I have been challenged and have challenged myself why I am not a Diest and the only reason why I am not at the moment is because I do not like to make quick decsions, perhaps the God of the Bible is the actual God? but perhaps He isnt? So at the moment I am inbetween; both a Deist and some sought of Theist.
My question for you guys is; why not Deism?
Many of you guys used to be Christians/Muslims or just plain religious and your belief that God does not communicate with us or contradictions in the Bible does not mean there is not a God.
However, with society most people are either the two extremes and this can be seen with atheism and theism.
So why Atheism? Is it just an emotional reaction to seeing contradictions in the Bible and other religions and claiming there is no God or having a belief that there isnt one? And why not Deism?
Actually, you are clearly an Atheist as you are not making the positive assertion that a God exists. You are not certain that a Theistic god exists , so you are in fact an Atheist.
Embrace Atheism for the sweet nectar that it is. You can go back to being a Theist when you are able to rationalize the inconsistencies between the bible and reality. : P
As for 'why not Deism'. Why should we believe in something that has absolutely no justification or evidence / proof for it's existence? Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns? Ghosts? Fairies? Ewoks? The boogyman? Loch ness monster?
Give us a few reasons and arguments to believe in a Deist god, and We may be inclined to do so.
You seem to be suggesting that belief in a God is a default position. How is this possible? Babies are born Atheists.
After studying all the various religions, I concluded that the possibility of any god or goddess, let alone the christian god is so minute it isn't worth considering. The christian bible is full of contradictions, interpolations, and plagiarized myths--it has little if any truth in it.
Which god or goddess, out of the tens of thousands of gods and goddesses that mankind has created could be real?--none in my opinion.
Even though I have never seen any evidence of a god, I can not rule out the possibility of a god existing. As the intelligent person that I have confidence that you are, please keep to the facts because I doubt that you have truly studied "all the various religions" because the various religions are innumerable.
As Atheists we have to have a heightened sense of scientific reasoning, and I think part of that reasoning, I believe, is keeping an open mind.
Of course, if an all powerful and all seeing god DOES exist... then we do not have free will but instead all of our actions were determined before we were even created. BUT, this is still a possibility.
If you get to debating with a really good theist, they will attack your "certainty" and turn the debate into a discussion about why you are so biased against the concept/possibility of a god.
just my 2 cents,
I am at a position of non-belief towards a deistic god because I haven't been presented with any evidence for one. Do you have any evidence for one? If you don't, then the best case you can make is an argument from ignorance.
The Bible has nothing to do with my atheism. Science has shown that supernatural explanations are awful. That is all there is to it. :)
Yes, absolutely, individuals treat and grapple with evidence differently. And individuals define evidence differently. Indeed, the dictionary definition of evidence("that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof") leaves a lot of room for people to interpret what evidence is sufficient. And that is one of the problems when theists and atheists debate "evidence for god." For theists, feelings, testimonies, words/stories in a book and, even, ignorance ("god of the gaps") all provide "evidence" for god. Now, of course, none of these things would hold up in a court of law (at least not a secular court of law) if offered to prove something. Atheists require evidence that is similar to that which would hold up in a court of law (I use the legal analogy often because I am a former lawyer, sorry). So, there is a complete disconnect. I remember being on a thread at John Loftus' place with a theist and I offered something (forget what) and he, in turn, offered the story of Balaam's donkey as proof of his proposition!! Seriously, major disconnect....
Indeed, the only argument that would sway me from "I know" to "I believe" was if the evidence leaned in one direction, but could be considered short of 'overwhelming'.
Such as the statement: "Pesticides demonstrated to cause leukemia in larger numbers of infants living next to golf courses". In this instance, the evidence clearly leans towards a causal link between pesticides and leukemia, but the evidence may not be considered 'overwhelming' as there are also studies which fail to demonstrate a significant link. So in this instance I can say I believe (or I trust) that the evidence points toward causation, but there is wiggle room, room for doubters.
Quite a different statistical context from the existence of Japan. :)
Very good point. But I think that one of the problems is that in every day speech we often tend to use "believe" and "know" interchangeably. So it gets confusing. Saying I believe with 99.99999% confidence or saying I know with 99.999999% confidence that "x" is true or "y" is not true are really sort of saying the same thing. It is just that we usually do not assign a numerical value to our degree of certainty or uncertainty but nonetheless it is in the back of our mind mental calculations.