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

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
LemonJello, I want your live thoughts not knee jerk standard answers; Google's does that. Here are a few comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

1) "God exists whether or not men may c ...[text shortened]... g to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim. [Do some men believe they're God?]

esoteric and inscrutable for my IQ

If you're too dense to understand what I wrote (that seems to be by your own admission, not mine), then so be it. That wouldn't justify your stating that only few could understand it, though. For instance, perhaps you're just particularly dense.

Opinion on the validity of the claim?

Have no opinion on it here. Even if the claim were true, I'm not sure what implications you think it would have that is of relevance here.

Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?

Didn't I already catch you lying about whether or not that acronym is in your vocabulary? Yes, I did. I can recall the thread for you, if you would like.

Do some men believe they're God?

Do you know what the propositional content of the claim is, or not? If so, what is it? Look, you're asking if he is wrong in stating it...so evaluating that requires understanding what the propositional content is in the first place. If, on the other hand as Bosse suggests (and I believe he is correct here), it is rather poetic or metaphorical etc; then I have no idea why you are asking if it is wrong. And I would have no opinion on that in context.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Here would be my first impressions.

[quote]1) "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 thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God." -Robert A. Laid ...[text shortened]... don't know what this one is trying to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim.

The first statement here is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence...
I agree.
I think Laidlaw's intentions were pure, but his discipline was lacking.
Kinda preacher-to-the-choir type of thing: this quote will resonate most with the folks already persuaded thusly, those who know what the code words mean.
Let me try to clean it up a bit.

"God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him."
I think he's pretty sound here, whether you choose to label it question-begging or not.
I disagree with your label, because he's not referring to the statement to prove the statement: he's making a statement about the statement. Perhaps a better way of stating it:
"God exists."
and then
"God's existence is not belief-dependent."

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 thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God."
Give this a swig:
"The main reason the majority of people who reject God's existence do so is more related to their rejection of His authority than it is a rejection of His actual existence."

This, in my opinion, removes the choice element from his original and yet remains true to his intent, i.e., he considers it a willful act on their part as it pertains to the self-evident authority which would come into play.

4) "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G. K. Chesterton

This claim is false. "WTF?" would be an appropriate response here.
Your exasperation aside, Chesterton is right on.
Man's default position is, was, always will be theistic in nature: it is part and parcel a chromosome without which he ceases to be man.
He simply has always held GodReveal Hidden Content as a thing.
Not a mechanism, not an allegory, but a real-agent-getting-shtuf-done thing.
There have been divisive issues in the history of man, wherein one side pits itself against any and all comersReveal Hidden Content and lines are drawn in the sand.
Yet each of the issues which come to mindReveal Hidden Content all have one thing in common: they are attached to tangibles, and the views held lead to actions with disparate results along those lines.
This is the one solo issue which is so fundamental and monumental as to require an actual serious-sounding label.
A label which borrows its existence from the issue it stands in defiance against!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The first statement here is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence...
I agree.
I think Laidlaw's intentions were pure, but his discipline was lacking.
Kinda preacher-to-the-choir type of thing: this quote will resonate most with the folks already persuaded thusly, those who know what the code words mean.
Let me try ...[text shortened]... unding label.
A label which borrows its existence from the issue it stands in defiance against![/b]

"God exists."
and then
"God's existence is not belief-dependent."

Of course, I do not agree with the former. And the latter is still just question-begging. Dialectically, it is no different than if one were to claim "God's non-existence is not belief-dependent." Both are question-begging in any discussion in which it is supposed to be an open question whether or not God exists in the first place.

I do agree that the fact of the matter concerning whether or not God exists (whether it be in the affirmative or negative) is belief independent. That is to say, I think it is an objective matter whether or not 'God' exists: there is an objective fact of the matter irrespective of what observers think about it. But, of course, just pointing that out does nothing to get at what the fact of the matter actually is.

"The main reason the majority of people who reject God's existence do so is more related to their rejection of His authority than it is a rejection of His actual existence."

As has already been pointed out by others in another current thread, "rejection of God" is a loaded phrase. It is simply generally not the case that atheists stand in rejection of God. That doesn't even make sense, since willful rejection of X on the part of S requires that S think X has some referent (against which S can then stand in rejection); whereas atheists do not think 'God' has a referent to begin with. So, there is already a lot of notional confusion here.

Beyond that, no, I don't agree with this assessment of the "main reason" why atheists lack belief in God. Again, this type of charge does not simply trivialize the atheistic position; it trivializes the theistic position too. After all, if belief in God is simply a matter of willful leanings, then no reason to think theists have any evidential leg to stand on either.

Much more plausible is the idea that, generally speaking, theists have one take on the available evidence and what it recommends, whereas atheists have another; and that belief or lack thereof follows in tow.

Your exasperation aside, Chesterton is right on.

No, Chesterton was smoking something that night, or maybe just drinking hard. And your commentary that follows is just bizarre because, even if you are right, it would have absolutely nothing to do with showing that Chesterton was right on that count. What you're talking about is merely the idea that humans have been largely disposed to theistic belief throughout their history and cross-culturally, etc, etc. Yours is simply an anthropological claim. Even if true, what exactly does that have to do with the claim that if there was no God there would be no atheists? Answer: absolutely nothing.

Anyway, unless Chesterton is completely retarded, he is claiming that the fact that atheists (or presumably any humans whatsoever) are here points strongly (or even of necessity) to a creator. That's false.

Originally posted by LemonJello

"God exists."
and then
"God's existence is not belief-dependent."

Of course, I do not agree with the former. And the latter is still just question-begging. Dialectically, it is no different than if one were to claim "God's non-existence is not belief-dependent." Both are question-begging in any discussion in which it is supposed to ...[text shortened]... humans whatsoever) are here points strongly (or even of necessity) to a creator. That's false.

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

After all, if belief in God is simply a matter of willful leanings, then no reason to think theists have any evidential leg to stand on either.
Yeah, I agree.
But this is where I think you err, no offense.
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.
Thus, the insertion in my re-phrasing of the rejection of authority.
Like language or laughter or the word 'huh,' belief in GodReveal Hidden Content is universal; no one requires teaching of His/its/their existence.
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.
The atheist does not discount this act: he has named himself in accord with his position on God.
There must be a reason for such commotion...

Even if true, what exactly does that have to do with the claim that if there was no God there would be no atheists? Answer: absolutely nothing.
You're either over- or under-thinking it.
How many groups are associated by their views on, say, the Easter Bunny?
Are there any groups which (beyond tongue-in-cheek) are aligned by their beliefs in the EB?
Conversely, any groups aligned in the negative?
According to the atheist, God doesn't exist so much, we will name ourselves based upon His non-existence!

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!

You are confusing the label with the thing.

"atheist" is a label.

The thing is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.

In a world where there are no gods, and (importantly) nobody believed in gods.
then there would be no need for the label "atheist".
And the people of that world would quite possibly have no single term for people
who lacked a belief in gods. Just as we have no term for people who lack a belief
in the Easter bunny.

However. The 'thing' the atheists themselves, WOULD exist.
In fact in this fictional world where nobody believed in gods EVERYONE would be
an atheist. They just probably wouldn't have the word atheist as a label for themselves
because there would be no point.


The use of the label atheist has in reality nothing to do with god or gods.

It has to do with the prominent existence of PEOPLE who BELIEVE that gods exists.
And a need/desire to differentiate between people who believe that gods exist and those
that don't.




Also, belief in god is not universal. I do not accept that as a premise and you have not
produced ANY supporting evidence for it.

From my own experience, I have never believed in gods, and have never felt the need or urge
to do so. And I know plenty of others who feel similarly.

That alone destroys any notion of universal belief in god.

Then of course there is the fact that there are, and have been, many radically different religions
with or without gods, which are taught to their followers. People are not automatically Muslim
or Christian or Hindu... they have to be taught those beliefs.

Your claim that everyone has an innate knowledge of and belief in your Christian god flies in
the face of all observed reality and is an extraordinary one in need of extraordinary evidence and
justification.
And until you provide such evidence and justification I for one am not buying it.

And consequently I will rightly consider any and all arguments you base on this assumption to be
automatically flawed in their premises and are thus invalid.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]According to the atheist, God doesn't exist so much, we will name ourselves based upon His non-existence!

I take issue with this!
The word 'atheist' was not made up by atheists to name themselves!
Who knows who first coined it?

Most atheists (all?) do not like the label because it generalises people who
have nothing in common except a lack of belief in a supernatural being.

It was because of this labelling that I changed my profile to "infidel'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Like language or laughter or the word 'huh,' belief in God is universal; no one requires teaching of His/its/their existence.

Did you really mean to write this?

Have you heard of missionaries?

Why did Jesus waste his time with those disciples?

Do you think babies have the idea of god sown in their heads?

Do you remember the first time you heard of god? Did you say
"Yeh ... I know about him already!"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How many groups are associated by their views on, say, the Easter Bunny?

I have to point out here that both you and I are members of the a-Easter Bunnyists. You may have not realised it till now, but the group exists and you are a member. The fact that you don't talk about your membership on internet forums is solely a result of the fact that there aren't too many people suggesting that the Easter Bunny is real - or when children do suggest it, you decide to humour them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out here that both you and I are members of the a-Easter Bunnyists. You may have not realised it till now, but the group exists and you are a member. The fact that you don't talk about your membership on internet forums is solely a result of the fact that there aren't too many people suggesting that the Easter Bunny is real - or when children do suggest it, you decide to humour them.

Ha!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Did you really mean to write this?

Have you heard of missionaries?

Why did Jesus waste his time with those disciples?

Do you think babies have the idea of god sown in their heads?

Do you remember the first time you heard of god? Did you say
"Yeh ... I know about him already!"

Have you heard of missionaries?
Without a single exception, 100% of all missionaries have reported how their target groups possessed basic material, i.e., they had god concepts.

A missionary is more concerned with converting their belief from one way of thinking to what the missionary regards as the correct way of thinking about God. They're never converting them from no-gods-at-all to hey-there's-a-god-and-this-is-what-it's-all-about.

Why did Jesus waste his time with those disciples?
I'm sure He thought the same thing from time to time, but He also knew that it would eventually take.
It did.

Do you think babies have the idea of god sown in their heads?
No.
I know they do.

Do you remember the first time you heard of god?
Actually, I do.
I was raised by hippie musicians who never utter the word God without a derivative of damn behind it, sometimes even with a middle name beginning with F.
Same thing for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: they dropped the title and either added that same middle name or kept it less formal.

My first concept of God was when I was eight years old, taking the trash out after dinner. Something twinkled in the night sky, so I took a few minutes and simply took in the panorama above my head. In considering the fact that the stars existed in a big universe and that I was able to contemplate that fact, I was struck by the notion that surely, someone/thing must be behind it all, must be responsible.
Wondered who that was...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Do you think babies have the idea of god sown in their heads?

No.
I know they do.

I didn't. Your hypothesis is thus refuted.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are confusing the label with the thing.

"atheist" is a label.

The thing is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.

In a world where there are no gods, and (importantly) nobody believed in gods.
then there would be no need for the label "atheist".
And the people of that world would quite possibly have no single term for people
who la ...[text shortened]... you base on this assumption to be
automatically flawed in their premises and are thus invalid.

You are confusing the label with the thing.
No such confusion exists.

The thing is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.
Wrong.
An atheist has made a conscious decision to reject the notion of God.
It's not like they're missing the belief chromosome.

In a world where there are no gods, and (importantly) nobody believed in gods. then there would be no need for the label "atheist".
Another day of good-doing for you, Captain Obvious.
This has been the point since the very beginning of the thread.
To wit, this is a world which from the beginning of man's existence, God has been an integral part of man's history.
The thread doesn't ask why that is the case; it asks why some would reject God... and then offers some anecdotal examples of some famous folks who offer their ideas.

Also, belief in god is not universal. I do not accept that as a premise and you have not produced ANY supporting evidence for it.
This is nearly cohesive with your stated perspective.
You differentiate yourself from the rest of the populationReveal Hidden Content as though a distinction is necessary, but then cast doubt as to the validity of the group from which you are separating yourself.
I'm not sure if you are coming or going.
Are you?

Your claim that everyone has an innate knowledge of and belief in your Christian god..
Never said that.
I did say that every civilization has--- without fail--- had some type of god concept, some type of supernatural power behind it all.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I didn't. Your hypothesis is thus refuted.

Sure you did.
You even went so far as to consciously adopt a label which boldly declares your rejection of any god notion.
You can't reject what you don't believe exists: you've made up your mind to reject that thing.
It's not like the Easter Bunny which is rejected, but not given another thought.
You (sorry, twhitehead) don't call yourself an a-EB; it simply doesn't warrant that much thought.
God does, for some reason.
You really should look at that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sure you did.
You even went so far as to consciously adopt a label which boldly declares your rejection of any god notion.
You can't reject what you don't believe exists: you've made up your mind to reject that thing.
It's not like the Easter Bunny which is rejected, but not given another thought.
You (sorry, twhitehead) don't call yourself an a-EB; it ...[text shortened]... doesn't warrant that much thought.
God does, for some reason.
You really should look at that.

Ok I'm now done.

You just entered the same category as Hinds for sheer stupidity.


You are refusing to listen to what anyone says and are putting your words and ideas in our
mouths and then arguing against that.

Come back to me when you are prepared to accept that I do not and have never believed
that any gods exist.

For you to sit there and claim that I actually do believe gods exist but then reject them is
both insulting and idiotic.

You have no clue what you are talking about or grasp of logic or reason.

And this conversation just went past boring and tiresome into pointless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You even went so far as to consciously adopt a label which boldly declares your rejection of any god notion.

No, it doesn't. It declares a lack of belief in any god notion, not a rejection of a god notion that is believe in.

You can't reject what you don't believe exists: you've made up your mind to reject that thing. It's not like the Easter Bunny which is rejected, but not given another thought.
So you do reject the Easter Bunny, therefore you believe the Easter Bunny exists. Interesting.

You (sorry, twhitehead) don't call yourself an a-EB; it simply doesn't warrant that much thought.
Whether it warrants thought or not, your argument if correct, implies that you believe the Easter bunny exists.

God does, for some reason.
You really should look at that.
We all know why God does (warrant much thought). Its because there are theists not only talking about it, but blowing themselves up about it. I wouldn't mind them blowing themselves up, its when the do it in crowded places that it gets to me.
However, outside this forum, I hardly ever mention that I am atheist, it simply doesn't come up that much. My Muslim friends/acquaintances know I am not Muslim and thats all thats relevant to them. My Christian friends/acquaintances would only mention it if they thought of inviting me to Church or something. I actually don't know what religion, if any, some of my friends are as it hasn't come up.