What we have is self-consciousness, surely, and that is another kettle of fish altogether.
What we have is self-consciousness, surely, and that is another kettle of fish altogether.
I thinks it's also fair to say that 'atheists have a dilemma with theists'? We certainly have a vociferous atheist lobby here in the UK, making all sorts of demands of the theist. Not the least that the theist is somehow 'morally obliged' to accept the atheist's argument, whereas the atheist is not 'morally obliged' to accept any argument other than his or her own.
It's the same with 'multiculturalism'. It's a delusion. What it means is, 'we embrace all cultures, as long as do what is acceptable to us (this is, my culture).' When the other doesn't, their 'multiculturalism' vanishes like mist in a breeze.
St Thomas, as ever, puts his finger on the pulse of the dilemma:
In my experience, the whole depends on whether the atheist is willing to concede that he or she is not omniscient. If not, then it's hopeless. If they are, then reason obliges a move to an agnostic position.
Personally I think atheism is philosophically untenable position. It's unreasonable, and indeed, in the face of the evidence of the sciences, both of reason and empiricism, as irrational.
As the Common and Angelic Doctor points out, any objection raised by an atheist can be answered, reasonably, rationally and logically.
I think the atheists' refusal to accept the Five Ways, for example, or any of the couple of dozen 'proofs' of the Deity (they're not empirical proofs, but they are founded on sound logic) as illogical and irrational.
But then when atheists have contended with me, the argument tends to rest on a naive and sentimental idealism.
Quite. It can be reasoned, but cannot be empirically proven.
Well you go on about 'oneness' and 'bliss'?
Sometimes Wil, you come across to me as so flip and so dismissive of the other that you appear (to me
) offensively condescending, which is why I have snapped back at you in the past, and I apologise for that. I will also add that others here have PM'd me in your defence (No. I'm not saying who )Other times I just want to grab you round the neck and rub my knuckles on your head! (What do they call that?) With a resounding, "Oh, Wil, you're a proper caution!
(The dictionary says: 'an amusing or surprising person or thing', btw, although I would say you leave me flabbergasted! ('flab·ber·gast – to overcome with surprise and bewilderment.)
You missed No5.
5. Non-believers claim that god is not real, and therefore, to convince believers, non-believers have to furnish proof of the non-existence of god;
And therein lies their particular dilemma: You cannot reasonably, rationally, logically prove that something does not exist!
On the other hand, one can prove the existence of God if one accepts the axiom – supported locally by the Greek Philosophical Tradition under which we operate unto this day – that that which we call 'God' is not subject to empirical determination.
Therefore the atheist is arguing from a false axiom. He insists that God should be subject to the condition by which He can be denied! Go figure, as you American chappies are sometimes want to say!
Thomas I believe you to be right on all counts....and chuckled at the thought of you administering what we in the states would call "noogies".
You gotta remember, you are the learned one, the one that studies, and annotates, and posts links and footnotes. Many amazing folks like that here, I can't keep up with the tenth of the reading that is offered (maybe thousandth is more like it)
Me I read, contemplate....and let it sink in... I respond to posts with what comes out of my fingers and am often surprised at what is written as I read it. You'll shoot me for this, but very little thought goes into my response, it is just a stream of consciousness. Only when I am called out on something do I take the time to look for and verify the material...
Perfectly possible that you are right and I am crazy.
You gotta remember, you are the learned one, the one that studies, and annotates, and posts links and footnotes. Many amazing folks like that here, I can't keep up with the tenth of the reading that is offered (maybe thousandth is more like it)
Me I read, contemplate....and let it sink in... I respond to posts with what comes out of my fingers and am often surprised at what is written as I read it. You'll shoot me for this, but very little thought goes into my response, it is just a stream of consciousness. Only when I am called out on something do I take the time to look for and verify the material...
Perfectly possible that you are right and I am crazy.
Oh Wil! You're a caution!
Surely the 'allness' speaks of me, and other-than-me?
And if it the 'allness' can be connected to, that is, it's more than merely a subjective and sentimental impression, then it is greater than I, even if it indwells within me?
The supposition that I am great because 'it' is great, and I possess 'it' and therefore I am greater than 'it', is, I suggest, unsound?
(Expletive deleted) me! We're in agreement!
Oh ... I wish I'd realized that before ... I've just done that thingy when you take the revolver, open the chamber and press the thingy to knock all the bullets out. I've taken the brick out of my handbag, and the snooker balls out of my sock.
PARENTAL ADVICE WARNING: The link is to a scene from Scum, with a young Ray Winston dishing it out to Phil Daniels, and is extremely, EXTREMELY violent! So be warned.
Just like my old school. Happy days ...
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
The atheist's dilemma as proposed by the OP was not a logical argument; nothing further to be said on that score. The basic question is sound though. At least as a starting point to jump off from. The dilemma is, in truth, one that everyone must face. Not just one subgroup.
The burden of proof, in the end, is really on yourself. To demand these proofs of others, either for or against God(s) is a dodge. It is an attempt to justify one's own beliefs either by accepting or discounting someone else's beliefs.
Or, worse, to demand an external proof is a reason to ignore the genuine question. I.E. to avoid doing the 'work' yourself. Whether it is religion, spirituality, or atheist, the only journey that can have any real meaning is the journey within yourself. It is easy to get bogged down in all the trappings, arguments, counter arguments, and so on, and so on. I fall into this trap myself too often, since I really do know better.
My suggestion. Stop demanding answers from someone else. Find the answers for you from within you. I'm not saying we can't learn from others, be it people, writings, mythologies. Absolutely dive into all of it as much as you can. Just remember the answer is not in all of those external things. The answer is in you.
The burden of proof, in the end, is really on yourself. To demand these proofs of others, either for or against God(s) is a dodge. It is an attempt to justify one's own beliefs either by accepting or discounting someone else's beliefs.
Or, worse, to demand an external proof is a reason to ignore the genuine question. I.E. to avoid doing the 'work' yourself. Whether it is religion, spirituality, or atheist, the only journey that can have any real meaning is the journey within yourself. It is easy to get bogged down in all the trappings, arguments, counter arguments, and so on, and so on. I fall into this trap myself too often, since I really do know better.
My suggestion. Stop demanding answers from someone else. Find the answers for you from within you. I'm not saying we can't learn from others, be it people, writings, mythologies. Absolutely dive into all of it as much as you can. Just remember the answer is not in all of those external things. The answer is in you.
High five GK.....and geez Thomas, I may be crazy...but I got feelins mate! I was always wantin to come visit someday...maybe have a pint and play a game of snooker...but now....
(note like many things, I didn't get through half of the video)
(note like many things, I didn't get through half of the video)
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
New thread http://www.interfaith.org/forum/multiculturalism-17120.html#post288713
I agree to the point that some of the issues are discussed in a social context where people as a group need to agree on a course of a action. Even if a lot of us would like to leave some things outside politics and law-making, when the process is started it often hard not to get involved on one side or the other.
This is also where I don't entirely agree with Thomas. Proving the existence of the Divine through the logic that it can't be disproven (did I get that right?) isn't enough, and it isn't enough for an examination of the will of that Divine.
No, I didn't mean it to come across like that.
Your right – while one can't prove that God doesn't exist, that's in no way a proof that He does. I was highlighting a dilemma faced by atheists, but that doesn't help our theist cause at all.
As Wil points out, it's a logical fallacy.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
And I was expecting a wall of text whooping my behind. Oh well, there's always tomorrow.
Marcialou
We are stardust
First of all, let me say what I've said before on this board. I call myself an atheist because I see no evidence for God. I see the universe as non-sentient and effectively indifferent to us. These things are incompatible with belief in God. I happy to discuss this but I'm not out to prove a point.
As we all know, none of us is omniscient.None of us can know for sure whether something as ineffable and intangible as the God exists, but we can’t all be agnostics.We can consider the arguments and the evidence, weigh them against our personal experience and decide whether we our lives would be better off with or without God in it.
Your wise comments recall an essay by Paul Ricoeur, Critique and Conviction.
Really, in this discussion, the dilemma belongs in the realm of the critical faculty, and as such, are so opposed that each sees the other's position as irreconcilable with their own experience.
It's the experience that counts. It's that which shapes and informs our powers of reason. It's experience that shapes our convictions. It's all of a piece.
I was wrong to dismiss atheism as fundamentally illogical. Each can argue his or her position logically.
Really, in this discussion, the dilemma belongs in the realm of the critical faculty, and as such, are so opposed that each sees the other's position as irreconcilable with their own experience.
It's the experience that counts. It's that which shapes and informs our powers of reason. It's experience that shapes our convictions. It's all of a piece.
I was wrong to dismiss atheism as fundamentally illogical. Each can argue his or her position logically.
Marcialou
We are stardust
Thanks, Thomas. I'll add that the challenge is to put yourself in each others' shoes (or mind, actually), try to understand where they are coming from, and not totally dismiss their humanity, sanity, or intelligence.