The atheists' dilemma

V

voiceofwood

Guest
For Americans here, I take atheist in the traditional usage, that is to mean one that believes that there is no God and differentiates it from an agnostic being one who neither believes there is a God nor disbelieves that there is not

There is a rather cheesy claim made sometimes by atheists, I believe it was also made by a popular celebrity atheist, who, like a tale told by a fool, is full of sound and fury but signifies little. It takes the form that the burden of proof lies with the believer or put it another way, that the atheist holds the most logical position

The claim that the burden of proof is on those that say God exists is exactly that; just a claim. We must ask is it a valid one? Well, there are many things we accept as true without being able to prove them (Where proof means 3rd person proof)An example of such is consciousness; you cannot prove to me you are conscious and I cannot prove to you that I am, we do however accept that we are conscious because we experience it. Similarly, I can not prove to you that I know God exist or that I experience him but my experience of him is of the same kind as my experience of being conscious and similarly unmistakable.

So the atheist is faced with a logical dilemma; either they must accept that their belief that they are conscious is no more valid that the believers faith in God,

OR

They must admit that they are logically inconsistent
 
I think it's reasonable to ask for such evidence if a group of people need to agree on a course of action that hinge on the existence of such a god.
If for example we want to ban gay marriage on the idea that God doesn't want them married, then there is a need of proving that there is such a will and confirm what that will is.

If everyone in the group agree on the existence and will of the god, no proof is needed. If the group is split, then there is no inconsistency in asking for proof. Likewise, if everyone agree that we are conscious no proof is needed. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where uncertainty of our consciousness will effect the outcome of a decision.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I think it's reasonable to ask for such evidence if a group of people need to agree on a course of action that hinge on the existence of such a god.
If for example we want to ban gay marriage on the idea that God doesn't want them married, then there is a need of proving that there is such a will and confirm what that will is.

If everyone in the group agree on the existence and will of the god, no proof is needed. If the group is split, then there is no inconsistency in asking for proof. Likewise, if everyone agree that we are conscious no proof is needed. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where uncertainty of our consciousness will effect the outcome of a decision.
Click to expand...

1. Those that experience God have as much proof as you have that I an others posses consciousness; that is of neither do we have 3rd party proof. Yet we still accept and legislate as if we did

2. Marriage is essentially a religious affair and by definition between a man and woman. It is not a civil contract. If same sex partnership were afforded the same privileges as marriage is, yet not called marriage surely this should satisfy all.
 
voiceofwood said:
1. Those that experience God have as much proof as you have that I an others posses consciousness; that is of neither do we have 3rd party proof. Yet we still accept and legislate as if we did
Click to expand...

I don't have any proof that you or I are conscious, but I don't need any for any decision I can imagine.
 
In point of fact, Voice, in most all the western world, marriage is a legal contract first. A religious contact second or not at all. There is no religious requirement to get legally married. Your atheists have as much right to marry as anyone else in the country.

That being said I completely agree with you that it is pure silliness for an atheist to demand a proof of a god. God(s) by definition are beyond the ability of mortals to prove. That is why religious faith is based on faith! To demand proof of something that cannot be proven is absurd.
 
Gordian Knot said:
In point of fact, Voice, in most all the western world, marriage is a legal contract first. A religious contact second or not at all. There is no religious requirement to get legally married. Your atheists have as much right to marry as anyone else in the country.
Click to expand...

I disagree; marriage is fundamentally a religious affair, the civil contract of the same name is a mockery. A marriage exists without such civil or legal contract and no ceremony is necessary.
 
It seems to me that consciousness can be determined by brain scans, if not ordinary observation. Consciousness does not present a dilemma for me.

I think the atheist's dilemma is free will. If you believe that the laws of science determine everything, even what goes on in the human brain, then where is the room for free will? I have to say, I don't know. I don't believe in God but atheism is not my religion. Free will, on the other hand, I take as a matter of faith.

BTW, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a civil union. If you want a religious marriage you can get married by the clergy of your choice, but it's not a legal marriage unless you file the necessary papers with the state.

VOW, why don't you start a new thread.
 
Marcialou said:
It seems to me that consciousness can be determined by brain scans, if not ordinary observation. Consciousness does not present a dilemma for me.

I think the atheist's dilemma is free will. If you believe that the laws of science determine everything, even what goes on in the human brain, then where is the room for free will? I have to say, I don't know. I don't believe in God but atheism is not my religion. Free will, on the other hand, I take as a matter of faith.

BTW, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a civil union. If you want a religious marriage you can get married by the clergy of your choice, but it's not a legal marriage unless you file the necessary papers with the state.

VOW, why don't you start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Let me start by distinguishing between uses of the word conscious *I had taken this as read) Conscious meaning not unconscious or awake is not what I mean. Rather I mean something more akin to the ability to experience ones' self as a self having experiences. And a brain scan reveals nothing about that since it is logically possible that the brain is functioning, the person taking actions without any awareness of ones' self having that experience.

A marriage is only between a man and a woman and God, the civil and legal formalisation of that are an add on
 
How exactly is discrimination against atheists not on topic?

Ah...I get it, I'm describing illogical problems faced by atheists due to ignorance and unconstitutional laws of some believers...my bad.
 
wil said:
How exactly is discrimination against atheists not on topic?

Ah...I get it, I'm describing illogical problems faced by atheists due to ignorance and unconstitutional laws of some believers...my bad.
Click to expand...

Again off topic and discrimination is an ethical not a logical problem.
 
Voice said "A marriage is only between a man and a woman and God, the civil and legal formalisation of that are an add on"

Voice, the underlined part is not a fact it is your opinion. Your statement suggests that it is only marriage if it is between a man, a woman and the Christian God. What about the millions of marriages that take place in China on a yearly basis? The main religions of China are Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism - none of which have a belief in a Christian deity. None of those people are really married?
 
Gordian Knot said:
Voice said "A marriage is only between a man and a woman and God, the civil and legal formalisation of that are an add on"

Voice, the underlined part is not a fact it is your opinion. Your statement suggests that it is only marriage if it is between a man, a woman and the Christian God. What about the millions of marriages that take place in China on a yearly basis? The main religions of China are Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism - none of which have a belief in a Christian deity. None of those people are really married?
Click to expand...

I understand why you claim it is only my opinion and my opinion it is. But i am not so sure it is only that.

I think my understanding of marriage is in accord with most religions, though express it differently they may do. What is God is God. There is only one God regardless of name (This is a logical consequence of the nature of God) That a person prays to God using a different name is irrelevant. Through a mirror darkly their understanding may be.

Secular 'marriages' are civil contracts


I think you must have posted this under the wrong discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top