Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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?
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 76 of 375 (498727)
02-13-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by dronestar
02-12-2009 3:20 PM


Re: To summarize then
Although I disagree with Percy about there being a higher purpose, I will note that he didn’t say we had individual higher purposes. It could be that we: the human race, or we: all life on Earth, have a common purpose. Even if we have individual purposes, he didn’t say that we all eventually fulfill them, or that all our actions move us closer to the end goal.
Maybe only a subset of us have a Purpose, while the rest of use serve as context. Not a comforting thought, but why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dronestar, posted 02-12-2009 3:20 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 10:47 AM Aware Wolf has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 77 of 375 (498740)
02-13-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Aware Wolf
02-13-2009 6:51 AM


Re: To summarize then
Hi Aware Wolf,
Aware Wolf writes:
Maybe only a subset of us have a Purpose, while the rest of use serve as context.
Your notion requires that millions of children horribly die every year to serve as context/canon-fodder for only a few? Ughh, dear lord, what a horrible god he must be.
Aware Wolf, please put this idea back in the oven, it may not be fully cooked.

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Aware Wolf, posted 02-13-2009 6:51 AM Aware Wolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 11:20 AM dronestar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 78 of 375 (498741)
02-13-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by dronestar
02-13-2009 10:47 AM


Re: To summarize then
Your notion requires that millions of children horribly die every year to serve as context/canon-fodder for only a few? Ughh, dear lord, what a horrible god he must be.
Aware Wolf, please put this idea back in the oven, it may not be fully cooked.
That's an appeal to consequence. While Aware Wolf's hypothesis is no less a bare speculation with no supporting evidence, it's still a possibility. "God" could well be an asshole. I wouldn't suggest arguing against a position on the basis of its moral implications - that's what the Creationists do.
His suggestion is empty enough in the absence of evidence that parsimony kills it as well as all the others. "Maybe I have a purpose and you don't." "Maybe we all have a purpose." "Maybe 7 people have a purpose." "Maybe you can have a purpose if you believe." All are equally violations of parsimony, because it has never been demonstrated that such a thing as a "purpose" exists in this context, meaning it's an extraneous entity in the equation. One may as well wonder how many invisible pink unicorns like chocolate - it's all nothing more than bare speculation and imagination because there is no evidence suggesting the unicorns (or an objective purpose beyond what people define for themselves subjectively) exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 10:47 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 11:45 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 80 by Aware Wolf, posted 02-13-2009 12:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 79 of 375 (498742)
02-13-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rahvin
02-13-2009 11:20 AM


Re: To summarize then
Rahvin writes:
"That's an appeal to consequence"
Just as Percy's self-admittedly irrational "appeal to purposefullness" would be a fallacy in argument for a god.
But, yes, you are correct. Thanks for clarifying Rahvin.

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 11:20 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 12:53 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 80 of 375 (498747)
02-13-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rahvin
02-13-2009 11:20 AM


Re: To summarize then
Yes, thank you, that was more clear than what I wrote. The right argument is a lack of evidence. The wrong argument is a perceived disconnect between the "real world" and whatever idea of a Higher Purpose I might have in my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 11:20 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 375 (498748)
02-13-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dronestar
02-13-2009 11:45 AM


Re: To summarize then
Just as Percy's self-admittedly irrational "appeal to purposefullness" would be a fallacy in argument for a god.
He's just violating parsimony and going with his subjective "gut" feeling.
That seems to be the key difference between agnostics, deists, and atheists:
Agnostics ignore parsimony completely, deists outright violate it, and atheists use it as a guiding principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 11:45 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 6:10 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 82 of 375 (498761)
02-13-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
02-11-2009 9:29 PM


Re: To summarize then
Seeing as we are all just repeating ourselves to no avail, and starting to use disparaging comments...
Firstly let me apologise for my overly antagonsitic post pub, beered up earlier replies.
it seems like it's time to summarize:
Possibly. But I still don't think it has been explicitly stated upon which evidence any rational form of desim can be concluded?
The difference between an atheist and a deist:
The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence.
No no no no no no. It is not about proof. That is the mind trap of the creationist. As one who I know is highly scientifically minded you of all people should appreciate the difference.
Atheism is based on likelihood. Not proof. I find gods/God/deities/etc. to be deeply and highly improbable. I do not consider them to be "disproved".
I cannot even prove that you/I exist!! How the hell are we supposed to accept arguments based on the proof (or otherwise) of supernatural undetectable beings!!!?????
They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
This argument applies to proof. But not likelihood. Thus it is effectively a strawman regarding most atheistic non-belief.
Your anti-atheist argument is based upon a strawman of the atheist position ragarding "knowledge"
The deist believes there is/are god/s, whether it is rational or not.
Well that is the crux of the question.....
An irrational deist is.....well irrational. And knows it. Fair enough.
But a deist who cliams deism on grounds of rationality.......Well they are just wrong.
Which are you? An irrational deist? Or a "rational" deist?
Straggler writes:
It essentially comes down to faith Vs reason.
So you believe.
That is a get-out-clause non-comment.
It really depends on what basis you claim your belief in a deity. Is it irrational? Or is it supposedly rational?
If rational then on what evidence specifically is it founded? You seem very reluctant to say.
You have implied that the widespread human belief in the supernatural is somehow actual evidence for the supernatural without explicitly stating this as your premise.
If that is your "evidence" then I think there are better and more testable explanations for that phenomenon than the supernatural one that you seem to suggest. Namely the commonality of human psychology and deep seated desire for explanations whether they actually exist or not.
But until you definitively state the rational basis upon which you have drawn your deistic conclusions, it remains impossible to actually examine these conclusions rationally.
If they are irrational then just say so and the discussion effectively ends.
If you claim a rational basis for your deism then let's hear it explicitly stated rather than just inferred.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2009 9:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 375 (498766)
02-13-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
02-13-2009 12:53 PM


back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
Agnostics ignore parsimony completely, deists outright violate it, and atheists use it as a guiding principle.
Thanks for patting yourself on the back while showing confirmation bias in what you think is appropriate response.
The most parsimonious - and accurate - answer is that we don't know.
To get from there to atheism requires assumptions. To get from there to deism requires assumptions.
Not that parsimony is necessarily a guide to truth.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : guide

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 12:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 7:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 375 (498771)
02-13-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
02-13-2009 4:41 PM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
Which are you? An irrational deist? Or a "rational" deist?
But until you definitively state the rational basis upon which you have drawn your deistic conclusions, it remains impossible to actually examine these conclusions rationally.
The problem is that you cannot have black and white distinctions like this, especially after your little rant about atheism being based on likelihood, not proof.
Faith exists without confirmatory OR contradictory evidence -- is that rational or irrational? or is it indeterminate. To my mind it is indeterminate without further evidence. If a concept is not contradicted by evidence is it rational?
I find gods/God/deities/etc. to be deeply and highly improbable. I do not consider them to be "disproved".
And yet we know that "highly improbable" does not mean that life on earth was designed ... so this rationale has as much power as the creationist\ID appeal to improbability.
You have implied that the widespread human belief in the supernatural is somehow actual evidence for the supernatural without explicitly stating this as your premise.
That is one of the possibilities that come from being open-minded on the issue.
I ask myself what evidence would look like, and one of things it would look like is a preponderance of people who believe vs people who could care less, particularly across cultures such that cultural tendencies are eliminated. So yes, I find this evidence supportive, but not conclusive. Supportive enough, that I cannot dismiss it out of hand, as something that is fully understood as hallucination or a by-product of the way the brain is wired.
Another possibility I see is something like a mix between the anthropic principal and panspermia, where the universe as a whole is designed to provide as diverse a set of environments as possible, intentional unpredictable chaos rather than predictable order, but within that unpredictable chaos are the seeds of life - the amino acids and other pre-biotic molecules found in space, made by the stars, and ready to rain down on any world capable of developing life, life that can then evolve intelligence.
There are possibilities in the dancing in and out of our plane of awareness of sub-atomic particles, in the existence of dark stuffs and the possibilities of other dimensions.
There is just so much that we do not know.
I don't consider these possibilities scientific, nor testable, rather that they are philosophical in nature. Nor do I ask you to follow me, but rather to find your own answers.
Returning to the topic at hand, my (small) experience of other deists is that they too have an understanding of the world that is not contradicted by evidence, not contrary to what we see in the natural world around us, yet including faith to believe in god/s. There may be some tentativity about the evidence, but not really about the core conclusion.
My (larger) experience with atheists is that they also have an understanding of the world that is not contradicted by evidence, not contrary to what we see in the natural world around us, but not including faith to believe in ("deeply and highly improbable") god/s. There may be some tentativity about the evidence, but not really about the core conclusion.
Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
And I am still amazed at the virtual absence of acknowledged agnostics. Anyone want to propose a reason for this?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 4:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 8:46 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2009 9:28 AM RAZD has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 85 of 375 (498773)
02-13-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
02-13-2009 6:10 PM


Re: back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
The most parsimonious - and accurate - answer is that we don't know.
The most parsimonious answer is that extraneous entities are unlikely to exist if there is no evidence suggesting their existence. Parsimony dictates that, all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In other words, in the absence of evidence requiring the existence of a deity, the conclusion most likely to be correct is that no deity exists.
You seem to be having difficulty comprehending the difference between "likelihood" and "certainty." Very few atheists claim to have anything approaching "certain knowledge" that no deities exist, yet your arguments are targeted exclusively at reasoning that involves such certainty. You are attacking a strawman. This has been expressed to you repeatedly in this thread.
I don't claim to know. I simply hold the existence of a deity in the same regard I hold the existence of fairies and unicorns - I cannot know for sure, but without evidence to support such wild assertions, they are most likely simply figments of human imagination and do not likely exist in reality.
To get from there to atheism requires assumptions. To get from there to deism requires assumptions.
Atheism requires no assumptions. What it requires is no fact-less belief. Babies are born atheists, with no belief in a deity. This is completely different from "knowledge that no deity exists" (and I feel I need to reiterate that yet again because your responses thus far to me and others in the thread have illustrated that you are not seeing the difference between establishing likelihood and a statement of absolute knowledge). It's a simple absence of the belief in a deity, and nothing more.
Agnosticism ignores parsimony entirely by allowing that literally all entities are equally likely to exist despite a lack of evidence. Note that this is missing the "most likely" clause required by parsimony. The agnostic, to remain self-consistent, is required to answer "I don't know" to all imagined entities, from deities, to fairies, to your 5-year-old child's imaginary friend. Parsimony would require that the answer be "probably not."
Deists, of course, simply violate parsimony directly, by outright including an extraneous entity without any basis for such an assertion whatsoever. One may as well insist that the invisible pink unicorn is, in fact, standing three feet away.
Let's say I invent an imaginary creature. We'll call it "Manbearpig." There is no evidence that such an entity exists. No facts exist which can be interpreted as only leading to the conclusion that such an entity has ever walked the Earth. Do you believe in manbearpig?
An agnostic would be required to answer "I have no idea. Maybe."
An atheist (or at least my brand of atheism) would respond "I can't know for sure, but probably not. Come back when you have some evidence to convince me."
Using the deist line of reasoning (or any other theist, really) as it applies to deities, the deist would answer "Yes. I have nothing to base this on, but I believe Manbearpig to be real."
Let's use a mathematical expression:
Given:
2+2=4
AND
2+2+x=4
Does x exist?
Is "maybe" the most parsimonious answer, RAZD?
Certainly not. The parsimonious answer is that 2+2=4 is most likely to be an accurate expression because it uses the fewest possible terms. Adding x is flatly unparsimonious. Parsimony does not require that x cannot exist, but it does state that it is less likely to exist.
Once again, the difference between a statement of likelihood and a statement of certain knowledge cannot be understated.
Not that parsimony is necessarily a guide to truth.
No, it's not. However, it is an excellent guide for accuracy and parsing out unlikely entities from one's worldview. That makes it a useful tool when attempting to reason out truth.
Of course, if one isn't using reason...then I suppose any subjectively-arrived conclusion could be valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 6:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 8:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 86 of 375 (498776)
02-13-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
02-13-2009 7:05 PM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
Straggler writes:
Which are you? An irrational deist? Or a "rational" deist?
But until you definitively state the rational basis upon which you have drawn your deistic conclusions, it remains impossible to actually examine these conclusions rationally.
The problem is that you cannot have black and white distinctions like this, especially after your little rant about atheism being based on likelihood, not proof.
Well actually despite my "little rant" yes you can. Not black and white as such, but very very very dark grey and very very very light grey. Black and white to all practical (even if not philosophical) intents and purposes.
Strong evidence in favour of something does not prove that it is true. It is not proven that the Earth is billions of years old. For example. But it is, as we would both agree, so strongly evidenced as to be all but indisputable to all practical intents and purposes. BUT it has not been, and indeed cannot be, proved.
Now on what evidence does belief in a deity rest? Is it as strong as the evidence for the age of the Earth? No. Obviously not.
In what objective sense is such evidence even present at all?
You seem to be implying that merely because I cannot prove a deity does not exist that we should consider the "evidence" that a deity might exist as equal and opposite to the belief that it does not exist.
But if the "evidence" in question, namely the various forms of human belief regarding that which could not or cannot be explained, can be shown to be almost certainly (i.e. not proven but strongly evidenced) the result of nothing more than the very human desire to come up with answers even when there are none to be found, where does that leave your argument?
Frankly as unevidenced as the idea that the Earth is a few thousand years old. I.e. not disproven but very very very inferior as an explanation in any objective sense.
Faith exists without confirmatory OR contradictory evidence -- is that rational or irrational? or is it indeterminate. To my mind it is indeterminate without further evidence. If a concept is not contradicted by evidence is it rational?
The number of imaginary beings/worlds/things that are not contradicted by evidence is literally infinite.
To claim that belief in, or even agnosticism towards, all of them is justified is patently absurd.
I cannot disprove the existence of any one of the many theological gods past or present. Are they all equally worthy of our agnosticism?
Straggler writes:
I find gods/God/deities/etc. to be deeply and highly improbable. I do not consider them to be "disproved".
And yet we know that "highly improbable" does not mean that life on earth was designed ... so this rationale has as much power as the creationist\ID appeal to improbability.
Again a straw man. Was life designed? Almost certainly not. Can we prove that life was not designed? No.
There is no proof in science. There is no proof in atheism (at least as I apply the term to myself).
Proof of any sort in the real (i.e non-idealised mathematical) world requires faith. I disbelive in faith as a viable means to a viable end.
But we can follow where the evidence leads. Even if the evidence suggests the improbable. That is very different from assuming the improbable occurred on wholly subjective grounds simply because there is no objective evidence contradicting ones subjective assertions.
Straggler writes:
You have implied that the widespread human belief in the supernatural is somehow actual evidence for the supernatural without explicitly stating this as your premise.
That is one of the possibilities that come from being open-minded on the issue.
That sounds very reasonable. Superficially. But it is not at all reasonable if we dig a little deeper.
Again, if the commonality of human psychology is such that it can be shown to inevitably lead to irrational belief in physically unevidenced phenomenon then where is your "evidence" for the supernatural actually existing at all?
You seem to be left with the hollow and last resort argument of all theists. Namely - "You cannot disprove that my god exists".
If all the evidence available points towards perfectly rational, natural and testable explanations for the observed phenomenon in question (i.e. the inevitable human belief in the supernatural) then there is no excuse for being so open minded as to allow ones brains to fall out of ones head.
Call me closed minded if you will.........
Not all explanations are equally valid. The existence of the untestable, unevidenced, subjectively experienced and supernatural Vs the commonality of testable human psychology is frankly a very very very one sided competition by any objective measure.
Faith Vs Reason.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 7:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 9:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 375 (498777)
02-13-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rahvin
02-13-2009 7:58 PM


Re: back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
The most parsimonious answer is that extraneous entities are unlikely to exist if there is no evidence suggesting their existence. Parsimony dictates that, all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In other words, in the absence of evidence requiring the existence of a deity, the conclusion most likely to be correct is that no deity exists.
The most parsimonious answer is the one that includes the least assumptions. Included in your argument - unstated (the logical fallacy of unstated premise) - is that all future evidence will also be negative.
Let's use a mathematical expression:
Given:
2+2=4
AND
2+2+x=4
Does x exist?
Is "maybe" the most parsimonious answer, RAZD?
Thank you for proving my point in Message 84:
quote:
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" ...
Or to use your argument, there is no room in a most parsimonious answer for any {B} that is not {A}. Of course your math is a(nother) straw man argument where the answer is known, and the confirmation bias of using it, is the implication that you believe there is no {B} that is not {A}.
This takes us back full circle to Message 4, and my comment/s appears to be validated rather than refuted.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2009 7:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 9:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 88 of 375 (498778)
02-13-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
02-13-2009 8:56 PM


Re: back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
I don't get it. Please clarify by answering the following question.
Rahvin writes:
Let's say I invent an imaginary creature. We'll call it "Manbearpig." There is no evidence that such an entity exists. No facts exist which can be interpreted as only leading to the conclusion that such an entity has ever walked the Earth. Do you believe in manbearpig?
According to your all encompassing venn-like diagram what is the answer to the question:
Question: - Does Manbearpig exist?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 8:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 375 (498780)
02-13-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Straggler
02-13-2009 8:46 PM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
Now on what evidence does belief in a deity rest? Is it as strong as the evidence for the age of the Earth? No. Obviously not.
Belief rests on faith, not evidence - or it is not belief but knowledge.
And thus this is just another straw man. We are talking about something that is not tested, while the age of the earth is, and thus not comparable.
....
Faith Vs Reason.
If you wish to tell yourself that. I am getting tired of answering the same arguments over and over, especially when they don't really apply to the topic, and only serve to reinforce my understanding of atheists.
Curiously all your arguments do is confirm that the distinction between atheist and deist is the refusal of atheists to consider the possibilities that deists accept.
We don't have evidence one way or the other on the existence of god/s, and thus the belief in god/s is not contradicted by the evidence of reality. You can belittle and deride the possibility all you want to, pat yourself on the back and call it rational versus irrational, but that does not make any difference to the basic distinction as originally posted in Message 4:
quote:
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.
And again in Message 84
quote:
Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.
Not all explanations are equally valid.
Yet somehow yours - based on hidden assumptions and an absence of evidence - are more valid?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 8:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2009 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 375 (498781)
02-13-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
02-13-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Belief In God
Percy writes:
I don't know why anyone would want more details about my religious beliefs because by my own admission they are contradictory. They do not derive from rational reflection. They're just there, a part of me. I can't answer your questions because I would be contradicting myself in every other sentence. The answers don't make sense even to me.
That's a forthright and interesting answer, Percy. Perhaps that says something as to why, historically, all human cultures have been inherently religious. I see this as (Abe: one of the corroborating evidences) that there is a god. If there is a god, then all religions can't be true. This is why I regard religion as the most important thing in life. If there is a true god, likely humans have a responsibility relative to that god. If the souls/spirits of creatures who have the mental capacity to relate to such a being are immortal then likely there would be some medium of revelation or interaction from the god to the creature.
We observe that there are literally thousands of alleged gods claimed by cultures of humanity. I've delved into the claims of many religions. I have yet to find one that has anything close to the Biblical record, relative to history, archeology, fulfilled prophecy or social cultural benefit then that which the Bible evidences.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Embolodened addition

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-13-2009 6:37 AM Percy 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