Do Atheists Exist?

Posted on by

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.

1,409 thoughts on “Do Atheists Exist?”

  1. If atheists didn’t exist, even in the denialist form, whom would the creationists be debating against? Agnostics? Boring….

  2. KN,

    1. I don’t think it’s productive to ask whether the senses are (or or are not) veridical. I’m inclined to think that veridicality or truthfulness is a property of assertions, and those come late on the scene in both evolutionary and developmental terms.

    We’ve had this discussion before:

    KN,

    Personally, I think that it is deeply mistaken to ask, “are the senses veridical?” First, because it is never clear what “the senses” means here; second, because “veridical” is the wrong kind of concept to use in talking about perception.

    To the contrary, it’s exactly the right kind of concept to use. Check out definition #2 from Merriam-Webster and note the usage example (plus its source):

    Definition of veridical

    1
    : truthful, veracious

    2
    : not illusory : genuine <it is assumed that … perception is veridical — George Lakoff>

    [emphasis added]

    And:

    KN,

    On this point, we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not think that empirical knowledge generally, or scientific knowledge in particular, requires that our perceptual systems be “veridical” (and I’m still not sure if by “veridical” you mean “incapable of error” or “incapable of detecting error”).

    Neither, and we’ve been over this. I am not demanding perfect sensory veridicality as a basis for knowledge, and the definition I’m using is the one I already gave you, shared by George Lakoff:

    2
    : not illusory : genuine <it is assumed that … perception is veridical — George Lakoff>
    [emphasis added]

    To use walto’s preferred bovine example, if I perceive a cow in front of me, and there really is a cow in front of me, then my perception is veridical in this instance (ignoring the perceptual equivalent of Gettier counterexamples, which are handled by the ‘not illusory’ part of the definition anyway).

  4. keiths: I see a characteristic forked flash across the valley, and conclude that it’s lightning. My thought is true, but the truth did not come from society.

    I never suggested that truth comes from society in such a ridiculously simplistic manner.

  5. keiths: The intentional stance is not the same thing as folk psychology.

    So keiths puts words in my mouth that I never said. And then he declares me wrong.

    My reply — the one that keiths is criticizing — was a reply to fifth. And fifth is quite capable of understanding my intended point, even if keiths isn’t.

  6. Neil:

    I never suggested that truth comes from society in such a ridiculously simplistic manner.

    Then tell us what you actually meant when you wrote

    I see truth as coming from society, and social practices.

    It’s called “discussion”, Neil.

  7. Neil,

    So keiths puts words in my mouth that I never said. And then he declares me wrong.

    Good grief, Neil. Look at the exchange:

    fifth:

    I’m sure you are aware of  Daniel Dennett’s three stances.

    What do you make of them?

    Neil:

    I am underwhelmed. But let me give some background.

    I first heard of folk psychology, at around age 50. It was a casual remark, I think by Jerry Fodor (I don’t remember which book or article). I didn’t pay much attention. But then, further reading in philosophy suggested that philosophers do take it seriously.

    If I had made it to age 50 without ever coming across folk psychology, then it is going to be hard to persuade me that we are innately driven to have such a theory.

    When someone asks you a question about Dennett’s stances, and you respond with an extended answer talking about nothing but folk psychology, it’s obvious that you are confusing the two.

    Why are you at TSZ if you’re going to curl up into the fetal position every time someone points out a mistake you’ve made?

  10. keiths:
    Calm down, dude.

    I’m calmed dude.

    keiths:
    Plantinga’s argument doesn’t depend on absolutist, binary “true/false bullshit”.

    Of course it does dude.

    keiths:
    If you want to refute Plantinga’s argument, you need to show that such “better cognitive faculties” can be relied upon to produce true beliefs, including true beliefs about naturalism and evolution.

    Holy crap! See what you did, dude? You first declare that Plantinga’s bullshit doesn’t depend on absolutist, binary “true/false bullshit.” Then you tell me that I have to demonstrate what? Let’s see that again:

    keiths:
    … that such “better cognitive faculties” can be relied upon to produce true beliefs …

    You bought so deeply into the absolutist true/false dichotomy that you can’t help yourself, and then you don’t even notice! Oh, but it’s not about that, right?

    keiths:
    Plantinga argument is based on the reliability (or lack thereof) of our heritable cognitive faculties.

    Not really. It’s based on planting the true/false dichotomy in your mind, and then using that dichotomy to lead you to doubt that evolution might lead to reliable cognitive faculties. Based on what? An implicit definition for reliability based on true/false dichotomies, and then some mysterious random generator of “true/false” beliefs that associates, also randomly, those “true/false” beliefs to “right/wrong” behaviours (both of which, beliefs and behaviours, are hereditary). All binary bullshit. Who cares about how nature works, or how cognition starts coming into play in the first place, or how cognition actually works.

    Nah. Let’s imagine beings pretty much like us, but let’s not mention that they only think in dichotomies. Well. Not really. They genetically inherit thoughts that come shaped in dichotomies. They genetically inherit beliefs and behaviours. That’s a given, and we don’t really want those evil atheists to notice any of those hidden assumptions.

    keiths:
    Wouldn’t it make more sense to understand Plantinga’s argument first, and then attempt to refute it?

    I’ve done that. I understood and I refuted quite well. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to understand what’s going on all too well, despite many attempts at helping you out.

    As always, you didn’t go beyond my first sentence. I doubt you’ll reach this point.

    ETA: P.S. Well. Apologies. You went beyond my first sentence. Unfortunately, you browse quickly, and shallowly. So you might reach the last sentence, but I doubt that you’ll learn anything.

  11. Neil,

    It’s HERE — in the last two sentences.

    Here are those two sentences:

    We make decisions on what is true by applying standards. But those standards, themselves, are human pragmatic conventions.

    That doesn’t help you. Take my example again:

    That’s silly. I see a characteristic forked flash across the valley, and conclude that it’s lightning. My thought is true, but the truth did not come from society.

    If I verbalize my thought, I might say “That was lightning.” And the convention of using the word “lightning” to refer to the forked flash does, of course, come from the society of English speakers.

    But I needn’t verbalize the thought, either out loud or silently. My belief about the forked flash across the valley is still true, even if I don’t.

    Or think of the feral child you mentioned earlier, who has no word at all for lightning. Would you seriously argue that such a child cannot have a true belief about what the forked flash across the valley is, or what it indicates?

    The truth comes from nature, via our perception of the forked flash, not from society.

  12. Entropy,

    Plantinga’s argument doesn’t rely on a rigid true/false dichotomy. Truth comes in degrees, particularly when when we are talking about complex beliefs.

  13. Neil Rickert: I first heard of folk psychology, at around age 50. It was a casual remark, I think by Jerry Fodor (I don’t remember which book or article). I didn’t pay much attention. But then, further reading in philosophy suggested that philosophers do take it seriously.

    If I had made it to age 50 without ever coming across folk psychology, then it is going to be hard to persuade me that we are innately driven to have such a theory.

     

    Fwiw, that’s a complete non sequitur. It’s like saying that because people hadn’t heard about the unconscious until Freud or the circulation of the blood until Harvey, that neither could have been operative before that.

  14. walto: Fwiw, that’s a complete non sequitur.

    Hey Walto,

    What do you make of Dennett’s three stances?

    peace

  15. walto: Fwiw, that’s a complete non sequitur. It’s like saying that because people hadn’t heard about the unconscious until Freud or the circulation of the blood until Harvey, that neither could have been operative before that.

    Check the context. Fifth was interested in the question of whether we have an innate drive to formulate some sort of theory of mind for other people, animals, etc. His question about Dennett on the intentional stance was asked in that context.

  17. Neil, to walto:

    Check the context. Fifth was interested in the question of whether we have an innate drive to formulate some sort of theory of mind for other people, animals, etc. His question about Dennett on the intentional stance was asked in that context.

    That doesn’t help you. Your statement is still a non-sequitur:

    If I had made it to age 50 without ever coming across folk psychology, then it is going to be hard to persuade me that we are innately driven to have such a theory.

    Whether you were aware of the idea before age 50 is irrelevant to whether the idea is correct.

    And again, folk psychology is not the same thing as the intentional stance.

  18. keiths: But I needn’t verbalize the thought, either out loud or silently. My belief about the forked flash across the valley is still true, even if I don’t.

    It isn’t at all obvious to what you are applying “true”. However, since this is a purely subjective true, it is not even clear that it means anything other than that you agree with yourself. For an objective “true” there had to be something that other observers could, in principle, check. And if nothing is even silently verbalized, then that does not seem possible.

    Or think of the feral child you mentioned earlier, who has no word at all for lightning. Would you seriously argue that such a child cannot have a true belief about what the forked flash across the valley is, or what it indicates?

    I don’t doubt that you could ascribe a belief to that feral child, and then ascribe a truth value to that ascribed belief. But you would be ascribing a belief in words from your language, and you would be judging whether true on the basis of the standards from your society for using those words.

    The feral child probably doesn’t have a concept of “true”.

  19. keiths:

    But I needn’t verbalize the thought, either out loud or silently. My belief about the forked flash across the valley is still true, even if I don’t.

    Neil:

    It isn’t at all obvious to what you are applying “true”.

    The belief that the forked flash I’m seeing is an instance of what we would call, in English, “lightning”. Just as the cat believed that there was something (that in English we would call “a mouse”) behind something else (that in English we would call “a door”.) The belief is true even if it isn’t verbalized, and even if the creature holding the belief can’t verbalize it.

    However, since this is a purely subjective true, it is not even clear that it means anything other than that you agree with yourself. For an objective “true” there had to be something that other observers could, in principle, check.

    Lightning flashes are not subjective. They are visible to every normally-sighted person.

    keiths:

    Or think of the feral child you mentioned earlier, who has no word at all for lightning. Would you seriously argue that such a child cannot have a true belief about what the forked flash across the valley is, or what it indicates?

    Neil:

    I don’t doubt that you could ascribe a belief to that feral child, and then ascribe a truth value to that ascribed belief. But you would be ascribing a belief in words from your language, and you would be judging whether true on the basis of the standards from your society for using those words.

    The child’s belief is true, whether I ascribe truth to it or not. There really is lightning across the valley. The child discovered a truth about the world via his or her senses, not from society or societal standards.

  20. keiths: The belief that the forked flash I’m seeing is an instance of what we would call, in English, “lightning”.

    So there’s some imaginary thing, but you cannot tell us what it is. You imagine that it is a belief, but you cannot tell us what makes it a belief. And you imagine that it is true, but you cannot tell us what makes it true. All of this is happening inside your head and unavailable to anybody else, yet you imagine that it is objective.

    It sure seems nonsensical.

  21. Neil,

    So there’s some imaginary thing, but you cannot tell us what it is.

    It isn’t imaginary, and I told you what it is: a belief that there’s lightning across the valley.

    You imagine that it is a belief, but you cannot tell us what makes it a belief.

    What makes it a belief is that I take it to be true — that is, I take it to be an accurate representation of actual reality, in which there is lightning across the valley.

    And you imagine that it is true, but you cannot tell us what makes it true.

    What makes it true is that it corresponds to the reality of lightning across the valley. If there weren’t lightning across the valley, then the belief would be false.

    All of this is happening inside your head and unavailable to anybody else, yet you imagine that it is objective.

    Other people can’t directly observe my belief, of course. But that hardly means that the content isn’t objective. Lightning bolts are visible to others, Neil. They aren’t an idiosyncratic hallucination of mine.

    It sure seems nonsensical.

    These are basic concepts, Neil. You’re struggling (and failing) to understand something that is just not that difficult.

    You’re dismissing what you don’t understand. That’s a bad habit.

  22. Neil Rickert: All of this is happening inside your head and unavailable to anybody else, yet you imagine that it is objective.

    It sure seems nonsensical.

    That sums atheist epistemology up very nicely.

    peace

  23. keiths:
    Plantinga’s argument doesn’t rely on a rigid true/false dichotomy.

    Of course it does. Nowhere does he work with accuracies. He works in absolutist true/false terms, as you were so kind to demonstrate.

    keiths:
    Truth comes in degrees, particularly when when we are talking about complex beliefs.

    Well, I’m saying something similar to this, but you have to explain that to Plantinga, because the guy doesn’t seem aware of it. Not in the EAAN at least.

    Have you read that shit (EAAN)?

  24. Entropy: Nowhere does he work with accuracies. He works in absolutist true/false terms

    LOL

    The absolutist tyranny of pointing out that some things are true and some things are false.

    If Plantinga would just join Enthropy and abandon his conviction that there is a distinct set of propositions we could label true as apposed to not true.

    Then he would surely see that he is mistaken in arguing that “naturalist” evolution is not conducive in producing ideas that belong in that now abandoned category.

    😉

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: That sums atheist epistemology up very nicely.

    Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

  26. OMagain,

    Fifth is a walking showcase of defense mechanisms. Another prominent one is “denial”, otherwise known locally as “hiding behind the Ignore button”.

  27. OMagain,

    Is “you do it too” really the extent of your argument here?

    Of course you would agree that an omnipotent God can reveal something to me so that I know it’s not just in my own head.

    That sort of thing comes with the definition of omnipotent.

    That is the difference in our epistemologies

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: Of course you would agree that an omnipotent God can reveal something to me so that I know it’s not just in my own head.

    I agree you can be fooled, yes.

    fifthmonarchyman: That sort of thing comes with the definition of omnipotent.

    Yes, we’ve all noticed you define yourself into “winning” all discussions.

    fifthmonarchyman: That is the difference in our epistemologies

    Your beliefs do not rise to that level. If epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief then all you’ve said “I believe it, that settles it”. That’s hardly going to set the world on fire is it? That’s hardly a study into knowledge.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: Of course you would agree that an omnipotent God can reveal something to me so that I know it’s not just in my own head.

    It seems your omnipotent god is only capable of revealing things to one person at a time, currently that is apparently you. Or else you’d all agree and stop fighting each other and there would only be one religion. Given that’s not the case I can only conclude you are mistaken regarding your deity’s interaction with it’s creation.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: Of course you would agree that an omnipotent God can reveal something to me so that I know it’s not just in my own head.

    Why “of course”?–I don’t think it’s obvious at all. There are a ton of questions there, including, but not limited to:

    * Would any such “revelation” be consistent with what we understand knowledge to be and how we understand its acquisition to work?

    * Whether X is “omnipotent” or not, is it anymore possible for X to “put knowledge in somebody” than it is for X create something it can’t lift?

    * Can any entity have both the characteristics of the thing you like to call “God” (i.e. that which would make all the Bible stories true) and be “omnipotent” in the sense you need to get what you want with this revelation biz? I.e., if there were a possible “revelation planter,” could that thing be identical to what you like to call “God”?

    * In fact, can any entity have EITHER the characteristics of something that would make all the Bible stories true OR be omnipotent in the sense you need to get what you want with this revelation biz? I.e., are BOTH pictures intrinsically nonsensical?

    The point is, your lovely confidence that surely everybody must agree at least that there could be a God that could make every silly thing somebody believes true (“revelations”), is ill-founded. It’s not obvious at all, and I don’t believe you know that it’s true.

    Furthermore, as I’ve explained to you many times, even if this wacky premise WERE true–and it certainly is anything but obvious to me– your ontological argument is fallacious anyhow. You can’t get the existence of God from it.

    This stuff is not getting any better by repetition, Fifth. Same old crapola.

  31. fifthmonarchyman: Is “you do it too” really the extent of your argument here?

    Not really, as I’m not actually trying to make an argument as with you there is literally no point. It’s clear to all that whatever it is that is is happening inside your head and unavailable to anybody else, you imagine that it is objective. But that’s all it is – imagination.

    If your revealed knowledge ever contained something useful (how to make a fusion reactor, how to focus gravity, how to achieve world peace) you might find I suddenly start to believe. But as long as your “revelations from the mind of god” remain entirely mundane then it’s clear it’s all just inside your head.

  32. OMagain: It seems your omnipotent god is only capable of revealing things to one person at a time, currently that is apparently you.

    Not at all, he often reveals himself to people in groups and he has revealed his existence to everyone not just me.

    OMagain: else you’d all agree and stop fighting each other and there would only be one religion.

    Receiving revelation does not in anyway equal submission to that revelation.

    The world is divided into just two groups those who accept the revelation that has been given and those who fight against it with all their might.

    peace

  34. fifth, to OMagain:

    Is “you do it too” really the extent of your argument here?

    Your position is “You do it, therefore my argument is stronger than yours”.

    “You do it too” is therefore a pretty effective refutation.

    You’re as bad as colewd with his insipid “frog at the bottom of the well” argument. You (try to) apply it to others, forgetting that if it were valid, it would apply to you and it would undermine your own position.

    Though you deny it, your epistemology relies on an infinite and unjustified regress. If you were brave, you’d come out of hiding and address that fact.

    I’ve even cut it into bite-sized fifthmonarchyboy pieces for you.

  35. fifthmonarchyman: The world is divided into just two groups those who accept the revelation that has been given and those who fight against it with all their might.

    In fact it seems to be the case that atheist countries are the most peaceful and progressive societies out there. Whereas those that have “accepted the revelation” continue to fight and schism.

    And also, why would anyone fight against such a revelation? If I genuinely thought god was speaking to me, why would I ignore it? That would seem to be foolish in the extreme, ignore the universe-creator.

    So, given that, how to explain that I’m happy to call your deity a shit bag without fear?

  36. walto: Why “of course”?–I don’t think it’s obvious at all.

    I’m not claiming it’s obvious. I’m pointing out that by definition omnipotence means that if it can be done then God can do it.

    If God can’t reveal then I can’t ever know that anything I could ever possibly claim to know is not all just in my head.

    walto: if there were a possible “revelation planter,” could that thing be identical to what you like to call “God”?

    If the being I worship is unable to reveal stuff so that knowledge is possible then that being is definitely not God and not worthy of my worship.

    walto: Furthermore, as I’ve explained to you many times, even if this wacky premise WERE true–and it certainly is anything but obvious to me– your ontological argument is fallacious anyhow. You can’t get the existence of God from it.

    I think of you as a smart cookie but you seem to have a mental block on this one.

    As I have repeatedly said

    I’m not making any ontological argument and I’m not trying to get from the fact that God can revel stuff to his existence.

    My knowledge of God’s existence is not dependent on any argument whatsoever.

    peace

  39. fifth, to walto:

    hearing your objections [to Dennett’s three stances] would certainly be helpful to me.

    What’s to object to? We clearly take all three stances, depending on the situation.

  40. OMagain: In fact it seems to be the case that atheist countries are the most peaceful and progressive societies out there.

    Which “atheist countries” are those exactly?

    Can an entire country declare in unison that God does not exist?

    Are you confusing secular with atheist for some reason?

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman: Which “atheist countries” are those exactly?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

    The countries with the most atheists are the best countries. It’s quite simple.

    As professor Stephen Law of the University of London observed: “If a decline in religiosity were the primary cause [of social ills], then we would expect those countries that have seen the greatest decline to have the most serious problems. But that is not the case.”

  42. OMagain: Whereas those that have “accepted the revelation” continue to fight and schism.

    Countries can’t accept that God exists. That is an individual thing.

    There has not ever been a single country that I know of where the majority of the population has not rejected God’s self revelation.

    peace
    peace

  43. It’s clear from the data that the less belieivers you have around you the better off you are:

    What about within the United States? According to the latest study from the Pew Research Center, the 10 states that report the highest levels of belief in God are Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma (tied with Utah). The 10 states with the lowest levels of belief in God are Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, Oregon and California. And as is the case in the rest of the world, when it comes to nearly all standard measures of societal health, including homicide rates, the least theistic states generally fare much better than the most theistic.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html

    I can’t wait until you are all gone. Then we might actually start getting somewhere.

  45. fifthmonarchyman: Countries can’t accept that God exists. That is an individual thing.

    Your god can reveal to a country that god exists. Your god is omnipotent, remember?

  47. fifthmonarchyman:
    Countries can’t accept that God exists. That is an individual thing.

    Except that’s not true is it? You believe that god has raped everyone’s mind already, forcing its way into their belief system if they know it or not. So, did I have a choice to accept that god exists or not? Given that you believe there are no atheists, no, I did not have that choice.

    But here you are now, making out that I can or cannot accept that god exists despite having the position that I already know god exists.

    Your “theology” is very confused. You need to make your mind up if I can accept that god exists or not despite already having accepted that god exists (according to you).

    And why do 82% of people in Sweden say that religion is unimportant in their daily lives if they also accept god exists? If they accepted god existed don’t you think it would be in their self-interest to get on their knees and grovel to that big turd in the sky?

  48. Entropy,

    Have you read that shit (EAAN)?

    Yes. Have you?

    Nowhere does he work with accuracies. He works in absolutist true/false terms, as you were so kind to demonstrate.

    When you say things like that, I wonder if you have ever read Plantinga’s argument.

    He repeatedly refers to beliefs being “true” or “verisimilitudinous”. Do you know what “versimilitudinous” and “verisimilar” mean? Hint: they aren’t absolutist, black-and-white terms.

    If you want to refute Plantinga’s argument, you need to make an effort to understand it.

  50. keiths: Fifth’s getting agitated again.

    I’d be agitated if I realized that my answer to every question of substance was the same.

    The utility of an answer is typically proportional to the number of questions that it answers. FMM has one answer for everything, an infinite number of questions have the “correct” answer of revelation and that single answer demonstrates its usefulness in that FMM has plenty of free time to chat on message boards.

Leave a Reply