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

The atheist (or at least this one) sees neither evidence nor a logical requirement for any clockmaker at all. Good or bad.The atheist (or at least this one) also sees the proposed need for a clockmaker to be in itself irrational as it inevitably leads to the question of who or what fulfills the role of the clockmaker maker.The question of how that which we actually know exists came to exist (or even if this is a valid and meaningful question) is a difficult enough task.Trying to work out the nature of existence of beings that we cannot even know actually exist is a just an unnecessary complication and a question too far.In my opinion.

On this basis how many things should we be agnostic about?I am "atheistic" about fairies living at the botttom of my garden.
This "atheism" towards fairies is based on the absence of evidence. Logically speaking should I be agnostic about fairies?
Would you say that you are agnostic about fairies?Are you really agnostic about everything for which there is absolutely no evidence? Really?The list of possibilities is literally infinite (or as finite as our imagination) with regard to the things for which there is no evidence.Whilst you might claim agnosticism for fairies, leprechauns etc. on strictly logical grounds, in any practical assessment of likelihood and possibility, it is my guess that you are essentially atheistsic regarding a whole host of things for which the absence of evidence is the only evidence we have.Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe the only rational conclusion regarding the existence of little green men that live in the toilet but who are magically undetectable to all human forms of detection is indeed to say "I don't know".You tell me?

If I am understanding correctly the deists here seem to define x as creating the first something or setting the universe in motion (so to speak) with no further intervention. They thus believe that a supernatural deity did indeed do x.I do not believe that any deity did create the first something or set the universe in motion.I don't know this for a fact. How could I? I cannot prove it. I just see no reason to believe that this is the case. Hence I do not believe that a deity did x. I suppose it only matters in the context of discussing the requirement or likelihood of a supernatural entity doing x.I am interetsed to know what our residents deists do think 'x' actually is and on what basis they conclude that a supernatural deity did indeed do 'x'.

Well how much "evidence" do we need before agnosticism rather than "atheistic" dismissal is the rational conclusion?If I genuinely feel the presence of physically undetectable magical little green men in the toilet is that enough to conclude that there must be something about which we should be agnostic?Or not?After all I may not really grasp what the source of this feeling is due to limitations in my understanding of reality but that feeling is enough to suggest something worth being agnostic about rather than dismissing the whole thing as nonsense.Or not?Where is the dividing line between that which can be dismissed as imagined nonsense and that which is a poorly understood manifestation of something worth being agnostic about?It seems very very unclear.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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? Well we might be able to assess the likelihood of different cultures independently arriving at broadly similar irrational conclusions? 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.

Let's be completely explicit here - What evidence are you referring to? 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? Erm... Yes.Isn't it? Please explain? 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? 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 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.

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!!!? 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?

It's dismissed because it cannot be tested.

It's dismissed because a long history of similar claims regarding evidence for supernatural beings have been found to be erroneous.

It's dismissed because it begs more questions than it answers.

It's dismissed because it leads to a logical regression (why be a deist? Why not be a deist "squared" (so to speak - i.e. Why not worship the eternal deity that created the deity that created our universe? etc. etc. etc.)

It's dismissed because there are better explanations that we can actually test (e.g. the commonality of human belief patterns and human psychology)

It's dismissed because everything suggests complexity from simplicity rather than the other way round.

It's dismissed for reasons which are based on reason. Unlike the various beliefs in the supernatural which form the basis for your assertion that the supernatural must therefore exist.

​

It essentially comes down to faith Vs reason.

​

You seem to think that enough cultures/people independently have faith in something to suggest that something must exist.

​

I reason, based on all the above, that these people/cultures share enough common psychology to independently invent something whether it exists or not.

​

Enjoy

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Firstly let me apologise for my overly antagonsitic post pub, beered up earlier replies. Possibly. But I still don't think it has been explicitly stated upon which evidence any rational form of desim can be concluded? No no no no no no. It is not about proof. That is the mind trap of the creationist. As one who I know is highly scientifically minded you of all people should appreciate the difference.Atheism is based on likelihood. Not proof. I find gods/God/deities/etc. to be deeply and highly improbable. I do not consider them to be "disproved".I cannot even prove that you/I exist!! How the hell are we supposed to accept arguments based on the proof (or otherwise) of supernatural undetectable beings!!!????? This argument applies to proof. But not likelihood. Thus it is effectively a strawman regarding most atheistic non-belief.Your anti-atheist argument is based upon a strawman of the atheist position ragarding "knowledge" Well that is the crux of the question.....An irrational deist is.....well irrational. And knows it. Fair enough.But a deist who cliams deism on grounds of rationality.......Well they are just wrong. Which are you? An irrational deist? Or a "rational" deist? That is a get-out-clause non-comment.It really depends on what basis you claim your belief in a deity. Is it irrational? Or is it supposedly rational?If rational then on what evidence specifically is it founded? You seem very reluctant to say.You have implied that the widespread human belief in the supernatural is somehow actual evidence for the supernatural without explicitly stating this as your premise.If that is your "evidence" then I think there are better and more testable explanations for that phenomenon than the supernatural one that you seem to suggest. Namely the commonality of human psychology and deep seated desire for explanations whether they actually exist or not.But until you definitively state the rational basis upon which you have drawn your deistic conclusions, it remains impossible to actually examine these conclusions rationally.If they are irrational then just say so and the discussion effectively ends.If you claim a rational basis for your deism then let's hear it explicitly stated rather than just inferred.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and formatting

Well actually despite my "little rant" yes you can. Not black and white as such, but very very very dark grey and very very very light grey. Black and white to all practical (even if not philosophical) intents and purposes.Strong evidence in favour of something does not prove that it is true. It is not proven that the Earth is billions of years old. For example. But it is, as we would both agree, so strongly evidenced as to be all but indisputable to all practical intents and purposes. BUT it has not been, and indeed cannot be, proved.Now on what evidence does belief in a deity rest? Is it as strong as the evidence for the age of the Earth? No. Obviously not.In what objective sense is such evidence even present at all?You seem to be implying that merely because I cannot prove a deity does not exist that we should consider the "evidence" that a deity might exist as equal and opposite to the belief that it does not exist.But if the "evidence" in question, namely the various forms of human belief regarding that which could not or cannot be explained, can be shown to be almost certainly (i.e. not proven but strongly evidenced) the result of nothing more than the very human desire to come up with answers even when there are none to be found, where does that leave your argument?Frankly as unevidenced as the idea that the Earth is a few thousand years old. I.e. not disproven but very very very inferior as an explanation in any objective sense. The number of imaginary beings/worlds/things that are not contradicted by evidence is literally infinite.To claim that belief in, or even agnosticism towards, all of them is justified is patently absurd.I cannot disprove the existence of any one of the many theological gods past or present. Are they all equally worthy of our agnosticism? Again a straw man. Was life designed? Almost certainly not. Can we prove that life was not designed? No.There is no proof in science. There is no proof in atheism (at least as I apply the term to myself).Proof of any sort in the real (i.e non-idealised mathematical) world requires faith. I disbelive in faith as a viable means to a viable end.But we can follow where the evidence leads. Even if the evidence suggests the improbable. That is very different from assuming the improbable occurred on wholly subjective grounds simply because there is no objective evidence contradicting ones subjective assertions. That sounds very reasonable. Superficially. But it is not at all reasonable if we dig a little deeper.Again, if the commonality of human psychology is such that it can be shown to inevitably lead to irrational belief in physically unevidenced phenomenon then where is your "evidence" for the supernatural actually existing at all?You seem to be left with the hollow and last resort argument of all theists. Namely - "You cannot disprove that my god exists".If all the evidence available points towards perfectly rational, natural and testable explanations for the observed phenomenon in question (i.e. the inevitable human belief in the supernatural) then there is no excuse for being so open minded as to allow ones brains to fall out of ones head.Call me closed minded if you will.........Not all explanations are equally valid. The existence of the untestable, unevidenced, subjectively experienced and supernatural Vs the commonality of testable human psychology is frankly a very very very one sided competition by any objective measure.Faith Vs Reason.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't get it. Please clarify by answering the following question. According to your all encompassing venn-like diagram what is the answer to the question:Question: - Does Manbearpig exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

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 suspect that I am one of those who you perceive to be guilty of this.It is not a pretense to say that I accept the strict logical and philosophical possibility of gods. In the absence of proof certainty is not an option.But, as I have stated, I do conclude that the probability of any individual god actually existing is so negligible as to be all but non-existent in practical terms.The question that this begs is whether or not this dismissal on my part is actually reasonably and rationally justified. Or not.You say no and repeat your logical fallacy argument. You also assert that our complete ignorance regarding anything that is both undetectable and which contradicts no actual evidence makes any measure of probability impossible and thus unjustified.In response I have presented to you an example that meets the criteria for agnosticism as defined by your strict logical argument but which you seem to agree is "silly" and "ridiculous" in terms of the actual practical likelihood of the existence of the being in question (and thus presumably not worthy of genuine agnosticism as a conclusion).This strongly suggests that the dismissal of the existence of particular beings as improbable is, in practical terms, reliant on something other than your strict logical argument. Your strict logical argument is incapable of incorporating any factor that relates to the relative likelihood of different claims.Therefore it seems that your claim that atheism is the product of a logical fallacy is based on an incomplete analysis and that it is thus unfounded.Do you agree?Secondly this raises the question of what it is that is missing from your strict logical argument such that some unevidenced claims that contradict no evidence seem reasonable whilst others seem "ridiculous" and "silly".EXAMPLES
1) The proposal that alien life of some sort is likely to exist somewhere in the universe, I think most would agree is a rational conclusion that is both itself strictly unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence (I don't want to drag this thread down the "aliens exist" route however so let's not get too caught up in the specifics)2) The proposal that a supernatural undetectable god called Wagwah is responsible for all the PC freezes, crashes and bluescreens that have not been accounted for by conventional explanations, I think most would agree is an irrational conclusion that is both itself strictly unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence.So what is the difference between the two claims that allows us to justifiably consider one of them to be reasonable and rational and one of them to be obviously and evidently ridiculous? Well not necessarily.If we accept that your strict logical argument is an insufficient basis upon which to conclude the relative likelihood of specific cases then we can move things forward.We could try and examine the real basis on which unevidenced claims that do not actually contradict any evidence are really evaluated with regard to their relative plausibility and likelihood.We can then determine whether these factors are indeed reasonable and rational or whether such judgements are wholly subjective.What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because there is evidence that we can apply when assessing the relative likelihood of opposing possibilities.There are two possibilities in the context of this debate:A) Individual gods actually exist.
B) Individual gods do not actually exist and are the product of human imagination.We have vast quantities of evidence in favour of the fact that human beings are exceptionally able and incredibly willing to use their imaginations to form explanations and create specific concepts that are demonstrably false. I am sure that we can both think of many many examples of such beliefs without even needing to encroach on the more contentious and far less falsifiable 'gods vs. no-gods' issue at hand.If we are evaluating the relative likelihood of a specific proposed undetectable unevidenced deity either actually existing or being the product of human imagination, then it is ridiculous to claim that the evidenced fact that humans are deeply prone to making things up should just be swept aside as wholly irrelevant.There are other factors that can be applied in assessing relative plausibility but this is a key one and the most obvious example of the sort of thing that your logical argument fails to incorporate. We hear the same argument from creationist regarding scientific evidence all the time. Is it really more justified here?Is your disbelief in Wagwah really just the result of your world view? Or is there inherently something unreasonable and irrational about the proposed existence of Wagwah? What precisely is it that makes Wagwah's proposed existence "stupid" and "ridiculous"?Is it just world view bias?You seem very reluctant to explain your position with regard to this head on and I don't really understand why. If you say so. But is this not exactly what you are doing here by refusing to consider possibilities in terms of their relative likelihood? It may not be unreasonable in the sense that it is perfectly understandable as to why people have faith. But it is unreasoned in the sense that at root such beliefs are not derived from rational thought or reasoned argument.Any ridicule that I may be guilty of was aimed at demonstrating the absurd possibilities that your logical argument fails to preclude rather than poking fun at all forms of unevidenced belief per se. Then can you explicitly explain where the logical fallacy that you keep relentlessly referring to does arise? If all we ever did was confirm our preconcieved world views then there would have been little scientific or indeed human progress.At some point we must have allowed evidence and reason and not preconceived world view to lead the way. Really? You don't think that the perceived likelihood of alien life elsewhere in the universe is derived from the logical extrapololation of what we currently do know about the conditions required for life and the nature of the universe? Things that are known as a result of evidence based investigation. Your disbelief in Wagwah is based on presentation as opposed to conceptual inadequacies?Wow! Are you sure?Could it be that Wagwah does actually exist and that I am unconsciously misinterpreting his divine revelation out of atheistic world view bias?Does incorporating your "world view" argument honestly make Wagwah any more plausible? Is there not something inherently unbelievable about the concept, as opposed to just my presentation, of the mighty god Wagwah?Is it not the case that your disbelief in Wagwah is a result of the logical extrapolation of the evidence we have regarding the innate ability and inclination for humans to invent false concepts? Sometimes for conscious reasons (e.g. the willful desire to invent something for the purposes of debate) and sometimes less conscious reasons (e.g. the need to invest in a being that gives us a higher purpose or everlasting life).Does not the fact that I am obviously willing and more than able to invent Wagwah add a huge amount of weight to the claim that Wagwah is in fact 'made-up' and thus does not actually exist?Isn't it the likelihood of this that makes Wagwah "silly" and "ridiculous" as a concept rather than some sort of preconceived anti-Wagwah world-view?Honestly? I absolutely disagree that either an acceptance of alien life as potentially plausible or a dismissal of Wagwah as wholly unbelievable are derived from subjective world views made in a vacuum of evidence.I would suggest that both are unevidenced claims which can be rendered more or less plausible based on other evidence that we do have available to us regarding the logically possible alternatives.Question: Is it likely, based on the evidence that we do have, that the conditions we think are conducive to life exist nowhere else in the universe?
Answer: No. Thus alien life elsewhere in the universe is deemed highly plausible.Question: Is it likely, based on the human ability and strong inclination to invent false concepts for both rational and irrational reasons, that Wagwah is the result of human imagination dreamt up purely for the purposes of making a point in a debate.
Answer: Yes it is. Thus the actual existence of Wagwah is deemed highly implausible. No. I deny that I am simply applying a world view in a vacuum of evidence. I am considering the relative likelihood of the possible alternatives based on the objective evidence available for and against all of the logical possibilities.Very few, if any, claims can be considered in a complete vacuum of evidence when all the logical alternatives are considered. Thus a rational evaluation of the relative probabilities is almost always possible to some degree."Enjoy" back at ya.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Really? What god specifically is being put forward by deists such that we can determine whether this is indeed true?Also, other than popular belief which is more about marketing than truth, how can we possibly know which gods are "random" and "made-up" and which are not? If enough people claim subjective experience of the face sucking jellyfish will you change youir stance and consider this to be a viable entity? Are there any objective reasons to believe in God?If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime". Very true. But nor can subjective experience. Only testable conclusions can be realistically claimed to have any degree of "veracity". And if your subjective evidence is false then your belief in God/gods is also completely lacking in veracity. But are they reliable or objective reasons?
If not then in what way are the reasons you claim worthy of any consideration?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.