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.
Of course its not, it doesn’t include the important part- lucky accidents.
Depends who says them Fifth.
It becomes that when the person you think is mistaken corrects you and you repeat the, now, lie.
Only if they are false.
Out of interest, what is the proportion of “lucky accidents” to “accidents”?
But you also have no proof of Noah’s flood but you think that happened?
Surely you don’t want to hear this pseudo-atheist proclaim self-deceiving lies to you, do you?
More to the point of this OP: Do I understand correctly that you agree with FMM that everyone knows that God exists?
When I read the statement that you referred to, I made a note to look more carefully at it when I had finished reading the thread. I did find it troubling.
But then you have started extensive discussion on it. If I were to guano that one post, I would also have to guano the entire discussion of it. And I think that would be too disruptive of the thread.
If you want to complain about a post, do that in the moderation thread rather than in the thread where that post appears.
I know for a fact that FMM’s ridiculous God doesn’t exist, because truth is not a personal being, has no causal powers and it makes no fucking sense to claim that anything is truth other than truth itself. Not like I’m interested in discussing this any further, I have better things to do, like dipping my balls in sulfuric acid
Rumraket, Joe and the rest of proud atheists who are actually denailists!
Please don’t forget to explain the many chicken-and-egg riddles, such as:
Enzymes are required to produce ATP but ATP is needed to produce enzymes. DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Proteins can be made only by a cell, but the cell membrane can be made only with proteins… and many more of the likes….
Paradoxes like that expose you true identity: atheists vs denialists
I take that to mean that you embrace presuppositional bullshitologetics.
To be technical, the assertion that there are no atheists is a violation of the rule against calling other posters liars.
If you revert to defining people as theists, you are simply creating an idiosyncratic dictionary. There’s nothing worth discussing.
I’m not a denialist, so I guess this is not really directed at me. I haven’t seen Rum or Joe (Felsenstein?) being denialists either. Seems like you’re a tad confused.
I’d truly like to know why you think that unanswered questions mean something other than there being unanswered questions. What do you think that the lack of an answer would mean? Is this a poor attempt at making a gods-of-the-gaps argument? If a god-of-the-gaps argument is all it takes for you, then you might not be very good at reasoning. To me an open question is just that, an open question. An open question is not an indication that magical beings exist.
Enzymes are catalysts. Catalysts change the rate of reactions. Thus, they’re not “required” for those reactions to occur. They’re only “required” to change the rates at which those reactions occur. That means that there’s no paradoxes here. There’s only a crude display of your ignorance. I insist though, suppose there was some “paradox” here. That would make it an open question. So what?
I think they expose your ignorance more than anything else.
Atheism is not about having all the answers J. Atheism is about not buying into the fantasies called gods. Atheism is not about having all the answers. Atheism just requires the realization that attributing actions to magical beings when confronted with open questions is mere fantasy.
Oh look, more arguments from ignorance.
Heh.
KING HENRY VBut, Kate, dost thou
understand thus much English, canst thou love me?
KATHARINE
I cannot tell.
KING HENRY V
Can any of your neighbours tell, Kate? I'll ask
them.
Only Kate can know whether she loves Harry. Holding a belief that gods don’t exist, rightly or wrongly, makes one an atheist; just like believing in unicorns makes one a
unicornist, er,unicornian, um,monocerophilist, a believer in unicorns.But what if you think they’re all pzombies?
Mapping from one complex function (e.g. weather) to another complex function or continuum (e.g. personality of a god) may provide a rudimentary framework for understanding. You watch the moods of the sky as you watch the moods of your spouse, with wonder and a certain uncertainty.
Oceans of chemistry for millions of years vs. a kilogram or so of grey matter for a few decades. Hmm …
Seems to me your position is the same as an agnostic with the exception you have faith God exists.
FWIW, I think a good case could be (and surely has been) made for the claim that the presuppositionalist thesis (particularly in its hard-wired version) degrades the concept of truth, and thus, by their lights, God itself. I don’t want to get into it (too gnarly–for me, anyhow), but the point is that even if we are, as I think is quite plausible, all unable to throw off our presuppositions, nothing follows about what really exists or is really true.
In a word, every ontological argument is fallacious, and getting outside of “presupposition world” requires one to work. The literature on Plantinga is good here.
Anyhow, this airless isthmus of theist lit has been discussed here previously countless times, and anybody who thinks it will get farther this time is invited buy an old piano from me.* I suppose there might be a concern that if Lurker hasn’t seen any of the fifty threads on this issue before, there might some interest in not letting FMM get away with or trick him into something icky. But (a) that’s not going to happen, and (b) one could just link one of the past thousand-comment threads if one hasn’t got anything new to say. I recommend that our TSZ archivist (keiths) provide him a dozen links so everyone can go back to sleep without worry.
*When I say there’ll be nothing new here, of course I mean except for J-Mac’s posts. Since nearly everything he ever says is new–in the sense of cuckoo in some brand-spanking wackadoodle fashion–if one wants the new stuff, I recommend simply ignoring everybody but him. All the rest is sooooo yesterday–including my own post right here!
walto,
Not sure why you would say that. Presuppositionalism is a Calvinist thing, not an Arminian one, and Calvinists are fine with the idea that God wholly determines what a person believes, whether through hard-wiring or some other deterministic means.
That’s another thing you’re wrong about. I was a Lutheran until my mid-20s. Leaving the church was difficult, for family and social reasons. I definitely remember becoming an atheist.
No. I am asking you to abide by the site rules and accept that I am posting honestly and in good faith. That I am not ignorant, stupid, or delusional. If doing so conflicts with your interpretation of your scripture, then you need to park your priors by the door and follow the rules.
I am asking you to follow the rules of this silly internet forum. What you believe to be the word of a god is immaterial.
I am not self-deceived and even if I were the rules do not allow you to make that accusation.
For the purposes of this discussion, the site rules require you to accept that I do not believe in any god because I’ve told you, repeatedly, that I do not believe in any god.
Then why are you participating on a site that requires it in the rules?
You are not allowed to call me a liar, ignorant, stupid, or delusional. That means you must, for the sake of discussion here, accept that I am, in fact, an atheist and that your claim that “Everyone knows God exists.” is thereby refuted. Believe what you want, but participation here requires you to accept that for the purposes of this discussion. Again, park your priors by the door.
No, I am annoyed that you find it impossible to follow the rules even to the extent of rudely telling me what I believe after I have stated the exact opposite.
Thank you. This is exactly my position, stated very clearly.
Yes we do
Maybe life is in such abundance because the primordial conditions changed, it is generally thought there was no free O2 in the early atmosphere. Everything that depends on free oxygen could not survive in such an atmosphere.
Perhaps, do you consider this evidence against design?
The rules don’t allow you to accuse others of dishonesty, stupidity, ignorance, or delusion. You must accept, here at least, that I am honestly, in good faith, and accurately reporting my view when I say that I do not believe in any god.
Following the rules should be simple. You don’t seem able to manage it. Please start.
Thank you. I don’t see why this is such a difficult concept for fifthmonarchyman to grasp.
I do that
That is not part of the rules as far as I know.
If we disagree on anything whatsoever then one of us is ignorant, stupid, or delusional ( I would say mistaken)
I’m quite sure that you think I am ignorant, stupid, or delusional/mistaken when it comes your lack of knowledge of God.
Not only do I think you are mistaken as to your knowledge of God I think you are mistaken as to what the rules require.
I assure you that If I thought that I had to assume that you did not know God existed in order to abide by the rules I
would not post here.
I just quickly checked the rules again and I find no such stipulation against calling you ignorant or delusional (I would say mistaken).
Am I allowed to say you are mistaken as to what the rules stipulate or is this a violation of the rules in your opinion?
peace
Being a Lutheran does not make you one of Gods people.
It just makes you a Lutheran.
I wonder how much scripture you read when you were a Lutheran.
quote:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
(1Jn 2:19)
end quote:
peace
Excellent example of cutting to the chase. Certainly more efficient than my asking him to explain what he means.
I don’t kink shame.
In order to “correct me” he would have to demonstrate that the Romans chapter one is not God’s word.
I wish him luck on that front 😉
peace
Thank you. Another person who recognizes this simple truth.
I apologize if this is well-trodden ground. As I’ve mentioned, the experience of being told I don’t exist is novel for me. I don’t like it. It’s rude.
I don’t really expect to convince fifthmonarchyman that he is wrong, but perhaps this will encourage him to follow the rules.
quote:
and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
(Joh 8:32)
end quote:
peace
This is quite precisely the problem: presuppositonalism is incompatible with the rules of a forum committed to promoting rational discourse.
This is because TSZ was founded as a neutral space where people of differing worldviews could meet in a spirit of fellowship in order to discuss their similarities and differences to find common ground where possible, and to agree to disagree where common ground could not be found.
(Needless to say, TSZ has been an utter failure, for rather interesting reasons that I think are based partly on the limits of a web-based forum and partly due to deficiencies in the ideal of John Stuart Mill which inspired it.)
Yet despite the manifest failure of TSZ, we soldier on, and try as best we can to prompt each other to be more critical of our assumptions than we might otherwise be.
The problem with presuppositionalism is that it begins with the assumption that no such neutral meeting-ground between worldviews is possible. The entire position is deeply opposed to the ideals that inspired TSZ. And this is why FMM’s entire position makes him unable to follow the rules of TSZ.
This isn’t our first rodeo. FMM has been asked many times to do so. He refuses because conforming to the rules of TSZ is psychologically impossible for him. He couldn’t do that without abandoning his entire identity. And yet he insists on coming here anyway, and the site rules do not permit him to be banned, and so around and around we go, again and again.
I think you need to lighten up life is to short to let what other people think cause you distress.
If you don’t want to be reminded that you know God exists I suggest putting me on ignore.
peace
Indeed, good idea. I suggest we all do that.
now that would be an interesting OP.
I would be very interested to see an argument as to how neutrality is possible.
A Christian can not deny the truth of God’s word with out ceasing to be a Christian. That should be obvious.
peace
If the moderators let me know that I must believe that others don’t know God exists in order to abide by the rules I will leave in a heartbeat.
They just have to tell me.
I come here because I enjoy science and because I’m interested in what folks with different worldviews think.
I especially enjoy my own cherished beliefs being challenged.
That is why I find it so difficult to understand why folks would get upset about the mere possibility that they are wrong about what they think they know.
It strikes me as highly snowflakey
peace
No, you do not. You are asserting that I do not know what I believe. I am telling you that I do. By the site rules you must accept that.
From the Rules page:
“Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.
This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.”
I misremembered demented as delusional. Nonetheless, by accusing me of being self-deceived you are saying that I am either dishonest in reporting my (lack of) belief, that I am too stupid to recognize what I really believe, or that I am ignorant of what I really believe. None of those are allowed by the rules. You must, for the purposes of discussion here, accept that I do not believe in any god.
That’s simply not the case. One of us could be making a logic error or be unaware of some data. In this case it is you who lacks the data of what I believe. I am fixing that lack by telling you, honestly, in good faith, and without deception to myself or anyone else, that I do not believe in any god.
I think that you are rude and not abiding by the site rules. You’re also wrong. Notice how I didn’t break the rules by stating that?
Now that I’ve shown you, you have a decision to make.
Atheists exit!
Christians who were former atheists have said before they converted, they did not believe God existed. Also actions speak louder than words, they lived their lives like atheists.
Hence, unless one wants to call these Christians liars, then they were atheists at one time, and by way of extension there may be atheists today who might become Christians just like them. Ergo, it is reasonable to say atheists exist.
Do you think self deception is possible in otherwise healthy intelligent individuals ?
Did you read the article I posted?
I’ve asked this question several times and you have not answered. Why is that?
from the article
“What’s so interesting is that we seem to intuitively understand that if we can get ourselves to believe something first, we’ll be more effective at getting others to believe it,” says William von Hippel, a psychologist at The University of Queensland, who co-authored the study. “So we process information in a biased fashion, we convince ourselves, and we convince others. The beauty is, those are the steps Trivers outlined—and they all lined up in one study.”
and
On the defensive side, he says, whenever anyone tries to convince you of something, think about what might be motivating that person. Even if he is not lying to you, he may be deceiving both you and himself.
end quote:
peace
No one is saying that you have to believe anything. The rules say that, for the sake of the discussion here (arguendo, if you prefer Latin), when someone tells you what they believe or don’t believe, you must accept it. If you need help parking those priors, I’ll be happy to get out the road crew flags.
Time to break out the popcorn! Two theists enter, one theist leaves.
Because those questions are immaterial to this issue. Even if someone is self-deceived, the rules do not allow another person to assert that. That’s built in to assuming good faith and the other rules I quoted for you.
Please stop being rude and start following the rules.
I will tell you that I believe that you know God exists
Now accept that that is what I believe and move on
peace
No one is saying anything about what folks believe
Rather me (and the Apostle Paul) are speaking about what people know.
I like you Sal but I will not deny God’s word even for you.
peace
Seems to me if you can’t prove that it is God’s Word then it is not evidence only an assertion.
So in order to follow the rules in your opinion I must act as if I believe something I don’t.
Isn’t that lying?
peace
Do you know it?
I never claimed it was evidence for anyone who rejects God’s word.
And God’s word is self-authenticating
check it out
http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-god-s-word-recovering-the-doctrine-of-a-self-authenticating-scripture
peace
I could be mistaken if that is what you mean.
I know it only if in fact it’s true he does know God exists.
peace
Entropy,
The target in this case is the solution to the problem. If evolution does not know the solution to the problem then this program does not simulate evolution.
As far as putting lipstick on this pig, I credit you with on of the best applications 🙂
Good points Sal!
Wiki:
…atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Rejection, position that deities exist…
Denial is next synonymous word to rejection…
Dawkins, the world best know “atheist”admits he is technically an agnostic…
Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html