Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Atheist Dilemma


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:45 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Well, I suspect all schools teach that at least a goal is to transcend good and evil, and frankly I don't think it matters if your living is as a butcher or not, nor even an executioner, but then I don't claim much Buddha nature.
.

Well, here in Japan they have a whole class of people that were traditionally considered untouchables and strongly discrimated against. They were the butchers and executioners and leather-makers. Those were professions you did not chose but were born into by default. The reason for that is Buddhist thinking. One of the nasty side effects of an otherwise great religion.

I suppose something similar existed(s) in other Buddhist countries?

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#17    markdohle

markdohle

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,441 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta area

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:52 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 11 April 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Not really. Arguments are a great thing, if people bring up new and valid angles. But the theists keep bringing up the same old line of arguments ("the need for a creator", "morality", etc.) over and over. No matter how many times they have been discussed and dealt with.

Kind of feels like watching an endless reel of "Groundhog Day"...

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well.  Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing.  The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing.  The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.

Peace
mark


#18    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:55 PM

View Postmarkdohle, on 11 April 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well.  Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing.  The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing.  The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.


I can live with that summary.
Peace

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#19    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:15 AM

View Postmarkdohle, on 11 April 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well.  Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing.  The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing.  The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.

The real Atheist dilema is simply it's foundation as a volitional choice not a rational one. Of course Atheists would say the same thing to Theists as well. How two people can look at the same evidence and draw completely different conclusions is beyond me.

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#20    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:10 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 12 April 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.

Nonsense. There is no evidence. You are looking at a void. So the question is if you leave it at that or if you invent a fictional, unprovable being to fill the void. In that case, the burden of proof is on your side.

The theists really should stop trying to use reason. Wlliam Lane Craig states the theists` cause a thousand times better than you ever could, and he fails. So why waste your energy and our time?

Edited by Zaphod222, 12 April 2013 - 07:08 AM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#21    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:23 AM

View PostZaphod222, on 12 April 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Nonsense. There is no evidence. You are looking at a void. So the question if you leave it at that or if you invent a fictional, unprovable being to fill the void. In that case, the burden of proof is on your side.

The theists really should stop trying to use reason. Wlliam Lane Craig states the theists` cause a thousand times better than you ever could, and he fails. So why waste your energy and our time?

Because what may seem to be a waste to you is anything but that to those it helps to see. I cannot convince the volitionally blind.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#22    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:07 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 12 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Because what may seem to be a waste to you is anything but that to those it helps to see. I cannot convince the volitionally blind.

Sure, recreational drugs also help people to "see" things.
Pick your poison.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#23    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:39 AM

Let me go back and revist your first statement.

View PostZaphod222, on 12 April 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Nonsense. There is no evidence.

Prove it. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. This statement is just a logical presupposition of the volitionally blind.

Now that that's over, on to your next one.

View PostZaphod222, on 12 April 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Sure, recreational drugs also help people to "see" things.
Pick your poison.

Scientific evidence is capable of helping people to see things. This statement must mean that all scientists, as well as every human being on the planet is delusional as well.
Pick your poison.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#24    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:12 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 17 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

Let me go back and revist your first statement.



Prove it. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. This statement is just a logical presupposition of the volitionally blind.

One can not prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).  What you can do is look at the claim and examine the evidence given to support the claim to see if it is real and not manufactured evidence and that it does indeed support the claim.

Blindness occurs on both sides.  For example, take the battle of Jericho.  Some that read the story in the Bible take it as a historical account.  Research, on the other hand, shows that when the Jews arrived, the city was abandoned.  Some will ignore the evidence and continue to believe in the mythical battle.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#25    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 19 April 2013 - 06:28 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 12 April 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.
Hawking is partially correct, God doesn't exist in nature science.


#26    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 19 April 2013 - 08:36 AM

View PostQuaentum, on 18 April 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

One can not prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).

Actually that's exactly what you're meant to do in science. Say you've got five ideas, disprove four and you have your best answer. The trouble is,  as Rlyeh says, God doesn't exist in nature science. If I'm on the same page as him, this is because the idea of God is not testable or falsifiable. By its very definition, it cannot be proven true or false so asking evidence either way is rather pointless. It's just not science and doesn't belong or fit in a scientific debate.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users