The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
fifth,
You’re under no obligation to participate, fifth. As I said to walto, we can discuss presuppositionalism with or without you.
Given past experience, I don’t think any of us were expecting that you would be able to defend your faith.
I never said you needed a single presupposition. You might have 10 or 100 I don’t care I only want to know what some of them are. You know what mine is what is yours?
If this is hard for you I’ll get you started with a promoter question
If the universe was not fully comprehensible how would you know?
peace
How is it that his belief in the comprehensibility of the universe is a matter of faith and yours is not?
I know fifth. It’s the keiths dance. He’s the only one who never gets tired of it.
fifth,
You said you wanted to be left alone. Now you’re eager to continue the discussion. What gives?
Yes, you did:
fifth:
I already answered that question. Twice:
And:
As you like to say: Geeze. Use your head, man.
Mung,
Read this again, carefully this time:
What can we do to help NewMung win the inner battle against OldMung?
OldMung, I command you in the name of Jesus, leave this man’s body!
Hallelujah. Praise be to God.
How do you know that we don’t know if the universe is fully comprehensible or not?
We have conflicting presuppositions I assume that the universe is comprehensible you assume that it is “an open question” whether the universe is fully comprehensible.
You know my assumption. I hold it because I don’t see how any knowelege is possible if the universe is not comprehensible
I just want to know how you can justify your assumption
That is the reason I asked the question. will you answer or not?
How would you know if the universe was not fully comprehensible?
It’s pretty simple
We fundamentalists believe that it is rude not to answer direct questions and you keep following me around and asking questions while not answering any yourself.
peace
fifth,
Oh, really? How many times have you failed to answer Reciprocating Bill’s direct and simple question?
You could start by admitting you were wrong.
Then you could follow that up by actually debating with fifth on a level playing field.
And if you wanted to cap that all off with something truly exceptional, you could show how it is in fact the case that it is relevant to fifth’s position that the universe be “fully comprehensible” rather than just claiming it is so and expecting us to take it on faith while scoffing at us for having faith.
And by relevant I mean there needs to be something more substantive than just the intelligibility of the universe at stake. If you are correct, then fifth’s position requires more than that. It must in fact be the case that fifth’s position actually requires that the universe be “fully intelligible.” Then your attempt to side-track the discussion would be shown to have relevance.
To summarize:
1. Show respect for the truth when it has been shown.
2. Show respect for fifth.
3. Defend your own position.
I think you claimed to love the truth, or some such. I can dig it up if need be. Site rules/principles suggest the second. You claimed you “don’t hesitate to defend” your positions.
I’m just waiting to see any of these three in action. Seeing all three would literally knock my socks off.
FWIW, those aren’t the same thing.
fifth,
Simple. We don’t understand everything about the universe. No one has demonstrated that the things that we don’t yet understand are guaranteed to be comprehensible. Therefore we don’t know that the universe is fully comprehensible.
Knowledge of the universe isn’t possible unless the universe is at least partially comprehensible. But does it need to be fully comprehensible? Of course not.
Perhaps keiths is a rationalist. The universe could be completely incomprehensible and he would still believe in his own objectivity.
Neil, do you think someone could say we don’t know that the universe is X if we don’t actually know what “X” means?
What the hell does “fully comprehensible” mean?
What does that even mean?
FMM:
That hasn’t been my recent experience. Here’s your chance to remedy that:
Do you accept that there was a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and Pan that existed on the order of five to ten million years ago?
Or do you not?
(While remaining open to new information, of course.)
ETA: I’m also still waiting for IDMung to tell us what “full on skeptic” means to him.
How could either of you know that without knowing what “full comprehensibility” entails?
Is that the same thing as full comprehensibility?
I’ll counter that with:
If the universe is fully comprehensible, how would we know?
So much for the the power of Jesus to banish OldMung.
That is one huge non sequitur keiths.
It also doesn’t respond to the question that was asked.
Let the NewMung help you out here. The NewMung is always helpful.
Is it the case that you know the universe is not fully intelligible because you don’t know that it isn’t fully intelligible?
Or is it the case that you know the universe is not fully intelligible because you don’t know that it is fully intelligible?
Ir could it possibly be the case that you know the universe is not fully intelligible because you know that you know not possibly know that the universe is fully intelligible?
I’d like to know that too. Does it require that every true proposition is known by human beings–or one day will be? Obviously that’s false. Does it require that every true proposition could be known? By humans? What if there are uncountably many of these propositions? What if some true propositions about the future are undetermined, perhaps because of quantum uncertainties? Must those be knowable for the universe to be “fully comprehensible”?
How in the world can you argue about the truth of some statement if you don’t know what what the hell the main expression in it means?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to watch TV or make brownies or something?
Intelligible by whom, or what?
Exactly. What the hell are they arguing about?
Mung:
fifth:
Mung,
If you think it isn’t relevant, then go fight it out with fifth.
I would assume not. Even keiths agrees the universe is intelligible, even if he remains agnostic as to the claim of “full comprehensibility.”
I’m actually interested to see how comprehensibility as a presupposition leads to something of interest, but fifth has stated his position and keiths wants a different dance partner.
IOW, you want me to show that it’s relevant because you can’t. Sorry. No.
Spinoza, a God-obsessed man if there ever was one, believed that he could demonstrate that Substance (the universe) has an infinite number of Attributes, of which human beings can only ever be acquainted with two. Suppose he was right about that. Should we infer from his demonstration that the world is fully comprehensible or that the world is NOT fully comprehensible?
RB:
IDMung is OldMung, right?
I’m not sure a position has actually been stated, if nobody knows what it is. Do YOU know what he means?
walto,
Full comprehensibility would require, at the very least, that each aspect of the universe be comprehensible to someone or something — though not all aspects would need to be comprehensible by the same person or entity.
We know that we do not fully understand the universe. We do not know if anyone (or anything) else understands the aspects that we don’t understand. We also don’t know whether all of those aspects are capable of being understood by anyone or anything.
Therefore we don’t know that the universe is fully comprehensible.
oh. that’s easy. global skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_skepticism
mung,
Also,the claim that the universe is intelligible produces similar issues for me. Does it mean that somebody can understand something (there is at least one proposition that is known to be true), or that somebody can understand everything? Must every jot and tittle of the universe be understood or understandable (by humans) for it to be true that the universe is intelligible, or is it enough for some little smidge to be?
keiths:
Mung:
No, I want you to go fight it out with fifth. He’s the one making the assumption.
You’re having another bad thread, aren’t you, Mung?
Dear Jesus,
Please send someone better than fifth or Mung to defend your Holy Word. Thank you.
Regards,
keiths
Keiths:
An affectionate cognomen. It does NOT stand for “internet dipshit Mung.”
Does it?
Since y’all can’t get anywhere on this, let me offer the following as a possible explanation for the intelligibility/comprehensibility claims:
Does that explanation float anybody’s boat?
But you don’t know that it is not, and that is the question being asked.
walto,
Did you miss my explanation?
Yes, I did miss that. Thanks. I agree with you that if that’s what Fifth meant by “fully comprehensible” then we don’t know that the world is fully comprehensible. My guess is that, using your definition, Fifth will say that the universe IS fully comprehensible (because God understands everything).
But I don’t think that when he says that full comprehensibility is his presupposition, he means quite what you’ve written: I think he means something more like what I have put. But I could be wrong about that.
So I ask: Is what keiths put above roughly what you meant by saying the world is fully comprehensible, Fifth? And, if so, why do you take that as a presupposition?
Mung,
My answers, once again:
And:
RB:
I think it might.
Are you upset because when you stated you had no knowledge of what you were talking about I stopped responding to you?
Reciprocating Bill:
What were you expecting?
Mung:
I see. I’m not a “full on skeptic.”
I always presuppose that I’m right and you’re wrong. Everything else can be reduced from that. And it’s non-negotiable. If you accept that, we can dialog.
Mung quotemines RB:
What RB actually said:
Yes, Mung, you are indeed an Internet Dipshit.
Among other things, it means that you can potentially make sense of quantum wierdness.
I know it’s pushing things a little, but I think it also implies that you could make sense of the Republican party.
In a word — YES.
Sure, but just him?
Any real point to discussing such ideas? Even if they are from deep introspection, you know.
Glen Davidson
LoL. Whatever you say keiths. You are, after all, not only entitled to your own opinions, you’re also entitled to your own facts. Subjective keiths.
Mung:
Read more carefully, Mung.
I didn’t state that I have no knowledge of the subject.
I stated that I had never characterized myself as having knowledge on the subject. That to correct your mistaken statement, “You indicate you have some knowledge of this subject…”
I invited you to check my statements for yourself, rather than simply accepting my “testimony,” consistent with my argument that testimony backed by observations is a stronger means to knowledge than testimony alone.
You, rather than investigating for yourself (vis a topic easily investigated without rising from your seat), stopped responding because I declined to cite some basis for authority, as you indicate above. Apparently, you would prefer to listen to an argument from authority – or, more accurately, dismiss an argument due to perceived lack of authority – rather than check an easily accessed literature for yourself. A sure way to sustain ignorance of any topic. Way to go Mung!
(That oddly unpleasant sensation, heretofore mostly unnoticed, is irony biting you on the ass. And, BTW, I do have a Ph.D. in a directly relevant field, as well as forensic experience.* Chomp chomp.)
*Which has bearing only upon the aforementioned irony, not upon the merit of my arguments.