is potentially knowable. It doesn't matter whether it will or won't happen, but to claim it can't is to vastly overstate the position. If you don't know whether god is knowable or not then you shouldn't say it isn't.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi RAZD, the trouble is that Deists have difficulty seperating the person from the position, so instead of arguing against the position, they make broad generalisations about those that hold that position as if there were any merit in doing this.You done this several times, I think it is rather inflammatory. I think this was what Moose was trying to avoid with this topic. It would be agreeing with all agnostics, whether they are agnositc deists, agnotistic theists or agnostic atheists. It's not my position, nor is it Richard Dawkins' position. Are there any atheists that you know that do hold this position?The atheist position is simple:1. I don't believe in things for which I can find no reason to believe.
2. I find no reason to believe in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.The principle difference between your deism and my atheism is that you find some reason to believe in a proposed deity. You commented about cognitive dissonance with regards to atheists "rejecting the concept of a reasonable god" - I assume this means you think there is some reason behind believing in the god you believe in. I don't. That's the difference between us.Why the need for the undercurrent of general hostility towards atheists over this matter, rather than certain atheists you may have disagreement with?

Sorry, Mod., I went back to my post 115 to add stuff without realising you had basically stated my position.

I am not sure on what basis you conclude that this is scientifically unknowable? For example maybe it will turn out that the ability to hallucinate is an inevitable result of the ability to think creatively.It depends what you mean by "why" questions? But lets not stray too far off topic down that route. You have consistently held up your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" logic along with your accompanying Venn diagram to demonstrate that atheism is a logical fallacy."Silliness" is a subjective term. Either your logic applies to all gods or it does not. "Silly" or otherwise.Either, based on your logic, we should be agnostic about all supernatural beings for which there is no contradictory evidence or we should not.Either your stated logic works in practise or it does not.I suggest that your logic does not work in practise in that it does not always result in conclusions that are consistent with reasoned judgement regarding the actul existence of individual entities.I would go onto suggest that this inconsistency is due to a missing factor from your logical argument. The aim of this was not ridicule but a serious point.I am trying to get you to apply your own logic, and resulting insistence in agnostic conclusions, to something which I am reasonably sure that you are not agnostic about. If my example meets the requirements that result in agnosticism as demanded by your strict logical argument and yet you still fail to actually conclude agnosticism regarding this specific example then it implies that something is missing.Does Wagwah contradict any evidence? No. Therefore by your logic should we be agnostic about Wagwah? Yes. Are you agnostic about Wagwah? Really? Seriously? Honestly?The "silliness" of the example is neither here nor there. It could be argued that all gods are "silly". The point is that your logic, if valid in practise, should apply equally regardless of "silliness".Is there something missing from your logical argument that makes one proposed entity more "silly" than another? If so what is that missing "something"?It is this "something" I am trying to get you to acknowledge.Not all conclusions are equally plausible even when they do not directly contradict evidence. That is my point. I don't know. A "higher purpose" is far more ambiguous than any specific supernatural being and in all honesty I would need to think about this some more before answering. Does atheism preclude a "higher purpose" as well as belief in gods? I will get back to you on this point.But if Percy's "higher purpose" is valid it has nothing to do with the logical arguments against atheism that you have put forwards. Logical arguments which I don't think you even believe in consistently yourself when applied to various beings of increasing implausibility. The question is what is the basis of that "silliness" or "implausibility".According to your logical reasoning should we be as agnostic about Wagwah as we are about any other claimed entity that does not actually contradict evidence.Are you genuinely agnostic about Wagwah?Is there something missing from your logical argument that makes one proposed entity less plausible than another? If so what is that missing "something"?It is this "something" I am trying to get you to acknowledge. Not all conclusions are equally plausible even when they do not directly contradict evidence.That is my point. Strangely you do not attempt to deal with the fact that your strict logical argument is an insufficient basis on which to judge the plausibility of an unevidenced claim in practise.There are countless examples of people believing in things that are demonstrably silly and untrue without even infringing on topics that relate strictly to theism/deism or atheism.The potential gullibility of humans is immense. When assessing unevidenced claims that do not themselves contradict any evidence in terms of their plausibility how do we incorporate this fact into our thinking?Or do we just ignore this fact and claim agnosticism at every turn as you seem to suggest? What evidence? Unless you specifically state what this evidence is how can I ridicule it or discount it?When I last asked this question didn't you explicitly say that deism was faith based and unevidenced? You even linked to a little dictionary definition of the term "faith" in order to make this point.So now you are being inconsistent.Is deism derived from faith or evidence? If evidence what evidence exactly? Are you agnostic about the existence of Wagwah? Honestly? Or are you atheistic about the existence of Wagwah? On what basis do you make your conclusion?Either your stated logic works in practise or it does not.This is a valid question that lies at the heart of your claims and should not just be avoided with further accusations of ridicule and irrelevence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Formatting and spelling

I fail to see why you consider the description of my god of choice as "ridiculing". How do you know I'm not serious?As you can see, "silly" and "ridiculous" are subjective. What is silly to you may be 100% serious to another person. That's why we employ objective reasoning. My jellfish god example was most definitely not a strawman. Can you honestly say beyond a reasonable doubt that truly nobody believes in such a thing, or something equally as "ridiculous" (as you so candidly referred to it as; you might actually be putting down someone else's beliefs--oh no!)?For all you know, I could have faith in the existence of such a silly vision jellyfish. It has roughly the same probability and the exact same amount of objective evidence for existing as the Christian God, or any other god for that matter. Just replace "Yahweh did that" with "____ did that", or "___ caused that". Nor does it mean that my rapist jellyfish doesn't exist, which you for some reason refuse to place on the same level of practical standing with any other deity. No, I do not agree with it, basically because it's a loaded question. The atheist standpoint is not fallacious and I've already explained why.You said yourself that deists employ faith in the unproven; anything that requires any degree of unproven faith does not merit belief, be it in the realm of philosophy or science.You can have faith, but applying it to practical reality when nothing exists to validate it is silly. Oops, did I just use a subjective term? How can you have evidence of creation without evidence of a creator? Doesn't the term "creation" imply a "creator"? Not at all. The most rational atheist position would be that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, and is not supported by any known evidence or objective criteria, which in turn makes it unlikely and an impractical thing to believe in.Humor me--in practice, how does the deist position differ from the atheist position? To my understanding, not at all. The only difference is that the deist likes to keep an air of open-mindedness that is essentially shared by the atheist, just not as loudly and publicly.Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

Not strictly on topic but what the heck, Yep, sounds like a good candidate for the Silly Design Institute. Putting eyes on a creature that can't appreciate the femme fatale sounds like the ultimate irony ....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) • • •