Atheism does not exist

[Enai de a lukal]

Here's the most frightening question I asked one of the JTB champions: If 95% of the people say that there is NO cat on the mat, with 4% abstaining, but you plainly see a cat on the mat, then is it true or false that the cat is on the mat?

"Frightening"... Heh heh... You're a jokester.

If that many people say they don't see what you believe you clearly see, this probably calls for more investigation; can you touch the cat? Does it meow? Do the other people know each other, perhaps do they have any reason to try to fool you or "pull one over you", as it were? Have you taken any drugs recently? etc. etc.

We all try to figure out what the truth is or what the facts are everyday. We do so by examining evidence. Ambiguous_Guy quickly surfed over to www.NBA.com after my last past to determine whether it was true that Martha Stewart won the 2013 NBA MVP award (i.e to see what the fact of the matter was). I'm about to mapquest the place I'm going to later this evening to see if I remember how to get there correctly (i.e. the see what the fact of the matter is).

We could come up with any number of trivial examples to illustrate how truth is a property of linguistic items, namely those which describe facts, which we ascertain by examining the evidence.

You can see why such a question is frightening, especially to those who cling to the belief that they can know the truth in some absolute sense.

You're the only one talkin about truth in any absolute sense.

You do understand what a strawman is yes? If not, this is an example.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"He transcends"? How exactly can something ever transcend if transcendence precludes the possibility of existing?

Exactly.

EDIT:
Perhaps this example will help you understand my objection, since your comparison with a sided circle showed that you didn't get it the first time around.

I understand your objection. It is obsolete, and inapplicable. Obviously there is no non-existent object named God which has this property of transcendence- you're right, that would be nonsensical and contradictory. But that's a strawman. What I'm saying is that there is no object which could instantiate or exemplify the concept of the Christian God, because this concept cannot, by definition, be instantiated. A transcendent entity would have to be a non-existent entity, which is contradictory, therefore there are no such things. Do you follow?
(go look at the link I posted, Stanford is an excellent online resource, all the articles are written by academics, and its completely free)

 

[Willamena]

Are you saying truth is relative?

Sure, okay. Truth is relative, objective, absolute and subjective, depending on context. Truth informs the whole world; when you turn 'true' into the proposition "truth," each of those, in its proper context, can take its turn shaping truth.

Relativity is true, objectivity is true, absoluteness is true and subjectivity is true--the value 'true' brought each of these perspectives into the world, and then by being true, they are given the power to influence the world, including the chunk that is "truth."

If you hold "truth" to be a proposition. It's frequently done, but not necessary.

 

[Willamena]

And how do we know whether the cat is on the couch?

You could try looking at the couch.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You could try looking at the couch.

That sounds familiar...

And how do we know whether the cat is on the couch? Via mystical intuition? We know the cat is on the cat by looking at the couch

And looking at the couch would be an example of... drum roll please... Yep, you guessed it! Examining the evidence!

Hurray!!!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Truth is relative

The opposite of what you just said is the case.

And this-

Truth is relative, objective, absolute and subjective, depending on context.

Is just nonsense. Word-salad.

 

[Willamena]

That sounds familiar...



And looking at the couch would be an example of... drum roll please... Yep, you guessed it! Examining the evidence!

Hurray!!!

I wasn't arguing against that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you using the phrase "he requires" as weasel language? If he has sufficient evidence to this particular belief- performing miracles, etc. whatever that would have to constitute here- then it doesn't matter what other people happen to think.

Great. So he knows that he is Jesus, since it is a justified and true belief.

But you seemed skeptical earlier, almost as if you were willing to deny that he is Jesus incarnate.

By the way, Jesus did no miracles, and our incarnation of Jesus is sophisticated enough to realize that. But if it were required, he could easily turn water to wine -- as easily as Jesus did it.

It's ironic what you said above, since judging by your limited participation on this thread, you may well have had some slight acquaintence with academia, enough to perhaps have been impressed by "the argument from hallucination" or some such in an introduction to philosophy class, and now you come here eager to show what you've learned...

Sure, man. I'm probably just out of philosophy class. Whatever makes you feel right.

Unfortunately, such vague general skepticism about truth and facts is- as I've said- competely disingenuous, and obviously false;

Oh, I do so love the Argument from Obviousness. I hope (and expect) that you'll be using it a lot around here.

in fact it is just self-contradictory and nonsensical... You probably should've stayed in school a bit longer. (on the other hand, refusing to read educational materials on subjects with which you're unfamiliar probably doesn't lend itself to an easy experience in school...)

When you settle down a bit and are ready to answer my questions, give a shout.

I am here when you are ready.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

(go look at the link I posted, Stanford is an excellent online resource, all the articles are written by academics, and its completely free)

Free is too expensive. If the articles are written by academics, they should pay us to read.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not sure what isn't working for you, so stop me if I'm off base. "The world" to each of us is the sum of a cache of information stored in memory. We are each a unique repository of the world, and propositions are chunks of that.

For the person for whom "god" is real, in whatever way they have realized it, they have realized a 'true' chunk of the world. For the person for whom "no god" is real, in whatever way they have realized it, they have realized a 'true' chunk of the world, even if it is only the negation, "Your chunk is false." That's not to say each has realized the same thing, or realized it in the same way.

Does that answer your question?

Yes it does, thanks. I thought that's where you were headed. Or, I guess, where you were and whether that's where I had to meet you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes it does, thanks. I thought that's where you were headed. Or, I guess, where you were and whether that's where I had to meet you.

Of course, such a view is mostly nonsensical. If there is a person "to whom God is real", then God must be real to everyone- otherwise the first person is simply mistaken. There is no such thing as "true for me" as opposed to "true for you". Truth is subject-invariant, otherwise it cannot be truth.

And the doctrine of relativisism or subjectivity is patently false and self-refuting anyways; regardless of what person A happens to believe, "Martha Stewart won the 2013 NBA MVP award" is false. It is not "real for me" or "true for me", if I happen to believe it; I'm simply mistaken.

Similarly with the existence of God; if the question of God's existence is cognitive and meaningful at all, then excluded middle applies; either "God exists" is true, or it is not. Can't be true for one person and false for another- of course, one person may believe it is true while another may believe it is false, but one of them must be mistaken, or else God's existence is not any intelligible matter of fact. One or the other.

And RE transcendence, a conceptual analysis shows that a properly transcendent god is, by definition, a non-being, and thus could not exist. Thus, any theistic religions or theologies- including the vast majority of Christian, Islamic, Bahai, Jewish, and Sikhist conceptions of deity- which presuppose this as the sine qua non of god, are incoherent and thus false.

Even in Christian theologies which ascribe immanence to God, transcendence is the still the primary and independent variable; i.e. operative prior to the creation of the world which God is immanent in. Pantheism and polytheism often do not have transcendent gods, and thus this conceptual critique is inapplicable to them. But the existence of the gods of polytheism conflicts with most everything that is rigorously known about nature and human mythology via the sciences and history, and accounts for absolutely no unique set of data.

Virtually every god-concept fails either the conceptual test, or the evidence test. Thus, theism is false and intellectually untenable.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Great. So he knows that he is Jesus, since it is a justified and true belief.

If he knows he is Jesus, this means he has a justified true belief that he is Jesus. If he has a justified true belief that he is Jesus, he knows he is Jesus.

But you seemed skeptical earlier, almost as if you were willing to deny that he is Jesus incarnate.

No, I was and am skeptical than such a case would ever obtain- but hypothetically speaking, if said person has sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that he is Jesus, this belief would be justified, and if it is true, then this belief would constitute knowledge.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

By the way, Jesus did no miracles,

Really? That'd be news to... well, everyone, especially the author of the Gospel of Mark (according to whom Christ did little else).

if it were required, he could easily turn water to wine -- as easily as Jesus did it.

Open mouth, insert foot. Christ performed no miracles, but he turned water into wine? What exactly do you understand by the word "miracle"?

Oh, I do so love the Argument from Obviousness. I hope (and expect) that you'll be using it a lot around here.

Well, when you're arguing against something that is patently true, something which you yourself believe, or at least behave as if you believe, you're going to have an uphill battle.

Such as the position that there are no truths or facts. Obviously you can recognize (despite your avoidance) the difference between "Lebron James won the 2013 NBA MVP" and "Martha Stewart won the 2013 NBA MVP" (the former is true, and describes a fact, whereas the latter does not), and an uncountable number of comparable facts/truths. So how can you claim there are no facts or truths, when you distinguish and acknowledge truths and facts everyday?

(not to mention that this, as I said already, completely self-refuting since, if "there are no truths" is not true, or if it is not a fact that there are no facts, your position is necessarily wrong, but if "there are no truths" is true, you have refuted yourself. You're screwed either way.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, I was and am skeptical than such a case would ever obtain- but hypothetically speaking, if said person has sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that he is Jesus, this belief would be justified, and if it is true, then this belief would constitute knowledge.

Great. So he has knowledge that he is Jesus (re)incarnate. Since it is a true and justfied belief.

I wish everyone were as broad-minded as you are. They've actually locked this guy away, simply for knowing he is Jesus. What a world.

Really? That'd be news to... well, everyone, especially the author of the Gospel of Mark (according to whom Christ did little else).

Yeah, Mark liked to exaggerate. You shouldn't believe everything you read in books, even if they've got 'gospel' stamped on the front.

As for it being news to everyone (that Jesus didn't actually do miracles), you might want to look into the current state of biblical scholarship.

(not to mention that this, as I said already, completely self-refuting since, if "there are no truths" is not true, or if it is not a fact that there are no facts, your position is necessarily wrong, but if "there are no truths" is true, you have refuted yourself. You're screwed either way.)

When you are ready to answer my direct questions, I will teach you many things about language and logic.

As I said earlier, it is passingly easy to shout out one's truth. Anyone can do it. Generally, the most brutish thinkers tend to be the loudest preachers.

But it takes an actual hero to face hard questions.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

When you are ready to answer my direct questions, I will teach you many things about language and logic.

Not sure why you're keeping up this farce, I've answered all of your questions, as is publicly documented on this thread, so this rehashed rhetoric about "tell me when you're ready to answer my questions" is all smoke and no fire. If you have any additional questions, or better yet something resembling, you know, an argument, or line of reasoning supporting the conclusions you've vaguely hinted at, then let's hear it. So far you've offered nothing except proclamations of your debate prowess and the unanswerable questions you are able to pose, but no demonstration of said prowess or mention of said questions.

I'd say it's time to put up or shut up.

Otherwise all your noise on this thread just looks like a guy in desperate need of an ego-stroke and/or a hug.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course, such a view is mostly nonsensical. If there is a person "to whom God is real", then God must be real to everyone- otherwise the first person is simply mistaken. There is no such thing as "true for me" as opposed to "true for you". Truth is subject-invariant, otherwise it cannot be truth.

Unless, of course, the truth is that truth is relative.

 

[idav]

Unless, of course, the truth is that truth is relative.

For that to be true we'd have to be able to show two conflicting claims both being true. I don't think that's possible but maybe someone has an example.

 

[Falvlun]

For that to be true we'd have to be able to show two conflicting claims both being true. I don't think that's possible but maybe someone has an example.

Person A considers a particular piece of art to be good. Person B considers a particular piece of art to be bad. Both statements are true to the people in question.

As for the belief in god, maybe the act of believing does essentially create a godlike entity in their life.

I don't know how such a view would account for things like a disagreement as to the number of steps up to my apartment.

Putting my Willa thinking cap on, one might say that someone who believes that truth is invariant would of course see a world in which truths were invariant. A person who believes that the truth is relative would experience a world in which truth was relative.

She can probably explain it better. I don't fully believe it myself, though I do think there is an aspect of truth (hahaha) in the concept.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unless, of course, the truth is that truth is relative.

But that's an awfully hard pill to swallow.

What has startled me of late is the emergence of what i call 'fundie atheists' onto the debate scene. People who seem to fear the vagary of truth every bit as much as their Abrahamic forebears feared it. Some deny God not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of obvious fact. Some can't accept that we humans only have moral opinions, preferring to believe in an objective morality, as easy to see as the sum of 2+2. (But with conclusions mostly opposite of their God-following forebears.)

I think that the Abrahamic tradition is fading in the West. And because the Abrahamics are not as cool anymore, the truth-needers are freer to go with not-God rather than with God.

Just my hypothesis of the moment. Feel free to test it.

 

[idav]

Person A considers a particular piece of art to be good. Person B considers a particular piece of art to be bad. Both statements are true to the people in question.

As for the belief in god, maybe the act of believing does essentially create a godlike entity in their life.

I don't know how such a view would account for things like a disagreement as to the number of steps up to my apartment.

Putting my Willa thinking cap on, one might say that someone who believes that truth is invariant would of course see a world in which truths were invariant. A person who believes that the truth is relative would experience a world in which truth was relative.

She can probably explain it better. I don't fully believe it myself, though I do think there is an aspect of truth (hahaha) in the concept.

That first example seem like something that is a matter of opinion than knowledge.

I think truth is objective and the thread about it has us at 50 50 on the poll which is kinda rare for polls around here that are normally pretty one sided.

So there must be something half of everyone is seeing but I believe it is an attempt to say that truth doesn't really exist therefore it is always relative. The definition of truth is that it absolute and objective. If we can't possibly grasp truth, like I may have mentioned to Willamena, why do we even use the word. Saying truth is relative is like saying objectivity is relative which is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Unless, of course, the truth is that truth is relative.

Which would be self-defeating; if "truth is relative" is true, then it is only relatively true, which means that for some people, truth is absolute.

Total nonsense. If something is "true for me", this doesn't mean, as it would imply, that it is literally true, albeit only in "my world" or something; subjective truth or "true for me" just means that someone wants it to be true, regards it as true (even if it should be false), not that it is true.

Objective truth is not everything, but it is the only sort of truth there is.