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.
I agree.
It also seems to me that it is useless as a presupposition. For presupposing that does not provide me with any guidance as to how I should attempt to comprehend the universe.
KN,
I made a similar argument yesterday.
Mung,
Why would I want to become OldMung?
And how is that? I’m being serious here.
I just don’t see how you can know anything if the universe is potentially incomprehensible. How do you know that your mental faculties don’t brush up against the incomprehensible parts when you ponder these these things?
peace
Who is the “we”?
If Christianity is true then there are at least three persons that know that Christianity is true a priori. Those persons have the ability to reveal the truth of any proposition to any one they choose (again assuming the truth of Christianity) .
This would include the proposition that Christianity is true.
So in actuality we (the elect) do know that Christianity is true because it has been revealed to us
quote:
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
(Luk 10:21)
and
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
(1Co 2:10)
end quote:
If Christianity is true your claim is necessarily false.
If your claim is true how would you know it?
peace
Ever hear of revelation? Surely you agree that If God exists he has the ability to reveal propositions to you infallibly.
Peace
You don’t quite get it. You don’t comprehend the universe by exerting effort. It’s not like building a house.
If the Logos exists he already comprehends the universe then he graciously shares his wisdom with you (or not).
peace
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Supposedly, somebody important said that. Some guy, Yeshua? But maybe he’s not all that important after all. Or maybe he was just in a bad mood because he hadn’t gotten any loving from his girlfriend or boyfriend lately. Dunno.
I’m all for love.
But still I can’t see how you spot “all the love” in the bible buried amongst the 97% hate-filled, ignorant, wrong, or just plain boring rest of the text. (That’s not counting the wretched OT.) There are 26 specifically nice verses in Matthew out of 1071. Hmm, that’s a great ratio. Err, no, that’s really an unrewarding slog through a dry streambed strewn with garbage in hopes someone left a bouquet there for you. Suit yourself.
I’ll look somewhere else, thanks!
Presuppositionalism at its finest.
They give classes in Presup tactics at fundie christian schools.
Not as if this is a new way for them to try to put down independent skeptical thought. It’s got long roots in filthy Calvinism, and fifthmonarchyman has already admitted to being a Calvinist.
1. Show respect for the truth when it has been shown.
2. Show respect for fifth.
3. Defend your own position.
4. Your stated position is one huge non sequitur.
5. You still haven’t addressed the question posed by fifth.
6. You still haven’t demonstrated that there’s any relevance to your injection of “fully comprehensible” into the discussion and instead attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Keiths I understand your concern however if this particular presupposition is wrong then knowelege is impossible.
If you disagree please provide a scenario by which you can know anything if the universe is partially incomprehensible. How would you know that what you think you know is not itself on the other side of the comprehensible divide.
I checked your link and see that you claim we can’t know anything for certain.
Are you certain of that? How could you possibly know that?
peace
I wouldn’t know. 🙂
My complaint was that people were conflating foundationalism and presuppositionalism
Yes, he did. Still waiting to see how that all irons out. Not a Calvinist myself, though I do adore TULIPS.
Was Calvin a presuppositionalist?
Indeed. OldMung was at least capable of change.
Fifth, what is it about certainty?
The book of Revelation has Jesus riding a white horse with a sword coming out of his mouth. Do you think the author intended his audience to take from this depiction that Jesus has or would at some time have a literal sword protruding from his mouth?
Do you think Jesus was advocating that his followers take up literal swords and use them as weapons? Or are you making a point about bringing peace.
All men everywhere still do not live in peace with one another, therefore …
Ah petrushka. 🙂
keiths doppleganger: I am certain that there can be no certainty.
OldMung,
Not one of your criticisms applies to anything I’ve written, yet you presume to lecture me on showing “respect for the truth”?
fifth,
You’re confusing knowledge with certainty.
keiths, you haven’t even touched my criticisms. When you do I’ll be sure to take notice
Oh, and you logic fail yet again. I could be the world’s worst hypocrite and what I say about you could still be true.
Are you a masochist?
fifth,
I said that we can’t be absolutely certain of anything.
Of course not.
Mung is having another bad thread day.
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
You, me, and our fellow humans here on earth.
Sure. But why assume the truth of Christianity? If you care about truth, you’ll try to discover it, not dictate it.
And you’re not?
If that is the case, then please show how your conclusion can possibly follow from your premises.
fifth, to Neil:
That explains your poor understanding of computability, Kolmogorov complexity, transcendental numbers, and radix conversion.
And Dawkins is considered unsophisticated for using the D word.
Who is pulling this particular presuppositionalist’s strings?
fifth: I checked your link and see that you claim we can’t know anything for certain.
keiths: I said that we can’t be absolutely certain of anything.
You said, and I quote-mine:
fifth: Are you certain of that? How could you possibly know that?
keiths: Of course not.
You see, it follows from his premise.
We can’t be absolutely certain of anything.
Therefore, we can’t be absolutely certain of anything.
keiths, fails to grasp the irony. He doesn’t seem to know that his reasoning can be fallible, and that he cannot be absolutely certain of his conclusion, or even of the validity of his argument. He acts as if what he says is false.
NO. Of course not. But why the fuck would a metaphorical/non-literal/visionary/whatever sword (not in a literal mouth) be any more goddamned peace-and-lovey-dovey than a literal sword?
If you want to convey a message of love and peace, don’t try to do it with images of swords in mouths. If the bible is supposed to convey to an unbiased observer that “Jesus is love” then it’s an abject failure. 97% of the text is horrid, wrong, boring, and/or a bad ergot trip.
Jesus in Luke not Revelations is the one who says
Lord only knows whom Jesus planned for them to use those swords on.
Take responsibility for the lessons your religion teaches. If you don’t like christians being seen as bible-inspired warmongers, go argue with them, not with me. Tell them not to go around waving metaphorical swords in people’s faces. Or literal ones, either, for that matter.
Then you claim is incorrect.
You can’t include me in your “we”.
I for one know the universe is fully comprehensible because it has been revealed to us Christians by God himself.
quote:
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
(1Co 2:10-12)
end quote:
Because if Christianity is not true I for the life of me can’t see how any knowelege at all is possible.
That is why I keep asking you how you know stuff. It’s not a debate tactic. I truly have no clue how a person could know anything if the universe is not comprehensible. You seem to think you can avoid this eventuality buy claiming that the universe is at least partially comprehensible.
However I think that position makes the problem more acute
An entire theorem can be derailed by a single error in arithmetic if we can’t say with confidence that arithmetic is valid for example every theorem is suspect.
peace
🙂
fifthmonarchyman,
You’ve confused ‘know’ with ‘believe’, I think. No disrespect.
No there is no confusion
I said know and that is what I meant.
knowledge is defined as justified true belief. The comprehensibility of the universe meets that criteria.
peace
The two problems I note are the confllating of knowledge with certainty (which keiths has noted) and the second is ignoring that knowlege requires truth as well as belief and justification (which is connected with your concern above). The first makes him require too much from the atheist (who need not claim certainty of anything and ought to admit the possibility that everything that is reasonable may actually be false). The second makes him too sure of his own beliefs because of apparently revelatory experiences he’s had.
keiths:
fifth:
I have the opposite problem. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would think that the truth of Christianity was a prerequisite for knowledge.
I can sort of see why someone might think that God was a prerequisite for knowledge, though I disagree. But why Christianity specifically?
That’s right. If you want to gain an understanding of X, then X needs to be comprehensible. If some unrelated Y or Z are incomprehensible, how is that a problem for understanding X?
If by “suspect” you mean “not absolutely certain”, then I agree. We are fallible humans with fallible cognitive faculties. Because of our fallibility, we can’t guarantee that we won’t make mistakes, and we can’t guarantee that we will catch them and correct them when we do. Therefore we cannot be absolutely certain of the truth of any particular theorem, though different degrees of confidence are warranted.
If it’s so “unbeknownst to us”, then how on earth do you know it?
It’s easy. Knowledge is presupposed to be identical to Christianity. This is what presuppositionalism is. They presuppose their conclusion.
My dog knows where her food is kept, where her bed is, where my bed is, where the park is, where her doggy friends live etc.
Is my dog’s knowledge of these things presupposing the truth of Christianity?
There’s also the sticky issue of just how much of Christianity must be presupposed for the possibility of knowledge. The whole thing? Or just bits of it?
Is belief in the resurrection a pre-requisite for knowledge? (Why?)
Is belief in the donkey a pre-requisite for knowledge? (I hope so!)
There appears to be no argument too weak to be used by someone to bolster their belief.
Well, let me start by asking you a question. Do you believe ghosts exist? Why?
Here’s an example. I build a universe that is at one level understandable by the beings that I will create. I build in a deeper level of complexity into that universe, one which could potentially be understood by the beings I have created but I have ensured that those beings could only understand it if their brains were above a certain mass. However that mass is over the limit for forming a black hole in this universe.
Therefore, the universe in question is incomprehensible to the beings which are able to exist in said universe. At one level it seems comprehensible, but at another it could never be fully comprehended without excluding yourself from that universe.
Do you understand quantum physics? No? Then the universe is already incomprehensible to you.
If everything depends on Christianity, how come they knew how to write already when Jesus came along?
I wonder how people would view a similar argument if it was made by a remote tribe from some Papuan forest?
Hmm, seems they knew about ‘zero’ before Jesus. How is that possible if Christianity is a prerequsite for knowledge about the universe?
To be fair – one needs an accurate view in order to appropriately direct one’s scorn – it’s Christianity as a whole, which includes the OT, that is supposed to be the basis for knowledge.
That’s right, and the Son was there the whole time. He just waited a while before incarnating.
FWIW, that’s kind of what I’ve been doing.
[Wait. There’s no clinical psychologist reading this, is there?]
The LAST thing I need in my life is another SNIVELING WHINER tooth-gnashing in another narcissistic, miserable, comb-overed SELF-CREATED HELL while I deal with this Ashley Madison BULLSHIT I don’t even know what a dick pic is or how to send it…
Wait, what?
I can give you a referral.
I’m sorry, did you somehow not notice the point where I stressed that no one knows this one way or the other, which is precisely why the comprehensibility of the universe cannot be known, either?
Again, have you ever heard of revelation? If God reveals it to you you can know.
Don’t you agree?
peace
Yes it is necessary in one sense that the incarnation occur in time.
But on the other hand from a perspective out side of time it is an eternal reality
peace
There you go. You have put you finger on the difficulty. We have radically incompatible world views. It’s like we live in different universes. There is no human way to bridge the gap. That is why I find these discussions to be mostly a waste of time.
From my perspective your attempts to discredit Christianity are foolish to the point of being hilarious.
You find my attempts to explain it all to you to be equally foolish. We are just talking past each other.
I think it would be a lot better to just move on to stuff we can agree on. However It seems that atheists are fascinated with all things Christian to the point of obsession.
peace