Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 166 of 375 (499656)
02-19-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Straggler writes:
Well if the Deists God is so non-specific as to be essentially undefined how can we determine how much weight there is behind it?
It, specifically, we cannot. But the idea of god/s existing, in general, we can see has more weight than the face sucking jellyfish because of all the different cultures that have independly come up with the idea of god/s existing, in general.
Why do the face sucking jellyfish and Wagwah not equally benefit from being "gods in general"?
Why does your generalised argument not apply to these entities?
Straggler writes:
OK. But if A) These various spiritual experiences are in many cases mutually exclusive and B) Many such spiritual beliefs have in fact turned out to be demonstrably wrong through evidence based investigation (fertility gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc.) then where does that leave your argument?
A) They're mutually exclusive in their entirety and could, together, both be partially correct.
B) They're demonstrably wrong in the specificity and could, generally, be partially correct.
Assuming a god exists, if we had one culture that says that god is red and one that says that god is blue, they would be mutally exclusive but they would both be correct that the god existed. That their colors are different doesn't mean that we can be sure that there's no god there in the first place.
OK. But once again we are left with such a vague and unspecific definition of god(s) that the only thing that can really be claimed in their favour in terms of objective evidence is the inability to be falsified as a result of sheer "woolliness".
Straggler writes:
But what I want to know is exactly what it is about these entities that makes them obviously made-up and silly as opposed to just unevidenced and worthy of our agnosticism.
Well, it is hard to put your finger on it. I think it has something to do with its popularity and how long it has standed the test of time.
*Actually, I've come back up to this point now that I've typed about primitive religions below. These entities are not ones that have gradually emerged and evolved within a culture so that might be why its so obvious that they don't have any weight behind them.
By these criteria every religion should have started off being considered equally as ludicrous and insane as a belief in Wagwah seems now.
Do you think that you would have deemed the concept of Christ, the saviour born of a virgin, as evidently non-sensical as you do the concept of Wagwah if you had been there for the conception of that concept?
Is history and prevalence really all there is to perceived veracity?
I was thinking along the lines of early primitive religions, like animism, that gradually emerged and evolved within the cultures. I don't think anybody set them up to do that, nor that the ideas were really marketed that much. But I'm starting to speculate now....
If adaption is the key to the evolutionary success of a "meme" then that is exactly what you are describing here.
Honestly, I put Scientology in the group with the face sucking jellyfish as ideas that one man made-up recently as opposed to religious ideas that gradually emerged and evolved within a culture.
Why?
It meets the criteria of being relatively widely believed and has stood the test of time to some extent at least.
Is scientology worthy of our agnosticism to any greater extent than is Wagwah?
How long or how many followers will it take before you consider Scientology to be religiously valid in any way?
and too, I don't think its cause to reject them.
As I have been failing to explain to RAZD
IF either A or B where A is unevidenced.
THEN where B is evidenced the likelihood of A is diminished.
If we have evidence that supports the fact that humans make-up gods then this dimishes the unevidenced claims of further gods actually existing.
Straggler writes:
In the case of gods I think that the "evidence" is wholly subjective. I also think that the indisputable historical elimination of all but the least physically definable gods is a clear indication that gods in general are a human construct as opposed to an entity that can be said to exist in any objective sense at all.
I don't think that everyone getting all the details wrong suggests that they weren't even talking about something in the first place.
But that is the problem. It is not a question of just getting the details wrong. It is the fact that after this elimination process we are only left with the spiritual concepts that are so un-detailed, so un-specific and so unfalsifiable that they cannot be "wrong".
It all just smacks of retreat into the safety of vagueness.
Edited by Straggler, : Slightly anal punctuation and terminology changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 3:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:52 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 375 (499773)
02-20-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Straggler
02-19-2009 4:30 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Why do the face sucking jellyfish and Wagwah not equally benefit from being "gods in general"?
Because of their specificities.
Why does your generalised argument not apply to these entities?
Because when we start getting into specific gods, people's spiritual experiences start to loose their similarities. Its that all those people are all on to something, in general, that suggests that there is something there but when we start to get into the specifics, we see that there is a lot of discrepancy, suggesting that a lot of people are getting a lot wrong.
OK. But once again we are left with such a vague and unspecific definition of god(s) that the only thing that can really be claimed in their favour in terms of objective evidence is the inability to be falsified as a result of sheer "woolliness".
Sure, but we're not claiming things in terms of objective evidence.
Is history and prevalence really all there is to perceived veracity?
No, there's my and other people's subjective experiences too and that we are all on to 'something'.
That independent cultures come up with own independent ideas on spirituality suggests that there just might be something there.
Honestly, I put Scientology in the group with the face sucking jellyfish as ideas that one man made-up recently as opposed to religious ideas that gradually emerged and evolved within a culture.
Why?
It meets the criteria of being relatively widely believed and has stood the test of time to some extent at least.
Because it looks like Hubbard just made it all up on its own, not that it gradually emerged within a culture.
As I have been failing to explain to RAZD
IF either A or B where A is unevidenced.
THEN where B is evidenced the likelihood of A is diminished.
Only when A and B are mutually exclusive. The lack of specifics in A reduces its exclusivity.
But that is the problem. It is not a question of just getting the details wrong. It is the fact that after this elimination process we are only left with the spiritual concepts that are so un-detailed, so un-specific and so unfalsifiable that they cannot be "wrong".
That's do to the lack of evidence. We can't really tell what this 'something' is in detail but it does seem that this 'something' is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 4:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 7:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 168 of 375 (499782)
02-20-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
I don't think we can say that there really is absolutely no objective evidence (which depends on how you define "objective"). Also, its possible that the subjective evidence has an outside source.
If you can point to some perhaps we can estabish what we mean by objective. I say that faith requires no evidence in the objective sense, hence the need for faith.
CS writes:
Oni writes:
All ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, was created by one person.
I definatlely don't agree with this one. Groups can come up with ideas as a whole as the individuals work together to come up with the idea.
Thats impossible to do if the idea was derived from subjective experiences. One person may introduce an idea based off of his experience to a group, which then begin talks about it and build on their collective experiences, but they didn't all shout out at once "there is a god". One dude suggested it, then the rest saw a resmblance in their experiences, and so forth. People are easily influenced.
But, perhaps my use of the words "all" and "one person" was a bit too absolute. So, I'll settle for "most" and "a few".
Would you agree to this:
Oni writes:
Most ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, were created by a few people.
CS writes:
Although, I would be comfortable just judging it with my gut
It works for Colbert and GWB.
CS writes:
Oni writes:
My only point is that if deists claim no known knowledge of the image of god due to their own personal subjective experiences, they do not have the authority to reject any concept of god that is claimed to be known by people who claim they have had a subjective experience in which the image of god was revealed.
And, What if they thought the person was lying?
I would ask why do you think the person is lying? What are you using as evidence to the contrary?
I'm sure most people thought Jesus was lying in his day. Probably the majority of the people around at that time. Now, people believe in huge numbers. What changed? And how does either stance - thinking he's a liar/believing the story - confirm the validity of his divinity?
So I would say sure, you can think they're lying, but that doesn't removes the validity of the persons claim, since you claim no-known knowledge of gods image.
Couldn't they use that as a basis for their "authority"?
As a basis for their own personal authority to themselves? sure
As a general authority on the matter? no
By outside influence, you meant a god, right?
LOL - nice try. No, I meant travelers that may interact with each other and share stories about gods and the spritual world.
Also, even thought they live continents apart it doesn't matter. They didn't sprout there, humans migrated. The Inkas and the Egyptians both believed in gods yet were seperated by thousands of miles. So, what does that prove? Noting other than the Inkas migrated there long before they were called "Inkas" and all of those spiritual stories came with them. And, we can agree that humans originated in one general area, so, they spread out having already created the concepts of gods.
Look at Christianity, it originated in one area, because of one guys claim, and confirmed by a handful of people. Look at it now with all of it's different denominations. It's not hard to start with one simple idea and get hundreds of different varieties from it while still keeping the fundamental concept.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 2:39 PM onifre has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 169 of 375 (499798)
02-20-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 9:52 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
That's do to the lack of evidence. We can't really tell what this 'something' is in detail but it does seem that this 'something' is there.
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
What "is there," CS? What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
Your "gut" doesn't really work - subjective human emotional "feelings" don't have any direct tie to reality. There are people who "know in their gut" that the Earth is flat to this day - why is your "gut" more accurate than theirs?
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see? It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid. If you have one or more facts that can be used to support your assertion that "something" is there, please share - but I fail to see how you can have an objective fact that relates to an undefined "something." Avoiding specifics regarding your "something" provides unfalsifiability, but it also prevents you from supporting your assertion that "something" exists. It makes your "something" meaningless and irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 2:56 PM Rahvin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 375 (499802)
02-20-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by onifre
02-20-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Thats impossible to do if the idea was derived from subjective experiences. One person may introduce an idea based off of his experience to a group, which then begin talks about it and build on their collective experiences, but they didn't all shout out at once "there is a god".
That's not how I'm imagining it at all.
Also, even thought they live continents apart it doesn't matter. They didn't sprout there, humans migrated. The Inkas and the Egyptians both believed in gods yet were seperated by thousands of miles. So, what does that prove? Noting other than the Inkas migrated there long before they were called "Inkas" and all of those spiritual stories came with them. And, we can agree that humans originated in one general area, so, they spread out having already created the concepts of gods.
Again, not really what I'm getting at.
But now, in discussing the emergence of religious beliefs, we're getting off-topic and entering the realm of speculation. I'm not trying to cop-out, but the bases(basises) for our arguments are wholly different and I don't think we're gonna get anywhere without going outside the scope of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 10:59 AM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 375 (499805)
02-20-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rahvin
02-20-2009 1:04 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
When you have enough info to determine it has a source but not enough info to define the source. If you blindly stuck your hand into a bag and felt something furry, then you'd could easily tell that there was something in the bag without knowing what it was.
RAZD brought up the example of three blind men each examining different parts of the same elephant. They wouldn't know what the something is but they could tell that something is there.
What "is there," CS?
We're talking about god/s.
What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
We're not trying to establish that god/s do/es exist/s.
We're providing a rational reason to believing that god/s exist/s.
The topic is the differences between atheists and desits. The atheists seem to think that the deists' beliefs in god are irrational while the deists don't. I'm providing that rational explanation (or at least trying to).
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see?
No.
It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid.
Its not that widespread faith and belief are evidence, themselves, of each belief. Its that widespread faith and belief, and the similarities between them, is enough to rationally suggest that everyone is talking about something that actually does exist. Again, this does not establish that something does, in fact, exist but it is a rational explanation for why people believe that it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 1:04 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 172 of 375 (499811)
02-20-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
quote:
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
When you have enough info to determine it has a source but not enough info to define the source. If you blindly stuck your hand into a bag and felt something furry, then you'd could easily tell that there was something in the bag without knowing what it was.
You'd at least know that "it" was furry, and small enough to fit in the bag. Those are "characteristics," and they help differenciate the "thing in the bag" from "some other thing." Further, the ability to detect the "thing in the bag" with one of your five senses means that its presence is a fact - its existence and the few properties you know about it are objective.
Bringing the discussion back to your "something out there," what differentiates your "something" from anything else? Is your "something" furry? Is "it" sentient?" What makes you think "it" is there at all?
RAZD brought up the example of three blind men each examining different parts of the same elephant. They wouldn't know what the something is but they could tell that something is there.
And they could all physically touch the object - and I would daresay that the three blind men would actually be able to use the objective facts of the texture and shape of the elephant to determine many of its properties, and possibly even determine that it is an elephant. Removal of sight is not equivalent to the removal of all objective methods of detection.
Can you touch your "something out there?" Which of the five senses do you use to detect its presence? What objective properties have you determined it to have?
If you have not detected your "something" with any of your five senses, and neither can you point to an objective fact that tells you anything about your "something," what makes you think "something" is there at all? How do you differentiate your "soemthing" from any other "something," real or imagined?
quote:
What "is there," CS?
We're talking about god/s.
Humor me. What is/are "god/s?" What are the properties of a "god?" How is a "god" different from a squirrel, or a book?
You can see where I'm going here - we need to be able to define what we're looking for before we can even determine whether "it" exists or not.
quote:
What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
We're not trying to establish that god/s do/es exist/s.
We're providing a rational reason to believing that god/s exist/s.
Then you're failing to see my point. If you canot even define what "god/s" are, how can it be rational to believe that "god/s" exist?
You said "something" is "out there." I agree - depending on your definition of "out there," we know objectively that various forms of matter and energy, and space itself all exist "out there." My computer exists "out here." Jupiter exists "out in space." Where are you referring to when you say "out there," and what defines your "something" in a way that differentiates "it" from other "somethings?" If I were to find your "something," how would I know I had done so?
The topic is the differences between atheists and desits. The atheists seem to think that the deists' beliefs in god are irrational while the deists don't. I'm providing that rational explanation (or at least trying to).
So far I haven't seen a rational reason for thinking that "god/s" exist - you haven't even defined what "god/s" are, and how to differentiate a "god" from anything else that may or may not exist. That's not even speculation, it's simply nonsense.
quote:
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see?
No.
Then what makes you think "it" exists? Do you have a reason to assert that "something" exists? If not, how is your assertion reasonable? If you cannot even define what your "something" is in a way that one can differentiate your "soemthing" from anything else real or imagined, how can it be said that your assertion has any meaning whatsoever?
quote:
It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid.
Its not that widespread faith and belief are evidence, themselves, of each belief. Its that widespread faith and belief, and the similarities between them, is enough to rationally suggest that everyone is talking about something that actually does exist.
How so? You're appealing to popularity - that many people believe in "something" is a valid reason to believe that "something" exists. That's a logical fallacy, CS. How is that rational?
Further, what similarities? We see similarities in the religious beliefs of closely related belief systems (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all branches of the same Abrahamic faith), but not in geographically separated areas. YHWH bears no resemblance to Zeus or Thor, or to Buddha or Kali. Various animist religions don't even have a deity let alone one that compares to yours. Your "something" is only tied together by such wildly different beliefs when you fail to define your "something" at all, which then makes the assertion that "it" exists meaningless.
How is that reasonable?
Again, this does not establish that something does, in fact, exist but it is a rational explanation for why people believe that it does.
How is it rational? It's an appeal to popularity that doesn't even exist. It has no basis in fact. The only reason you've given to believe that "something is out there" is a logical fallacy based on an outright falsehood. How is that a reason at all? How is such a conclusion reasonable?
Let's recap:
You say "something is out there." You call "it" one or more "gods," but you cannot define what that means. You haven't given any properties decribing "god/s" to differentiate your "something" from anythign else in existence or even in your imagination. You can't even define "out there," so we don't know where to look. The lack of clarity in your assertion makes it meaningless on its face so far, but I'd be happy to see you provide an actual definition.
You say that the reason to believe your unidentified, undefined "something / god" exists is that many other people believe that various "somethings" exist - but they all have decently defined "somethings," and they tend to be very different from one another; there isn't even a popular concensus to appeal to, and if there were, it would still be a logical fallacy.
You admit that you have nothing factual or objective to base your assertion on. In efect, you have no reason to make such an assertion. You have confidence that "something" exists, but no reason to have such confidence.
So how is your assertion that "something is out there" reasonable, CS, when you have no reason to assert it in the first place?
I think the reasonable position, when no objective reason for confidence exists, is to have no confidence in such an assertion. In effect, I don't believe you. You've given me no reason to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 173 of 375 (499819)
02-20-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Catholic Scientist writes:
bluegenes writes:
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
Nope. They're only mutally exclusive in their enitrety. Both positions could be partially correct.
Not really. A god who comes to earth to save us from our sins and a god who does not do that are different gods, and what they have in common, like being the one true creator of the universe, is what makes them mutually exclusive. More specifically, as we're talking about deism, the deists' god is described as not giving revelations to prophets, and yours does, so these are different characters.
As soon as theists start describing their gods, we can see that there are many different ones, and I don't think it's correct to avoid that point by pretending that these are merely different theological interpretations of something that actually exists, even when the gods in question share historical ancestry.
In the same way, your god is different from the god of protestant young earthers in several important ways, so either one or both must be made up entities because they are both the "one true God".
In that case, if only one is a false god, it's obvious which one as there's actual evidence against one of them, because the created universe described is clearly non-existent.
Deism is actually (usually) a more specific belief system than RAZD and Percy seem to suggest.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.deism.com/
These guys sound like some atheists when they're attacking your scriptures!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 12:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 174 of 375 (499827)
02-20-2009 9:35 PM


My Final Summary
(1) The difference, as has been amply demonstrated, is that
  • Deists believe in god/s, and they believe this position is rational as it is not invalidated by any known evidence, and they believe this is sufficient justification to keep believing in god/s.
  • Atheists don't believe in god/s, and they believe this position is rational, as they feel there is a lack of convincing evidence for belief in gods, and they believe this is sufficient justification to keep not believing in god/s.
(2) The comparison of any belief in god/s or whatever to belief in invisible pink unicorns is a logical fallacy, a Hasty Generalization. I have started another thread to discuss this logical fallacy, so further discussion of it here is pointless as well as being off-topic.


Now we can argue about whether the above is similar to Message 4 or not[1], but that argument does not address the topic.
We can argue about the difference between convincing and non-convincing evidence, and whether evidence can be dismissed as non-convincing because of subjective opinion, but that does not address the topic.
And we can argue about invisible pink unicorns as a logical fallacy, but that does not address the topic either.
Finally, all I have seen lately is repetition of old arguments, and nothing new has been said in a quite while.
Thus I am done answering on this thread.
Enjoy.
[1] - for the record, Mod, I do still consider them the same, I am unconvinced by your argument of any significant difference.
Edited by RAZD, : lackadaisy
Edited by RAZD, : footnote

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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 7:09 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-25-2009 12:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 175 of 375 (499878)
02-21-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
02-20-2009 9:35 PM


The Ultimate God of the Ultimate Gap
The notion that supernatural entities exist has arisen and prevailed independently in so many different human cultures that there must be "something" to it. Right? No. In fact if anything it demonstrates quite the opposite.
The sort of deistic entity being proposed here is nothing more than the ultimate god of the ultimate gap.
EVIDENCE
Deity - An entity so ethereal, so "woolly" and so pointless that the only objective reason advocates of such an entity can give against rejecting that such a thing exists at all is it's inherent and wholly convenient immunity from any sort of falsification at all.
However such claims completely ignore the very obvious fact that when it comes to assessing the likelihood of such an entity being nothing more than the product of human invention we have a wealth of evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case.
All the gods of history were un-falsifiable in their day. All the gods of history were invented in order to provide answers for which, in their time, there were no more reliable or rational answers available. Fertility gods, harvest gods, Sun gods, gods of thunder and lightening etc. etc. Gods that as human knowledge and understanding have progressed have effectively been debunked out of existence. Until the only gods left standing are those gods left cowering in the corner of irrelevance seeking refuge from the glare of reason in the shadows of vagueness. The gods of deism.
Is a deity that supposedly restricted itself to the spark of creation and, perhaps, fulfils the role of providing a higher purpose for us mere mortals really any different at all to any of these rejected gods of yesteryear? With the exception of it’s inherent vagueness and immunity from falsification — No it is not.
MOTIVE
What do human cultures do when they are confronted with a deep question for which they have no answer? Do they just embrace ignorance and move on? No. Human nature is such that instead of accepting ignorance we will instead invent an answer whether one exists or not and whether one can be rendered reliable or not. Whilst being correct is obviously advantageous, not being demonstrably wrong would seem to be a far greater concern.
In such a situation what better answer than an un-falsifiable entity which can be piggy-backed onto wholly subjective concepts like higher purpose, "destiny" or the "nobility of faith"?
(Ironically we re now being asked to officially declare our ignorance regarding these very same products of ignorance by deists advocating agnosticism as the reasoned position)
Throw in some raised social status for the human representatives of such an entity and the promise of rewards (increased harvest yield, greater fertility, wealth, heavenly virgins pandering to ones every need after death, the promise of eternal life in paradise etc. etc. etc.) for the followers of said entity and it is not difficult to see the wide appeal of such things. Whilst these latter advantages are not directly relevant to woolly concepts of non-interventionist deities, these concerns are very relevant to the prevalence of supernatural explanations in human cultures from which the deistic point of view is derived and from which it claims support. This aside -
The primary purpose of any particular god is to supply answers to otherwise unanswerable questions in a manner that is unable to be proven "wrong". Even if such answers cannot actually be demonstrated to be true
Human cultures will not tolerate ignorance and desire an answer even where one cannot reliably be obtained. Deists are human too. They seek answers to the currently unanswerable questions of origin and purpose.
So we have the motive.
MEANS
As for the means — Well the fact that I can pluck the concept of Wagwah out of my arse with barely a pause for thought is testament to the fact that such creations are all too easily inspired. Humans seem to have an innate capacity for such invention. We can all think up any number of gods. We can all think up gods that are as implausible as our argument against gods requires. We can also make our invented gods as ethereal and un-falsifiable as our argument in favour of the existence of such gods requires.
We can do this because the human capacity for such invention is in no way limited by the facts of reality.
CRIMES AGAINST REASON - THE CASE AGAINST
So, in summary, we have our motive — The very human desire for answers that are not wrong even if they are not demonstrably right either. And we have our means - The apparently innate ability for humans to create concepts that require little basis in fact.
So is the claim that deities exist a crime against reason?
Well the deities being proposed are essentially no different in essence to the variety of false gods that have already been falsified or abandoned as so unlikely as to be irrelevant. The deities being proposed are borne of exactly the same motives and produced by exactly the same means as these rejected gods.
When the deists claim that there is no evidence they are wrong. There is a wealth of evidence. A wealth of evidence in support of the fact that humanity is ready, willing and very very able to invent false supernatural concepts as a means of answering the questions that are otherwise unable to be answered in such a way as to be immune from being wrong.
So we have the means, the motive and a perpetrator (i.e. humanity) with a long and relentless history of repeat offending.
We may not be able to prove whether any particular undetectable supernatural being actually exists but we can be pretty fucking certain that such entities will be invented whether they exist or not.
CONCLUSION
Where past gods filled the gaps in our understanding of nature deistic gods attempt to fill the gaps in our need for purpose and ultimate origin. There really is no difference between the two concepts and as such very good reason to think that such deities are just less directly falsifiable versions of exactly the same phenomenon that gave rise to all of those now debunked and rejected gods.
In short — Is deism a crime against reason — Guilty as charged.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2009 9:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 02-21-2009 7:28 AM Straggler has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 375 (499882)
02-21-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Straggler
02-21-2009 7:09 AM


!
Straggler writes:
In short — Is deism a crime against reason — Guilty as charged.
This is how I see it, too. As I said earlier, my religious beliefs are contradictory and irrational.
Whether one is a theist, deist or atheist, there are two camps. One camp thinks its beliefs are rational and can be argued from the evidence, and I think this is by far always the larger camp. The other understands that acceptance of these beliefs comes from within and that it makes no sense trying to rationalize them or reconcile them with real-world evidence. It would make as little sense to try to reconcile all my contradictory images of dragons.
But of course there's a significant difference between my belief in God and my mental images of dragons. I know dragons aren't real but imaginary. But God, I both know that he's real and that he's imaginary. Try reconciling that!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 7:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 7:40 AM Percy has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 177 of 375 (499884)
02-21-2009 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
02-21-2009 7:28 AM


Vacuum of Evidence
Percy I totally accept your rational approach to irrationality.
What I just do not understand is RAZD's insistence that the question of a deity should be treated as if it operated in a vacuum of evidence.
Whatever the lack of direct evidence that exists (or more accurately does not exist) for or against the existence of such beings it cannot be claimed that there is also no evidence for the logical and mutually exclusive alternatives.
Namely that gods are a human invention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 02-21-2009 7:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 178 of 375 (499885)
02-21-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 9:52 AM


Vacuum of Evidence - Not
Straggler writes:
As I have been failing to explain to RAZD
IF either A or B where A is unevidenced.
THEN where B is evidenced the likelihood of A is diminished.
Only when A and B are mutually exclusive. The lack of specifics in A reduces its exclusivity.
Gods actually existing or gods not actually existing and being the product of human invention are two mutually exclusive alternatives.
Straggler writes:
But that is the problem. It is not a question of just getting the details wrong. It is the fact that after this elimination process we are only left with the spiritual concepts that are so un-detailed, so un-specific and so unfalsifiable that they cannot be "wrong".
That's do to the lack of evidence. We can't really tell what this 'something' is in detail but it does seem that this 'something' is there.
Well see Message 175 for a fuller answer to that point.
Whatever the lack of direct evidence that exists (or more accurately does not exist) for or against the existence of deities it cannot be claimed that such a question operates in a vacuum of evidence.
There is a wealth of evidence in favour of the logical and mutually exclusive alternative.
Namely that gods are a human invention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 375 (499886)
02-21-2009 7:59 AM


Short Conclusion
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.

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 180 of 375 (499924)
02-21-2009 11:11 AM


Comment
I was rather disturbed by one particular accusation that RAZD repeated in this thread - that atheists hold a world-view and pick and choose the evidence that supports that world-view. I held a theistic position for twenty-odd years, acknowledging a complete lack of objective evidence. Eventually, catalysed by discussions at EvC, this lack of evidence has switched my position to agnostic/atheistic. I have no desire to be an atheist, but evidence pushes me this way. My spiritual journey is by no means over, and I may end up somewhere completely different, if evidence leads me there. Evidence determines my world-view... simple really.

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Phat, posted 02-21-2009 11:29 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 1:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024