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

I think "higher purpose" is a misnomer.It should really just be "initial purpose," or "a purpose from an entity beyond this universe."It is rather trivial to show that such things are hardly "higher" in any form of the word.The entity may not even be beneficial.
Or, even if it was, any purpose recently given for any present situation is automatically "higher" and more relevant than any previous purpose. Regardless of who or what bestowed the original purpose.I really don't even understand how a purpose can be put onto another intelligent being and be beneficial in any way. Such a purpose would seem almost slave-like in the "I made you, your purpose is xxx!" kind of way. Seems very selfish and petty, really.It would seem to me that the only "good" (non-slave-like) initial purpose that can be bestowed upon an intelligent being is "to find your own purpose." In which case, is that really a "higher" purpose?I just don't see how any purpose can be forced upon an intelligent being and also be called a "higher" purpose. It seems rather contradictory and very anti-free-will.

What do you call someone who does not believe that absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence?What if someone thinks it would be cool if the supernatural actually did exist and wasn't simply the result of human imagination? But they need some sort of verifiable evidence in order to believe in such a thing. The kind of verifiable evidence that exists for anything and everything else in this universe that actually does exist. The same kind of evidence that imaginary things never actually have.Since this verifiable evidence of anything supernatural doesn't exist, they cannot believe, and therefore cannot be a deist.However they do not absolutely reject the possibility of the supernatural 100%, so they cannot be an atheist (by your definition, anyway).And they do not think the question is unsolvable, or nothing to care about, so they are definitely not an agnostic.Of course, I am talking about myself.I am not agnostic.
I am not a deist.
By your definition of "atheist", I am not an atheist.What would you call me?Personally, I call myself an atheist because I do fit into the simple defintion of "not having a belief in God".

bluegenes is just saying that both the deist and the Christian believer cannot be strictly correct about everything they believe God to be.General Deist God -> Created the universe and does not get (currently) obviously involved
General Christian God -> Created the universe and is (currently) obviously involved in some wayThey can both be correct that "a God" exists. But they cannot be both correct about the extents of how that God is involved in our universe. Equally, they could both be wrong completey about God's existence in the first place.Since they cannot be both strictly correct on exactly which God really exists... one of them must be wrong. One of them must be imagining a "random, made up entity." They could possibly still be right about "a God" existing, but "the God" they think about will be a random, made up entity and they will be forced to correct "how" they think about God....just thought I'd add some 2-cents in

This may be the bulk of the misunderstanding.When the matter is not pressing (like the existence of God), this is not true:
(Bolding by me)

quote:

---

When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview.

---

When confronted with "no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method" on a matter that is not pressing, it is quite possible for one to simply stop and no longer pursue the matter. There is nothing that forces one to continue in reaching a potentially-wrong conclusion, especially when one is no longer assured to be as close to reality as known to be possibe by using the scientific method. And, since before the matter was brought up, one would not have a belief in God, this default stance is retained since no more information is available. This is what atheists do, they simply don't even take out a coin for a flip. They simply walk away and leave it as "currently unknowable... therefore irrelevent to waste any additional time on." An atheist deems the situation unworthy of further study because it is unreasonable to consider possibly changing a stance on the basis of unverifiable information when the matter is not pressing.No heads, no tails, no coin. No belief, just as before the matter was presented.You can call that "agnostic" if you like, but "seeing it landing on it's edge" is not the same as "not tossing the coin in the first place." Even if, practically speaking, the resulting mind-set is extremely similar (no heads, no tails). This minor difference is large enough for most of the population (even if it doesn't make sense to you personally) to warrant having an additional word to describe such.

I would agree. However, I would also say that this "mighty fine line" does leave room for some possible life-living differences. I would have to say that "why/how it happened in the beginning" is extremely relevant because it is the foundation for our other thinking processes as well.Just because they are functionally the same in one aspect does not mean they are functionally the same in all aspects. Rubber boots and moccasins are functionally the same when walking on pavement. Not so when walking through puddles.Fact: There is no objective, verifiable evidence pointing in the direction of any deity, even those that exist in the sense of the Deist's idea. That is, in the context that it doesn't also point in the direction of other conflicting possibilities as well.Do you agree? If so:For whatever reason, a Deist accepts the existence of something that has no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only in it's direction.For whatever reason, an Atheist does not accept the existence of something that has no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only in it's direction.So.. this certainly leaves the door open for the Deist's mind to possibly accept the existence of other things that have no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only it it's direction.I suppose you can define a Deist to be one who only accepts this concept when thinking of deities... but such a restriction is not generally assumed to necessarily follow for every Deist. I would still agree. I think it's generally easy to seperate between "an uninvolved deity" and "anything else." But, that still doesn't mean that it must follow. Which is why I say "the door is open." Any particular Deist may or may not walk through it. I must admit that I have yet to meet a Deist that does walk through this door. Of course... I've probably only met, like, a handful of Desists