Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So, there is already a lot of notional confusion here.
What is more rife with notional confusion: the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God[hidden]which appears to be the case more often than not[/hidden], or the fact that the term atheist is so incredibly 'theist' dependent?!

After all, if belief in God is simply a matter of willful l ...[text shortened]... to the atheist, God doesn't exist so much, we will name ourselves based upon His non-existence!

What is more rife with notional confusion: the idea that atheists stand in rejection of GodReveal Hidden Content

which appears to be the case more often than not

, or the fact that the term atheist is so incredibly 'theist' dependent?!

Well, the string 'theist' shows up in the word 'atheist'; and there's an 'a' at the beginning because the two are basically diametric. Sounds simple to me: what's notionally confusing about any of that? On the other hand, the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused for the reasons I already gave. Do you have any actual substantive response to this?

The belief which is required for salvation and of a 'believer,' has literally zero to do with the ascension to a belief in something/someone.
It has everything to do with confidence in something/someone.

You're not actually addressing the point. To have confidence in X, one has to think that X has some referent to begin with. So, this all depends at bottom on some belief that 'God' has a referent. And rational justification for that belief is precisely what is undermined with the idea that belief (or lack thereof) in God is just some willy-nilly willful affair.

belief in GodReveal Hidden Content

supernatural powerful being

is universal; no one requires teaching of His/its/their existence.

Well, presumably, you do not think it is sufficient for belief in just any old 'god' conception for your salvation. So, this is clearly false, since your salvation is specific to a certain conception of 'God' that has been taught and passed down the ages.

You can doubt, deride or dismiss the causes and cures for such universality, but you simply cannot explain its existence, are therefore compelled to explain/understand it

Actually, there are several competing proposed explanations for this around the literature. Have you studied any of them?

At any rate, if you want to claim that atheists are somehow rebelling against their default nature by (somehow willfully) not believing in God, then okay (despite the rampant notional confusion in all this, as has been repeatedly explained to you already). But, the further question would still be whether or not this is justified. After all, if it's the case that theistic belief is not warranted, then shouldn't one rebel against some (supposedly) infixed disposition in him to form unjustified belief? This is an epistemic/normative question. So, if you continue to just feed me a load of your putative anthropological facts (humans have been disposed to believe this or that), then you will clearly be missing the point. I'm sure humans have been disposed to all sorts of things in their evolutionary past. If our ancestors were disposed to flinging their poo at one another, would you still encourage that too?

At the end of the day, to believe in God I need sufficient evidence that warrants such belief. If there's none, then I would take it as a compliment that you charge me with rebelling against some putatively infixed disposition to form such belief. After all, I don't want to be the sort of entity that is disposed to dubious beliefs. You can continue to fling your poo around; but I'll be content to sit on the sidelines.

According to the atheist, God doesn't exist so much, we will name ourselves based upon His non-existence!..

What on earth are you talking about? You're delusional if you think the average atheist goes around defining himself by his atheism. My atheism has virtually nothing to do with who I am. The term 'atheist' correctly applies to me. That's just based on the definition of the term. Beyond that, it tells you virtually nothing about me. I usually try to be careful not to read anything more into 'theist' as well. But of course, once a theist expounds on his position, it's all fair game....

Originally posted by LemonJello

What is more rife with notional confusion: the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God[hidden]which appears to be the case more often than not[/hidden], or the fact that the term atheist is so incredibly 'theist' dependent?!

Well, the string 'theist' shows up in the word 'atheist'; and there's an 'a' at the beginning because the two ...[text shortened]... 'theist' as well. But of course, once a theist expounds on his position, it's all fair game....

On the other hand, the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused for the reasons I already gave. Do you have any actual substantive response to this?
It is confusing because every other camp, every other group of people who signify their beliefs on a particular subject always do so in the positive.

There were flat-earthers and round-earthers: both had something to say about something they both were convinced exists, namely, the earth.

There are those who accept man's landing on the moon and those who deny... but they both had something to say about the evidence.

What group--- besides the sole atheists--- who's belief is upon something they insist doesn't exist? How does that even work?

To have confidence in X, one has to think that X has some referent to begin with. So, this all depends at bottom on some belief that 'God' has a referent.
I agree.
That is precisely why the existence of the atheist is so self-contradictory. It is the only significant group which bases its perspective on a seemingly non-existent thing. There are no groups formed around the concept of the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or what not.
The atheist considers the topic of such importance, they name their perspective using 'theist' as its root!

Well, presumably, you do not think it is sufficient for belief in just any old 'god' conception for your salvation. So, this is clearly false, since your salvation is specific to a certain conception of 'God' that has been taught and passed down the ages.
Not false in the least.
We're not discussing salvation in this instance.
I believe you are fully aware of this.

Actually, there are several competing proposed explanations for this around the literature. Have you studied any of them?
Of the ones I've read, none are satisfactory in the least.
Do you have one which you consider noteworthy?

I'm sure humans have been disposed to all sorts of things in their evolutionary past.
Now, you're just flat out confused.
What caused man to be disposed along the lines of anything, at any time?
Assuming you mean nature/evolution, you are now strapped to the notion that nature/evolution disposed man to conjure up a needless/harmful (according to the predominant atheistic view) non-entity for the purpose of... what, exactly?
That is more mess than anyone can clean up.

You're delusional if you think the average atheist goes around defining himself by his atheism.
Perhaps.
However, I have found that a man is known by his actions, words included.
Where/how a man spends his time; what he says tells me what he wants others to think regarding the things he considers important.
When a man spends his time, efforts and words constantly engaged in battles over the deniability-plausibility of concepts which are directly related to his stated position, I'd dare say his position is more than critical to him: it is part and parcel who he is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The thing (atheist) is a person who lacks a belief that gods exists.
Wrong.
An atheist has made a conscious decision to reject the notion of God.

Now you are just being silly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is confusing because every other camp, every other group of people who signify their beliefs on a particular subject always do so in the positive.

Anarchist, antidisestablishmentarianism, anti-abortion, I could go on, but it is obvious that you either didn't think before you posted, or you lied.

What group--- besides the sole atheists--- who's belief is upon something they insist doesn't exist? How does that even work?
Atheists do not have a 'belief upon something. Atheism isn't a religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Anarchist, antidisestablishmentarianism, anti-abortion, I could go on, but it is obvious that you either didn't think before you posted, or you lied.

[b]What group--- besides the sole atheists--- who's belief is upon something they insist doesn't exist? How does that even work?
Atheists do not have a 'belief upon something. Atheism isn't a religion.[/b]

Aaaack!

Come on, man!
You can do much better than this.

Anarchist, antidisestablishmentarianism, anti-abortion, I could go on, but it is obvious that you either didn't think before you posted, or you lied.

Anarchist: against all forms of establishment. They know establishment exists, and they are committed to overturning any semblance of it--- normally with violence.

Antidisestablishmentarianism: these cats simply want the church and the state to be much cozier than others.

Anti-abortion:
Mary: "What do you think about a woman's right to choose, Bob?"
Bob: "I believe such a right simply doesn't exist."

Atheists do not have a 'belief upon something. Atheism isn't a religion.
The hell they don't and the hell it ain't!
If you ask an atheist what they believe about God, they will triumphantly and defiantly declare their belief: "I believe such a thing as God simply doesn't exist."
That's a belief.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]On the other hand, the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused for the reasons I already gave. Do you have any actual substantive response to this?
It is confusing because every other camp, every other group of people who signify their beliefs on a particular subject always do so in the positive.

There were flat-eart ...[text shortened]... sition, I'd dare say his position is more than critical to him: it is part and parcel who he is.[/b]

It is confusing because every other camp, every other group of people who signify their beliefs on a particular subject always do so in the positive.

There were flat-earthers and round-earthers: both had something to say about something they both were convinced exists, namely, the earth.

There are those who accept man's landing on the moon and those who deny... but they both had something to say about the evidence.

What group--- besides the sole atheists--- who's belief is upon something they insist doesn't exist? How does that even work?

Sorry, but how does any of this constitute a substantive response to the charge that the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused? I'll go through it one more time. This time, please try to actually address it in some substance. My patience is starting to wear thin. Again, the reason why it is notionally confused is the following. For one to stand in willful rejection of X, it is requisite that that this person takes X to have a referent. Right? I mean, come on. This is a very, very basic point. If I don't think X has a referent, then I cannot presume to stand in rejection of X. The most you could claim is that I stand in some manner of rejection toward the idea that X is instantiated. But that would just be another way to say that I don't think X exists; and such would not be anything that implicates a willful stance (one of volition) because this type of belief is not a willful affair.

Ok, now your turn: please respond to this in actual substance this time; else, I'm done wasting time on this point....

That is precisely why the existence of the atheist is so self-contradictory.

Huh? What's the self-contradiction? Contradictions are of the form (P & not-P) where P is some proposition. So, what's the P here? Please explicitly state it for the education of all here. (Consider your bluff called.)

We're not discussing salvation in this instance.
I believe you are fully aware of this.

I am fully aware that YOU were the one who brought 'salvation' into our discussion. At least try to keep up, okay?

Of the ones I've read, none are satisfactory in the least.
Do you have one which you consider noteworthy?

Sorry, I am going to call your bluff again. You have not read any. If I am wrong here, go ahead and state which ones you read and the reasons why you found them lacking. You can PM me if you think it is off-topic here. And I will also gladly PM you some additional references that give competing explanations.

Now, you're just flat out confused.
What caused man to be disposed along the lines of anything, at any time?
Assuming you mean nature/evolution, you are now strapped to the notion that nature/evolution disposed man to conjure up a needless/harmful (according to the predominant atheistic view) non-entity for the purpose of... what, exactly?

This response of yours makes it clear to me that you were lying before when you implied that you have read some competing explanations in the scientific literature. I mean, come on, quit wasting my time.

When a man spends his time, efforts and words constantly engaged in battles over the deniability-plausibility of concepts which are directly related to his stated position, I'd dare say his position is more than critical to him: it is part and parcel who he is.

We were talking about "the average atheist". So you really think your characterization of the average atheist here is accurate? Do you even know any atheists outside of public forums that are designed to foster such battles? Good grief. Your caricatures of others who think differently from you are as silly as those of whodey. That's the worst insult I can think of at the moment.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]It is confusing because every other camp, every other group of people who signify their beliefs on a particular subject always do so in the positive.

There were flat-earthers and round-earthers: both had something to say about something they both were convinced exists, namely, the earth.

There are those who accept man's landing on the moon an ...[text shortened]... from you are as silly as those of whodey. That's the worst insult I can think of at the moment.

Sorry, but how does any of this constitute a substantive response to the charge that the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused?
For someone as bright as you seem to be, you can be quite dense some times-- no offense, of course.

I've given you example after example of groups of people aligned by what they believe on any given subject matter. Without exception, each and every group has taken a position either in the negative or in the positive toward the thing in question, with an assumption of the referent's existence.Reveal Hidden Content

You cannot--- nor can anyone else herein--- offer a single example of any group which takes their position without acknowledging the referent and other position... except atheism. It is the only group which claims to reject the notion of the referent while at the same time deciding against the referent's existence. It's beyond farce: it is absurd. If the atheist didn't consider God to have a referent...

why.
in.
the.
hell.
does the atheist name himself with the root of what he disbelieves in it?!? By using that name, he has already admitted the one thing he says has no referent actually has a referent!
In essence (according to the utterly illogical tripe you are offering), the atheist is saying:
<I consider a thing which has no referent to be non-existent.>
=What is that thing?=
<God>
=How did you consider Him?=
<Uhhh...>

My patience is starting to wear thin.
Then maybe you should start challenging your beliefs with greater integrity, and quit bolstering your self-assurance with what you perceive to be the weakness in another person's math.

I am fully aware that YOU were the one who brought 'salvation' into our discussion. At least try to keep up, okay?
I addressed salvation, but with the clarification that the belief we were speaking of had nothing to do with the same.
We were discussing the type of belief that demons have: they know God exists and such belief isn't effective for salvation.
Belief in God is very, very basic: every living creature who has attained self-consciousness/awareness has ascended to this point--- and made up their minds accordingly.
I can keep up just fine, thanks.

Sorry, I am going to call your bluff again. You have not read any. If I am wrong here, go ahead and state which ones you read and the reasons why you found them lacking.
It doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
You mentioned the topic, so back it up with any and all that came to your mind when you mentioned it.

This response of yours makes it clear to me that you were lying before when you implied that you have read some competing explanations in the scientific literature. I mean, come on, quit wasting my time.
Oh: so you actually have some sources which can (with a straight face) offer a suggestion or two as to why evolution would encourage man to create God?
I am your student.

So you really think your characterization of the average atheist here is accurate? Do you even know any atheists outside of public forums that are designed to foster such battles? Good grief.
Every single one of the atheists I know outside of internet websites all suffer from the same self-absorption witnessed here by the myriad folks who frequent this site; it seems only on the web are folks so emboldened to trot out the crap we see here. In face-to-face conversation, there is never the same cock-sure arrogance. On either side.

That's the worst insult I can think of at the moment.
I'm okay with it.
I'd level bbarr at you, but you know how much I like him so it wouldn't have the same punch.
And, quite frankly, I just don't have an inch of hate for you despite your hostility otherwise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Sorry, but how does any of this constitute a substantive response to the charge that the idea that atheists stand in rejection of God is notionally confused?
For someone as bright as you seem to be, you can be quite dense some times-- no offense, of course.

I've given you example after example of groups of people aligned by what they believe on ...[text shortened]...
And, quite frankly, I just don't have an inch of hate for you despite your hostility otherwise.[/b]

I've given you example after example of groups of people aligned by what they believe on any given subject matter....

Again, what does any of this have to do with whether or not it is notionally confused to state that atheists generally stand in willful rejection of God? The only thing in this whole spiel of yours that is relevant is the fact that you acknowledge that atheists do not think that 'God' has a referent. Well, if atheists do not think 'God' has a referent, then how can it be that they stand in willful rejection of God?!?

By using that name, he has already admitted the one thing he says has no referent actually has a referent!....In essence (according to the utterly illogical tripe you are offering), the atheist is saying:
<I consider a thing which has no referent to be non-existent.>
=What is that thing?=
<God>
=How did you consider Him?=
<Uhhh...>

Have you suffered a head accident recently?

You're so incredibly confused. Definitionally, a referent is the thing to which some term or phrase refers. So, don't presume to project your own confusion onto the atheist. This atheist would say that he does not believe that the term 'God' has a referent. Or a stronger position would be that he thinks the term 'God' has no referent. Another way of saying this is that he thinks the concept 'God' fails to be instantiated. Yet another way of saying this is that he thinks God does not exist. Please explain again to the audience how in stating that 'God' has no referent, he is actually admitting that 'God' has a referent. 🙄 I mean, are you listening to yourself? Good grief man.

Oh: so you actually have some sources which can (with a straight face) offer a suggestion or two as to why evolution would encourage man to create God?

Gee, I thought you had already read some such accounts and found them lacking. Now you are taken aback that any such accounts would be out there?

Yes of course there are sources that purport to offer competing proposed explanations in the literature for an evolutionary origin of religiosity and cross-cultural religious practices. You should already know this since you claim you have researched the topic to some extent. Some of the accounts purport to show that religiosity has adaptive value, whereas others claim that it is predominantly a spandrel or attendant by-product of something else that was selected for. Still others claim that religiosity has ties to another sort of replicator, the meme. Surely you know all this, having studied it and all....

Like I said, PM me if you want some references.

Every single one of the atheists I know outside of internet websites all suffer from the same self-absorption witnessed here by the myriad folks who frequent this site

Whatever you say....

Beyond that, you stated that "the existence of the atheist is so self-contradictory". I explicitly asked you for the P. State what it is and show the contradiction; or retract.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Aaaack!

Come on, man!
You can do much better than this.

Why would I try, you fully agreed with me that you were outright wrong.

The hell they don't and the hell it ain't!
If you ask an atheist what they believe about God, they will triumphantly and defiantly declare their belief: "I believe such a thing as God simply doesn't exist."
That's a belief.
I am an atheist, and I don't say that. Sorry, but you are wrong again.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

Yes. They got it wrong.

[quote]1) [i]"God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people
do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because
belief in God forces that thoughtfu ...[text shortened]... inking that you were a god.

So Goethe is wrong too.

So that's 5 for 5, all wrong.

Next?

"God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. ..."
Well that's wrong strait off the bat. A gods existence MAY be independent of whether or not people
believe that god exists, but to assert that "God exists" in the definitive is just plain wrong, and dishonest.

Jesus taught much that God exists and called God His Father.

Which was He - just plain wrong or dishonest or both ?

Originally posted by sonship

"God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. ..."
Well that's wrong strait off the bat. A gods existence MAY be independent of whether or not people
believe that god exists, but to assert that "God exists" in the definitive is just plain wrong, and dishonest.

Jesus taught much that God exists and called God His Father.

Which was He - just plain wrong or dishonest or both ?

Well I am not even convinced he even existed, so I am not sure that those two
options really contain all the possibilities.

Also, if he did exist, then the only record of what he was supposed to have said
and done was written by other people, and not only after he died, but sometimes
long after he had died.

This was an age where stories and myths blended with reality in peoples minds
and what they would consider to be true would likely not be the same thing
we would mean by that word.


Which means that what we have today, are the words of people who knew far
less about reality than we do, who lived at a time and in a culture where fact
and fiction merged into one another, and who had a goal and agenda in producing
this book. We have no independent evidence that many of the important events
occurred at all, let alone how they are described in this book. And many of them
violate known laws of physics, or contradict other independent sources.
We have no evidence that souls, the afterlife, or gods exist, and plenty that they don't.

And other than claimed 'personal experiences' that can be more than adequately
explained in non-supernatural terms... That is the sum total of evidence for the
existence of either god or the son of god.


That's reason to disbelieve that they existed, not reason to believe that they existed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Well I am not even convinced he even existed, so I am not sure that those two

Well I am not even convinced he even existed, so I am not sure that those two options really contain all the possibilities.

That is very vague and non-committal. Is it that you hope that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

This fog of a reaction does postpone indefinitely ever having to consider His words. You're not sure that the words were made up by someone else and put into the mouth of a possibly fictional person who never lived.

So it could be that a great liar or liars concocted a person of the highest level of morality as a hoax ?

Now your back up defense -

Also, if he did exist, then the only record of what he was supposed to have said and done was written by other people, and not only after he died, but sometimes long after he had died.

"Other people" is immediately suspect ?
"Other people" could never be trusted to give an accurate report ?

I wonder how many other ancient persons we would have to be skeptical of never having lived because we only have "other people's" account of them ?

I am limited on time this morning. But I can see your first line of defense and back up plan could well keep you non-committal for the rest of your life.

Oh, the Gospel of Mark is believed to have been penned within about 25 years of the death [and resurrection] of Jesus. This is little time for legends to formulate as contemporaries of Jesus earthly ministry would still be alive.

Legends need time for the contemporaries who could disprove fictional rumors to die off.

Originally posted by sonship
So it could be that a great liar or liars concocted a person of the highest level of morality as a hoax ?

It certainly could be, although that is hardly the only possible explanation. There is such a broad range of possibilities it would be hard to enumerate them all.

It would be interesting to know how you characterize the key people and writers central to other religions. What is your take on Mohammed?

"Other people" is immediately suspect ?
Yes, actually it is.

"Other people" could never be trusted to give an accurate report ?
Yes, 'other people' should never be trusted without reason.

I wonder how many other ancient persons we would have to be skeptical of never having lived because we only have "other people's" account of them ?
I am quite sure that you are skeptical of many ancient persons existence. If not, you should be.

But I can see your first line of defense and back up plan could well keep you non-committal for the rest of your life.
I for one am hardly non-committal with regards to some things. I am absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead and wasn't the son of God. I am however non-committal with regards to the question of whether Jesus existed or the accuracy of much of the gospels. I simply don't care that much, nor do I think it is possible to determine anyway.

Oh, the Gospel of Mark is believed to have been penned within about 25 years of the death [and resurrection] of Jesus. This is little time for legends to formulate as contemporaries of Jesus earthly ministry would still be alive.
In my experience it take less than a year to create legends.

Legends need time for the contemporaries who could disprove fictional rumors to die off.
Not true in the slightest. There are plenty of contemporary legends about events for which there are still living witnesses - and we have far better communication nowadays. Back then if the 'witness' lived in the next village, you would be none the wiser.

If you simply took what you have said and substitute some other historical account you would realize just how ridiculous you sound. The problem is that you need to be able to convince yourself that you have justification for your beliefs even though you know perfectly well that the justification came after the belief.

Originally posted by sonship

Well I am not even convinced he even existed, so I am not sure that those two options really contain all the possibilities.

That is very vague and non-committal. Is it that you hope that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

This fog of a reaction does postpone indefinitely ever having to consider His words. You're not sure that ...[text shortened]... e.

Legends need time for the contemporaries who could disprove fictional rumors to die off.

I am not non-committal.

I was simply answering the specific question you asked me.

I am more than happy to pass judgement on what is attributed to JC in the bible.

But that's not what you asked me.


I am completely clear that the there has never been a person who was the son of
god, largely on the grounds that there is no god for a person to be the son of.

It's possible however that there was a person called JC who existed around that
time upon which this myth is based.

However I feel it's more likely that the entire thing is a complete fabrication
and that such a person didn't in fact exist.

However this is based on the views of experts in the area I trust (and who's
methods and arguments are suitably rigorous), as this is not my area of expertise.
And even then, what they are saying is that it's more probable that JC is entirely
mythical rather than historical. Not that it's impossible that there was a historical JC.


I don't know if JC existed, and suspect he probably didn't.
We don't have his actual words, we have other people, sometimes long afterwards
who have written down what they claim he said (and their accounts are sometimes
contradictory).
And these people all lived in a time where it was common and normal to blur the lines
between fact and fiction.
And they had an agenda, they wee an oppressed minority under Roman rule, and this was
among other things a propaganda piece.

Given all that, it's hard to attribute motive to a person who may or may not have existed.
And also it's not clear to me that it makes much sense to judge his words [if he did exist,
and did say them] in modern day terms when trying to answer the question of whether
he was lying. Because the modern day concept might not be really applicable.



All in all my answer is that it's pointless arguing the point, because it doesn't matter.

The bible is poor evidence as a history, and even worse as evidence for the supernatural.

So before I am going to start caring what the bible says on the topic, you are going to
have to convince me that your god exists, that there is an afterlife, and that JC existed
and was the son of god, AND that the bible is a divinely inspired account of the same.

And you're going to have to do it without relying on the bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It certainly could be, although that is hardly the only possible explanation. There is such a broad range of possibilities it would be hard to enumerate them all.

It would be interesting to know how you characterize the key people and writers central to other religions. What is your take on Mohammed?

[b]"Other people" is immediately suspect ?
...[text shortened]... r your beliefs even though you know perfectly well that the justification came after the belief.[/b]

It should also be pointed out that the version of the messiah that is in the bible
is only one of the possible anticipated messiahs before that time.

And of the possible expected messiahs, the version we got was the only one you
could make up.

Because a messiah that actually physically beat back the Romans and literally freed
the Jews couldn't be made up because everyone would know it hadn't actually happened.

Whereas a messiah that saves your souls for the next life, and lives a pretty quiet
and unnoticed life (no contemporary writers mention JC, they only mention followers of
JC AFTER his supposed life) would be perfectly possible to make up and be believed.