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

quote:

---

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

---

--Betrand RussellI know Moose wanted to avoid a battle of the metaphysics, but RAZD started it How fine is the line betwixt deist and atheist? It depends on your own personal assessment on the importance of believing or not believing in a deity turns out to be. If it is crucial to believe, there is a chasm of difference between the two. If it is not, then the line is as fine as it can be. There's no normative conclusions that are derived from deism, it seems to me to be simply a difference purely in the realm of description.On the other hand, there is a world of difference between"I believe a god did x"
and
"I do not believe a god did x"They are indeed, mutually exclusive positions. Does it matter whether god did x? It might do in some cases at some times, other times no. The line is thick or thin depending on context.

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?

That's what we like to do around here, isn't it? However, I don't remember the thread you are referring to - could you dig it up and link to if for me? Thanks. What does that matter? Does it make your position correct? Do the perceived shortcomings of your opponents make it less inflammatory when you engage in generalisations? Does the perceived hostility coming from your opponents seem like an adequate explanation to you for engaging in an undercurrent of hostility towards the whole group to which your opponents happen to belong? And besides, you don't have any trouble characterising people as being under delusion, suffering hallucinations, or pointing out silliness - though you may well have avoided doing this in this topic. Instead you have erected a strawman and made sweeping generalisations about a significantly broad category of people.I pointed out that I objected to some element of your behaviour. Either say that you don't find the behaviour objectionable, apologise for it, ignore me or stop doing it but the, "But he started it", response is hardly becoming of an esteemed poster like yourself RAZD.Yes, I know that wasn't exactly what you said and that I was engaging in some element of rhetoric designed to maximise how foolish your response appears. In case you want to get pedantic:- I pointed out a problem that I had with some things that you said, and in response you pointed to a problem of someone else. There is a disconnect between these two actions that is akin to a child trying to distract an adult to avoid castigation. If you think they are exactly the same thing - then we have a major obstacle to coming to an agreement. First off the bat - your rewording is different than your original - but that's not too important right now. The fact remain that the atheist position is definitely not 'The existence of god(s) is unknowable therefore they don't exist'. I've not seen a single atheist espouse this position. I asked if you could name any that did, you didn't. Is this because you couldn't, or is there some other reason?I've seen the logical positivist position of 'The existence of certain god(s) is unfalsifiable, and therefore "This certain god or that certain god exists" is a meaningless proposition.'.I've seen a similar probabilistic argument of 'of all the unfalsifiable/unverifiable entities that could exist it is highly improbable that any specific person happens to have stumbled upon one that actually does exist', and then there is the Dawkins probabilistic argument against creators.I've not seen, "Since we can't know if they exist, they therefore don't", that is exactly as poor as logic as you suggest. However since I've not seen it - I suggest you are criticizing a strawman...or at the very least you've found a minority opinion and having identified it as weak you have defeated the weakest part of an army and declared victory in the war, so to speak.Most atheists I've seen express their views don't even go as far as your less strong reworded mischaracterisation of my position. Do you see no difference between "I don't hold the belief that X exists" and "I hold the belief that X does not exist"? As I indicated with the Bertrand Russell quote earlier in the thread - for practical everyday communication, it makes it generally easier to conflate the two positions - but a pragmatic shortcut doesn't give you the excuse to mischaracterise the atheist's position in the face of being told, by atheists, that you have it wrong.As described above, some atheists will go on to say that not only is there no sufficient reason to believe in god(s), but there exist sufficient reason(s) to disbelieve in god(s) (and those reasons aren't necessarily because such entities are 'unknowable'). Such atheists do hold an active disbelief - but such an active disbelief is not necessary for being described as an atheist. Further - those reasons for disbelieving in god(s) are contingent upon the god(s) under discussion and some formulations of the god(s) entit(ies)y are so vague and nebulous it might be impossible to formulate a coherent definitive argument for disbelief in certain constructs.All that said - it was nowhere near what you said the atheist's position is. Indeed - your characterisation may apply to some atheists, but I would suggest that it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists and that the rational thing to do, in light of this evidence pouring in from multiple sources all converging towards this conclusion, is to update your ideas. Isn't it nice when somebody characterises your position accurately? By what criteria are deciding that your God is reasonable and other unfalsifiable/unverifiable entities are (presumably) unreasonable (I think Straggler has been asking this question for a while now - I'm not so sure I'll fare any better). This leads me nicely to my next point:Your cognitive dissonance comment was in response to RDK's "rejection by ridicule", which was actually a reductio ad absurdum. Personally I don't see the problem, during a philosophy debate, of engaging in reductio ad absurdums to argue that an opponent's argument, on its face, can lead to absurdities.Thus your general argument, to paraphrase, 'By not believing god(s) exists just because it is unfalsifiable/unverifiable atheists are committing a logical fallacy' on its face leads to the logical absurdity of replacing 'god' with any other unfalsifiable/unverifiable entity. Unless you can give some reason why the god entity is sufficiently unique so as to avoid any charges of special pleading or you accept that it is equally logically fallacious to not believe in a face-raping squid monster, FSMs, IPUs or (and let me quote you, RAZD, here) "little green goblins, techno gnomes, insectoid ferris wheels, or friendly rabbit-like pookas.", as long as those entities are framed in such a way as to be unfalsifiable/unverifiable. It's not really square one. It is by definition that the deist believes and the atheist doesn't, the issue is that your characterisation of the atheist position is erroneous and you seem incapable of modifying your view of the atheist position even as atheists are telling you that it is incorrect. What is it that you would say to a creationist who insists on arguing against a strawman version of Evolution even as Evolutionary biologists have told that same creationist precisely why their characterisation of the 'evolutionist' position is incorrect?Given the number of times atheists have tried to correct your strawman you continue to put it forward as if it was true. It is almost as if your belief is fixed. It is demonstrably false (ask an atheist if you accurately reflect their position and they say 'no'). And despite the the evidence that contradicts your fixed false belief, you resist changing that belief. What was it that RAZD calls a fixed false belief that is resistant to confrontation with reason or actual fact? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hello RAZD! Thanks again. Though flicking through that debate it seems quite different than this one - for the most part it was a question about whether it was more natural to read a set of statements one way or another centred around whether a rational belief is one of faith or not. I don't think we're discussing 'faith' here - so this is a sufficiently different topic, with sufficiently different objectives that I think we can proceed quite happily with little or no overlap. I explained my use of that phrase in the last paragraphs of my previous post. It is a rhetorical technique, I'll use it again in this post. It is a method I'm going to use in an attempt to drive my point forwards in as persuasive a fashion as I can...or at least entertain the peanut gallery in the process. It is the 'hoist by your own petard' technique, if we're going to deconstruct it. Since you have posted responses to people for the various definitions of delusion, and proceeded to tell them that they are holding fixed false beliefs that are resistant to facts, I was hoisting you on that very petard. For details see Message 16(Simple and RAZD)[/color])< !--UE-->(Simple and RAZD)[/color])< !--UE-->, "It is dismissal of reality that conflicts with your fixed false beliefs. It is not reasoned. " or Message 27, "The test to distinguish ignorance (being deluded, a false belief, the state of being deluded) and insanity (fixed false belief resistant to reason or confrontation with fact) is the response to evidence that contradicts the belief in question. ". To really 'break the spell', or ruin the rhetoric by explaining it, what I then did was use your own previous framing of the issue (one you have used on numerous occasions) by claiming that you are holding a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with fact.Of course, I think you probably knew that was what I was doing since you aren't a stupid guy. I think this kind of request is generally the rhetorical technique of 'playing dumb', in a good Socratic sense of the phrasing, so that you can expose some flaw in your opponent's own rhetorical gambit. Let us see if I still managed to blindly step into the trap Clearly you do see them as close enough, and it seems that atheists don't. Naturally, if you aren't interested in accurately outlining what position the atheist commonly takes I can't force you - but if you want to address the topic in completeness it might be an idea to listen to the atheists and adjust your understanding of their position. At the very least, if you think there is no difference between the two stated positions - you could save a lot of hassle by using the atheist's preferred wording?One way to test if they are identical is to see if your 'logical fallacy' argument works when you are using ONLY my wording. So take what I am saying and tell me how it is a logical fallacy of suggesting "all A is B, B therefore A". When I look at my construct it simply says "If A then B. A, therefore B". (If I don't have reason to believe in an entity (A) then I don't believe in that entity(B). I don't have reason to believe in god(s) (A) therefore I don't believe in god(s) (B)).No, I have no belief that a god exists. This is not because there is evidence for its absence, though I'm willing to entertain that notion. I do not believe that a god exists because I have yet to find sufficient reason to believe that a god exists. Now - certain constructions of certain god(s) would render 'absence of evidence' suitable grounds to actively believe that the god(s) doesn't exist. For example: Let's say that one conception of god(s) is that of a god(s) that appears to a person burning bush whenever the name 'YHWH' is cried out by that person. There is a distinct absence of evidence of this happening, so we might conclude that this is evidence that this concept of god(s) doesn't refer to any entity that actually exists. On the other hand, some constructs of god(s) are vague ("The ground of all being", or "God(s) is real but doesn't exist since existence is what god(s) gives to things, not a state that god(s) have.") or obviously unfalsifiable (God(s) made sure there was no evidence of its existence anywhere within the universe and has the power to do this perfectly). In these constructs it should be obvious that 'absence of evidence' cannot lead to 'evidence of absence'. Since I am aware of this, and yet I still don't believe that such a god(s) exist - the absence of evidence cannot be why I don't believe in such god(s). I have explained why I don't believe in god(s) in general. If you have a specific god or gods construction in mind, I might be able to explain if there is any reason I disbelieve in that god(s).The point is - that there are too many entities which different people call 'god(s)'. To date: there is no 'god entity' that seems to fit what I would call a 'god entity' for which I have found sufficient reason to believe exists. I mean you could define god(s) as being an entity that has flat top and four legs that homo sapiens use to eat dinner off. I would believe in that entity, though I would be hesitant to call it a god.That is the difference: I have not encountered any reason I find sufficient to cause me to believe in any god(s) by any commonly used meaning of that term.
You have found what you would say is sufficient reason to believe in god(s)
Theists have found what they would say is sufficient reason to believe in a very specific (usually interventionist) god(s). Not believing in a god can be quite different to believing that a god does not exist. But rather than getting into the details of that - if you think they are the same thing, why insist on wording them in the way that is most disagreeable to your opponents? So despite the fact that I am telling you that the reason I do not believe that a god(s) exist is because I lack sufficient reason to do so, and despite the fact that I am telling you in as explicit a way as I possibly can that I do not lack belief in a god(s) because a god(s) is unknowable you still believe that I lack belief in a god(s) because a god(s) is unknowable? Unbelievable! I see your fixed false belief remains resistant to change when in confrontation with actual fact. Maybe you can take this as an opportunity to savour the sensation of cognitive dissonance? That isn't only what you said in message 4, and it isn't all that you have said since. In message 4 you specifically said "The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence". That is a different thing that "the deist believes and the atheist doesn't", since your version attempts to explain why the atheist doesn't believe and then to subsequently conclude that the atheist's reasoning is logically fallacious. What I said doesn't do any of this. Further: Your version is a strawman. While some atheists might not believe for the reason you have stated, I do not think your position is a necessary condition for someone to hold the atheist position, I don't even think it is all that common.You have also said that atheists do not believe in a god(s) because they think it is logically sound to conclude that since the existence of god(s) is unknowable it can be concluded that god(s) don't exist. This is also a mischaracterisation, it should be easy to clear up, but your fixed and false beliefs are proving resistant to change when in confrontation with actual facts. You really can't tell the difference? The difference is simple and, I though, obvious: nowhere in the basic position do I claim there is any evidence in favour of the claim 'God does not exist', and message 4 you claim that the basic position is that there is evidence for this proposition (ie., there is evidence of absence).I also note that you have changed the position from1. 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.to1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. I find no evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.I've highlighted the changes you made.Are you really so determined to maintain your fixed and false beliefs that you have to change the words of my argument? I appreciate that you are just saying 'the same basic position', but I have given the position as is with good reason: It is more general than the variant you have created. I think your version is a little too vague and is centred too strongly around empiricism (it could be argued it could devolve into naive realism or some such).I am a sort of rational empiricist - that is to say that rationalism combined with empiricism, in a certain special mixture, is the methodology towards giving reason to believe any given proposition. It isn't just a lack of evidence (strictly speaking there is lots of evidence of god(s)), that means I do not believe in god(s). It is lack of what I would deem to be sufficient reason to believe in god(s). That means that the kinds of evidence and reasoning that would convince me that a proposition is true is lacking in the case of the proposition "God(s) exists". I have shortened this down to 'I can find no reason to believe' for convenience. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : I read through the debate RAZD referred to added a brief comment about it.Edited by Modulous, : hmm lots of edits. Just clarifying why I think that changing the wording of the argument in the way RAZD did is problematic enough to merit pointing it out.

Hi RAZD. Are you saying that I'm not an atheist? No - you agree I'm an atheist. The report of actual atheists about their actual beliefs is an actual fact about what atheists actually believe (or rather, don't believe) and why. It is this actual fact that your belief about atheists is in confrontation with.As an atheist I, and others, are telling you that the reason(s) we don't believe in any deity is quite different from the reason(s) you have outlined, or your reason(s) are a tiny unrepresentative subset of those reason(s). What objective facts, preferably peer reviewed, did you refer to conclude what you did about why atheists do not believe in god(s)? I'd have thought that the facts you referred to were the reported positions of atheists themselves - which are objective facts. And thus, contradictory reports of atheists carry the same kind of factual weight as the kind of facts I believe you believe you used to set up your message 4 description of the atheist position in the first place.I have provided you with the identity of at least one atheist that doesn't use your logical construct in order to not believe (that would be me). I would venture that other atheists have spoken that they also disagree that they use this construct. The only example you have given of an atheist that does use your logical construct is me: an atheist that explicitly says that he doesn't use that logical construct.I appreciate that if we're going to get technical, we could talk about heterophenomonology. We could say that an atheist's report about what they don't believe and why they don't believe it is only a fact about the way things seem to them (or even more technically, it is only a fact about what they say the way things seem to them actually are, and we can continue down that road of 'seems to' at least one more step), not about the way things actually are.I suspect though, things are as I have said: The only facts you have at your disposal are the reports of atheists, so your message 4 is, technically, "The reported position of atheists is that they believe 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)."This is an empirically falsifiable claim - I am, and others are, trying to advise you that it stands falsified - but your beliefs to the contrary are resistant to this falsifying evidence. It is also possible to empirically verify that it is at least sometimes true - but you haven't done that either. So we have some falsifying evidence and no verifying evidence. And yet you still hold on to your belief.Or maybe you have some other source about the beliefs of atheists? In my last post where I showed that my position follows the form "If A then B. A, therefore B." Is that what you mean by 'vice versa'? I'm assuming, for ease, your wording does lead to or stem from, a logical fallacy. Can you show how mine does? If you cannot, that must mean the two positions are different (Law of contradiction: my position can not both be a logical fallacy and not be a logical fallacy). Can you show how my position falls into the trap of "All A is B. B, therefore A."? Argument ad nauseam? I've explained the difference several times. Repeating your position is pointless, don't you think? I have invited you to attempt to show the two positions are identical by showing how they both fall into the same logical difficulties you believe the position you outlined does. If they don't - then there is a big difference between the two - big enough to justify 'big outrage' at the claim that the atheists position does encounter certain logical problems when it doesn't.Since you repeated yours, let me repeat my position again. Your position states that the atheist concludes that there is "evidence of absence". The position I stated does not result in the atheist concluding there is "evidence of absence". My position simply states that I do not believe a proposition unless there is reason to do so. This is the difference. I have stated several times that for certain constructs of god(s) there can be no evidence of absence! How can I hold that I don't believe in such constructs because there is evidence of absence!? You realize this, and so the only thing you can think of is 'cognitive dissonance' rather than 'factual dissonance'. I do not not believe in unfalsifiable/unverifiable entities because there is evidence of absence because I know full well that the definition of unfalsifiable/unverifiable is that such evidence doesn't exist even if the proposition were true.Given your current track record - you will ignore my stated position and instead rely on your own perception of my position as somehow being the authoritative understanding of my epistemological framework. That is only partially my case, and it is untrue by omission. First: I have already stated there is lots of evidence for god(s) - but that's a linguistic shortcut so we'll skip it since I know what you meant. My justification is that if I don't see any reason to believe in a proposition, I don't. Your wording of my justification is that not having evidence for something is reason to believe that the proposition is false.

---

"Mod believes unfalsifiable entity G exists"False.

---

---

"Mod believes unfalsifiable entity G does not exist"False.

---

---

"Since Mod does not believe that unfalsifiable entity G exists, Mod is an aGist"True.

---

---

"Mod cites the lack of evidence/reason or the unknowability of entity as sufficient demonstration that entity G does not exist"False.

---

It may well be the case, that an argument justifying the belief that entity G does not exist (or is so unlikely to exist that the belief position is practically the same) could in principle be constructed, but such an argument is not necessary in order to be an aGist and this argument would not necessarily be based purely on the premise that there is a lack of evidence about entity G.I have given several possible arguments that justify the belief that entity G does not exist (or the pragmatic equivalent) previously.There is finally the issue of potential special pleading. You believe that aGists are committing a logical fallacy somehow by not accepting 'Entity G exists' as a true proposition when they see no reason to accept Entity G exists. Either this is true of all conceivable entities, or you special plead that it is only logically fallacious for certain specific entities (ie., God(s)). If that is the case, why did you say that atheists believe that there is evidence of absence and that it was a logical fallacy? Why did you say that atheists believed that since god(s) are unknowable, they therefore don't exist? If you think it is correct that an atheist is someone who has yet to find sufficient reason to accept the proposition "God(s) exist", why create a straw man about atheists with a subsequent knockout punch? So, in the future, when describing what the justification of atheists is for their not holding that the proposition "God(s) exists" is True what will you say?1. They do it because they have yet to find sufficient reason to believe that the proposition is True. What any given atheist finds to be sufficient reason to accept any given proposition varies.
2. They do it because they believe there is evidence that the proposition is False (evidence of absence).
3. They do it because they hold that it is rational to believe the proposition is False since the entity is unknowable. No, since I don't necessarily reject the proposition that god(s) exist (I reject the existence some god(s)). I have simply not found any reason to accept any god-exists related proposition, so I don't. The absence of evidence and reason is justification enough, based on my preferred epistemology, to not accept a proposition. Note: Not accepting something isn't always the same thing as rejecting it."Hey Mod, did you know that Vogodon cures Malaria?", says a Vogodon salesman.
"Can you give me any reason to accept that proposition? Has it been independently tested in double blind trials? Has your reasoning been reviewed by other scientists?", replies Mod.
"No.", he replies.
"Then what reason is there for me to accept your proposition?"
"So you believe that Vogodon cannot cure Malaria?".
"Is there any reason to accept that proposition?"
"No."Setting aside the argument that the Vogodon salesman clearly has a financial interest to lie etc - is there something logically fallacious about not believing the Vogodon salesman's proposition? Once we start factoring in other evidences such as conflicts of interest and the like, we are right to be more sceptical that open-minded. As with any scientific discovery, "I'll believe it when I see it." is the order of the day. That doesn't mean "I will disbelieve unless I see it", though in some cases such scepticism is a decent enough pragmatic shortcut.If you agree that your position in message 4, and some subsequent similar positions is hasty, flawed, unfair or the like - then we can agree, shake hands, and move on. "I have evidence for NOT(X)" is different than saying "I don't have evidence for X"One says "I can falsify a proposition", the other says "I cannot verify a proposition."This is probably the key to the argument atheists are having with you here. Then stop repeating them Seriously, what you said in this little summary at the end was debatable and I disagree with some of it, but it isn't something that right now I'm interested in debating. To me it sounds like it is in danger of devolving into absurd relativism, or post modern nonsense. Still, I'd be happy to leave it at that if you would accept that your message 4 and related messages provides a poorly worded characterisation of the atheist position, setting up a strawman and knocking it down in a single sentence.Let me reword your message 4 so it is more in line with what you have suggested here:

quote:

---

As another resident Deist, let me reply.

​

The atheist does not believe in god/s.

​

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.

​

Enjoy.

---

Just thought I'd collate some simple quotes from nonbelievers:

quote:

---

If we wish to explain our ideas of the Divinity we shall be obliged to admit that, by the word God, man has never been able to designate but the most hidden, the most distant and the most unknown cause of the effects which he saw; he has made use of his word only when the play of natural and known causes ceased to be visible to him; as soon as he lost the thread of these causes, or when his mind could no longer follow the chain, he cut the difficulty and ended his researches by calling God the last of the causes, that is to say, that which is beyond all causes that he knew; thus he but assigned a vague denomination to an unknown cause, at which his laziness or the limits of his knowledge forced him to stop. Every time we say that God is the author of some phenomenon, that signifies that we are ignorant of how such a phenomenon was able to operate by the aid of forces or causes that we know in nature. It is thus that the generality of mankind, whose lot is ignorance, attributes to the Divinity, not only the unusual effects which strike them, but moreover the most simple events, of which the causes are the most simple to understand by whomever is able to study them. In a word, man has always respected unknown causes, surprising effects that his ignorance kept him from unraveling. It was on this debris of nature that man raised the imaginary colossus of the Divinity.

---

Percy Shelley's argument is that God ..."bears every mark of a veil woven by philosophical conceit, to hide the ignorance of philosophers even from themselves. They borrow the threads of its texture from the anthropomorphism of the vulgar. " He also states that, "God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist. ", which is the position I have been saying here in this thread. This is all taken from The necessity of atheism which began sometime around 1811. I'm not sure I agree with the whole text, but that's not too surprising.

---

quote:

---

It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty, to allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting religion: and he impressed upon me from the first, that the manner in which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known: that the question, "Who made me?" cannot be answered, because we have no experience or authentic information from which to answer it; and that any answer only throws the difficulty a step further back, since the question immediately presents itself, Who made God? He, at the same time, took care that I should be acquainted with what had been thought by mankind on these impenetrable problems. I have mentioned at how early an age he made me a reader of ecclesiastical history; and he taught me to take the strongest interest in the Reformation, as the great and decisive contest against priestly tyranny for liberty of thought.

​

I am thus one of the very few examples, in this country, of one who has, not thrown off religious belief, but never had it: I grew up in a negative state with regard to it. I looked upon the modern exactly as I did upon the ancient religion, as something which in no way concerned me. It did not seem to me more strange that English people should believe what I did not, than that the men I read of in Herodotus should have done so. History had made the variety of opinions among mankind a fact familiar to me, and this was but a prolongation of that fact.

---

John Stuart Mill, from his Autobiography, 1873 - he reports never really having had a religious belief and that he essentially agreed with his father/teacher's argument against the looming infinite regression. Mill did not consider himself an atheist, but something closer to an non-believer. Although the terminology in this next quote differs from mine, the position is once again very similar:

quote:

---

In this context I take 'atheism' to include not only positive atheism, i.e. the dogmatic denial of God's existence, but also negative atheism, i.e. the denial that there is any evidence either for or against God's existence, which I call a form of atheism because for most practical purposes amounts to the same thing as if the existence of a god had been disproved. If I am right in the
conclusions I have been led to by this inquiry, there is evidence, but not enough to count as a proof, and amounting only to one of the lower degrees of probability.

---

From Three essays on Religion, published posthumously 1874 (written between 1850-1870).

---

quote:

---

As to gods, they have been, I find, countless, but even the names of most of them lie in the deep compost which is known as civilization, and the memories of few of them are green. There does not seem to me to be good reason for holding that some of them are false and some of them, or one of them, true. Each was created by the imaginations and wishes of men who could not account for the behavior of the universe ~ in any other satisfactory way. But no god has satisfied his worshipers forever. Sooner or later they have realized that the attributes once ascribed to him, such as selfishness or lustfulness or vengefulness, are unworthy of the moral systems which men have evolved among themselves.

---

Carl Van Doren, Why I am an Unbeliever, 1926. As you see he starts with something akin to 'I see no good reason' and proceeds to give reasons against the god(s) hypothesis, including the argument from change (arguing that since the character of gods changes alongside culture, this is evidence that gods are the product of culture rather than being real existent beings). He continues..."For myself, I feel no obligation whatever to believe. I might once have felt it prudent to keep silence, for I perceive that the race of men, while sheep in credulity, are wolves for conformity; but just now, happily, in this breathing-spell of toleration, there are so many varieties of belief that even an unbeliever may speak out.".

---

Hopefully those three atheists/nonbelievers/unbelievers selected from the early 19th to early 20th centuries should help demonstrate that I am not some freakish anomaly in my lack of belief in God, and that the Message 4 description of the reasons for atheism has to therefore be wrong. I am perfectly happy to continue into the 20th and 21st Century if there remains any doubt about the ubiquity of these reasons for non-belief.

I don't. I mean I agree it was made-up, and we have the delightful privilege to have perfect provenance for it. However 'silly' is a relative term. I have certainly verbalised my hope that my computer will not crash at various points, who was I talking to but Wagwah? I have made more supplications, performed more esoteric rituals (maybe if I align the computer slightly more eastwards or if I wiggle this cable three times and blow on these components) to this 'deity' than I have to YHWH in the past ten years.From my perspective Wagwah is far less silly than entity that can shapeshift and change size from a tall person all the way down to something the shape and size of a blade of grass with a beard of vines, blue skin, glowing eyes that wears its shoes backwards and if you cut down an aspen tree so that it falls facing East. Bend over and look through your legs saying "Forest Lord, come to me now; not as a grey wolf, not as a black raven, not as a flaming fir tree, but as a man." you might convince it to appear and teach you magic (or it might turn up and tickle you to death - as a protection against this eventuality you should wear all your clothes backwards). And there is definitive history for people believing in this latter 'silly' entity (it is called a Leszi).

quote:

---

Technopaganism, like Paganism, is an umbrella term. It may refer to various different understandings of incorporating technology and modern living into Neopagan religious expressions. There is as of yet, and perhaps never will be, a specific definition of just what technopaganism is and what in encompasses, however there are several commonly held understandings:

​

- Incorporating technological features like blogs, internet video, chat rooms, instant messaging services, virtual simulations and worlds for use in ritual or fellowship, or the use of technological features like televisions, ovens, and personal computers in the use of ritual or divination.

​

- Incorporation of modern implements or items of technology as ritual and/or magical tools. Examples may be the use of copper tubing as a wand or incorporating modern signage in the use in sigil making or divination.

---

From What is Technopaganism - it might be determined through Foramancy that Wagwah is a real deity and some people might come to believe in it. It actually isn't all that silly. In fact - just in case this thread becomes the basis of a religion you might want to make sure you get Wagwah's properties straight - you know how violent people can get over such disagreements

I began my argument here because RAZD implied that one of the differences between a deist and an atheist is that the atheist commits a certain kind of logical fallacy in their reasoning to their position. I wanted to argue that this wasn't the case, and that the only generalisable difference between the two positions was that one believed in a deity or deities and the other didn't.With RAZD's final post in this thread it seems he has either retreated to the more moderate position, or he accepted that since he thinks the moderate and the more extreme positions under debate are the same - it is at least more diplomatic to voice the more moderate wording.If RAZD holds the latter view, this is a pity. He was unable to show how the moderate and extreme views were the same, despite his repeating the assertion that they were. On the other hand, I believed I have successfully shown them to be different.Enjoy.

I thought that might be the case, indeed that is why I said that you implied it. When replying in a thread about the differences between atheists and deists you make specific mention of some problem you see with the atheist position which strongly implies that you mean that the existence of this kind of logical problem represents a difference in the two positions. It turns out you were making an offtopic strawman attack.Depending how you want to classify logic - it is either trivially true or untrue that atheists claim to base anything purely on logic. I certainly don't believe or disbelieve propositions based purely on my ability to deductively demonstrate their truth or falsehood from axiomatic statements and nor do I claim to. As I said, more is the pity since at no point during even your reworded version of my position did the syllogism include anything to do with having any evidence regarding the absence of a deity. No matter how many times I stress that I do not think there is evidence for the absence of certain types of deity, you simply choose to ignore me and somehow continue to interpret my argument in that way. It remains how I said:

quote:

---

{RAZD} was unable to show how the moderate and extreme views were the same, despite his repeating the assertion that they were.

---

It seems you are still repeating your assertion. The only things for which there is any evidence for the absence of is any sufficient reason to cause Mod to believe and there is evidence for the absence of my belief too. There is no evidence, by definition of the absence of an unfalsifiable deity. Your track record in comprehending this isn't particularly good, but I retain a (perhaps irrational) faith that might change.Have you at least abandoned your Message 4 position that the fallacy is "all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy"? Agreed. Welcome to the position of just about every single atheist in the world. So when somebody asks, "Do you hold the belief that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a real and existent being?", the answer is, "No I do not hold that belief."
Where is the logical fault in saying that?If you were to ask me, an atheist, "Mod, does god(s) exist?" I'd answer, "I don't know RAZD, and neither do you. We don't know. Here are some of my thoughts on the various issues about the old god question..."

That might all be true, but I can't help but feel there is a flaw in the reasoning.The deists in this thread, say that they believe a god exists even though it is not rational to come to that conclusion and that the correct conclusion is 'we don't know', but regardless they believe that a god-entity exists.The atheists in this thread seem to be saying that of course we don't know, we can't know, the 'god' entity under description is unfalsifiable and unverifiable (perhaps by design). Since they see no reason to believe in such an entity, the atheists hold no belief that such a god entity exists. As such the atheists are lacking a belief that god exists and therefore they are atheist.If you are trying tell us that the deists have more epistemic humility than the atheists I'm not convinced. The atheist position seems to be making fewer claims about reality than the deist one.What am I missing?

---

And of course, you'll not find RAZD saying anything about those that disagree with him are committing 'logical fallacies' or suffering 'cognitive dissonance' or anything like that in this thread or its sister thread