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

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.

I cannot believe it. He doesn't believe in the face sucking jellyfish and he dares to question our beliefs as valid. My beliefs are my beliefs and no one can question them.Hold on I need to pray so the lord face sucking jellyfish will remove that tentacle from my nose.

The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".

Carefully placed euphemisms don't change the meaning CS. "random made-up entity" = idea put forth by a diest."idea put forth by a diest" = random made-up entity. Sanity in masses? Not fair, human history has proven this to be a logical fallacy.You say "silly jellyfish", I say "silly guy who was born of a virgin", both equally silly, si?You in fact say "some kind of god", so, unless you can produce an image of said god, the jellyfish is no more silly than the guy who was born of a virgin, the one who rode on a flying horse, or the one who has eight arms. If we denounce the idea of the god called a jellyfish as a "random made-up entity" then they are all to be considered "randomly made-up".That there is a god, in my opinion, is not randomly made-up. That there is a known image of this god IS made-up, no matter what the desciption. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hello all,There are too many posts trying to make similar points, but not coming to any real agreement, so I will try to hit what I consider the "high points' of your arguments. If you have a cherished point I miss, try again. There's only one of me.

---

bluegenes Message 127
To be able to calculate probabilities you have to know the possibilities, or you are just using assumptions that fit your world view and pretending they are valid. Curiously this is what I am accused of doing, and that it is invalid when I do it. So let's assume that god/s are undefinable. That's not a stretch from the position that they are unknowable, is it? Consider the problem of the blind men defining an elephant, with each one touching a different part. They disagree and none of them would define the elephant reality. Possibly because all the various religions are blind people describing an elephant. Part of that nature is the nature of belief, if you'll allow a petty equivocation for emphasis. I believe it is possible to become enlightened in the buddhist sense, and that prophets are enlightened people, and that momentary enlightenment is what a religious experience is. Personal opinion. This doesn't necessarily mean they saw part of the elephant, just that they experienced something, possibly outside nature.Let's call this "subjective evidence" for clarity, as it is not based on objective reality, rather it is based on common experiences, and they are subjective. It is older than what is currently called ID, and what is currently called ID is not deism per se but a hack straw man version made by christians trying to outsmart the legal system into supporting christianity. If you want to see what I think of ID see Is ID properly pursued?ID may "grow up" to be deism, but it has a long way to go. Curiously I think that teaching ID in schools (as philosophy) would tend to speed this process, as well as enlighten people on one of the founding religions of this country.Modulus Message 129Except that you don't have objective fact. What you have is your opinion, and that is "subjective evidence" and does not compare with - for instance - phydeaux's denial of 222Rn in the polonium halo when the picture is right in front of him. That halo is objective reality, the measurements match the peer reviewed published data. And vice versa?from Message 4
from Message 116
OR
1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. There is an absence of evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.Seems pretty straightforward to me. Either way you don't believe in god, and your justification is that there is no evidence, so I don't see what the big outrage is. Gosh no, Modulus, what I was doing was what you just suggested -- but framing your argument with my words to show that they are the same. I anticipated you. The clue is what is in the [qs] box and what isn't. Your justification is that you do not see any evidence for god/s. Correct. Each has a different world view, and they interpret the evidence around them according to that world view. When we have a concept that is not testable by objective reality type evidence all we have are the subjective justifications built on our world view. Yes, this is your subjective justification for your position. Mine is different.Would you say that the absence of evidence that would convince you is sufficient subjective justification, based on your rational empiricist world view, for you to reject the proposition that god/s exist?I have shortened that down to "evidence for absence" ... if for no other reason than to emphasis that the logic is based on subjectivity, not objective fact, and not on prepositions that can be validated by objective fact.mark24 Message 130
The comparison of faith to straw man arguments of ad hoc dreamed up reductio ad absurdum arguments for the purpose of make an ad lapidem attack do not refute the faith. It is not a matter of how many silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc concepts exist for this is just another logical fallacy: because one of these concepts is silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc does not mean they all are. As Straggler pointed out in Message 123

quote:

---

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)

---

So how many of the "trillions of potential propositions we also have no evidence for" are reasonable? How may that seem silly etc could still be true?Straggler Message 131
When you try to justify your belief based on your world view in a manner that is also consistent with your world view that your beliefs are rational and logical.Modulus bends over backwards to talk about possible evidence of god/s ("strictly speaking there is lots of evidence of god(s)"), but then eliminates it as not being convincing to him and his world view, then claims there is not sufficient evidence to rationalize belief. It's a subjective opinion.It seems to me that you (many atheists) try to convince yourself that your subjective opinion is formed on the basis of careful consideration of the facts and logical deduction. It is important in your world view to be logical and rational. Everyone incorporates evidence into their world view, in one way or another. That is why I made the point of saying

quote:

---

As long as your personal world view is not contradicted by any known evidence of reality, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and as long as there are other people that agree with your world view, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and that's about the best you can do.

---

Tested by evidence of reality first, but that only covers part of the picture, and when you get beyond the realm of concepts that can be tested by objective reality, about the best test you have is consensus with others having similar world views. Of course it is not perfect, but I have not heard of anything else to use, although I have asked this question many times on this forum (and not just in Perceptions of Reality).cavediver Message 132
And of course it depends on what the meaning of "absence" is in the opinion of the person involved. The creationist sees an absence of evidence to convince him of macroevolution, by staunchly denying that any evidence exists, while the evolutionists point to mountains of evidence. Within the target area. The old story about losing your car keys in the dark, and the place to look is under the streetlight, as that is the place you will see them if they are there.RDK Message 134
But the significant point is that not all such arguments are silly and ridiculous, just one end of the spectrum. So you agree that "the difference between a deist and an atheist is that deists believe in god/s, atheists don't" then?Then the next question is where on that spectrum, from reasonable to silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc, for concepts that cannot be tested by objective reality, do you think the untestable concept that there is no god would fit?Catholic Scientist Message 135Correct, your world view is based on your experiences and your knowledge, and you interpret the world through it. And this is the problem once we reach the limits of what concepts can be tested against objective reality, we can't tell who's world view is true\false. The problem is that, ultimately, the reason is subjective.bluegenes Message 138
Or both are describing different parts of the elephant in a manner consistent with the world view of the original describers.onfire Message 139
Curiously this does NOT apply to deism, where god/s are unknowable and not described.

---

I've spent all evening on this, and I'm not sure how many more times I can be interested in repeating the basic points.The essential difference is that deists believe in god/s and atheists don't.The essential similarity with all people is that we base our opinions on our world views, where world views are based on experience and knowledge. The belief comes first, then it is justified by applying our world view to the belief.The similarity between deist and atheist is that we both feel there is sufficient subjective evidence to logically conclude that our opinions are valid.For the deist this justifies faith.For the atheist this justifies no need for faith.It's late in my corner of the world - according to my world view. Goodnight all.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) • • •

RAZD, I didn't make a straw man argument. I said you were a hypocrite because you accept one or a few positions without evidence & reject the rest. This is correct. Nope, I am making an A because B argument, establishing the truth of A not B. You are an (A)illogical hypocrite because (B) you operate a double standard. Were I establishing the truth of B, then it would be an ad hoc statement, not an argument. What can I say, my argument, I mean MY argument, not the one you want to make does not meet the standards of the fallacy. I have not assumed a claim for the sake of argument and derived an absurd or ridiculous outcome. You are an illogical hypocrite because you operate a double standard. Your belief in a god is the evidential equivalent of little green men, the Loch Ness monster etc. It is not absurd, it is true. I haven't "thrown stones". I have shown that you operate a double standard when you choose what to accept based on evidence. That you take it as such is irrelevant. I do not attempt to "refute the faith". I show that you operate a double standard, committing the logical fallacy of special pleading. Your world view is fallacious. It is based on hypocrisy, & is therefore unreasonable.It matters not one iota that you consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the God-Of-Things-Locked-In-Drawers, & asteroids made of chocolate etc. a ridiculous comparison. The fact is that evidentially they are equivalent, & that no matter how much you wish it weren't so, you are operating a double standard in what you accept based on evidence. Therefore you are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading. Conclusions based on logical fallacies are not reasonable, your view is based on one, therefore it is not reasonable.Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that your view is correct, & everyone else who is not engaged in special pleading is logically forced to not accept deism as being true. This is both logical & correct of them.Mark

---

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

The old absense of evidence argument again, eh? Logic does not rule the world in every case. Belief is belief, and while I will concede that belief is often illogical, I won't concede that logic is the yardstick to measure rationality. As RAZD points out, people can and do have different world views and at times the only evidence of sanity or lack of same is the observation of the life of the individual. Out of everyone in these forums that I have ever argued with, jar had the most logical argument in regards to Theism. Atheists have never shown me anything that would change my mind on the issue, "special pleading" or not. Special pleading only makes sense in the context of logic being the ultimate authority.

Phat, No.Absence of evidence = no acceptance, just like you do with everything else that has no evidence, you don't accept it as true. That is different from saying it is untrue. Yeah right, when you want to accept anything you want to, just disregard logic.There are no gods because strong atheists are right. Because logic isn't the ultimate authority, I'm right, see? The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true. See how silly it can get without logic? You can come to any conclusion based on no logical or evidential value. I'm sorry Phat, but this is hypocritical bullshit. Any argument or position must meet a minimum logical standard.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

The atheist says:All other people’s observations and experience are totally and purely subjective, so any decisions, conclusions, or beliefs they have based on them are irrationalMy observation of no evidence is the only objective experience and observation in existence.How rational does this sound? I tested this observation of atheists on this board by mentioning a large meteor I’d seen when I was 16. True to form they did not believe me, and suggested I didn’t see what I saw. No point in answering them as if they won’t accept a commonly know physical event that I experienced, they would deny about anything else I’d have to say regarding the spiritual.4:46 Pm EST Dec 9, 1965The Fireball of December 9, 1965-Part I - NASA/ADSAs a deist I say:I NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT BIASING EVIDENCE/EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY.There appears to be more going on here than just our easily observed physical reality.God exists.God does not appear to be doing anything in this universe, but I am interested in hearing about any observations you might have that He is.I have no idea how this universe came to be, and will consider all possibilitiesMan is a spiritual being, who has probably lived many times; at least I am and haveI do not discount out of hand other people’s experience. I want to hear about it even if I don’t agree with their interpretation of it. The evidence still exists, what it means is the question."Don’t believe what I say, look for yourself and see what you find I do not completely agree with this although I have observed this bias. In fact when training new exploration geologists for a major oil company I would not allow them to read any scientific papers about the area they were assigned to. If they did I could see it bias their interpretation of the raw data. (You’ll never find an undiscovered oil and gas deposit in a scientific paper.)At some point in your life, the experience came first; from it you built your world view. Now you must take care to eliminate that bias.

I don't follow. Why must?See, any basic argument either concludes with an assertion or a quastion. Observe: I. Bill: "God exists."
Phil: "Which God"? or..."How do you know"?

​

conclusion: Make an assertion=provide the evidence.II: Bill: "There is no evidence for God. Logic is the basis for reality. Therefore, there is no God.
Phil: Logic is not the basis for all reality. Truth is. God either exists or does not exist.
Bill: Which God are we talking about, first of all? As we go down the evidential checklist, I find none of the candidates qualify so far.
Phil: Can we know? Must we know? Is belief not enough?

​

Conclusion: Argument either ends on a question or on an answer. Follow the many possible routes the argument could take.My 2 cents is that any argument can either end with a question or an assertion. Any arguments?

Absence of evidence = whatever conclusion an individual prefers to be acceptable for them. I have the right to accept any conclusion I choose.Why is no acceptance always logical?There is a woman who, according to our best evidence, does not love you. Do you reject your love for her, or do you love in spite of the lack of evidence reciprocating?Edited by Phat, : add

Phat, Of course you do, & I have the right to point out you are a hypocrite. Because unless you accept everything that is evidentially vacuous you are automatically guilty of special pleading. The ol' double standard thang. This has nothing to do with it. If I love someone who doesn't love me how have I accepted something without evidence?Mark

---

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

To begin with, you have accepted my hypothetical woman.

I gave you an example which you don't believe in, but others do. You've made a rough assessment in your mind of the likelihood of the universe being created by a racist god who particularly favours one middle-eastern tribe. It's an evidenceless supernatural proposition, so there's no reason to believe in it, and you don't.If we sit down and describe over a million different possible gods, all of them zero evidence propositions, then we can safely say that the probability of any one of them taken at random existing is less than one in a million. It's easy. Blind men using their senses on something that definitely exists is in no way analogous to people believing in different evidenceless supernatural propositions. Do you accept that there's strong evidence of humans making up supernatural entities, or not? If you do, then what makes you think that the deity of deists is different from all the others; the one supernatural being that isn't a human invention?You seem to be implying that you believe in something that is unknowable and undefinable. Frankly, why bother? I'm sure that there are plenty of things that are, at least at present, unknowable and undefinable, but calling them gods is just playing a "deities of the gaps" game. Unknowable and undefinable means you have no reason to believe if your gods are important. Even if they exist, they could be trivial. Deities who sit in eternity knitting, for example, and never bother with the messy business of creating universes. I agree that the D. I. version of I.D. is Christian motivated. However, in the link I provided, your fellow deists were claiming that DNA is evidence of their god, so that appears to be an overlap. I'm aware of that, which was why I dropped out for a while. Good luck, but it won't be easy arguing for your deities when you certainly don't know that they're there or what they are. It's a bit like a blind man trying to feel an ethereal elephant. Edited by bluegenes, : missing quote inserted

Phat, As being axiomatic for the purposes of the example only.Mark

---

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