The atheists' dilemma

Jane that is a brilliant commentary combining very up to date cosmology thematics with theological origin stories. The section about the similarity to the development of a child's brain is so often overlooked whenever someone is talking about this subject. Similar to the near death experience aligning with the process of being born. It is a beautiful piece of exposition!

Shib, you asked me to define logic for you. Jane has done a better job of explaining why your logic fails much better than I ever could. So all I can say is "What she said".
 
Marcialou said:
I'm sorry Shibolet but I'm still unclear about what you think about my post #97. I have 3 questions, each with 3 or more options for your answer, including "none of the above."

Q1 :When you say you missed the characteristic of probability in my post, do you mean


  1. you missed it because you weren't reading carefully enough, and in fact, it was there?
  2. you missed it because it wasn't there.
  3. none of the above (please explain)
Q2:Here you appear to be speaking of atheists in general. What do you think of my response to the question. Did I

  1. acknowledge the possibility that the Supreme Creator might be the Primal Cause?
  2. deny it.?
  3. none of the above (please explain)
Q3: In your current opinion, do I

  1. miss the target completely ? (if so what am I getting wrong?)
  2. get some of it right? (if so what am I still getting wrong?)
  3. get all of it right?
  4. None of the above.
Click to expand...

Sorry Marcialou, I have just reread post #97. I had mistaken you with someone else. Yes, now I don't take you as a hard core atheist. You do have a place for the Primal Cause within the concept of probability that could have been responsible for the existence of the universe. Therefore I apologize for my confusion.
 
wil said:
I am an Atheist to anyone who insists G!d is some larger than life white male human made in our image.

I am Agnostic to any 'supreme, super natural being/entity'

I am Panentheist as I see G!d, an essence, not physical presence, but a principle a law that is in us all between us all binding us all as one.

and for your benefit....If you believe in THOR or ZEUS or any similar cartoon character as G!d almighty, king and creator of the universe....I'll try to stifle my chuckles.
Click to expand...

I agree with you as all the above "I am's" are concerned. I am the same.
 
Jane-Q said:
Hi Shibolet.

I don't like labels.
But technically - in the theist/atheist debate - I am more on your side of the fence than on the other.
But typically, in this kind of debate, atheists have better arguments - because atheists base their arguments within a "critical thinking" process. Theists, all too often, retreat to older (pre-scientific) forms of disputation, frequently to Aristotelian-style logic - most of which is outmoded, leaving the theist's argument extraordinarily lame for anyone who is up-to-date as a modern thinker.
Click to expand...

As the Aristotelian-style of Logic is concerned, I find the opposite rather to be true. In my encounters with atheists, over 75% of them rather insist on the Aristotelian theory for the eternity of the universe which expired in 1922 with the formulation of the theory of the big bang by George Lemaitre the theist Catholic priest as more ironic that could never be. But, regardless of the atheist denial that the big bang gave origin to the universe which comes more as a result of a grudge against Theism, it has become a consensus among the cosmologist to count the beginning of the universe from the big bang.("Cosmos" p. 285 by Carl Sagan)
 
I was expecting a wall of text whooping my behind. Oh well, there's always tomorrow.
 
mryaso said:
I was expecting a wall of text whooping my behind. Oh well, there's always tomorrow.
Click to expand...

What would you have to say with a wall of text whooping your behind when against just a brick on the wall you didn't have any thing to say? Embarrassing, isn't it?
 
Shibolet said:
What would you have to say with a wall of text whooping your behind when against just a brick on the wall you didn't have any thing to say? Embarrassing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Can you please tone down the ego? You're the only one who find your "Logic" amazing. You seem educated enough not to argue like a YouTube commenter.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Can you please tone down the ego? You're the only one who find your "Logic" amazing. You seem educated enough not to argue like a YouTube commenter.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the post was not addressed to you but to Mryaso. That's why I never pick up a post to reply if it is not addressed to me. BTW, that's the language he used and I simply found it funny.
 
Wow what a lively thread. But to be honest, as a latecomer, it has wandered all over the place.

The thread title is "The atheists' dilemma"

My take on all I have read regarding the thread title is:
Belevers are those who believe there is a God
Nonbelievers are atheists.... they believe there is no God
The issue is who has the burden of proof right?

It seems to me the distinction between believers and nonbelievers is flawed. Neither camp is a non-believer. Both camps are belief systems (neither really deals with non-belief)
One camps' belief is that God does exist
The other camps' belief is that God does not exist.
Both believe.
Therefore, shouldn't there be a burden of proof requirement for anyone proposing either belief system?

Perhaps the real atheists dilemma is to show that their non-belief is any less a belief system that any other group with an opinion on theology. If it can be established that it is not, then any side of an argument should be asked for proof.

Just the way I see it, I could be wrong.
 
Yeah threads tend to be kinda organic. As they go along they can sprout new turns and make sharp corners. The real question is - is that process by intelligent design, or by natural selection? Sometimes it can be hard to tell.

Your logic on belief is consistent. Following your logic, a different conclusion can also be reached. That is that a claim could be made that both sides are non-believers, could it not?

As for me, myself, personally, I do not believe there is a dilemma on either side. There is no proof for or against a divine entity or an afterlife. Science can never prove or disprove such things that, by definition, exist outside our reality.
 
Atheists don't have a belief system...they have a nonbelief system...and no dilemma...the believers have a dilemma with atheists... I'm a believer of sorts and I think it all hilarious actually.
 
Is someone who carries out his day to day activities without any thought of G-d an atheist, even if he doesn't express his beliefs (or lack thereof)? That's the category I would place myself in for most of my life, until a few years ago.

Then there are the people who actively try to suppress religion from the public sphere. I think it would more appropriate to call them anti-theists than atheists.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Yeah threads tend to be kinda organic. As they go along they can sprout new turns and make sharp corners. The real question is - is that process by intelligent design, or by natural selection? Sometimes it can be hard to tell.

Your logic on belief is consistent. Following your logic, a different conclusion can also be reached. That is that a claim could be made that both sides are non-believers, could it not?

As for me, myself, personally, I do not believe there is a dilemma on either side. There is no proof for or against a divine entity or an afterlife. Science can never prove or disprove such things that, by definition, exist outside our reality.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say. As to the question of intelligent thread design vs survival of the fittest ....... Darwin may have a point here :D
 
Lamson said:
Therefore, shouldn't there be a burden of proof requirement for anyone proposing either belief system?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone needs to justify their beliefs to anyone with the exception I made earlier.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to give an example like last time since that backfired, apparently it was my fault much of the thread was dedicated to the institution of marriage.

wil said:
Atheists don't have a belief system...they have a nonbelief system...and no dilemma...the believers have a dilemma with atheists... I'm a believer of sorts and I think it all hilarious actually.
Click to expand...

But don't miss the point Lamson made. I don't believe in god. It's a belief I have, that there is no god. I believe in a world without god.
Many things are true when we discuss believers and non-believers, but this is also true.

Also, atheist have just as much of a dilemma as believers concerning the other side. The vocal minorities are seldom rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top