Why are deists so annoying?

[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.