Count that as a cite reference, and here is the post, which sounds quite similar to My post on Anslem’s Arguments for the proof of the existence of God (it seems people are catching on):
1. Can I reject a god if there was not a god to reject in the first place?
What I am rejecting then is not a god but the notion or the concept of a god. Theists want to know how you can reject a god or God by positing its (or His) existence first by naming it then asking you to how you can reject it when it exists. What the theists mistake for a god is its name.
There is no proof of existence of a god other than by its name and the actions based on the belief of its existence, not on actual proof of its existence.
I do not believe in God, a god or gods but I do see the concept of God, a god and gods all around me in the form of human behaviour and nothing more.
2. An atheist, then, should not be a rejection of the existence of a deity, anymore than I should not reject the existence of, say, Donald Trump. By rejecting existence of Donald Trump I would be considered a lunatic. This kind of thinking is what theists uses against an atheist’s rejection (the “how can you not believe in the existence of God?! That’s absurd!” argument).
The very term atheist relies on (or presumes) a positive term of (or a presence of a god) to reject in the first place. The terminology dupes us into a double take on whether there is a god to reject or not. Agnostics, in return, tried to play the same game, being drawn into a competition of verbal trickery. This will no longer do.
3. Undoubtedly, I believe in the existence of the concepts of deity and deities. This is what we like to do as humans. It is natural for us to broadly paraphrase Mary Midgley to want to be given a reason to to live. We are scared to live in a meaningless world as Jean-Paul Sartre might have said.
It goes right to the heart of the problem with the whole dispute over the existence of God.
I can say with a certain honesty that I understand what he saying and if I’m able to believe something then I believe his argument is sound, but also I agree with the reasoning why it is pointless to argue over whether or not God exists.
But we can’t leave the issue there. The reason for this is that such a logical reduction still relies on what we can call the “object-term identity”. Shorthand for this is called identity politics; regardless of what Fox or CNN wants to discuss in the context of identity politics, the more rigourous use of identity politics is reliance upon the term-object identity.
It is not enough merely to make an argument. For any argument that a person would make falls into the same logical fallacy as the person in my reblog is saying about arguments of God.
And so that is where we have to leave it. It is a Mark, a notice, of the parameters of being human. No further statement can be made upon the truth of things, because any such statement would thereby have to rely upon further arguments as to empirical truth or material truth or actual truth or physical truth or ideal truth or any sort of argumentative structure and proof, all of which ultimately fail unless we erect an ideological umbrella over the universe and say or proclaim that everyone must fall into this ideology. At some point we have to make an argument and then if everyone doesn’t believe that argument then we are left with either the fact that the argument means nothing more then what was argued, or an enforcement of the truth that the argument states.
So, if we are to get to what is actually true of the matter then we should see that these statements indicate what human beings do and that is their place in the universe, rather than such statements indicating themselves some ‘essential’ place, some central place, or some pivotal place.
We begin to understand that it is just as possible that the Christian God is true in the same way that the argument made of this re-blog is true, because if we ahhere to the conditions of the argument made in the re-blog, then the condition of truth ultimately lay in the argument itself, which then completely defies the position that is argued of the argument that is making this argument.