Why are deists so annoying?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would a god concern itself over wasted space? Sounds like one of your own concerns Pala. There's plenty of "wasted space" just on this rock, arguably. Certainly so in our immediate solar system. I'm suggesting, I suppose, that your line of reasoning wouldn't actually have the power to establish such a fact (of gods existence) -either way the cookie crumbled-. Obviously, as you alluded to, but I would stress that this would not even be an indicator. One might question the "intellectual honesty" of the one statement immediately following the other (but I haven't seen the full expression of your assumptions, obviously). It would definitely seem as though you're trying to hedge for both positions without really fleshing either out.

[Napoléon]

Rational inquiry is an intellectual tool. Don't try to make a religion out of it.

Where was I doing that? Overdramatisation much?

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.

Bollocks.

Since when did DP state his beliefs were entirely emotional. If he did that I would have no reason to badger him.

This line of thought would also indicate it's not useful to criticise some theistic viewpoints, because they're not entirely falsifiable. Riiiight.

Human emotions may not advance science, but they are undeniably real. And intellectual discourse is rarely useful in changing them.

What does this have to do with the price of bread? We're not looking to 'advance science', I'm just trying to further understand why an intelligent, rational person like DP, would hold an irrational belief. This has less to do with human emotion than you're making out I think.

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.

But if the boyfriend is a prick is there not a chance the girlfriend would realise? I don't buy at all this notion that simply discussing this, isn't useful. Just seems like yet another excuse for people to not justify what it is they say they believe. I call bullshit on that line of thought. People should be questioned. Even if their beliefs are emotionally motivated. I absolutely do not buy one bit that it is entirely damaging.

[Baqal]

@DeistPaladin
-What role would the teapot serve?
It gives you free chocolate syrup. Who doesn't like free chocolate syrup?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm just trying to further understand why an intelligent, rational person like DP, would hold an irrational belief.

Because we're not rational, more like "rationalizers"? Intelligence truly confers no immunity.

[Dystopia]

I'm just trying to further understand why an intelligent, rational person like DP, would hold an irrational belief.

Because we're not rational, more like "rationalizers"? Intelligence truly confers no immunity.

I'd call it the belief dualism - Rationality to everything except to believe in gods, irrationality for faith.

[Napoléon]

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.

I fully explained why I thought you were being intellectually dishonest and I think I did a bloody good job. If you still insist you're not being so, then, well, you just have an entirely different understanding of the term to me.

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?

You tell me, you're the deist.

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.

Totally not the point I was making. Taking my words out of context and construing them to fit your own purposes, hmm, sounds like something that has a term...

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

Why?

Why? Because what does it even mean? That's why.

I believe in a flying unicorn that orbits the sun. I believe it because instinct tells me so.

Would you not think I was being stupid for thinking that? Would you not think my reasoning is faulty?

You constantly saying "instinct" is like a blanket term for "I can't be arsed to explain my reasoning".

You must have some kind of reasoning that can be better explained than simply "instinct". People don't just believe things for no reason. Even if the reasons are faulty.

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

Instinctive.

WHAT. DOES. THIS. EVEN. MEAN.

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

Right, best bit of information I've got here.

But I still don't understand why you think it's necessary to have a belief, in spite of one or the other.

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.

Misrepresented what I said, again.

This has nothing to do with you using evidence. I couldn't care less about evidence, I'm not trying to actually establish the validity of a deistic god. This is where I think Jenny also misunderstood my intentions. That isn't what this is about.

What I've been trying to get at, if it isn't already obvious (and I really think it has been obvious) is why you believe what you believe. I'm not asking for evidence. I'm asking for reasoning. All you've given so far, is "instinct". Fucking lame ass, lazy, explains-nothing reasoning IMHO.

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

What role would the teapot serve?

We're yet to establish that a deistic god serves any purpose or needs to serve a purpose, so why believe in that?

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?

You're missing the point. Neither a theistic god or deistic one is required. Yet you still believe in one. Why do you apply rational reasoning to one assertion but not the other. The answer isn't apparent to me, nor can I imagine for many other actual atheists.

Instinct how?

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

So, it boils down to, "I don't know"/"I can't really give a satisfactory answer".

Isn't that exactly what I said would happen on the first page?

Call them out on it and they usually just say "It's something I can't quite describe".

Yeah, this has been a really pointless exercise. Guess I only have myself to blame.

---

Because we're not rational

Speak for yourself!

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that DP (or any of us) are actually rational with regards to everything else either. I would also argue against any requirement that we had to be. The only thing that I think is crucial with regards to rationality is that we at least attempt to discern when we are not leveraging it, to be honest with ourselves and with others. It's much more important, for example - to be rational when you are trying to convey some bit of information to another person - than it is when you are generating your opinion of that information - the contents of the message.

If I say "all we need is love" -that's not strictly rational statement - but I can express my position as to why that's all we need in rational terms and whoever is listening will have a much better idea of exactly what I'm trying to convey. If I don't, then both my position and my explanation of it will lack meaning and coherency.

[Napoléon]

If I say "all we need is love" -that's not strictly rational statement - but I can express my position as to why that's all we need in rational terms and whoever is listening will have a much better idea of exactly what I'm trying to convey. If I don't, then both my position and my explanation of it will lack meaning and coherency.

This.

[Jenny A]

Rational inquiry is an intellectual tool. Don't try to make a religion out of it.

Where was I doing that? Overdramatisation much?

It was the be world "always" in bold.

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.

Bollocks.

Since when did DP state his beliefs were entirely emotional. If he did that I would have no reason to badger him.

This line of thought would also indicate it's not useful to criticise theistic viewpoints, because they're not entirely falsifiable. Riiiight.

It's certainly worth criticizing theistic viewpoints which either: 1) negatively affect others (most religions do this); or 2) for which proof or rational justification is claimed. However, if it's an instinctive or emotionally held belief and the believer has admitted to having no proof, what possible value is does badgering him with the fact he has no proof serve?

The whole tenor or Deist Paladin's response suggests to me that he holds his views emotionally. But the word he uses is "instinctive." Here's at least part of where I got that impression:

---

For a time, about a two week period in my life, I had something of what could be called a crisis of non-faith. No, really, I'm serious. I actually wondered what was wrong with me, why I couldn't be a "normal" atheist like all of my friends and family. Why couldn't I, as many would say, "take the final step" or figure out why God was so firmly a part of my philosophical outlook. I came to accept it as just my instinctive nature.

Somewhere around here I posted a thread that goes into my take on deism in greater detail. I'll try to dig it up and post a link.

That thread also does contain my "proof" of deism: Homosexuality proves God! ...well, maybe not but it is at least a proof that Christian apologists aren't likely to hijack any time soon. Although, you know, instead of the banana... oh sorry, I was about to go too far again. My wife tells me I do that. It must be especially jarring when juxtaposed with my otherwise gentlemanly demeanor.

Not that the two are related, but I discovered I'm a deist about the same time I discovered I'm bisexual. I mention it only to underscore that I didn't "convert". I discovered that's what I am and have been all along. Maybe it's just the way my brain is wired. God gene anyone? Or perhaps my instincts are on to something. Who knows?

---

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.

But if the boyfriend is a prick is there not a chance the girlfriend would realise? I don't buy at all this notion that simply discussing this, isn't useful. Just seems like yet another excuse for people to not justify what it is they say they believe. I call bullshit on that line of thought. People should be questioned. Even if their beliefs are emotionally motivated. I absolutely do not buy one bit that it is entirely damaging.

Not a chance in hell--well maybe a 1% chance. What will happen is she'll dig her heels in and rationalize. At the end of the conversation he'll be god's gift to her. That's because her belief in him wasn't rational to begin with.

Paladin has my sincere admiration at this point because repeated badgering hasn't caused him to begin manufacturing rationalizations. Most of us are very good at rationally defending our emotions and it leads to thinking our emotions are rationally held. That's usually a mistake.

[DeistPaladin]

I fully explained why I thought you were being intellectually dishonest and I think I did a bloody good job. If you still insist you're not being so, then, well, you just have an entirely different understanding of the term to me.

I've provided my understanding based on the definition provided earlier in this exchange. As for the spirit of that law, I don't see any dishonesty on my part there either. If you can't elaborate any specifics on where I was being dishonest, either with myself or with you, we may be at the agree-to-disagree point.

You tell me, you're the deist.

You're ascribing motives to me that I haven't claimed and, in fact, have denied. The ball is in your court.

Totally not the point I was making. Taking my words out of context and construing them to fit your own purposes, hmm, sounds like something that has a term...

My apologies if I have misunderstood you. That does seem to me to be where you're tripping up. Do tell if and where I'm wrong. Being overly quick to shout "liar" is manufacturing drama.

Why? Because what does it even mean? That's why.

I believe in a flying unicorn that orbits the sun. I believe it because instinct tells me so.

Would you not think I was being stupid for thinking that? Would you not think my reasoning is faulty?

You constantly saying "instinct" is like a blanket term for "I can't be arsed to explain my reasoning".

When I see the universe, I see a machine. When I behold our progress toward higher reason and civilization, I see intent. How is this remotely comparable to unicorns that fly around the sun?

This entire retort sounds like an appeal to ridicule.

Right, best bit of information I've got here.

But I still don't understand why you think it's necessary to have a belief, in spite of one or the other.

I don't. This may be anther point of misunderstanding. When faced with a mystery, our intuitions may lead us in one direction or another based on our interpretations of the limited information we have. We remain open minded and test our hypothesis against the information that continues to come in. In the case of deism vs. the cosmic lottery, there isn't enough information to go on as of yet. When more comes in, I'll evaluate it.