|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
The question is whether you can take what someone actually believes and demonstrate that it is silly\delusional. Well, in order to demonstrate delusion we'd have to show that the position is held contrary to available evidence. Although we can do that with religions that claim omnibenevolent, omniscient, & omnipotent gods, we can't with a deists "god". So delusion is out of the window. "Silly" isn't. Most deists I know differ from me in that they accept theres some kind of creator spirit supernatural thingy. The problem is that in all other walks of life they essentially live as atheists, they don't accept things without evidence. They would accept that you can't rule out the flying teapot, so to speak, so they put it in that place in their minds with all the other quadrillions of things that might exist but we have no evidence for. Fairies, Kraken, little green men, etc. In suspending this eminently reasonable standard for one thing only, it represents intellectual hypocrisy, intellectual inconsistency & it therefore follows that it is illogical. This, I think, meets the standard of "silly".
Agreeing that god/s are unknowable would be agreeing with deists. That would be agnostics of any stripe. Deism doesn't require god is unknowable.
The typical deist has faith that god/s exist, but that it\they are unknowable That would be agnostic deists only.
Would you say that the atheist position is that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, and therefore they don't exist? That's an agnostic atheists position. It's not my position, nor is it the position of most atheists of whose books I've read. If god exists, then it is potentially knowable. It doesn't matter whether it will or won't happen, but to claim it can't is to vastly overstate the position. If you don't know whether god is knowable or not then you shouldn't say it isn't. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sorry, Mod., I went back to my post 115 to add stuff without realising you had basically stated my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD,
In message 4 you said:
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). The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
In message 125 you said:
It amuses me that every "correction" keep repeating the same basic position: 1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.2. I find no evidence for belief in any proposed deity. 3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity. Can you show me how this contradicts my original argument in Message 4? The two propositions are different. On one hand you correctly point out that evidence of absence isn't absence of evidence, but in post 125 this is missing. Post 4 proposition is a strawman of most atheists positions anyway, & post 125 is correct. I believe this your opponents have repeatedly pointed out to you your strawman. I'd caution you not to confuse rejection with non-acceptance. Rejection includes non-acceptance, obviously, but non-acceptance does not necessarily include rejection. As I pointed out in message 115 (which you failed to respond to) the correct thing to do with things that we have no evidence for is to hold them as possibilities, & place it in that part of our heads that contains all the other things that we have non-acceptance for, like the flying spaghetti monster, wotan, little green men. As you agree, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so failure to do this for deism renders us intellectual hypocrites, inconsistent & therefore illogical. Unless of course you believe there are little green men, zeus exists at the same time as the flying spaghetti monster, & all the other trillions of potential propositions we also have no evidence for? Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD,
The comparison of faith to straw man arguments of... I didn't make a straw man argument. I said you were a hypocrite because you accept one or a few positions without evidence & reject the rest. This is correct.
ad hoc Nope, I am making an A because B argument, establishing the truth of A not B. You are an (A)illogical hypocrite because (B) you operate a double standard. Were I establishing the truth of B, then it would be an ad hoc statement, not an argument.
reductio ad absurdum What can I say, my argument, I mean MY argument, not the one you want to make does not meet the standards of the fallacy. I have not assumed a claim for the sake of argument and derived an absurd or ridiculous outcome. You are an illogical hypocrite because you operate a double standard. Your belief in a god is the evidential equivalent of little green men, the Loch Ness monster etc. It is not absurd, it is true.
ad lapidem I haven't "thrown stones". I have shown that you operate a double standard when you choose what to accept based on evidence. That you take it as such is irrelevant.
The comparison of faith to straw man arguments of ad hoc dreamed up reductio ad absurdum arguments for the purpose of make an ad lapidem attack do not refute the faith. I do not attempt to "refute the faith". I show that you operate a double standard, committing the logical fallacy of special pleading. Your world view is fallacious. It is based on hypocrisy, & is therefore unreasonable. It matters not one iota that you consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the God-Of-Things-Locked-In-Drawers, & asteroids made of chocolate etc. a ridiculous comparison. The fact is that evidentially they are equivalent, & that no matter how much you wish it weren't so, you are operating a double standard in what you accept based on evidence. Therefore you are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading. Conclusions based on logical fallacies are not reasonable, your view is based on one, therefore it is not reasonable. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that your view is correct, & everyone else who is not engaged in special pleading is logically forced to not accept deism as being true. This is both logical & correct of them. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Phat,
The old absense of evidence argument again, eh? No. Absence of evidence = no acceptance, just like you do with everything else that has no evidence, you don't accept it as true. That is different from saying it is untrue.
Special pleading only makes sense in the context of logic being the ultimate authority. Yeah right, when you want to accept anything you want to, just disregard logic. There are no gods because strong atheists are right. Because logic isn't the ultimate authority, I'm right, see? The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true. See how silly it can get without logic? You can come to any conclusion based on no logical or evidential value. I'm sorry Phat, but this is hypocritical bullshit. Any argument or position must meet a minimum logical standard. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Phat,
Absence of evidence = whatever conclusion an individual prefers to be acceptable for them. I have the right to accept any conclusion I choose. Of course you do, & I have the right to point out you are a hypocrite.
Why is no acceptance always logical? Because unless you accept everything that is evidentially vacuous you are automatically guilty of special pleading. The ol' double standard thang.
There is a woman who, according to our best evidence, does not love you. Do you reject your love for her, or do you love in spite of the lack of evidence reciprocating? This has nothing to do with it. If I love someone who doesn't love me how have I accepted something without evidence? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Phat,
To begin with, you have accepted my hypothetical woman. As being axiomatic for the purposes of the example only. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler,
Mark24 initially claimed that the number of planets in the universe had no bearing on the probability of extraterrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe. No matter what other factors may also be relevant this assertion is just mathematically false. I never made that claim. I said that the number of planets didn't equate to evidence that exraterrestrial life exists. I concede that it would increase the likelihood, but having shitloads of planets isn't evidence that life exists elsewhere. I pointed this out to compare it with the IPU, which also has no evidence, or the deists god which also exists in a vacuum of evidence. Accepting one thing without evidence & rejecting another invokes the logical fallacy of special pleading & is intellectually hypocritical. Perhaps I should have said "an acceptable level of evidence", either way, it's still special pleading. Other than that, good post. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
They're such different things that the possibility of disagreement between them would never occur to me. Isn't that what intellectual compartmentalisition is? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
But given there is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence, is there therefore evidence of UFO's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
So is there evidence of UFO's or not? Should be a yes or no answer, shouldn't it?
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bluegenes,
Should it? Why? Because either there is evidence, or there isn't. A question with only two possibilities asking a choice between the two requires only a yes or no. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
In the same way that it takes people no effort to keep even similar things like sewing and knitting separate It's not the same thing, though. If we are going to apply a methodology in order to come to conclusions about the universe then we should apply it consistently. Allowing a warm fuzzy feeling to guide us in one instance but reject everything else with the same level of evidence because we apply the scientific method is just plain daft. I guess that's what I mean by compartmentalising, seeing no problem in applying a double standard. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to accept that there is no evidence that would lead you to deism, & therefore not be a deist, but still accept that you have a "gut" instinct that there may very well be one. This is kind of where I am with alien life. I know there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life so I won't allow myself the luxury of accepting the proposition. But at the same time it seems likely that somewhere in some way, shape or form there is such a thing. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bluegenes,
So, I was questioning your question. But you missed the context. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bluegenes,
Perhaps. But do you see speculation in relation to life forms existing elsewhere as equivalent to speculation about elves and fairies? I do
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024