|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
The fact is, we don't even know whether such things as Immaterial Pink Unicorns or deities can exist.
We know that life can exist because it exists here. It follows that there should be greater confidence in the possibility of extraterrestrial life than in the possibility of deities or IPUs. It's a very small sliver of evidence in favor of extraterrestrial life, but it's more than purely faith-based beliefs like the IPU or deities for which no evidence exists whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Straggler, still struggling?
What contrary conclusion? Mark24 seems to agree that alien life is an evidentially supported logical possibility. Message 244bluegenes,
Perhaps. But do you see speculation in relation to life forms existing elsewhere as equivalent to speculation about elves and fairies?
I do Are you arguing that speculation about elves and fairies is "an evidentially supported logical possibility"?
OK so you agree that faith in deities is borne from an irrational and evidentially inconsistent world view whilst atheism is derived from a rational and evidentially consistent world view? That may be your opinion of how it works, but it is not my experience, not does it match what I said: "faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used." There is not one thing I know of that contradicts or is inconsistent with what I believe, and thus it is not irrational nor is it "evidentially inconsistent" with the known world. Nor do I see the contrary conclusions between you and Mark24 (among others) as evidence of "a rational and evidentially consistent world view" as the intellectual property of atheists. What I see is that the conclusions are essentially subjective, based on differences in your world views that include other aspects beyond your shared scientific knowledge and atheistic beliefs. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Do you agree that belief in the possibility of alien life is an evidentially supported hypothesis and thus not equivalent to faith based belief in the actual existence of supernatural beings? Mark writes: Yes. Bluegenes writes: Perhaps. But do you see speculation in relation to life forms existing elsewhere as equivalent to speculation about elves and fairies? Mark writes: I do So either Mark thinks that elves and fairies are valid scientific hypotheses as well or you need to place less faith in the seemingly contradictory opinions of one individual. Mark24's opinion is just that - An opinion. The possibility of life other planets is not derived from an irrational subjective world view. Unlike belief in supernatural deities..... Mark24 agrees with ME on that score. So it must be true
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD,
Would you agree that your position overall is not swayed significantly by an increase in the number of planets because of offsetting factors? Offsetting factors? My "position" is outlined in a previous post, how would it be swayed. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Hey Straggler, still struggling? Along with everyone else trying make sense of your non-sensical claims.
Straggler writes: OK so you agree that faith in deities is borne from an irrational and evidentially inconsistent world view whilst atheism is derived from a rational and evidentially consistent world view? That may be your opinion of how it works, but it is not my experience, not does it match what I said: "faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used." There is not one thing I know of that contradicts or is inconsistent with what I believe, and thus it is not irrational nor is it "evidentially inconsistent" with the known world. Really? What do you make of the evidence in favour of humanity inventing gods and deities? Do you think this has any relevance with regard to attempting to objectively evaluate the likelihood of particualr gods or deities actually existing? Or not?
Nor do I see the contrary conclusions between you and Mark24 (among others) as evidence of "a rational and evidentially consistent world view" as the intellectual property of atheists. What I see is that the conclusions are essentially subjective, based on differences in your world views that include other aspects beyond your shared scientific knowledge and atheistic beliefs. Are all world views equally subjective and unreliable or is a "world view" derived from objective evidence and logic superior in terms of objectivity and reliability? Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler,
So either Mark thinks that elves and fairies are valid scientific hypotheses as well or you need to place less faith in the seemingly contradictory opinions of one individual When bluegenes asked me the question I had in mind specific alien life form, such as 3 headed snarfwhiffer, or green glandblasters, which are just as likely as elves & fairies. I'm not sure why I took that interpretation of the question since it's obvious in retrospect that any life elsewhere was the context.
Mark24 agrees with ME on that score. So it must be true If you mail me your address you can have an autograph Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Thanks Mark
Given that the rationality or otherwise of atheism as a whole apparently rests on your shoulders alone I am glad that you have made this clarification. Hopefully RAZD too has seen this.
If you mail me your address you can have an autograph I would be honoured to have the autograph of the ONE who has delivered atheism from the depths of irrationality and subjective world view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mark24,
Offsetting factors? My "position" is outlined in a previous post, how would it be swayed. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Near the start of the IPU thread you said (edited for clarity):
Message 21quote: Forgive me if I am in error, but this appears to me to conclude that the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe is possible but highly unlikely. Open-minded skepticism. Possible yes, probable no. Increasing the number of planets could increase the probability of life, or it could just increase the probability of more sterile planets due to the offsetting factors that make so many planets sterile. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Are you really reduced to trying to prove what Mark24 thinks? Why does it even matter? Your obsession with the opinion of Mark24 is truly a sign of cognitive dissonance. Try actually addressing the subject at hand instead:
Open-minded skepticism. Oh you rational being you Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
RAZD has stopped even attempting to answer any questions and is instead displaying a strange and bizzarre obsession with the opinions of Mark24. So I thought I would post a quick summary.
What is the difference between atheism and deism? Straggler: The atheist position is evidentially consistent and therefore rational whilst the deist position is evidentially inconsistent and therefore irrational. Example: Belief in the possibility of life on other planets is evidentially supported and thus rational. Belief in the actual existence of deities is evidentialy unsupported and thus irrational. RAZD: No this is just your world view. Mark24 (or some other atheist) does not believe in the possibility of alien life. You are refuted!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The evidential inconsistencies of individual atheists do not make the atheistic position as a whole evidentially inconsistent. Your entire argument is an Ad Hominem fallacy. As your cognitive dissonance has resulted in you ceasing to answer questions I will just state my position and challege you to refute it:
Straggler writes: Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. If you can refute this position then lets hear it. If all you are going to do is tell me what you think Mark24 (or anybody elses) opinion is don't bother. If all you are going to do is tell me that this is my "world view" without actually explaining why this "world view" is in any way factually incorrect then don't bother. Nothing you have said in two threads has refuted this position despite your relentlessly repeated assertions to the contrary. How is that cognitive dissonance of yours coming along BTW? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well Straggler,
I have to laugh every time you try to claim victory and close down the discussion. Classic avoidance behavior? My opinion is my opinion, just as your opinion is yours.
Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. Curiously you have come to this conclusion based on an absence of evidence of this behavior, and have in fact been told that, no, that is not how it works. So much for your objective pursuit of intellectual consistency.
As your cognitive dissonance has resulted in you ceasing to answer questions I will just state my position and challege you to refute it: You are free to state your opinion as much as you want. However repeating it does not move the debate forward, and you have simply stopped moving forward. Yes this is just as correct as my stating that atheists believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Nothing you have said in two threads has refuted this position despite your relentlessly repeated assertions to the contrary. Perhaps if you waited for the answer, or even better, participated in the development of the answer, instead of jumping in with hobnail boots and declaring victory, you would have one. Final Words? only for someone who does not want to question their conclusions. Enjoy. Please note before you once again try to claim victory by my absence from posting or that failure to answer your questions shows avoidance behavior, that I will be away on work all next week, that the rest of today will be dedicated to final preparations, that every day will be filled to the brim with work, and that I foresee very little time to react to you persistent misrepresentations. I expect you to ignore this, just as you have ignored previous notifications of my busy work schedule all last week in order to claim victory. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I have to laugh every time you try to claim victory and close down the discussion. Classic avoidance behavior? It is you not I who keeps asserting that they have refuted all arguments on the basis of another posters opinion. It is you not I who has ceased to answer any questions on the basis of having already refuted everything already.
RAZD writes: Perhaps if you waited for the answer, or even better, participated in the development of the answer, instead of jumping in with hobnail boots and declaring victory, you would have one. I have repeatedly had your answer already.
RAZD writes: You are refuted by Mark24 coming to a contradictory conclusion from the same evidence. This has been pointed out on two threads. There are numerous other examples throughout both threads. Your repeated and unexplained assertion that the mere existence of Mark24's contradictory opinion refutes anything is truly and utterly bewildering. Especially in light of the fact that Mark24 has unequivocably clarified his position to be the exact opposite of the one you are claiming it to be.
Straggler writes: Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. Curiously you have come to this conclusion based on an absence of evidence of this behavior, and have in fact been told that, no, that is not how it works. So much for your objective pursuit of intellectual consistency. Are you trying to use individual opinions as evidence again? Why don't you try refuting the atheist position rather than use the ad-hominem fallacy of citing the opinions of individual atheists as some sort of argument clinching point.
RAZD writes: You are free to state your opinion as much as you want. However repeating it does not move the debate forward, and you have simply stopped moving forward. Really? In contrast you consider your following statement to be a prime example of moving the dabate forward I presume.
Yes this is just as correct as my stating that atheists believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Except that your statement has been refuted. A complete "absence of evidence" is non-existent and thus irrelevant. There is no such thing as a vacuum of all evidence. In the absence of any other objective evidence we must incorporate the objective fact that the human beings making the claim are highly able and very prone to creating demonstrably false concepts. If you need any evidence of this go into your local bookshop, go past the science section and have a peruse of the Fiction, Mythology or Religion sections. Maybe I should change my statement of position to "Where there is no objective evidence in favour of a claim the atheist continues to eliminate......". Maybe that would make things clearer for you? My position is evidentially consistent with ALL of the objective evidence available. Yours is not.
Straggler writes: Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. If you can refute this position then lets hear it. If all you are going to do is tell me what you think Mark24 (or anybody elses) opinion is don't bother. If all you are going to do is tell me that this is my "world view" without actually explaining why this "world view" is in any way factually incorrect then don't bother. AbE - And lets be clear here that "the atheist" refers to the atheistic position that has been presented to you by multiple posters, namely "I find no reason to believe in things for which there is no objective evidence". It is not trivially refuted simply by finding an atheist somewhere in the universe (lets not exclude our possible extraterrestrial atheists) who has evidentially inconsistent opinions that result in them not believing in gods and yet still believing in some other unevidenced entity. Obviously. - End AbE. Edited by Straggler, : Clarity 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. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : Still struggling with my 3 year old whilst trying to post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD,
Forgive me if I am in error By absurd, I mean coming to an unequivocal, or nearly so conclusion that life exists. We don't have a way of quantifying whether extraterrestrial life exists in the same way that we don't by definition of all the other things that we have no evidence of. I can see why you took it the way you did, but to be fair I think everyone has made equivocal statements on this & the other thread. It's just one of those things where it is incredibly easy to get the wrong end of the stick which is why the thread has gone on for so long, I think. None of which has been helped by a weeks holiday in which I was unavailable to follow the argument made by you & straggler & correct the misunderstanding. To this day I am still bewildered as to why my opinion makes you right & straggler wrong. In all other ways my position is pretty much in line with stragglers. Moreover, I agree 100% in the context of deism & IPU with his statement in the post above:
Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
Increasing the number of planets could increase the probability of life, or it could just increase the probability of more sterile planets due to the offsetting factors that make so many planets sterile. It increases both possibilities. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler's Position writes: Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. VROOOM VROOOM - A car can be heard to go by a windowless room in an isolated area nowhere near Disney Land containing an atheist and a deist (of the RAZD variety). Atheist: It sounds like a car just went past. I believe that a car just went past. Do you believe that a car just went by as well? Deist: Yes I concur. The objective empirical evidence does indeed suggest that a car just went by. SILENCE Atheist: Do you believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went past? Deist: What? Why would I possibly think that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by? Atheist: Well is it possible that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by? Deist: I suppose so but what the fuck has that got to do with the price of fish? Why would I even consider that possibility never mind actually believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by? The notion is absurd! Atheist: Well it isn't contradicted by any evidence so I thought you might believe it to be true. Deist: That is just stupid. Do you believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went past? Atheist: Nooooo. That would be a stupid thing to believe. Deist: Good I am glad that we agree. What a bizzarre and dumbass question!! (under breath) Geez what a crackpot! UNCOMFORTABLE SILENCE Atheist: Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being. Deist: I do. What an insightful question. Atheist: But isn't that kind of stupid? On what basis do you believe this? Deist: No it is not stupid. It does not contradict any known evidence. It is a perfectly logical and valid position. Don't you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being then? Atheist: Nooooo. I do not believe in things for which I have no objective evidence. Why would anyone possibly even think such a thing might exist? Frankly I think the notion is absurd. I was only asking out of boredom. I didn't expect you to take it any more seriously than the balloon question. Deist: It is not absurd! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your disbelief is just a product of your subjective world view. Belief and non-belief are but two sides of the same coin. Neither one more justified than the other. Look I can even draw you a colourful Venn diagram to prove it!!! Atheist: Oh. LONG LONG SILENCE Atheist: Well if you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being do you also believe in the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? Deist: How dare you!! Don't insult my intellect with that ridiculous fallacy against reason logic and evidence! The notion is absurd!! And so we go on. And on. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Mark24 writes: In all other ways my position is pretty much in line with stragglers. Moreover, I agree 100% in the context of deism & IPU with his statement in the post above: Straggler writes: Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith. 100% - Wow now I am honoured! What are the odds that your once esteemed and much stated opinions will now be dismissed by RAZD as the mere product of your subjective world view?
Mark24 to RAZD writes: To this day I am still bewildered as to why my opinion makes you right & Straggler wrong. Aren't we all? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024