Why are deists so annoying?

[DeistPaladin]

I still get the sense you're avoiding my questions because you can't rationally justify your own beliefs. Just kinda proving me right to be honest.

What questions? All I've seen you do is re-define intellectual honesty to justify your accusation. What do you want?

[Napoléon]

What questions? All I've seen you do is re-define intellectual honesty to justify your accusation. What do you want?

Now you really are being intellectually dishonest, I asked plenty of questions.

If you think I'm wrong for asking them, feel free to explain why. If you think I have the wrong idea about why you believe, feel free to explain why.

All you're doing is avoiding answering the questions. To me, this just makes me think you're being intellectually dishonest. You don't appear to want to answer the questions. You prefer the ignorance of belief. Again, maybe you're more inclined to a theist's line of thought than an atheist's.

If you only answer one question from me, make it this one:

"How do you rationally justify your own belief in god"

I'm yet to hear an actual explanation of this.


In fact, I stand by what I say, you are being intellectually dishonest. Period.

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty

*Edit* Also, apologies as I keep editing my posts after I've posted them to try and clarify what I'm saying. Bad etiquette on my part.

[DeistPaladin]

Thank you for your clarification. I was starting to think that you were being intellectually dishonest, ironically in your redefinition of the term intellectual dishonesty to justify your accusation rather than just admit you made a poor choice of words.

You've also accused me of believing something because I find comforting, which is not the case. However, if you insist it is, I don't know how to rationally discuss what I really believe with someone who claims to know me better than I know myself.

"How do you rationally justify your own belief in god"

I've repeatedly answered this question. In fact, I've never stated that my belief in God is rationally justified, that it is, rather, instinctive.

On reflection, I think this is where you're getting tripped up.

Beliefs don't need to have a rational justification. They only require rational justification if you wish to argue that someone else should believe as you do.

I hope that helps to clear things up.

In fact, I stand by what I say, you are being intellectually dishonest. Period.

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty

That doesn't seem to apply but perhaps you can show me how it does.

[Dystopia]

So you're saying your belief is irrational, deistpaladin? You don't seem to fit the deist I often find in internet forums, they are far more annoying (in fact I don't think you are annoying at all), and they keep saying both religion and atheism are cults full of dogmas

[DeistPaladin]

So you're saying your belief is irrational, deistpaladin?

The word "irrational" seems a harsh term for it. (Looks up term to see...)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational?s=t

ir·ra·tion·al [ih-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

A purely instinctive belief is without reason but not necessarily against reason or depriving oneself of reason.

I'd just say, "it's purely instinctive" but your call what you want to call it.

I appreciate that I'm not annoying.

[Jenny A]

"How do you rationally justify your own belief in god"

I've repeatedly answered this question. In fact, I've never stated that my belief in God is rationally justified, that it is, rather, instinctive.

On reflection, I think this is where you're getting tripped up.

Beliefs don't need to have a rational justification. They only require rational justification if you wish to argue that someone else should believe as you do.

I hope that helps to clear things up.

[emphasis mine]

My initial reaction to this was irritation that anyone should badger a person for not justifying a belief when they aren't attempting to persuade anyone else that that belief is true. The belief is after all akin to hunch or a gut feeling and admittedly so.

Then I went away and thought for a minute. With regard to requiring rational argument about something as harmless as preferring the color purple, or believing in a god as undefined as Deist Paladin's, I'm still irritated. Why do we care what someone else intuitively believes? But what about intuitive beliefs that cause a person to do or fail to do things that cause harm to others. For example, what if intuition tells you vaccines are deadly? Do you get a pass on taking them just because of personal intuition?

I don't mean to derail the thread, but when is it reasonable to give people a pass on intuitive beliefs and when isn't it? Seems more like a personal freedom issue than anything else.

[Napoléon]

Thank you for your clarification. I was starting to think that you were being intellectually dishonest, ironically in your redefinition of the term intellectual dishonesty to justify your accusation rather than just admit you made a poor choice of words.

Even more ironically you're accusing me of redefining intellectual dishonesty, which isn't what I did. Intellectual dishonesty can be used when referring to fallacious arguments sure, but it isn't the only thing it refers to. I was using it in the sense of how you reason for your belief (or at least appear to to me). That's not 'redefining a term'. That's applying it. I admit you made me second guess myself on whether you are actually being intellectually dishonest, but I stand by what I said. Deists, in my experience, are intellectually dishonest.

You've also accused me of believing something because I find comforting, which is not the case. However, if you insist it is, I don't know how to rationally discuss what I really believe with someone who claims to know me better than I know myself.

I don't insist it is, but it certainly seems that way to me. Maybe try and explain why you believe what you do? All I've got so far is "instict". I call bullshit. Smells awfully like you want to believe to me. Do you not think so? I'm not going to make any concessions for you just because you seem like a smart, intelligent and all round nice guy. If anything that makes me want to challenge you more, because I can't for the life of me understand why you choose to believe. This is all I'm trying to understand here. So far, any reasons you've given are not what a rationally minded person would accept. This is precisely why I think you're being intellectually dishonest. Can you honestly not understand why I find your belief in a god perplexing? You've admitted you know your belief is irrational. So why, unless you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself, would you believe. Instinct? Just seems like a cop out for not properly explaining your thought process.

"How do you rationally justify your own belief in god"

I've repeatedly answered this question. In fact, I've never stated that my belief in God is rationally justified, that it is, rather, instinctive.

Exactly. It isn't rational. You know it isn't rational. This is why I'm on your case. This is why I never understand deists. They usually know they are being irrational.

My accusation of you being intellectually dishonest stems completely from this fact. You know what you believe is being irrational. But you believe it anyway.

Beliefs don't need to have a rational justification. They only require rational justification if you wish to argue that someone else should believe as you do.

I hope that helps to clear things up.

---

---

Do you honestly think I don't understand that, give me some credit here.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty

That doesn't seem to apply but perhaps you can show me how it does.

You know what you believe is irrational. Why then, do you not believe in a flying teapot orbiting Mars? Or any other number of irrational things.

From my quote:

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter

Which is exactly what you're doing. You're not being honest with yourself. You know something is irrational. You know you have no rational reason to believe. But you do so anyway. Why is rationality important to you when discrediting theistic gods, but not a deistic one. Why is rationality important when discussing the validity of bigfoot, or the loch ness monster. A teapot orbitting Mars? But not a deistic god? How is this anything but intentional avoidance of intellectual honesty?

More to the point, what is it that makes a deistic god, different from any other irrational claims. I'm just trying to understand the thought process going on here.

because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.

Right, again, you seem to want to believe. I never said necessarily out of comfort. But I honestly do not understand any other reason for you to be irrational. Which you've already admitted you're being when you believe in a deistic god. If not wanting, then what other reason do you have for believing in a deistic god? Again, you'll probably say instinct. Instinct how?

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

Again, you apply the standards to theistic gods, you scrutinise foolish beliefs people have in other departments. But deistic god comes in and it gets a bypass.

Like I said, I'm not going to give you slack just because you don't label yourself a theist, or go to church, or because you're a nice guy. I don't want you to think I'm attacking you as a person, I'm attacking what it is you say you believe.

As far as I'm concerned, an irrational belief is an irrational belief. I'll call out deistic irrationality just as much as theistic irrationality. If that makes me a douche then so be it. I honestly don't see why you should be any different.

---

I don't mean to derail the thread, but when is it reasonably to give people a pass on intuitive beliefs and when isn't it? Seems more like a personal freedom issue than anything else.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in your post, I'm not pestering DeistPaladin because I think his beliefs may harm anyone. He's perfectly entitled to them, I'm more doing it because I'm a cunt who can't let a point drop.

But like I said, irrationality IMO should always be challenged, regardless of how it impacts others or even whether you are trying to argue for your own intuitions.

[DeistPaladin]

For example, what if intuition tells you vaccines are deadly? Do you get a pass on taking them just because of personal intuition?

That would not only be an example of belief without reason but against all reason. I can demonstrate the safety of vaccines and the harm of not taking them.

I was looking for a Star Trek TNG clip where Geordi is explaining "gut" to Data. Data takes in the explanation and asks (paraphrased) "so, when faced with incomplete information, humans fill in the missing pieces with their own experience and personality." There's nothing wrong with that so long as we remain open minded to and seek out more complete information, changing our opinions to conform to the new information.

I have demonstrated the ability to do this, as I have said on other threads I was once a conservative Republican and now a liberal Democrat, simply because I learned information previously unknown to me that didn't support my prior beliefs. Without sentiment or shame, I abandoned the old beliefs and formed new ones to conform to the information I acquired. If you can show me that, for example, trickle down economics actually works, I will change my current belief that it doesn't.

Similarly, if hypothetically, you could show me that it's just us in this galaxy, that would give me pause to think I might be deluded on deism. For the deist model to hold, or at least this is my take on it, I would expect to find other intelligent civilizations out there. It would be a waste of space otherwise and give more weight to the "cosmic lottery" alternative. This is not to say that either discovery would be proof one way or the other, but it would be, to my interpretation of the data at least, an indication.

[Jenny A]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but when is it reasonably to give people a pass on intuitive beliefs and when isn't it? Seems more like a personal freedom issue than anything else.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in your post, I'm not pestering DeistPaladin because I think his beliefs may harm anyone. He's perfectly entitled to them, I'm more doing it because I'm a cunt who can't let a point drop.

But like I said, irrationality IMO should always be challenged, regardless of how it impacts others or even whether you are trying to argue for your own intuitions.

Rational inquiry is an intellectual tool. Don't try to make a religion out of it. When attacking beliefs which can can be falsified, it's useful. When inquiring into beliefs held emotionally, and admittedly so, rationality is a blunt instrument of about as much use as paperweight in a hurricane. Human emotions may not advance science, but they are undeniably real. And intellectual discourse is rarely useful in changing them.

You see, you are indulging in the same irrational behavior yourself. "Because I'm a cunt who can't let a point drop," is not a behavior I have much hope of discussing with you rationally, though I can give you a number of rational reasons why it's not only not useful, but positively damaging. For example, try rationally convincing a teenage girl that her boyfriend is a prick and see how far that gets you.

[DeistPaladin]

I was using it in the sense of how you reason for your belief (or at least appear to to me).

That would only be intellectual dishonesty if I claimed something about my reasoning that was untrue. As I have not done this, I don't meet the definition either in the definition of fallacious reasoning or in the spirit of the term.

Smells awfully like you want to believe to me. Do you not think so?

I'm curious as to what motive you would ascribe. That would be a good first step. What comfort comes from deism?

I'm not going to make any concessions for you just because you seem like a smart, intelligent and all round nice guy.

No one has asked you to. But thank you for the compliments anyway.

This is precisely why I think you're being intellectually dishonest. Can you honestly not understand why I find your belief in a god perplexing?

That you are perplexed by or don't share my beliefs =/= me being dishonest.

Instinct? Just seems like a cop out for not properly explaining your thought process.

Why?

You know what you believe is being irrational. But you believe it anyway.

Instinctive.

I make a distinction between "without reason" and "against reason".

Do you honestly think I don't understand that, give me some credit here.

The acceptance of the assertion that beliefs don't require evidence, that evidence or other reasons are only required when you wish others to believe as you do, seems to fly in the face of the rest of your post. That you not only accept it, but do so with the "you don't say" meme, only underscores the apparent paradox.

Now I'm perplexed.

Why then, do you not believe in a flying teapot orbiting Mars?

What role would the teapot serve?

Why is rationality important to you when discrediting theistic gods, but not a deistic one.

The reasons are legion, including both practical consequences and positive claims that can be checked. Elaborating fully would require its own thread but can I trust that's not necessary?

Right, again, you seem to want to believe.

For what motive?

Instinct how?

Good question. Perhaps neuroscience will one day have an answer.