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

Its a case by case basis.We discovered the Giant Squid long after it was predicted on the basis of subjective evidence. Had you heard of it before it was discovered, how would you have assessed the chances of it actually being discovered based on the subjective evidence alone?Would you have put up as big of a fight against those that believed it existed based soley on the subjective evidence? Or is there something about this god-thing that you particularly oppose? For myself, yes. Pretty much, but the stairway isn't being used to hold much of anything up so it doesn't really matter. That's just how convincing it was. If you were convinced, then you'd believe it too (sorry for the tautology). What if Neandertals were shown to have religion too? Where was I inconsistant? No. The default would be agnosticism. You don't know.You're siding with atheism because you think that people have made god up. I don't think that's available objective evidence.I don't believe in the IPU because, well, I think that someone made it up. Without that though, and left with the subjective claim of the IPU all on its own and just the available objective evidence, I would say that I don't know if the IPU is real or not.

I don't know the case specifics of the giant squid discovery but knowing that squids exist based on empirical evidence and speculating that much larger squids might also exist hardly seems comparable to concluding that gods exist on the basis of no objective evidence in favour of gods existing.One possibility is evidentially founded and the other conclusion is not. I would be very surprised if they didn't.Let's substitute "human" for any creative, imaginative, investigateive species that is more naturally adept at creating answers than deriving objective truth. When you said this: And then this: It seesm that you find a form of evidence that you consider to be wholly unreliable to also be wholly convincing.I think that this demonstrates an inconsistent aproach to evidence.No? Uh oh. Here we go again. I do not believe in the actuality of those things for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible.Nor do you for 99.99% of the unevidenced conceptual possibilities.Should we be agnostic about all unevidenced claims? Or just the ones that you have convincing yet unreliable evidence of? Do you deny that people have invented demonstrably false concepts including gods?Or do you deny that there is objective evidence in favour of this fact? Really? What about the undetectable face sucking jellyfish? Thor? Odin? Apollo? Allah? Vishnu? Shango? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.The list is literally endless. Are you really agnostic? I mean really? Or do you actually not believe in this entities? C'mon be honest. You can tell me. There is no objective evidence in favour of the IPU or any gods.There is objective evidence to suggest that the IPU and gods are human inventions.We both agree that subjective evidence is exceptionally unreliable with regard to establishing objective truth.So, as they say - Do the math.

That kinda assumes that I actually approached the evidence, made a judgement, and then decided if it was convincing enough or not. That's not how it happened. That is how I approach objective evidence but this subjective experience convinced me on its own. If you are relying on purely verified objective evidence, the yes you should be agnostic about all unevidenced claims. If you are going to deny an unevidenced claim then its based on something other than evidence. I'm denying that we have verified objective evidence that god is/was made up. No, I'm not agnostic towards those but I am not relying solely on verified objective evidence. If I was, then I would be agnostic towards them. How so? Because people are capable of making stuff up then they must be?

Then not only is your assessment of the reliability of subjective "evidence" inconsistent from situation to situation. Your whole method of evaluating what is evidentially convincing and what is not evidentially convincing is also completely inconsistent from situation to situation.This unequivocably demonstrates an inconsistent approach to evidence on your part. Why? If there is nothing to even suggest that a particular concept is even a possibility why is the question of it's actual objective existence even a valid question?I deny the validity of the question and deem the concept unworthy of consideration. Never mind actual belief.Otherwise I must logically open the door to the infinite array of wholly unevidenced crackpot concepts imaginable. If not objective evidence then what are you relying on to make your atheistic conclusions?Is it that sponge stairway notion of wholly unreliable but wholly convincing subjective "evidence" rearing it's ugly head again? So it would seem that you agree that the possibility of deities being false concepts that are the product of human invention is indeed objectively evidenced and indeed verified fact.Is the possibility of deities actually existing objectively evidenced? Is the possibility of deities actually existing a verified fact?If we solely follow the objectively verified evidence what conclusion must we draw?Do the math.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Isn't yours? Or is the only way to be consistent to reject it all? Well, there's not really a "method". Either it convinces me or it doesn't. I see. I can live with that. I don't care to argue about this here. Because people do have something to suggest that a particular concept is a possibility. Well La-ti-frickin-daLike you said, you are free to believe what you want. In the meantime, us guys will be over there trying to figure this whole god thing out. Not if you have something to suggest a particular concept. My subjective experiences and my world view, I guess.(I don't think that the people that believe in Odin were totally wrong. They could have been on to the same god I am, but their cultural influence led them to a different description.) I like that: "wholly unreliable but wholly convincing" That's a good way to describe it.But yeah, there it is. Wait. How are you going to show that a deity is a false concept with objective evidence? Agnosticism.You have to use something other than objectively verified evidence to conclude otherwise.

I don't grant wholly subjective experiences with any more reliability in the absence of objective evidence than I do in the presence of objective evidence. Or do they just have utterly unreliable yet aparently very convincing subjective experiences? I don't. From the point of view of any reliable or objectively meaningful evidence you might as well spend your time trying to figure out that whole Immaterial Pink Unicorn thing.There really is no difference. You have agreed that there is objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans create false god concepts.You have repeatedly stated that subjective evidence is valid in the case where there is an absence of objective evidence in favour of any of these god concepts actually being true.Thus, given that I have no subjective experience of the sort that you apparently find convincing, what conclusion am I to draw on the basis of the objective evidence alone? Please explain.

So none at all then. ...that suggest a particular concept, yes. Right, so in the absence of any suggestion of a concept, there is no consideration.Once a concept that cannot be objective evidenced is suggested, the default position, in the complete absence of any evidence, is agnoticism. Nothing suggests yes or no, so you remain at I don't know. To move to atheism (or to the 'no' side), you have to have something there to make that consideration. So if there's no objective evidence, what do you use? I suppose, but we have subjective experiences to consider that suggest a particular concept. For specific falsifiable dieties, yes. But not for general unfalsifiable ones. Its because of the basis of objective evidence alone. On the basis of objective evidence alone, a subjective unfalsifiable conclusion must remain in the realm of unknowing because we don't have any objective evidence to suggest one way or the other.

The deist says that objective evidence is not possible. That, somehow, just does not add up to not existing the non-existence of god/s ... does it. So why then do courts allow it? Certainly it is not regarded as equal to objective evidence but it is used when there is no other way to determine the truth.The fact that courts find subjective evidence useful in reaching verdicts invalidates your assertion of subjective evidence being worthless.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : corrected mis-statement

---

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) • • •

So objective evidence which cannot possibly exist does still exist?The faith based conclusions that you have repeatedly stated require no evidence are suddenly evidenced?Are you drunk? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAre you still equating courtroom character witness testimonials and informed opinion to personal and wholly unevidenced subjective experiences of god?There is a reason that ones own mother is not usually considered a suitable character witness for the defence in a court of law. Something called lack of objectivityYour notion that courtroom evidence of any sort somehow validates purely and wholly subjective personal experience as a form of evidence in favour of gods existing is truly ridiculous.See here Message 286 and here Message 293So the next time you tell a creationist to "Follow the evidence" and they pull out a subjective interpretation of the bible in response you will presumably not be hypocritical enough to dismiss such notions as unevidenced folly?I will ask my questions yet again in the forlorn hope that you might actually answer them......Is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?Or not?If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zeroPlease be honest.

No, my friend, I was not clear: the absence of objective evidence is not due to the absence of some spiritual existence, but to the fact that such spiritual existence does not necessarily produce objective evidence that can be discerned as due to it's existence. Let me rephrase it the way I meant it:The deist says that objective evidence is not possible. That, somehow, just does not add up to the nonexisting of god/s ... better?What you have is a universe so intertwined that you cannot parse out evidence of the supernatural from the natural behavior of everything as designed. It would depend on the credibility of the witness, but normally between B and D. Both A and E are unnecessarily presumptive of previously knowing the answer.If a group of people came forward with the same subjective evidence would you rate the probability of that claim actually being verified as higher or lower?Please be honest.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) • • •

No, amused because (1) logic will never refute a personal experience, and (2) logic can never disprove reality. The deist saw the flying saucer - that is not special pleading.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) • • •

quote:

---

No, amused because (1) logic will never refute a personal experience, and (2) logic can never disprove reality.

---

1) "You experience your significant other being pasted by a passing bus; it is quite real and visceral. A moment later you find yourself in a cold sweat, lying in your bed. The experience is as fresh as if you had just seen it, but the presence of your quite alive significant other next to you in bed logically leads you to conclude it was just a dream."There, we see how logic and past experience can be used to refute a personal experience. While you have no evidence to say it is not possible your significant other was instantly reconstructed, reanimated, and placed back in the bed beside you I suspect you will not lose sleep over the subject. This example can be applied to any dream you experienced but did not accept as real, assuming of course that you can distinguish your dreams from reality.2) "All clowns can fly. Bucko is a clown. Therefore, Bucko can fly."Valid logic will never disprove reality when provided with sound evidence, but it *can* disprove reality when unsound evidence is used. The logic in the above example is valid, it is simply the premise that all clowns can fly that is unsound.Previously when the deist "saw" the UFO it is reasonable that the atheist would question the experience of the deist. All the evidence that the atheist had access to suggested that what the deist claimed to observe was a fabrication or a mistake. In a more topical situation it could also be argued that the deist had a history of poor interpretation of evidence and a propensity for hallucinations, along with a strong conflict of interest.Even the deist should question his/her own experience; after all it is possible that they were mistaken. Scientists prefer that experiments be replicated by independent researchers, or at the very least the available evidence be verified and interpreted by others. Your argument seems to be that you consider personal experiences to be infallible and incapable of misinterpretation, which is of course a laughable assumption.

RAZD, You missed the point. Someone claiming to have seen a flying saucer is not evidence enough for the rest of us to accept that he did. What is special pleading would be you accepting that flying saucers exist on the basis that he said he saw one, & denying the existance of fairies in spite of the same level of evidence.Mark

---

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

So you are saying that we should take subjective evidence into account when establsishing the truth huh? Subjective evidence such as people's claims of alien visitation (to get back to your long standing favourite topic).And your justification for this is that the courts allow the use of this sort of subjective evidence?JUDGE: Where were you on the night of 16th March?DEFENDENT: I was on a flying saucer your honour.JUDGE: Erm.. Pardon?DEFENDENT: I was abducted by aliens and taken aboard their flying saucer where I was probed in various ways. I was gone all night.JUDGE: That is your alibi?DEFENDENT: Yes. RAZD told me that my wholly subjective and personal experiences were valid as evidence in a court of law.JUDGE: Get this idiot out of my sight and somebody find this RAZD character. He has some answering to do.In the IPU thread it took you over 150 posts to concede that the evidenced possibility of alien life somewhere in the universe and the wholly unevidenced actual existence of deities are not evidentially equivalent.Please don't make us go through the same painful process again before you grasp the quite evident notion that the eye witness testimony used in law courts is not equivalent to the deeply personal and wholly subjective religious experiences that are (well...should be) under discussion here. Nobody is claiming either of these things. If that is what you think anyone here is saying then you are fighting a straw man.If you want to refute the conclusions of those that oppose you here then you need to show that there is reason to think that wholly subjective experiences (such as religious experiences but NOT courtroom testimony) tell us anything even marginally reliable about objective reality.Of course if you prefer to keep fighting your straw man then just carry on as you are............

Making the object of your belief immune to direct refutation, whether this is intentional or unintentional, conscious or unconscious, does not eliminate it from the very distinct and evidenced possibility that it is the product of human invention.It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of human invention.An evidenced possibility derived from indisputable facts in exactly the same way that the possibility of alien life is an evidenced possibility derived from indisputable facts.As, in the case of alien life at least, you have conceded.It is not an objectively evidenced fact that any god concept is the possible product of the actual existence of gods.Deities and the IPU are identical in evidential terms.If one follows the objective evidence alone, if one has no subjective evidence of gods to fall back on, then it can only be concluded that god concepts are more likely to be the result of human invention than the result of gods actually existing?You have failed to address this simple point in nearly 600 posts spanning two threads..Instead you choose to relentlessly assert conclusions that relate to an absence of objective evidence when in fact there is no such thing as an absence of objective evidence.Why do you do this? What?We can predict the existence of particles, comets and various other objective physical entities on the basis of indirect objective evidence. We can do this and in many cases we can have an extremely high degree of confidence in the reliability of our conclusion. We do not first need to know the answer to do this.In such cases we can then verify or refute those predictions and thus test the validity of conclusions drawn and the methods used to draw those conclusions.Why can we not undertake this same process, and thus test the validity of subjective evidence as a viable means of drawing reliable conclusions, by applying subjective evidence based predictions to verifiable entities instead of unverifiable gods?That is all I am asking you to do.[AbE]For the record I would estimate the chances of a verifiable discovery being made on the basis of wholly subjective evidence to be very close to zero. If you answer the question below differently then maybe we can determine a way to test the validity of subjective evidence in some way[End AbE]So if somebody whose judgement and subjective evidence credentials you trust greatly, but who has no empirical knowledge of particle physics, predicts that a particle with verifiable and detectable properties exists on the basis of wholly subjective evidence alone - How would you rate the chances of their prediction being correct?A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zeroOr does subjective evidence only have any worth when it's predictions are inherently untestable? A group of people who totally and completely independently can be reliably determined to have had the exact same personal and wholly subjective experience without any other external factors, or mere chance being more likely responsible for the commonality of experience?A sort of subjective equivalent of a random sample of a 1000 people being independently shown a picture which they are then asked to both describe and copy before the results are all pooled to see if the people reliably described and drew the same thing?That sort of test?Yes I honestly would definitely think that such a subjective experience would have more objective validity if the results of such tests were consistently superior to the results expected by mere chance.Is that honest enough for you?I have answered every single question you have thrown at me in two threads. It would be nice if you did the same.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add AbE comment.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.