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.
Mmhh… I was under the impression you had him on ignore. You’re saying you don’t?
yet
The funny thing is that FMM’s religion stole it’s concept of god from previous religions but they way he talks you’d think they invented it. No matter if we go back 5000 years whatever god they worshipped is the same one as FMM worships today, the Christian God Yahweh. Atheists around the world know that specific god exists, even if they’ve never heard of it.
It’s funny how all the gods are just like the people that invented them. Petty, small minded, obnoxious and uninterested in fairness or logic.
Not at all, it only assumes that the Bible is God’s word.
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.
(Rom 1:18-19)
end quote;
peace
Actually, I think that’s quite badly wrong.
I think it is impossible for divine revelation to ever be necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The reason why is that knowledge involves a distinct kind of interaction.
Firstly: to call someone a knower, or to say that she knows something, to attribute a special kind of status to her: it is to attribute to her a distinct (however limited and defeasible) authority. To say that someone knows something, and likewise to attribute knowledge to oneself, is not making an empirical assertion but one fraught with normative significance.
Secondly: this normative significance is not mere recognition of the fact that this person has knowledge, but rather the normative significance constitutes this person’s knowledge. Whether someone is a knower depends on how adequately her or she can justify his or her beliefs. But justification is a social practice — it is something that we do. We argue, we explain, we ask for reasons, we compile and weigh evidence — and there are all social activities.
Thirdly: divine revelation is, conceptually, a private mental episode or experience. Whatever the mode of divine action, however the deity accomplishes whatever it is that He does, the effect is personal. There are no public criteria for this kind of private experience.
But now notice: since divine revelation is essentially a private experience, and since knowledge is essentially a public, normative status, then it is not possible for divine revelation to be necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The very most that one could say is that if God reveals something to you, it is possible for Him to produce in you a psychological state of unshakeable conviction. That is not and cannot be the same as knowledge, because it is a sheer category mistake to conflate a psychological state (e.g. conviction) with an epistemic status (i..e. knowledge).
More like Atheists know God exists but they don’t think he is worthy of worship for one reason or another
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:
Every rebel has his own reason to deny that God is worthy of worship
Walto agrees that God exists (as truth) but doesn’t think he is a person so does not think he is worthy of worship
Alan agrees that God exists (as a human invention) but does not think he is worthy of worship
You apparently agree that God exists but think he is a fictional character like Harry Potter so determine he is unworthy of worship
etc etc etc
Really the only common denominator among non-Christians is they don’t think that my God is worthy of worship.
On the flip side thinking that the God of Scripture is worthy of worship is in fact what makes you a Christian.
That is the great dividing line of humanity. You are on one side I’m on the other
There is no bridging that gap save the Grace of God.
peace
He is temporarily on ignore because I have a hard time assuming he is positing in good faith when he claims to follow Rumracketism . I don’t want to violate any of the rules of this site.
Sometimes it takes a little time to work out all the implications of a newly adopted faith and I want to allow him that time.
All he has to do is post a summery of the beliefs that he now embraces.
I trust the folks here to let me know when he does that.
peace
Of course that is the case.
Yahweh has been around since before the universe began. 5,000 years is not that long of time for him.
peace
They know God exists because he has made himself known to them. God is not dependent on some human to make is existence known.
peace
lets be clear,
In this very thread you stated that you think it’s possible for two contradictory statements to be both be true in the same sense at the same time.
So when you say
“I think that’s quite badly wrong”
What you actually mean is
“I think that’s exactly right”
correct?
peace
FMM, I’m trying to help you here. Preface with “I’m convinced” or “I think” or “I believe”. Otherwise you deserve all the flak. This is an extension of Noyau. You’ll reap what you sow.
I do not claim that divine revelation is “necessary and sufficient for knowledge” only that it’s sufficient for knowledge and In this very thread you agreed that it was.
no take backs 😉
peace
really????
How many persons does it take to change “private” to “public”?
Would four do it?
Of course you know a Triune God plus me make four
peace
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Isn’t you presupposition that it is also necessary?
I’ll make a deal with you
I will preface “You know God exists” with “I think” just as soon as you preface “I don’t know God exists” with “I think”
I fully expect “the flack”.
It’s part of the job description and tells me I’m on the right track in these matters.
quote:
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(Mat 5:11-12)
end quote:
peace
fifth:
You missed PopoHummel’s point, which was that you yet again revealed that “I have keiths on Ignore” was just a pretense.
You’re lying — and failing — for Jesus. I’m sure he’s proud.
fifthmonarchyman,
Well, if you’re looking for martyrdom, your computer screen won’t deliver.
nope that is just an assumption.
I’ll abandon it just as soon as someone offers a sufficient justification for knowledge that does not involve God.
peace
And God is Truth therefore the Bible is the truth and you own copy of the Bible, you assume you have the truth.
What is the difference between a presupposition and an assumption?
I’m not looking for martyrdom.
Just a little conversation with folks I would not normally speak to.
In order for that to happen apparently folks on your side of the fence need to relax a little bit and not take themselves so seriously
peace
fifth:
Dude, will you ever learn that the word is “summary”, not “summery”?
And no, you don’t need a summary of Rumraketism. Rumraketism is true. You know that, and so does everyone else on the planet.
You’re just a rebel who claims otherwise.
peas
I already did. I’ll do it again. I think, believe and it is my firm opinion that all so-called gods are purely human inventions. I can’t be absolutely certain, of course.
Now you…
I would say a presupposition is something you must accept in order to reason or argue, like an axiom in mathematics.
An assumption on the other hand is just something you tentatively accept as true without proof.
peace
fifth,
Scientologists will tell you much the same thing. It’s a convenient and dishonest way to dismiss all criticism.
That is of course not at all relevant to this discussion.
I don’t really care if you think God is a human invention or an egg plant,
You know he exists.
Now if you will grant that you only think you don’t know God exists then we can talk about how I should reciprocate.
peace
fifth, to Alan:
A triple peace! That’s the second one in a week.
I think this is the fifthmonarchyman equivalent of Captain Queeg’s ball bearings.
I agree, and one common reason among atheists for not worshipping god is that they know god is a fictional character.
There are so many dividing lines, it’s hard to tell which one is the greatest. And sometimes it just doesn’t matter: my brother is an atheist, while his wife is a Christian… your great dividing line is irrelevant for them.
God is Truth. God is not the Bible.
peace
Alan,
What’s the point? It’s a given that when you state something emphatically, and you aren’t lying or being ironic, that you believe what you’re saying and think that it’s true.
We don’t preface every statement we make with “I think” or “I believe”. You’re asking fifth to jump through the wrong hoop.
There is that word “know” again. How do you know that?
IOW how do you know stuff given your worldview?
It seems like there are lots of lines but they all boil down to the one thing.
You don’t think God is worthy of worship and Christians know he is
peace
fifth:
You are a vile heretic. Only Rumraket is worthy of worship, and you know that.
peas
Thanks though it seems a presupposition is a type of assumption.
Ok, so when you said
you were referring to the fact, that you can’t read anything he writes, since you have him on ignore.
And btw.: time’s up.
Who exactly is going to let you know!? You can remove him from the ignore list and see for yourself.
None, that I can see. Have you any insight? One thing I might suggest for those interested in deconversions is it might be worth having an alternative. What’s FMM going to do if he abrogates his beliefs? I suspect his church is the focus of his community. In the US, away from the relatively sophisticated coastal strips, where is he going to find social support, companionship. It’s a big leap in the dark. Why not stay safe with your local in-group?. Not my business. Live and let live.
Exactly, completely, and rather astonishingly false.
I only pointed out that the law of noncontradiction should not be taken as a universal, binding, and absolute truth — because there are contexts in which it does not work. That’s quite compatible with holding that there are contexts in which it does work — such when trying to do first-order work in epistemology.
Alan,
How about answering the actual question?
keiths,
You’re well behind on that score. I’ve lost count. Night everyone! 🙂
But since it is impossible for you to know whether your experience of divine revelation is a real experience or a schizophrenic delusion, it hardly counts.
Whatever. And if they boil down more there will be no dividing line.
Alan,
The goal isn’t to deconvert fifth. If it were, I would have given up long ago.
As I said earlier, you just don’t get what The Skeptical Zone is about. It’s alien territory to you.
I suppose. It’s a assumption that is necessary rather than optional.
peace
I asked you all to let me know when he posts a list of his new beliefs. I trust you will do so.
Are you kidding me it has not been a week yet. It usually takes years to work through the implications of such a radical change.
I’d hope you would.
But anyone who is reading his posts could certainly do so.
peace
when you say that what you actually mean is
“Exactly, completely, and rather astonishingly true”
correct?
And how exactly do you know this is not one of those contexts?
Didn’t you already grant that it was possible for God to reveal something to me so that I could know it?
Are you now saying that it’s impossible for an omnipotent God to reveal to me that I’m not having a schizophrenic delusion?
Remember if it’s possible at all God can do it.
Do you really mean to now claim that it’s impossible for anyone including you to know that they are not having a schizophrenic delusion?
Or are you just saying that the law of noncontradiction did not hold when you were writing that post?
Peace
Of course it’s compatible with that.
Since contradictory statements can be true at the same time and in the same sense in your view
Anything is compatible with absolutely anything whatsoever.
peace
Nope we humans can’t get past that one.
It’s about your ultimate and core value. What you desire more than anything else in the world even more than life itself
Nothing whatsoever can trump it……except the grace of God
peace
fifth:
Right, because that is the (poor) excuse you’re using for not responding to my arguments and refutations. It’s an impressive sight — the brave Christian warrior, with the power of Jesus on his side, running away from an atheist pretending to defend a fake religion. How does it feel to be defeated by Rumraketism, fifth?
Why not share this URL with the folks at your Bible study? I bet they’d get a kick out of seeing their pompous classmate having his ass handed to him by a bunch of atheists.
fifth:
Fool! You are worshiping a false god. Turn to Rumraket and beg his forgiveness!
peas
Apparently it is just too hard for your garden variety atheist to live and let live when it comes to what people think about God.
Thank God for the first amendment.
You can see why Evangelicals like me are so hesitant to vote for folks who they think might appoint judges who are not apt to defend the constitution as it was written.
If progressives ever want to get much of the Evangelical vote I suggest they work on policing the folks in their ranks when it comes to this sort of things we see from the atheists at places like this site.
peace