Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by voiceofwood, Jun 26, 2014.
It is still whatever works for you....
and I'll try to stifle my chuckles.
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".
He said, "what she said" and I say "what he said".
"What they said"
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.
I agree with you as all the above "I am's" are concerned. I am the same.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
I don't think anyone needs to justify their beliefs to anyone with the exception I made earlier.
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.
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.
i guess that is right, the dilemma is with the person that wants to foist their beliefs on others...
Or pro-secularists. All depends on one's point of view does it not?
It is always nice how one side has all the answers and so the other 50,000 sides with dilemmas can learn from them
Separate names with a comma.