This post is to move a discussion from Sandbox(4) at Entropy’s request.
Over on the Sandbox(4) thread, fifthmonarchyman made two statements that I disagree with:
“I’ve argued repeatedly that humans are hardwired to believe in God.”
“Everyone knows that God exists….”
As my handle indicates, I prefer to lurk. The novelty of being told that I don’t exist overcame my good sense, so I joined the conversation.
For the record, I am what is called a weak atheist or negative atheist. The Wikipedia page describes my position reasonably well:
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.”
I do exist, so fifthmonarchyman’s claims are disproved. For some reason he doesn’t agree, hence this thread.
Added In Edit by Alan Fox 16.48 CET 11th January, 2018
This thread is designated as an extension of Noyau. This means only basic rules apply. The “good faith” rule, the “accusations of dishonesty” rule do not apply in this thread.
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Regardless of how you identify, your position is that the statement “Everyone knows God exists.” is an accurate description of reality, correct? (Please don’t play more word games, you know exactly what I’m asking.)
You cut out all context so you failed to respond to my actual question. Let’s try one at a time. Do you assert that the god you believe in confused the language of all humans then alive as described in the Bible story of the Tower of Babel? I’m trying to understand what you mean by the word “God” in your statement. Help a brother out.
From your other statements, this isn’t entirely accurate. Are you now saying that your concept of god is a synonym for “truth”? Here’s the definition of that word:
“- the quality or state of being true.
– that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
– a fact or belief that is accepted as true.”
If what you mean by “God” is simply “truth”, why use the word with more baggage? If you mean more by “God”, what exactly is that more?
fifthmonarchyman writes:
No. Please don’t put words in my mouth, especially when you include so many built in assumptions.
Another word to define. I’m trying very hard here to actually understand what you’re saying. Agnostic:
“a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”
That’s pretty wishy washy. I’ll stick with the “weak atheist” label I defined in the post that started this thread. It’s much more descriptive. Theists have beliefs in gods. I have no beliefs in gods. I am an atheist. Your claim that we don’t exist is disproved.
fifthmonarchyman writes:
You should definitely read up on the scientific method, then. It hasn’t been around as long as most religions, but its track record is far better.
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Yes, you did. I then raised my hand and disproved that claim.
Regardless of who said it first, you appear to be claiming that it reflects reality, correct?
The problem you’re going to have here, ALurker, is that FMM lacks the ability to distinguish between his own beliefs and those of other people. Most people pass that developmental milestone when they are five, but FMM never did.
That’s the only way to understand his complete inability to say perfectly sane things like, “I believe that God is truth, but atheists don’t believe that God is truth. So they have what I regard as a false belief about the nature of truth.”
Saying perfectly sane things like that would require him to distinguish between what he believes and what other people believe. Since he’s unable to do that, he has to say, “God is truth, and everyone believes in truth, therefore everyone believes in God. Therefore there are no atheists.”
As an American, I’m perfectly well acquainted with fully functional adults whose cognitive development somehow stopped in early childhood. We even have one as president.
I’m not sure if or when I will get the time to participate in this thread.
Like I told you I am very busy right now. Christmas vacation is over and I have very pressing family and work commitments
Even if I had all the time in the world I’m not comfortable dwelling on a topic that obviously most folks here bristle at.
I would much rather discuss science stuff.
peace
no
I’m perfectly happy with that characterization. You know God exists you just don’t think he is God. I get it
Paul said it like this
quote:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:21)
end quote:
peace
No, atheists don’t exist.
Well, I suppose I am being contrary.
At one time, people said that phlogiston existed. Now we deny that phlogiston existed. The difference is that phlogiston no longer has a useful role.
When I say that atheists don’t exist, I’m saying that the concept of “atheist” no longer has a useful role. The human world consists of people, some of whom are religious. It serves no purpose to single out “atheists” as somehow special.
If you want a term for those who specifically criticize religion, then “anti-theist” seems appropriate for that. We don’t need the concept of atheist.
Fair enough. Just drop your refuted claim that “Everyone knows that God exists.” and I’ll be happy to drop the thread as well. If you keep repeating it without defending it, I’ll have to raise the issue of you calling me a liar in Moderation Issues.
Do you understand the concept of self deception? Did you read the article I linked to from Scientific American?
peace
I’m not an anti-theist. I’m not criticizing religion per se. I’m refuting fifthmonarchyman’s claim that “Everyone knows that God exists.” by the existence proof of me, someone who doesn’t believe in any god. I exist. I’m more than a little bemused by the fact that people refuse to accept that very simple statement.
You are back to number one on my favorite list 😉
peace
Do you understand the site rules? You must accept that I am posting honestly and in good faith. You may not accuse me of being ignorant, stupid, or demented. I am telling you, yet again, that I don’t believe in any god.
By the site rules you must accept my statement. Your claim that “Everyone knows that God exists.” is thereby disproven.
Have you asked yourself that, FFM?
I do accept that you are posting in good faith. I just think you are deceiving yourself
Paul would say you are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” but since I don’t assume you have a developed system of understanding as to what “righteousness” is I think self deceived works.
peace
I would agree with him on this. He really can’t discuss science stuff in any meaningful way, but it really is much less annoying when he tries for that rather than the extremely anti-intellectual attempts to force his presuppositionalist nonsense as the standard for, well, everything.
The trouble with this OP is that it’s all been done before, and the only thing we’ve learned from that is that FMM won’t even begin to acknowledge the possibilities that other people understand and use to found epistemology. It’s all “revelation” or nothing, and revelation never managed to get across to him that he has an extremely poor understanding of any viewpoint other than his own.
Glen Davidson
True atheists don’t exist because nobody can be sure for certain that God doesn’t exist…
Even Dawkins claims to be agnostic…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html
Those who do claim to be atheists are simply denying the facts…
Of course I have.
Just today I have repeatedly pointed out that I may be mistaken. If we deceive ourselves who is left to correct the error?
As far as I know the only way to overcome self deception is with divine help.
Peace
See even GlenDavidson thinks this topic is a waste of time.
If we agree then that has to mean something 😉
peace
ALurker doesn’t believe in God and is posting in good faith. Therefore “Everyone knows that God exists” is disporoven.
J-Mac,
Blimey! Even the Daily Mail can get a fact right.
Does posting in good faith somehow require complete accuracy in all your statements?
If so this site would be a lot more sparse 😉
peace
You may think this. I for one fundamentally disagree. The only way to test reality is to kick that rock.
Yes, I understood that.
Just get used to the idea that religious people can have weird ideas.
That’s not what an atheist is. Rather, that’s the “strong atheist” position. I don’t believe in any god. Therefore, I am an atheist.
I really am getting tired of people telling me I don’t exist. It’s quite rude.
How do you know that the rock is not a figment of your imagination that you placed there to aid with the self deception?
peace
What is inaccurate in ALurker’s statement: “I have no beliefs in gods.”
I don’t think that’s what he thinks is a waste of time.
fifthmonarchyman,
Nope. It means accepting that others actually mean what they say. I have no problem accepting you mean what you say about your own beliefs. Allow me that same consideration.
The facts as you see them? Boy…. lol
Another one of denialists…
J-Mac,
I was agreeing with you! 🙂
If you will recall I only told you that when you specifically asked If that was what I believe. If you don’t want to be told what I believe don’t ask me
My original statement was simply that humans are hardwired to believe in God. I would be happy to discuss that if you’d like. It would be more interesting
here is an article to get you started
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
peace
his understanding of what a god is and possibly his understanding of what belief is
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Do you consider this a claim?
I’m curious, where did Paul said that everyone knows that God exists?
I believe that Alurker means it when he says he is an atheist I just think he is mistaken
peace
quote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:18-22)
end quote:
peace
So you both use different definitions of “god” and “belief” ??
I think the authors of the papers dealing with the subject are making a claim. Yes
I see no reason to dispute it
peace
It’s still agnosticism…
Same principles apply to believers in God…
If the existence of God could be proven beyond and doubt; we could see God directly creating the new stars and galaxies, faith in God wouldn’t be needed…
Same applies to atheists… They can’t prove or be sure beyond any doubt that God doesn’t exist therefore they are agnostics even though they would like to be considered to be something they can’t be…
This was written hundereds of years ago. The text is talking about the population from that time.
Furthermore:
God hasn’t shown it to ALurker. So clearly he’s not one of “them”
The bible doesn’t support your claim, that everyone knows that God exists.
when exactly?
When he is making that particular statement I think what he really means to say is that he does not believe that any of the gods he has thought about are worthy of worship
I would agree with him completely on that point.
The difficulty is that that is not exactly what his statement means
peace
Rumraket,
Methinks we could do with a “like” button!
How do you know that exactly?
peace
Your confidence in your understanding and complete lack of it is Trump-esque.
He demonstrates he is one of “them” when he shows that the wrath of God is on him
Do we really need to have a bible study 😉
peace
This pretty much sums it up:
I don’t.
No, it’s treating the “god question” like any other. We’re not agnostic about unicorns or leprechauns, even though they could exist, logically. One might object that scientifically we’re really more agnostic about even unicorns and leprechauns, at least in an official sense. That may be, but really, sans any good reason to believe that unicorns or leprechauns exist, practically we really just don’t believe in them (at least most of us don’t).
We mostly just don’t believe in whatever lacks adequate evidence to indicate that it does exist. Why “god” should be granted some special dispensation from this rule of thumb I don’t know. Not that agnostics in name bother me, particularly, it just seems silly not to make at least a pragmatic judgment that god doesn’t exist, just as we judge the odds of leprechauns to be slim to none.
Glen Davidson