The atheists' dilemma

[Jayhawker Soule]

Secular 'marriages' are civil contracts

Now that was a brilliant statement! Of course, you have yet to demonstrate how and why being a civil contract makes it any less a marriage. It's interesting how you assiduously avoid going beyond proclamations of dogma.

 

[voiceofwood]

Now that was a brilliant statement! Of course, you have yet to demonstrate how and why being a civil contract makes it any less a marriage. It's interesting how you assiduously avoid going beyond proclamations of dogma.

Hilarious, I appreciate your humour but as the Swahili saying goes, great wit drives away wisdom

 

[Gordian Knot]

No. This is the right discussion. I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Your first post was about atheists. In a later post you brought up same sex marriages.

Your primary statement, as far as I can tell, is that you believe that marriage is a religious affair. That secular marriages are not 'real' marriages. Try telling that to a divorce lawyer! (That was a joke.).

So we have a plethora of statements that don't seem to have a common thread. If there is one, I'm not able to see it. We have, if I may summarize:

Marriage is a religious institution.
Secular marriage is not valid. Or not as valid?
This is a problem for atheists somehow.
And somehow same sex marriages got mixed into this too.

Am I summarizing your statements correctly? If so, what is the common thread that you wish to discuss? If not, what am I missing?

 

[voiceofwood]

No. This is the right discussion. I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Your first post was about atheists. In a later post you brought up same sex marriages.

Your primary statement, as far as I can tell, is that you believe that marriage is a religious affair. That secular marriages are not 'real' marriages. Try telling that to a divorce lawyer! (That was a joke.).

So we have a plethora of statements that don't seem to have a common thread. If there is one, I'm not able to see it. We have, if I may summarize:

Marriage is a religious institution.
Secular marriage is not valid. Or not as valid?
This is a problem for atheists somehow.
And somehow same sex marriages got mixed into this too.

Am I summarizing your statements correctly? If so, what is the common thread that you wish to discuss? If not, what am I missing?

Hmmm, the problem is 'cup of tea' hijacked the post, introducing marriage into the post. I responded when i should perhaps have asked him to stick to topic. But read his post and perhaps you can untangle the thread, both weft and warp

 

[wil]

Hilarious, I appreciate your humour but as the Swahili saying goes, great wit drives away wisdom

Might be sage advice to take in...lol

 

[voiceofwood]

Might be sage advice to take in...lol

I am glad you appreciate it, hope it helps

 

[wil]

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

Let us get back on track before we put Descartes before the horse...cogito ergo sum... an old discussion?

10 Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World | Collective-Evolution

 

[wil]

If someone says an invisible being exists that created the universe and man and all we see....

Nah....the burden of proof surely isn't on them.

 

[voiceofwood]

Let us get back on track before we put Descartes before the horse...cogito ergo sum... an old discussion?

10 Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World | Collective-Evolution

Well thank you for finally saying something relevant to the OP. But I none of the studies you cite prove that the person has conscious experience

For instance the well known double slit experience shows only that observation by a person affects the physical world (Actually, strictly speaking it does not even show that since that is only one interpretation of the experiment)

 

[wil]

Again...the dilemma is for the believer...they have made a statement....and need to back it up.

Bringing up something else (like consciousness, or same sex marriage) does not pertain to the statement that there is a man in the sky.

Mark soon receives worldwide attention for his supposed new information about death. Under pressure from Anna, he tells them, through "ten rules", that he talks to a "Man In The Sky" who controls everything and promises great rewards in the good place after you die, as long as you do no more than three "bad things".

The burden of proof is on the one making the statement...

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

Cheesy claim? No... it is the way the world works... damn world, damn forum....won't comply to whims...

 

[wil]

Any person who makes a claim would have to furnish proof/evidence for the claim:
1. a welfare recipient has to furnish supporting evidence that he qualifies for welfare;
2. prosecutor has to furnish evidence to charge a person of certain crimes; (the prosecutor cannot go to the court and say that "I have no evidence but I have faith that this person committed the crime")
3. you have to furnish evidence (with supporting documents) that you qualify for jobs you apply;
4. believers claim that god is real, and therefore, to convince non-believers, believers have to furnish proof of god;

 

[voiceofwood]

Again...the dilemma is for the believer...they have made a statement....and need to back it up.

Bringing up something else (like consciousness, or same sex marriage) does not pertain to the statement that there is a man in the sky.

The burden of proof is on the one making the statement...


Cheesy claim? No... it is the way the world works... damn world, damn forum....won't comply to whims...

Did you not read the OP or just fail to understand it

To claim the onus is on the believer to back up their statement is equivalent to asking one who states we are conscious to back up that statement.

Perhaps you would do better sticking to simpler discussions? No disrespect but you seem a little out of your depth here

 

[wil]

No it is not the equivalent....you say it is the equivalent...

the burden of proof in any statement is on the one making the statement....


You wanna say the sky is pink? Cool, take a picture at sunset and maybe you can show me the instance when it is.

On consciousness.... I am not disagreeing that you are conscious.... I am not asking for proof...not yet.

Your comparison in the OP is a false one. Again...no dilemma on the atheist, just the believer...

 

[voiceofwood]

No it is not the equivalent....you say it is the equivalent...

FIne, then say why it is not equivalent.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Voice said "Hmmm, the problem is 'cup of tea' hijacked the post, introducing marriage into the post. I responded when i should perhaps have asked him to stick to topic. But read his post and perhaps you can untangle the thread, both weft and warp."

Technically, introducing examples to attempt to make one's case is not hijacking the thread. Still I do see that you do not mention any of that in your OP, so I retract my earlier comments on that issue.

You said"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"

Okay so far. We are on the same page.


Voice said "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"

Now you are wandering into personal opinion that a claim by atheists is 'cheesy' and there is a celebrity atheist who is loud, but says essentially nothing. Doesn't really move your discussion along. But then you do get to the gist of it. That:

A. The atheist claims that the burden of proof lies with the believer. I.E. the person who believes in God is the person responsible to prove there is a God.

B. The atheist holds, according to them, the most logical position.

Taking the latter first, my perception is that there is an over abundance of self superiority in both camps. The claim aimed at just the atheists is unfair.

On the former. Normally when a person makes a claim of fact, the onus is on them to supply some form of proof to verify their claim. That being said, a proof of God(s) is hardly a normal claim. I've said this next part many times already. There is no proof of God(s). Zero. Zip. Nada. The very concept of deities is that they must be accepted on faith.

For atheists to demand proof where no proof is possible is counterproductive at the very least. I strongly disagree with the atheist camp on this particular issue.

Now if the religious break the mold by claiming that there are indeed proofs, then they have put themselves in the position of having to prove their proof is valid. And atheists are free to weigh the evidence given and make a decision from their point of view whether said proofs have any validity.

Voice said "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 ….."

Your final paragraph is an attempt at an if/then supposition. Distilling it down, I believe your suggestion is that one cannot prove that one is conscious but we believe we are because we can experience it, therefor one can prove there is a God(s) because, even though we cannot prove it per se, we can experience it just as we experience our consciousness. Hopefully I have stated that accurately.

The problem here is that your if/then supposition is not valid. There is no logical correlation between defining consciousness because one can experience it and validating the existence of God(s) because one can experience that as well.

The 'if' part of the proposition is an attempt at defining something within ourselves. Our consciousness.
The 'then' part of the proposition is an attempt at defining something outside of ourselves. A God(s).

These are two entirely separate concepts. In theory one could 'prove' the existence of anything at all outside of ourselves by making this if/then proposition.

 

[wil]

ah....we agree.... someplace... there is a power within each of us...far greater than anything outside of us...and that is that connection to the allness... yipee!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Voiceoftheshires said "Except, of course, God is within us. God is omnipresent, the light within"

I knew somebody was going to say that! lol.

And I agree it is a true statement. In this particular discussion though, the topic is the 'atheist's dilemma'. By definition, seems to me, an atheist would be looking for the evidence of God(s) as a separate entity first; an inner entity last.

Of much more importance, I may have not made the best analogy to make my point. But my point stands. VoW's if/then proposition is not valid. He is not comparing apples to apples.

 

[wil]

By definition, seems to me, an atheist would be looking for the evidence of God(s) as a separate entity first; an inner entity last.

Agreed, I find it incredible how many atheists are literal fundies...they don't believe in the literal fundamentalist version of G!d and biblical interpretation.... NEITHER DO I!!

VoW's if/then proposition is not valid. He is not comparing apples to apples.

again agreed.

 

[Marcialou]

Voiceoftheshires said "Except, of course, God is within us. God is omnipresent, the light within"

By definition, seems to me, an atheist would be looking for the evidence of God(s) as a separate entity first; an inner entity last.

As an atheist I'm not looking for evidence of God, although if I come across any, I will consider it. However, you are right that it is the outer entity of God (the omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe and arbiter of morals) that it is easiest to reject.

The "light within" is far more accessible concept, although I equate it with the human impulse to find meaning, transcend the mundane, feel like part of something larger than oneself, and follow one's conscience. I don't see it as a deity.

I find it incredible how many atheists are literal fundies...they don't believe in the literal fundamentalist version of G!d and biblical interpretation.... NEITHER DO I!!

I find the non-fundamentalist versions far more appealing. They tend to be something I can appreciate, at least on a metaphorical level.

 

[The Adept]

... consciousness; you cannot prove to me you are conscious and I cannot prove to you that I am,...

Your post suggest you are conscious. It constitutes evidence.
As for my post? It is perhaps a mystery to some.

If you have a brain then its function gives 'consciousness'.