Morality has applicable value for survival, does it mean because we need it, it has no real authority and is but a delusion?

While I agree with you that fear of death motivates people to believe in God, love of loved ones, that doesn't anyway disprove we have knowledge of God.

In fact, when we think of death, we are testing whether we have knowledge of God or we don't.

I don't know how a human would think in a vacuum, and I don't recall any moment of my life where I didn't believe in God...but I recall one thing, my parents never explained to me that God is Ultimately Great such that he cannot be greater. In fact, Quran doesn't even explain this. But everyone assumes this about God. I assumed it about God when I was a child, even though no one told me this.

So it seems when I thought of the Creator, I thought Ultimate Greatness such that he cannot be greater. I never said such a sentence to myself, but I recall having that belief.

This of course doesn't mean I have intuitive knowledge of God, but it does mean my thoughts towards God weren't totally dictated by society or family.

(July 15, 2012 at 11:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: So suppose knowledge of God was properly basic, perhaps some people have it and others lose trust in it, because it's not able to be tested? But in this case, it surely is not wrong to trust it.

Belief in god is not the default state.

Knowledge of god is not inherent, fundamental or ultimate, aka the label you spam with an awful lot. If it was there would be no discussion taking place right now.

Quote:Perhaps "spirituality" is the form of constantly testing our knowledge of God and why people feel the need to practice a religion?

What the hell does spirituality mean?

(July 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: If it was there would be no discussion taking place right now.

People discuss whether we know we have free-will or we don't know. Or that there is free-will or that there isn't. Do you then say it means no one has knowledge that they have free-will? Or that because we discuss it, people didn't have a prior belief in free-will and that belief in it was not the default state?

The same is true of morality. People discuss whether it's objective or subjective. Does it mean no one knows it's objective? Or the default state was not belief in objective morality?

As soon as we discuss something, then it means we have no knowledge regarding the issue?

(July 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: People discuss whether we know we have free-will or we don't know.

Nice try. Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about your one-and-only-true-god-concept here.

No. Its not common knowledge. I don't even understand what it is that you're talking about and so I dismiss the whole idea as incoherent rubbish.

(July 15, 2012 at 1:16 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Nice try. Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about your one-and-only-true-god-concept here.

But your reasoning was that we wouldn't be discussing it if we have knowledge of it. The same can be said about free-will and morality. So perhaps you can explain why the case of God is different. Why discussing regarding God would mean we have no knowledge of God while the same is not true of free-will and morality.

---

(July 15, 2012 at 1:16 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: No. Its not common knowledge.

Whether it's common knowledge or not, is up to people to decide. But one thing for certain. It's a common belief. Most of the world believes in God. This doesn't mean God exists or people have knowledge, but it is a common belief.

Small percentage of people don't believe in free-will. There is no arguments to prove we have free-will that don't rely on some intuition.
Small percentage of people don't believe in objective morality. There is no arguments to prove objective morality that don't rely on some intuition.
Small percentage of people don't believe in God. There is no arguments to prove God that don't rely on some intuition.

(July 15, 2012 at 6:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 5:51 am)Skepsis Wrote: When Jeff stops strawmanning, evading, making vague, metaphysical arguments, denying logic, and constructing poor syllogisms,

You've seen grown ups using those words haven't you?

We realize that this is how you operate, but we are the grown-ups who actually know what they mean.

---

(July 15, 2012 at 11:11 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I agree logic can be tested so it's not in the same field, but where we wrong to depend on logic before analytically rigorously testing it? Were we wrong to believe in it in a properly basic manner without testing it?

Who are you claiming did that?

Nice strawman, bro.

(July 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But your reasoning was that we wouldn't be discussing it if we have knowledge of it.

Where did I ever say that?

Quote:So perhaps you can explain why the case of God is different.

I know no god.

Its really that simple mystic.

Quote:Most of the world believes in God.

The world doesn't speak for me, nor you. Another person's unique concept/mental construct of god should not be conflated with yours.

Quote:Small percentage of people don't believe in God. There is no arguments to prove God that don't rely on some intuition.

What is the point you are trying to make exactly?

Welsh Cake, a person telling me he has no knowledge that we have free-will or even believes we have no free-will, is not a proof to me, nor should it be, that I have no knowledge of free-will.

I making analogy with this, because, it seems to me, Atheists treat the issue of God with special pleading. They are not upset at people believing in free-will even though outside personal intuition, there is no proof. There is no proof of objective morality outside personal experience. However, when it comes to God, they are upset at believers believing.

It's a overwhelming common belief, most believers can't seem to recall when they ever didn't believe in God, yet you guys are asserting with confidence, there is no such knowledge, and that the onus is upon the believers to bring some rigorously sound argument to prove God.

Just as personal experience of a believer is not a proof against a disbeliever, the same is true of the disbelief of a disbeliever against a believer.

There is no reason to demand believers to prove their case God exists to others, and there is no reasons to demand disbelievers to prove that they don't have any reason to believe in God.

When you state things like "What is spirituality?", well believers understand what spirituality is because they experienced it. I wouldn't know how to explain it. But it seems like you are imposing your experience upon others.

Just as believers shouldn't impose their belief on God towards disbelievers, neither should disbelievers impose their disbelief. You can present arguments if you have some that go either way, but simply saying "I don't know God exists" to me is like a person telling me "I don't know if we have free-will", there is people that genuinely and sincerely believe they don't know whether they have free-will or not, yet I believe they can know if they have free-will. Now I believe the same is true of knowledge of God, but I don't have to prove that.

(July 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 6:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You've seen grown ups using those words haven't you?

We realize that this is how you operate, but we are the grown-ups who actually know what they mean.

I have yet to see such evidence, is my point.

Debate is wonderful, but you guys name drop names of logical faux pa around like they were insults instead of actually using the example to help make a point, because the argument you reference never actually applies in reality to what you are saying. Hence my point about needing some grown ups to actually contend what is being said rather than all of this meaningless adolescent name calling.

AF.org is a good atheist lead place where sincere people can debate each other fairly and honestly. You guys display the opposite tendancies.

I think this is the first time I've come across you lamenting a dearth of evidence, Fr00d.