Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 38 of 375 (498465)
02-10-2009 8:36 PM


I think the first point that needs to be established is "What do deist mean by God"...?
Would deist be satisfied with saying "the entity/being that created the universe"...?
If that is it, then it can be seen as reasoning from incredulity. Also, it is a primitive basis for original religions.
Where did such a belief originate and for what reasons did it originate?
There is absolutely no need to invoke anything beyond natural law to our universe. We are ALL born atheist, it is inherent in humans to be this way. However, indoctrination isn't always so in-your-face as with organized religion, it can be suttle and almost unnoticable. But, by simply saying that "maybe" there is something that created the universe, you have shown signs of being indoctrinated into a non-rational train of thought.
If nature is all you see and know, how could anyone postulate anything beyond it? Sure, our imaginations may be able to postulate a pink unicorn, or a God, but neither one has any rational basis for existing.
RAZD writes,
RAZD writes:
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy
I do not believe this, well sort of. Yes, as an atheist I believe there is no evidence for god. But, I also feel that there is no basis for believing there IS a god. It was a primitive answer to a complex question. If there had never been any organized religion, no concept of gods, AND, you knew everything you knew about science, would you even postulate a god?
Keep in mind, that just hearing the term god as a child, even if you are not in any religion, is a form of indoctrination. At least in that you'll give the concept of god more relevance than that of unicorns, which we've always associated with a made-up fictional thing.
Why more relevance to god then unicorns...?
In my opinion, a deist is an atheist who has heard the term god all their lives and always associated it, to some degree, with something plausable, so they keep it kinda on the "I don't know" level. Where as if you asked them about unicorns, since it has always been thought of as fictional, they have no problem with telling you "they don't exist".

"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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 64 of 375 (498637)
02-12-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
02-12-2009 10:02 AM


Re: To summarize then
I think most atheists probably believe there is no higher purpose, that there is no reason we're here, we're just an example of what can happen in a reality that happens to have something instead of nothing.
I am an atheist but I do share this opinion. I think though, to some extent, that the purpose may just be existance itself, or "something" instead of "nothing", as you put it.
However, I do not share your belief in a God. I do not think that "purpose" necessarily needs a God.
I believe in my heart that we're here for a reason, but that there is no way we can ever discover or understand what that reason is.
Well if we evaluate that statement, 'heart' is replaced with 'brain'.
What you're saying is that from what you've gathered in your experiences throughout life your brain has developed a sense of "reason" for your existance, does that really seem like something that requires further investigation?
It should be suffice that YOU feel it for YOUR existance, any further 'discover' into that realm can only be done by those who feel this since such feelings are purely subjective.
I don't think that "purpose" or "reason" are necessarily things that SHOULD be discovered, these are not objective things, they are subjective and should be viewed that way...and left to the person who feels it.
Just my thoughts,
- Oni

"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 63 by Percy, posted 02-12-2009 10:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 375 (499465)
02-18-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 4:36 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
A random made-up entity doesn't have the same weight behind it as the idea of a god put forth by deists.
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.
That so many people have similiar experiences in regards to some kind of god is more reason to believe in a god than the complete lack of reason to believe in your silly jellyfish.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 12:54 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 155 of 375 (499613)
02-19-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
02-18-2009 11:32 PM


Re: magnum opus response
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Oni writes:
That there is a known image of this god IS made-up, no matter what the desciption.
Curiously this does NOT apply to deism, where god/s are unknowable and not described.
If it is knowable then it follows that,
Oni writes:
"random made-up entity" = idea put forth by a diest.
"idea put forth by a diest" = random made-up entity.
So either it is known that god/s exists, or god is a made-up entity. I don't see where you could place your deistic beliefs to be somewhere in the middle of that. It seems like you would contradict yourself either way.
You can't claim that god is unknowable and then reject ever concept of god claimed by people of faith...to include the jellyfish-type god. If it is unknowable then any and all concepts are valid possibilities.
So, either you know god is not a jellyfish, or Jesus, or Allah, or whoever else, or you don't know. You can't have it both ways.
You can't say:
"I have faith that there is a god/s, but, trust me it's not any that have been claimed by religion"
"God/s are unknowable, but, trust me I know it's not a jellyfish"
"My concept of god/s is not made-up, but, all others are"
Each one of those is a contradicting statement. Which was my only point to CS.
- Oni
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 140 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2009 11:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 159 of 375 (499628)
02-19-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
An idea that evolves over centuries is neither random, nor made-up. "Made-up" is not in the sense that every idea has to be made at some point, but that the idea was recently created by one person.
The origin of any concept in which there is no objective evidence is a "made-up" concept. Be it 100,000 years ago, or yesterday. It's evolvement over the centuries has more to do with people's willingness - and in some cases they are forced - to accept the concept put forth.
All ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, was created by one person. I am not willing to accept that everyone has had an independent subjective experience about the same god without taking into account people's ability to be influenced in their thoughts.
Its not that the popularity proves the position, its that the popularity adds weight to the position and makes it worthy of consideration and more rational than some random made-up idea.
I agree with that. But, as RAZD would say, curiously I wonder if you'd hold the same position if you were a Greek in the times of the mythological gods?
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
Neither do I so I would either hold to the position that both are silly concepts, or that both are equally valid concepts.
When two different primitive cultures over many generations came up with similiar independent ideas on the existence of some kind of spiritual realm or source (something like animism), I say that those ideas are less silly than one man pulling some random idea out of a hat.
Yes but primitive cultures did have a point of origin for their ideas, be it independent or not. So it could have been claimed then that those ideas were the result of someone pulling it out of a hat. One day there was no idea of god, then the next day there was, someone thought it up and we have to take them on faith that they actually had a subjective experience to which this idea of god came to them. Further we would have to accept, on faith, that the person interpreted it correctly. And just because the cultures are geographically independent of each other does not mean that we know for sure that no outside influences were introduced to expound on their claimed subjective experiences.
But we're talking about the idea of god as put forth by deists so there is no known image of this god. "That there is a god", which you agree is not randomly made-up, is what we are talking about and what I am contrasting against the randomly made-up jellyfish god.
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.
I agree that the jellyfish was made up, but I believe it was made up just to serve as an analogy.

"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 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 3:13 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 367 of 375 (508008)
05-09-2009 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by RAZD
05-09-2009 3:08 PM


Re: once again, with feeling ... (so special)
Hi RAZD,
Hope you don't mind me jumping in. I've really been enjoying this debate and I don't want to stop the flow but this caught my eye and I couldn't understand it,
RAZD writes:
One can easily imagine a deity outside objective reality, and for such a deity it would be impossible to have any objective reality ... by definition.
To me this sounds impossible. There is no way you can know what "outside of objective reality" is, let alone imagine it. It's like trying to imagine what it would be like to not be able to imagine - it's a canceling out factor.
I may be misunderstand you, if so, please help...
---------------------------------------------------------
About blue, or prefering one color or the other being a "subjective" feeling/interpretation - I've heard it called "color qualia" - has many critics . There is a science behind it, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but it's not subjective, it's very much objective as to why there are color preferences.
Paul Churchland says about color qualia in the book Conversations on Consciousness:
quote:
I'm happy to use the word qualia to describe, or to index, the fact that there are profound differences between my various visual sensations; sensations of green versus sensations of red, sensations of yellow versus sensations of white and so forth. There are differences in my olfactory sensations, my gustatory sensation, my tactile sensations.
furthermore,
quote:
There is a problem with objective colors, and it's the problem of metamers. To have a sensation, say of the color red, is to have all of your three kind of opponent proccessing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation. They are a blue versus yellow, red versus green, and black versus white, and all of them have heightened activity or lowered activity. The pattern activity for say red will be, say 50%, 90%, 50%, across the three kinds of cells.
According to Paul Churchland, the reason you prefer blue is because you will have heightened and lowered activity in your proccessing cells due to the different patterns of relative stimulation for that particular color, and not because you just feel it, or it's a "subjective" interpretation free of a causing agent. There is a reason why, an objective reason.
IMO, you can't use the "I prefer blue" argument to explain why you "prefer your faith" over the IPU. The reason you may prefer blue has to do with your three kind of opponent proccessing cells showing a certain pattern of relative stimulation.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : reworded Churchlands opinion of RAZD's argument about prefering "blue".

"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 364 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 3:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 7:20 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 369 of 375 (508013)
05-09-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by RAZD
05-09-2009 7:20 PM


Re: qualia, and the quality of evidence
Doesn't sound like that is an objective area of study. Looks more like a study of subjective evidence than on objective reality.
Qualia itself can be said to be the subjective interpretation of the reality you experience, however, color qualia is different.
I'll try to explain in the next response.
No, that is a reason how, not why - if it even explains that. In effect, color blue "resonates" with my vision perception more than other colors. This means that I am more sensitive to seeing blue, but that doesn't explain why I prefer it. I could still be more sensitive to blue, but like orange better.
I am talking about color qualia, which is the "feeling" that you like one color versus the other.
The problem: Color is objectively viewed therefore color is subject to how you view it, how it stimulates your sensory receptors, and as such, determines how you "feel" about it. In this sense there is no subjective "feelings" about color, it is simply a higher sensory stimulation for one color versus another color.
And yet the experiments with the God Helmet show that some people have a heightened activity in their processing cells for religious experience.
Be that as it may, it doesn't correlate with "feeling" a color. If you could point to some outside stimuli that is experienced through one of our sensory inputs that then gets subjectively interpreted to be god, you may be on the right track with your comparision.
That I know of there are no outside stimuli that trigger these experiences, these experiences manifest within our minds. The "God Helmet" was more of a forced nuerological stimulation, this is very different from looking at a wall a seeing red.
From your link:
quote:
However, some psychologists and neuroscientists seek other explanations. They suspect that these mystical experiences may be caused by natural processes functioning (or malfunctioning) inside one's brain. One method of building support for this theory would be to find a way to artificially induce a mystical experience in the laboratory. Another would be to show how a natural disorder, like epilepsy, can produce hallucinations that simulate the God experience.
Neuro disfunctions have been linked to God experiences before. However, that is completely different from normal, everyday feelings of liking red more than blue.
Color is visually perceived under normal conditions, and is perceived by your sensory receptors in a certain way that can cause the sensation of one color being more appealing than the other - which you are refering to as "subjectively liking blue more".
Why is imagination limited by knowledge?
I didn't quite mean that. I don't think imagination is limited, this is one of my favorite Einstein quotes,
quote:
Albert Einstein said, "Imaginationis more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
However, let's put everything into proper context. Viewing some phenomenon and imagining how it happened is in the context that I would say "knowledge is limited". One has to use their imagination to begin to figure things out.
But, you are claiming to be able to imagine something "outside of reality", in that context I think your imagination is simply limited by the very idea of imagining something "outside of reality". - Like my example of imagine yourself not being able to imagine.
It has nothing to do with knowledge, it has to do with contradicting factors. If you can imagine something existing, no matter what that "something" is, you automatically place it in some kind of reality. Maybe not the reality that we perceive/experience, ok, I'll grant you that ability -(others may not), but certainly not "outside of reality" itself. I would go as far as to say that that is nonsensical.
What is the objective reality of a god that is undetectable? Further, if one believes that god is unknowable, how could one expect to have any way of determining whether or not the terms "objective reality" applied or not.
Whether or not god exists and lives outside of objective reality is not the point. I just don't see how you can imagine it. You can say it til the cows come home, but there's no way of imagining it.
- Oni

"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 368 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 7:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 371 of 375 (509072)
05-18-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Whateverman
05-16-2009 10:27 PM


I reject almost every theological interpretation of God I've ever heard
Which theological interpretation do you not reject?
and believe that whatever caused this whole thing to start existing,
The "caused to start existing" is curious...why would anything be required to "start" the process of expansion?
I occasionally wonder if I'm simply too "scared" to admit to myself that I'm an atheist
I think as long as one reserves an opinion on deism or god until such time that evidence, either for god(s) directly, or of a needed causal agent, are shown, then atheism seems the most logical.
I don't personally think it's a question of fear, more so it's a question of rational logic. IMO.
- Oni

"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 370 by Whateverman, posted 05-16-2009 10:27 PM Whateverman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Whateverman, posted 05-18-2009 1:39 PM onifre 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