Do Atheists Exist?

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.

1,409 thoughts on “Do Atheists Exist?

  1. fifthmonarchyman:

    What are your evidence and logic supporting the idea that your god must exist in order for the law of “noncontridiction” to be valid and for our powers of reasoning to be generally reliable?

    Again for probably the 20th time

    That is not my claim.

    why is this so hard for you to understand?

    You made that claim right here in this thread:

    Like when you assume the law of noncontridiction is valid and that your senses and powers of reasoning are generally reliable. When you have no justification for doing so if God does not exist.

    That is clearly a claim, even with the misspelling and fragmentary second sentence.

    claim
    klām/Submit
    verb
    1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

    Let’s see your evidence and logic that supports it.

  2. fifthmonarchyman:

    You made the claim that your god must exist in order for the law of “noncontridiction” to be valid and for our powers of reasoning to be generally available.

    please link to where I made that claim

    Way ahead of you — see a couple of comments up.

    Now let’s see you support it.

  3. The question is “how is knowledge possible?” is actually quite different from “what justifies knowledge?”

    The former is the Kantian question that takes it for granted that we have no alternative but to accept that we have bona fide knowledge in mathematics and science, and then inquire into how it is possible.

    The latter is the Cartesian question that asks whether or not we have any knowledge at all, and if we did have knowledge, how could we know that we have it.

    My own view is that the Kantian question is a good question to pose and has an interesting (though complicated) answer, whereas the Cartesian question has no good answer at all. Descartes himself poses skepticism in order to refute it, but his refutation is viciously circular.

  4. fifthmonarchyman: I’m having a real hard time understanding your point.

    Fifty years ago, aircraft designers would build a model and test it in a wind tunnel. These days, they instead use a digital simulation.

    In my view, thinking is far more like the wind tunnel kind of simulation than the digital simulation.

    And now you seem to be insisting on a wind tunnel simulation without the wind tunnel. And I don’t see how that would do anything.

  5. ALurker: Like when you assume the law of noncontridiction is valid and that your senses and powers of reasoning are generally reliable. When you have no justification for doing so if God does not exist.

    That is not a claim.

    It is simply an assumption based on the observation that you have provided no justification despite being repeatedly asked.

    Even if I was to grant for the sake of argument that in some sort of bizzaro world you considered this a claim instead of an assumption.

    the “claim” would just be that “it appears to me you have no justification for those things that does not include God” it would not be that “my god must exist in order for justification to exist”

    The support for that “claim” is the simple fact that you have failed to offer a justification despite repeated requests that you do so

    If you in fact have some justification and it’s super secret and you are forbidden to share it for some unknown reason then my “claim” will have been mistaken but it would not be with out support.

    peace

  6. Neil Rickert: In my view, thinking is far more like the wind tunnel kind of simulation than the digital simulation.

    OK, I’m not sure what your point is.

    If the idea is sound, Boltzmann brains are not simulations at all but actual flying. It’s just that we think we are flying in Arizona when in fact we are flying in New Mexico.

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman: OK, I’m not sure what your point is.

    If the idea is sound, Boltzmann brains are not simulations at all but actual flying. It’s just that we think we are flying in Arizona when in fact we are flying in New Mexico.

    But we are right about flying?

  8. newton: But we are right about flying?

    If I understand your analogy correctly then yes definitely we are flying.

    flying seems to equal cognitive function.

    If the idea is sound then Boltzmann brains have cognitive function in spades. Not only are they thinking but they are imagining an entire universe of reality out of whole cloth one that seems to be much more elaborate and consistent that what we do when we are dreaming.

    Shoot come to think of it Boltzmann brains even conjure up a second alternative universe that they inhabit while they are “dreaming”.

    It’s inception on top of the matrix.

    They seem to be “flying” on steroids

    What am I missing??

    peace

  9. Kantian Naturalist: whereas the Cartesian question has no good answer at all.

    Do you agree that God (if he exists) could reveal stuff so that I could know it?

    Kantian Naturalist: Descartes himself poses skepticism in order to refute it, but his refutation is viciously circular.

    Descartes chose to start with a hypothetical knower in isolation instead of God who can reveal stuff.

    That is the point.

    peace

  10. fifth:

    What am I missing??

    One thing you’re missing is that most Boltzmann brains would die almost immediately.

  11. fifthmonarchyman: Do you agree that God (if he exists) could reveal stuff so that I could know it?

    Sure, but only in the lazy and uninteresting way that bad theology always trades in.

    Once you’ve permitted yourself to posit an omnipotent being, then of course anything that’s logically possible could actually happen. That’s just the definition of “omnipotence.”

    It’s not anywhere close to an explanation, because nowhere does “God reveals stuff to me” tells us how He does so. What’s the causal mechanism underpinning divine illumination?

    Descartes chose to start with a hypothetical knower in isolation instead of God who can reveal stuff.

    I don’t see how your position in any better shape than Descartes’s. You and Descartes are both starting off with a hypothetical knower in isolation. After all, you have to exist in order for anything to be revealed to you! (Do you need divine revelation in order to know that you yourself exist? Or do you need divine revelation in order to know that anything else exists apart from yourself?)

    It seems to me that the real difference is that Descartes aims at giving an argument for the existence of God, whereas you simply assume God’s existence. But God is doing roughly the same work in both cases: to rescue you from skepticism about “the external world” (i.e. everything knowable by perception rather than by introspection).

    In any event, both Cartesianism and presuppositionalism are hopelessly mired in the Myth of the Given, which attempts to incoherently turn a private episode (the experience of revelation) into a public episode (the justification of an assertion). Since no previous attempt at demonstrating the incoherence of your position has been successful, this one will not either. Nevertheless at least the point has been made.

    Also, I have no objections to writing up something on what knowledge looks like in light of evolutionary theory and enactive cognitive science. It might be a fun exercise (for me, anyway). It would give me a chance to return to beating up on Plantinga, and that’s always a good time.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: Do you agree that God (if he exists) could reveal stuff so that I could know it?

    Do you have any evidence that God exists, that he reveals stuff so that you could know it, or that you know much of anything other than presuppositionalist tripe?

    You’d need evidence for all of these, and no, “revelation” purportedly witnessed by a God-intoxicated presuppositionalist is not such evidence.

    Glen Davidson

  13. GlenDavidson: Do you have any evidence that God exists, that he reveals stuff so that you could know it, or that you know much of anything other than presuppositionalist tripe?

    You’d need evidence for all of these, and no, “revelation” purportedly witnessed by a God-intoxicated presuppositionalist is not such evidence.

    Glen, glen, glen . . .

    Haven’t you realized by now that the whole point of “presuppositionalism” is that there’s no need for evidence of God’s existence? God’s existence is simply presupposed. That’s the entire position.

    To ask for evidence of God’s existence is, effectively, to be starting off from a position in which the existence of God is logically possible but open to doubt, and then inquiring in such a way that one concludes that God exists.

    That is precisely what presuppositionalism denies.

    The whole idea of presuppositionalism is that it’s not possible to start off from some position of epistemic neutrality about God and then reason one’s way to the existence of God. It’s adamantly opposed to all arguments for the existence of God, whether empirical (e.g. evidentialism) or rational (e.g. Thomism).

    The main reason why we’re all frustrated with FMM is because it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with someone whose entire position is that it’s not possible to have a rational discussion.

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Amen!!!

    I might be an ogre.
    But that does not make you right.

    If you think that my assumption is incorrect don’t just complain that it sounds mean. offer a sufficient alternative justification and I will gladly withdraw it.

    peace

    Confused again,I thought you knew that a particular God existed to be true because that God revealed His existence to you and therefore God could justify. In other words not an assumption. Of course you throw out certainty is not required every once in a while.

    fifthmonarchyman: the claim is…….. God (if he exists) can reveal stuff so that I can know it.

    So if I said knowledge ( if it exists) let’s us cope with stuff

    Knowledge exists

    Therefore we can cope with stuff

    Would be sufficient justification for knowledge?

  15. Kantian Naturalist: Glen, glen, glen . . .

    Haven’t you realized by now that the whole point of “presuppositionalism” is that there’s no need for evidence of God’s existence? God’s existence is simply presupposed. That’s the entire position.

    To ask for evidence of God’s existence is, effectively, to be starting off from a position in which the existence of God is logically possible but open to doubt, and then inquiring in such a way that one concludes that God exists.

    That is precisely what presuppositionalism denies.

    The whole idea of presuppositionalism is that it’s not possible to start off from some position of epistemic neutrality about God and then reason one’s way to the existence of God. It’s adamantly opposed to all arguments for the existence of God, whether empirical (e.g. evidentialism) or rational (e.g. Thomism).

    The main reason why we’re all frustrated with FMM is because it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with someone whose entire position is that it’s not possible to have a rational discussion.

    I think fmm’s version also depends on equivocating between two radically different notions of God. According to one, God exists just in case there is truth (and, hence, if we believe there are any truths, we’re believers, not–as we claim–atheists). According to the second, God is the Jesus of the Bible stories.

    Now, of course he says they’re one and the same: after all, didn’t the story guy explicitly SAY ‘I am truth, I am the way’?! I hope the several fallacies in that response don’t require explanation again.

  16. Kantian Naturalist: Glen, glen, glen . . .

    Haven’t you realized by now that the whole point of “presuppositionalism” is that there’s no need for evidence of God’s existence? God’s existence is simply presupposed. That’s the entire position.

    To ask for evidence of God’s existence is, effectively, to be starting off from a position in which the existence of God is logically possible but open to doubt, and then inquiring in such a way that one concludes that God exists.

    That is precisely what presuppositionalism denies.

    The whole idea of presuppositionalism is that it’s not possible to start off from some position of epistemic neutrality about God and then reason one’s way to the existence of God. It’s adamantly opposed to all arguments for the existence of God, whether empirical (e.g. evidentialism) or rational (e.g. Thomism).

    The main reason why we’re all frustrated with FMM is because it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with someone whose entire position is that it’s not possible to have a rational discussion.

    At least it avoids self-knowledge and understanding of empirical justification.

    Which I think has a certain appeal to too many.

    Glen Davidson

  17. walto: According to the second, God is the Jesus of the Bible stories.

    This is where I see sleight of hand. Whatever logical argument is presented for God, a designer, whatever, the connection between the logical God and the Christian God seems to be assumed.

  18. Kantian Naturalist: Sure, but only in the lazy and uninteresting way that bad theology always trades in.

    I’m not doing theology I’m offering my justification for knowledge

    Kantian Naturalist: It’s not anywhere close to an explanation,

    Of course it’s not an explanation. It’s not intended to be one. It’s simply a justification for knowledge.

    ie If God exists then knowledge is possible. that is all

    Kantian Naturalist: You and Descartes are both starting off with a hypothetical knower in isolation. After all, you have to exist in order for anything to be revealed to you!

    Actually God can simply choose to create me in order to reveal something to me. My existence is not a necessary prerequisite but rather an entailed particular.

    Of course If I know something then I exist but that does not mean that my existence is logically prior to Gods decision to reveal in any way

    God in isolation is all that is necessary for knowledge to exist.

    Kantian Naturalist: (Do you need divine revelation in order to know that you yourself exist? Or do you need divine revelation in order to know that anything else exists apart from yourself?)

    I would say that you need revelation to know anything whatsoever at all.
    That is just my assumption ALurker 😉

    Kantian Naturalist: But God is doing roughly the same work in both cases: to rescue you from skepticism about “the external world” (i.e. everything knowable by perception rather than by introspection).

    No, God is simply revealing.

    There is no need for rescue if there is no peril. Since God makes his existence plainly known “skepticism” is nothing more than silly self inflicted torture.

    Those who would deny God’s existence have chosen to abandon their one connection to reality . (Again an assumption Alurker)

    Kantian Naturalist: In any event, both Cartesianism and presuppositionalism are hopelessly mired in the Myth of the Given, which attempts to incoherently turn a private episode (the experience of revelation) into a public episode (the justification of an assertion).

    It’s not “public” justification it’s simply justification.

    You have already granted that my knowledge is justified if God exists. God has made his existence known to me therefor I know that my knowledge is justified.

    Whether you know that is another matter.

    In fact whether you know anything at all given your world view is exactly what is at issue here.

    Before we discuss what you know about my justification don’t you think you should explain how you can know anything at all if God does not exist

    Kantian Naturalist: Also, I have no objections to writing up something on what knowledge looks like in light of evolutionary theory and enactive cognitive science.

    You could do that if you like but it would not be offering a justification for knowledge so it would be irrelevant to this discussion.

    peace

  19. GlenDavidson: Do you have any evidence that God exists, that he reveals stuff so that you could know it, or that you know much of anything other than presuppositionalist tripe?

    Yes of course I do,

    But absent God’s grace none of it will ever convince you.

    GlenDavidson: You’d need evidence for all of these, and no, “revelation” purportedly witnessed by a God-intoxicated presuppositionalist is not such evidence.

    See what I mean?

    First you decide that evidence is what is required, then you decide what qualifies as evidence, then you decide if a particular piece of evidence meets your self imposed standard.

    Who exactly died and left you in charge.

    😉

    Peace

  20. newton: In other words not an assumption.

    My assumption is not that God exists. I know God exists.

    My assumption is that no satisfactory justification for knowledge is available that does not include God.

    peace

  21. KN,

    Also, I have no objections to writing up something on what knowledge looks like in light of evolutionary theory and enactive cognitive science.

    I’d be interested in that. I remarked on it earlier in the thread:

    KN,

    What we’re beginning to see from enactive cognitive science and related approaches is that we can explain at a neurocomputational level why the phenomenologists of embodiment were right, to the extent that they were, about why skepticism about the external world is a non-starter.

    I’d be interested in hearing you elaborate on that. I haven’t seen anyone, enactivist or not, demonstrate that skepticism about the external world is a non-starter.

  22. fifth,

    Earlier in the thread you backed away from the notion of knowledge as justified true belief.

    If knowledge isn’t justified true belief, then what is it, in your view?

  23. walto: I think fmm’s version also depends on equivocating between two radically different notions of God.

    I would say that what you think are different notions of God are just different perspectives on who he is.

    God is Truth
    God is a person

    This is not equivocation it’s simply God’s revelation of himself. If you have difficulty grasping how that all works it only means that we are talking about God.

    quote;

    whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself

    end quote;

    1644 LBCF

    God being God can not be shoehorned into our little molds of what we think a god should be like.

    Instead he gets to tell us who he is. He has that right because he is God.

    If it’s difficult for our finite little minds to fathom how it works, so what? We shouldn’t expect anything less.

    peace

  24. Alan Fox: Whatever logical argument is presented for God, a designer, whatever, the connection between the logical God and the Christian God seems to be assumed.

    That is why I have a big problem with ID as apologetics

    You can’t get from ‘the designer” to God the gap is just too great.

    But on the other hand you can easily get from God to the design we see all around us via condescension and incarnation and revelation .

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: You could do that if you like but it would not be offering a justification for knowledge so it would be irrelevant to this discussion.

    Well, since I find “what justifies knowledge?” to be a nonsensical question, I shall not be answering it.

  26. fifthmonarchyman: First you decide that evidence is what is required, then you decide what qualifies as evidence, then you decide if a particular piece of evidence meets your self imposed standard.

    Who exactly died and left you in charge.

    See what I mean, you just make shit up and claim that it’s truth.

    Do you think any court would accept your stupid “evidence” for anything at all? You know why they won’t? Because it’s not based on any mutually-observable truths, one would have to believe the bullshit of an ignorant clod.

    So quit with your arrogant nonsense. It’s very tiresome, wrong, and stupid.

    Glen Davidson

  27. fifthmonarchyman: My assumption is not that God exists. I know God exists.

    And you know God exists because you know you can never mistaken about the knowledge revealed. What justifies the bolded ‘know’?

    My assumption is that no satisfactory justification for knowledge is available that does not include God.

    And that is the only thing you assume?

    So that is something that is not revealed obviously, else why assume it.There is not a Bible passage covering that?

    Why pick that as an assumption, you know you have justification for knowledge, if there was another way how would that make a difference to you? Why do you care ?

    Sorry for all the questions ,just trying to accurately understand your reasoning

  28. newton, to fifth:

    And you know God exists because you know you can never mistaken about the knowledge revealed. What justifies the bolded ‘know’?

    Nothing, of course. Fifth attempts to justify it by creating an infinite chain of purported revelations; hence his claim that it’s “revelation all the way down.” That supposed justification is easily refuted.

    Fifth can’t counter the refutation, so he just ignores it. You see, it brings great glory to Jesus when a Christian hides from an opponent’s argument that he cannot handle.

    Excellent work, fifth.

  29. Neil Rickert: It’s theology, disguised as eistemology.

    Yes. As i’ve said on several occasions, it (or something much like it) will work if an ontological argument would work. But alas….

  30. fifth:

    God (if he exists) can reveal stuff so that I can know it.

    For the 397th time, that isn’t true. Not if justification is necessary for knowledge, as you seem to be claiming. Which brings us back to a question you’ve been avoiding:

    Earlier in the thread you backed away from the notion of knowledge as justified true belief.

    If knowledge isn’t justified true belief, then what is it, in your view?

    Don’t you find your position a tad, um, incoherent? You apparently believe that knowledge is justified something. What is it if not justified true belief?

    Why not answer my question this time? Is “Fleeing for Jesus” the new thing?

  31. Let me correct something I said in the comment above. It could be true that God, if he exists, is capable of infallibly revealing stuff to you so that you know it, but there is no reason to think that your “God exists” claim is a such a case.

    And again, even if it were true that God has that ability, that doesn’t help your overall argument.

  32. fifth,

    It’s quite easy to see why this…

    God (if he exists) can reveal stuff so that I [fifth] can know it.

    …doesn’t help you, even if it is true.

    The fact that God can do something doesn’t mean that he has done it in any particular case or that he will do it in any particular case.

    You’ve already acknowledged that you can be mistaken about a purported revelation, seeing it as genuine when in fact it is false. That could be true about the supposed revelation “God exists.”

    Here are three possible worlds:

    World 1:

    1. God exists and has the power to reveal infallibly.
    2. God chooses not to exercise this power with regard to his existence.
    3. Fifth believes that God has infallibly revealed his existence to fifth.
    4. God did not reveal his existence to fifth.
    5. Fifth is mistaken.

    World 2:

    1. God exists and has the power to reveal infallibly.
    2. God exercises this power with regard to his existence, revealing it infallibly to fifth.
    3. Fifth believes that God has infallibly revealed his existence to fifth.
    4. God did in fact reveal his existence infallibly to fifth.
    5. Fifth is correct.

    World 3:

    1. God doesn’t exist.
    2. Since God doesn’t exist, he can’t reveal himself to anybody.
    3. Fifth believes that God has infallibly revealed his existence to fifth.
    4. God did not reveal his existence to fifth, because God doesn’t even exist in the first place.
    5. Fifth is mistaken.

    Each of those three possible worlds is logically coherent. In two of those possible worlds, you are mistaken. You do not know which possible world you are in, so you do not know that you’re correct when asserting that God has infallibly revealed his existence to you.

    It’s not that hard, fifth, but you really need to think. We’ve been having this discussion for more than two years, and you still don’t get it.

  33. Now consider the ramifications of this. Your faith rests on a number of basic logic mistakes. The atheists here can see those mistakes and have been explaining them to you for over two years. You don’t get it.

    Supposing your God exists, that means he has chosen not to reveal your mistakes to you. He has been letting you make a fool of yourself for over two years, and he’s been letting you base your faith on fallacies. Meanwhile he’s been showering his revelations on the atheists.

    Things aren’t looking very good for you. Your God doesn’t seem to like you very much.

    The good news is that he’s fictional, and so your befuddlement isn’t due to being forsaken by God. It’s simply that you’re a confused guy who is struggling to understand things, with no help from your nonexistent God.

  34. Kantian Naturalist: Well, since I find “what justifies knowledge?” to be a nonsensical question, I shall not be answering it.

    You can ignore the question if you like. I’m not wedded to the wording.

    Instead just let us know what basis you have for being confident that you can know stuff.

    If you have no rationale for believing that you know anything that is cool as well but I don’t think that position is very conducive to persuasive argument.

    Or much of anything productive at all

    peace

  35. fifth:

    You can ignore the question if you like. I’m not wedded to the wording.

    Haha. “Have I been talking about justification? Um, never mind.”

  36. GlenDavidson: Do you think any court would accept your stupid “evidence” for anything at all?

    1) Do you think “admissible in court” is an authoritative standard to what counts as evidence?
    2) The testimony of a witnesses in position to know is often accepted in court. I’m in a unique position to know if God has personally revealed himself to me. In fact I’m the only person who can know that

    GlenDavidson: Because it’s not based on any mutually-observable truths

    Personal experience can’t be a “mutually-observable” yet I’ll bet you believe tons of things based on personal experience alone.

    check it out

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/02/09/in-praise-of-anecdotal-evidence/?utm_term=.b9f0dabd1ae0

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: 1) Do you think “admissible in court” is an authoritative standard to what counts as evidence?

    No, it’s a practical one, not a meaningless concept of “truth” that someone made up and you swallowed gullibly.

    2) The testimony of a witnesses in position to know is often accepted in court. I’m in a unique position to know if God has personally revealed himself to me. In fact I’m the only person who can know that

    Yes, and people seeing something that others aren’t seeing (yet are present) has been banished as evidence from courts since the Salem witch trials. No one should care what you think, as you’re vastly incapable of proper judgement.

    Personal experience can’t be a “mutually-observable” yet I’ll bet you believe tons of things based on personal experience alone.

    So what? But of course I’d make a far better witness than would you to personal experience, because I don’t go for the fantasies that you claim are real.

    check it out

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/02/09/in-praise-of-anecdotal-evidence/?utm_term=.b9f0dabd1ae0

    peace

    See, you’re so clueless that you don’t get that fantasies like you believe are very different from personal experiences of those who prefer not to believe fantasies. That’s just another reason why you’d be quite impeachable in court.

    Glen Davidson

  38. fifthmonarchyman:

    My assumption is that no satisfactory justification for knowledge is available that does not include God.

    You haven’t shown that a justification is available that does include your god. That comes before you get to ask other people to disprove your bullshit.

  39. fifthmonarchyman:
    “Like when you assume the law of noncontridiction is valid and that your senses and powers of reasoning are generally reliable. When you have no justification for doing so if God does not exist.”

    That is not a claim.

    You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts. That’s clearly a claim by the dictionary definition and common usage.

    Since Alan has seen fit to abuse his moderator powers and make this thread an extension of Noyau, I’ll respond frankly.

    You are a lying, cowardly, delusional troll. You dishonestly refuse to support your claims, you’re terrified of considering other positions even for the sake of discussion, and you spew your bullshit into every thread you touch. You contribute nothing of value here. Your participation itself is dishonest because you refuse to follow the rules and everything you do is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the site.

    If you really believed in your god, you wouldn’t act this way. Hell, if you had any sense of shame you couldn’t stand yourself.

    Alan is too gutless to apply the rules to you and you’re too gutless to follow them. A match made in heaven.

  40. GlenDavidson:

    fifthmonarchyman: First you decide that evidence is what is required, then you decide what qualifies as evidence, then you decide if a particular piece of evidence meets your self imposed standard.

    Who exactly died and left you in charge.

    See what I mean, you just make shit up and claim that it’s truth.

    Do you think any court would accept your stupid “evidence” for anything at all?You know why they won’t?Because it’s not based on any mutually-observable truths, one would have to believe the bullshit of an ignorant clod.

    So quit with your arrogant nonsense. It’s very tiresome, wrong, and stupid.

    Glen Davidson

    Exactly. George RR Martin summed up the problem with fifthmonarchyman: http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a8/a87c852995e2310bf7416a7e3d64ec28fcb9ccb2a3da03a4a09fa93021d6fc6e.jpg

    (If someone knows how to make that display so fifthmonarchyman can’t miss it, please do so. I’ve wasted enough time.)

  41. newton: And you know God exists because you know you can never mistaken about the knowledge revealed. What justifies the bolded ‘know’?

    I know that God exists be because he has made it known to me. It’s not a bolded know it’s just a regular know

    I can be mistaken as what I think I know.

    It’s possible that any knowledge whatsoever is impossible but if knowledge is possible then God can accomplish it.

    I know that…..

    God is the only thing that I’m aware of that can serve as a justification for knowledge. It’s possible that there could be another satisfactory justification but no one has offered anything.

    newton: And that is the only thing you assume?

    no, I assume I lot of things. I assume that the electricity will be on when i get up in the morning for instance. I assume that Trump will tweet something silly that will be covered in the media before long. There are lots of things like that that I assume.

    newton: Why pick that as an assumption, you know you have justification for knowledge, if there was another way how would that make a difference to you? Why do you care ?

    Because atheists act as if they have justification when they claim to know things yet offer no justification when asked.

    Most folks define Knowledge as justified true belief

    If you don’t have any justification to know what you claim to know then your claim is false according to that definition.

    newton: Sorry for all the questions ,just trying to accurately understand your reasoning

    I for one love questions.

    I would very much like it if we adhered to jeopardy rules here and all comments had to be phrased in the form of a question.

    peace

  42. GlenDavidson: No, it’s a practical one, not a meaningless concept of “truth” that someone made up and you swallowed gullibly.

    So, are saying that you define truth as what GlenDavidson considers to be practical?

    GlenDavidson: Yes, and people seeing something that others aren’t seeing (yet are present) has been banished as evidence from courts since the Salem witch trials.

    Your point is?
    By definition no one else is present when an experience is personal.

    GlenDavidson: I’d make a far better witness than would you to personal experience

    You would not be a far better witness to my personal experience.

    peace

  43. GlenDavidson: See, you’re so clueless that you don’t get that fantasies like you believe are very different from personal experiences of those who prefer not to believe fantasies.

    No, I totally get that.

    Just because you have a different personal experience does not mean that my personal experience is invalid it only means it’s different.

    I also note that you agree with me that our personal experience is directly influenced by what we “prefer” to believe.

    peace

  44. fifthmonarchyman: So, are saying that you define truth as what GlenDavidson considers to be practical?

    What a stupid strawman. Do you ever move beyond fallacies in defense of your prejudices?

    GlenDavidson: Yes, and people seeing something that others aren’t seeing (yet are present) has been banished as evidence from courts since the Salem witch trials.

    Your point is?
    By definition no one else is present when an experience is personal.

    Wow, you miss the obvious point, then make a false claim about “when an experience is personal.” This is why no discussion with you is possible, you just respond to good points with bullshit.

    You would not be a far better witness to my personal experience.

    Another strawman. No one has any reason to care about your “personal experience,” driven by presuppositions as it is.

    Glen Davidson

  45. I also note that you agree with me that our personal experience is directly influenced by what we “prefer” to believe.

    peace

    I noted that yours is. And you just pretended that I wrote something different.

    Do your strawmen and other fallacies make Jesus proud of you? You claim to serve him, yet I never see you actually doing anything that would make any decent person proud of you?

    Glen Davidson

  46. fifthmonarchyman: Because atheists act as if they have justification when they claim to know things yet offer no justification when asked.

    Seems you have a blind spot. I’ve seen several attempts to offer such a justification. Perhaps the fact that nobody is now bothering should tell you something?

  47. fifthmonarchyman: I would very much like it if we adhered to jeopardy rules here and all comments had to be phrased in the form of a question.

    If a child is brought up by atheists, in a mostly atheist country and never expresses a belief that they think there is a god at any stage in their life, at what point do they secretly start to believe in a god, unbeknownst to themselves?

Leave a Reply