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.
William:
Because to William, there’s no difference between a) taking the rules of logic to be binding and b) presupposing that one’s God exists.
Presuppose anything you want. It’s all good.
And you can trust William on this. He knows all about logic, critical thinking, and fetus-stealing “greys”. He’s a rock-solid thinker.
I asked you provide the evidence that convinced you the most that life originated on its own… Please quote where you answered that or just admit you don’t want to answer that…
Don’t accuse me of not being able to read if you don’t want to answer a simple question because you don’t have one piece of evidence to support your preconceived views…
J-Mac, to Rumraket:
I, for one, believe that you can read, J-Mac. It’s comprehension… and writing… and the suppression… of… verbal tics… that you… have difficulty with… lol
About a population from some tale. It’s not even saying that everybody believes in the fantasy being, it’s talking about some particular people who rejected the imaginary being, so the fantasy being made them do all kinds of things. The specifications in the things that imaginary being made those people do mean that the fairy tale doesn’t refer to everybody, but to that particular people. It seems to be warning the listeners that such thing might happen if they rejected Paul’s “news.”
There’s two problems here. One is that, commonly, debates are not really about reason. They’re about convincing, or about appearing to have the upper hand. Have you watched presidential debates? They’re not about reason. They’re about emotions, about making the other side look evil or ridiculous, etc.
The second problem is that people are supposed to learn logic in middle and high school. No conversation aiming at understanding could ever take place if we had to re-teach these things every single time.
They’re not “binding” to everyone. They’re required if people want to learn something from an exchange. That’s it.
Woa! Have you seen the tests in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on truth? Check it out and then tell me if that would be productive. We end up talking about the meaning of truth only when idiots like the presuppositionalists come and make a mess. But for normal people wanting to learn something, this should not be necessary.
When people want to have an honest conversation, there’s no need to re-teach the most obvious things. Presuppositional bullshitologetics aims at destruction, messiness, rhetoric, not understanding. They don’t care one bit about honest conversation, and they deform concepts so much that they become meaningless. All for the glory of their fantasies (I know it’s absurd, glory via deception and bullshit, but, apparently, they don’t). Trying to teach them logic, the meaning of concepts, or the equivocations and absurdities in their positions is futile. They could not care less.
The number of things that do not exist is limited only by the number of different names we can use to delimit them. And it’s clearly impossible to disillusion anyone who sincerely thinks such a name actually refers to anything.
As for “gods”, I suppose I’m with A Lurker in having no use for that hypothesis. “Gods” can be fully modeled as “I don’t know but I can’t admit it.”
I could answer this, but before doing so, why do you ask? What would happen if we didn’t have an answer to this question? Would you try and read my answer for comprehension? Do you really care?
No actually you asked me to bring evidence that gods don’t exist. Which I then explained is not how this works.
Another basic fallacy. This time a false dichotomy.
The problem with your question is it is ill-stated. What does “on it’s own” mean?
I don’t see any good evidence to think god created life. So the existence of life can’t by itself be a good reason for me to believe that a god exists.
I don’t know how life originated, but until it is demonstrated god created it, then life’s existence can’t be evidence for god.
I’m not required to know everything in order to find the fallacious argument from ignorance regarding the origin of life to be an unpersuasive reason for belief in god.
Because you failed to get any of the several points I raised in my response.
You’re not asking simple questions, you’re asking incoherent and loaded questions. And out of interest, what are these “preconceived views” you think I hold? How did you establish that I hold these views?
I sometimes read FMM posts, but I always try to stop just before reading the very last word. It just gets so annoying.
Rumraket,
Per wiki
Here you go again. There is not an argument here you are just beginning with your conclusion.
It is testing if you know the target you can incrementally find it by trial and error. Since evolutionary theory states the target is unknown this does not demonstrate it.
I agree. So the challenge is to find the line of demarkation between the logical fallacies of scientists pushing their world view and real testable scientific hypotheses.
And the only rational reason for acting the way would be the existence of God? Maybe it is visa versa, God was created by man to justify acting a certain way. Isn’t that what you do?
As I recall that study had less than 20 subjects, maybe we should not extrapolate to all atheists with such a small sample.
No, he asked you EXACTLY what he asked you:
What’s the point of even using words with you Rumraket, when you deny everything, even when its right in front of your face.
I can’t believe anyone would have patience discussing things with you.
You are the prime example of how silly this forum has become. NO words mean anything to you.
This is what all of you skeptics do. “I didn’t say that. Prove that’s what I said. So what if I did? I didn’t say “A”, I said “The”…, Well, that’s not what you said, when you said what you said, and you meant to say what you said, that you didn’t say, and who said I didn’t say that, even when you said I said I didn’t say…”
Worse than arguing with a toddler. I am now proclaiming this line of argument as the Rum Defense. He doesn’t has sole copyright for using it, but he just utilizes it the most. Omagain, Allan, and keiths are also keen advocates of this line of rhetoric.
So, just provide the bad one then…
Allan Fox few months back told me:
” There is no evidence for abiogenesis (that life originated on its own), so what?” I have a feeling you feel the same… You just don’t want to be as frank and as direct as Al…
As Master Skywalker would say, “Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.”
This part of J-Macs comment does not *quite* support your argument. You meant to quote the next line, I think:
So there were actually two questions, it seems.
phoodoo,
Thanks phoodoo!
Rum and the rest of champs you mentioned are not atheists… They are denialists…
The worst part of being a pseudo-atheist or a denialist is the you actually lie to yourself… The scary part is that it could be a result of the known phenomenon observed by Joseph Goebbles:
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”
Since you seem to understand both questions, why don’t answer them or help Rum to answer them?
J-Tard going full blown calvinist there. amusing
Was is dazz?
dazz is ass…
No actually I am ending with my conclusion. What came before it was the reasons theistic religions often times qualify as fairytales, they have the qualities of fairytales.
Yes. So it is testing the efficacy of cumulative selection. It isn’t modeling all aspects of biological evolution.
Evolutionary theory isn’t synonymous with cumulative selection. Cumulative selection is an aspect of evolutionary theory, but it is not the whole thing. The weasel is not claimed to be a test of all of evolutionary theory.
Come on Bill, evolutionary theory doesn’t say that the target is unknown. The solution to the problem is unknown, but the target is set by the environment: “make it here.” There’s a reason Darwin’s proposal was called natural selection.
The WEASEL demonstrates that random “mutations” can get to something if selection is in place. Same has been done to find solutions to problems where reasoned solutions are too hard to attain.
Well I answered the question now that I saw it. I didn’t spot it the first time.
Spare me your manufactured outrage.
Given how often you receive such replies, I think you should take that as an indication that you are very likely failing to comprehend what people write to you.
There’s nothing wrong with admitting that you didn’t understand something the first time you read it, or that you failed to spot something someone pointed out. But you don’t do that, instead when people point out to you that you missed or misunderstood something you’re much more likely to throw a hissy fit like you are here, and accuse the people with whom you argue of some sort of dishonesty or diversion.
Is it possible it really is you who is having a reading comprehension issue? I mean if you argue with four or five different people, and all of them tell you that you constantly fail to understand what they write, maybe there’s somthing to it. I suggest you spend some time thinking about that. 🙂
if those are actually Allan Fox’s words, he is mistaken. There actually is evidence for abiogenesis (not unassailable proof, but evidence nonetheless) of the hypothesis that life originated from non-living materials by a process of physics and chemistry. The evidence is that the inferred amino acid frequencies in the phylogenetically inferred ancestors of the oldest known proteins, increasingly correlate with the distribution of amino acids produced in abiotic chemical reactions, and predicted to result from them by thermodynamics, as we go futher back in time. As one would expect if life originated by a blind, unguided physical and chemical process whereby the first proteins were synthesized by polymerization of the sorts of amino acids that existed and therefore were the only ones available in the prebiotic environment.
Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. [PMID: 12270892]
Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code. Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90. [DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280]
Trifonov EN. Consensus temporal order of amino acids and evolution of the triplet code. Gene. 2000 Dec 30;261(1):139-51. [PMID: 11164045]
This is evidence for a physical/chemical origin of life from non-life, and evidence against intelligent design, because this is the kind of evidence you would rationally predict if life originated by a chemical and physical process from non-life. But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted . For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2018. Yet that is not what we see. As we go further and further back in time, the proportion of amino acids used in proteins increasingly mirrors the kind of distribution of amino acids detected meteorites, space, and various non-biological chemical reactions. This distribution is also predicted by thermodynamics to result from non-biological, unguided chemistry.
So now you will never again have to take anyone’s word for it when they claim there is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is simply factually incorrect to make that claim.
I already answered them. Here let me copy-and-paste the answer:
“The problem with your question is it is ill-stated. What does “on it’s own” mean?
I don’t see any good evidence to think god created life. So the existence of life can’t by itself be a good reason for me to believe that a god exists.
I don’t know how life originated, but until it is demonstrated god created it, then life’s existence can’t be evidence for god.
I’m not required to know everything in order to find the fallacious argument from ignorance regarding the origin of life to be an unpersuasive reason for belief in god.” – Me answering you.
Now let me return the question to you: Where is your evidence that a divine magic being can do/did create any life, anywhere, ever?
I don’t think he “became an atheist” I think he like all of us were born in rebellion. The only hope for any of us is God’s grace
quote:
as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Rom 3:10-18)
end quote:
peace
All,
As this conversation progresses I want to make clear what Alurker is asking me to do.
He is asking me to deny that scripture is true.
He is asking me to take the word of a fallible human like myself that I have never met over what I take to be the very word of God just to participate in a silly internet forum.
He is not willing to even entertain the possibility that he could be acting in good faith but at the same time self-deceived in this matter.
He wants me to treat not just his motives but his judgement in this matter is to be beyond question
He demands that I accept for some reason that not only is he posting in good faith but that he couldn’t possibly be mistaken as to the content of his knowledge when it comes to God.
I am sorry but I just can’t do that.
It’s not like I’m going around calling him a liar or anything.
I only told him what I believe about this mater in response to a direct question from him but apparently he is offended by the mere fact that someone quietly might think he is mistaken when it comes to what he knows about God.
peace
I would also disagree with that assertion
I would say everyone knows God exists.
I make no claims to know what folks believe.
peace
if a presupposition has support it’s not a presupposition it’s a conclusion.
The fact is we all assume things like the universality of logic and the existence of the world outside our own minds.
The difference is that the Christian can justify the these sorts of assumptions by appealing to a faithful God who loves us.
As far as I know other folks simply don’t have any justification for expecting any of these unsupported assumptions to be true.
as for circular reasoning, I suggest you hone up on the difference between virtuous and vicious circles. let me know if I can be of help here.
Here is an example of viciously circular reasoning
I know my reasoning is valid because….. I checked the validity of my reasoning using my reasoning therefore…….I know my reasoning is valid
peace
Well then you must be an expert 😉
peace
Newton said:
So many presuppositions involved in that question. You’re going to give KN a headache.
Entropy said:
That wins the irony award.
fifth:
Please spare us the faux piety. You’re not worried about scripture; you’re worried about saving face. You’ll say whatever you think is necessary to prop up your ego, scripture be damned.
When it’s convenient to say that atheists exist, you say so:
When it’s convenient to deny their existence, you say that instead:
When it’s convenient to quote Romans, you do so:
When it’s convenient to quote the Psalms, I’m sure you’ll do that instead:
Atheists exist; atheists don’t exist.
It has nothing to do with truth, or consistency, or a respect for scripture. It’s all about what’s good for fifthmonarchyman’s ego, right now. It’s about what he can pick up and deploy at this moment in order to save face, then casually discard later when it is no longer of use to him.
Where did he say that atheists exist ??
PopoHummel:
All over the place, actually. But that specific quote came from here.
Are statements like this violations of the rules?
peace
Get that?
I said if by atheist we mean someone who claims that God does not exist then certainly atheists exist.
on the other hand if by atheist we mean someone who does not know God exists then atheists don’t exist
no contradiction no dishonesty only a completely different context and a completely different definition for the word “atheist”.
peace
fifth,
They certainly shouldn’t be. As I pointed out here, it’s bad for TSZ when the rules punish the honest and reward the dishonest.
Psalms does not contradict Romans.
One is about what a person says the other is about what a person knows
Do you see the difference?
Romans even has a possible allusion to Psalms
quote:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:22)
end quote:
peace
My question was not about what you or I think should be the case it was about what is actually the case.
peace
Don’t recall saying that nor does a quick site Search find it. Perhaps J-mac can provide a link. Though I am unaware of any direct evidence for favouring a particular hypothesis. I have come back to RNA World as a precursor to DNA and proteins as the best current hypothesis.
Rumraket,
And I don’t buy religious explanations at all. Nor do I think Sherlock Holmes fallacies are worth considering.
Utterly predictable.
Fifth’s statements contradict each other, so what does he do? He pretends that he was using a different definition of ‘atheist’ in each case. Sure, fifth.
It contradicts you.
Let’s see you twist yourself into a pretzel explaining how someone who “says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” isn’t an atheist.
LOL
Are you still with out a clue?
peace
are statements like this violations of the rules?
peace
Go ahead, fifth. Twist away.
Look, it’s pretty simple:
Either you
(1) know that god exists
or you
(2) don’t know that god exists
ALurker would claim that (1) does not fit him, therefore (2) must necessarily be the case, which is in conflict with your statement that “everyone knows that god exists”.
😉
Keiths ——-see my previous comment.
everyone else—– see the truth of Romans 1:22 and Psalms 14:1 demonstrated LOL
peace
Right, I simply believe that Alurker is mistaken in this one instance. Mistaken is not the same thing as dishonest or “not posting in good faith”
Simple isn’t it.
peace
What do you believe is he mistaken about?
Hm, is someone who claims that “God does not exist” mistaken?
Come on, fifth. Don’t disappoint us.
You have some twisting to do. Tell us how, under the bizarre rules of FifthLogic™, someone who “says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” doesn’t disbelieve in God.
When that bit of twisting is finished, I have some more for you to do.