A False Dilemma, in Atheism

Perhaps. I might dispute, 'not one!' IMO, there are several compelling evidences.

But that is another thread. This one is about a flawed conclusion, based on NO evidence.

Concluding, 'No God!', from no evidence, is a flawed conclusion. There are other possibilities for the lack of personal evidence for God, than His nonexistence.

 

Why? And who are you to make such a declaration?

 

1. Why not?
2. A rational cosmic observer.

 

As long as you apply that across the board, it's a fine policy. Do you acknowledge the possibility that the other (hundreds of millions of) deities humans have created in our history may be valid gods as well? I find the idea ridiculous. Hindus have over 30 million gods. Possibly valid or nah?

 

You know there is another aspect of this subject as why would anyone wish to have a christian type of god that on his or her or more likely it whim could turn the universe natural laws on their head?

A god that for some unknown reason once got annoy at mankind and flood the whole earth killing almost all the men women and infants in their mother arms along with all most all the animals life on the planet.

It bad enough in my opinion to have a irrational and unpredictable man as president of the US how must worst would it be to have a irrational and unpredictable all powerful god?

 

Good caricatures, but it does not solve the false dilemma..

Do we get to choose which reality we live in?

 

As Trump supporters are proving every day reality is anything you would wish it to be.......

 

You use the 'wording' as your weapon of choice against the argument , so its pretty important that you allow that same wording when properly and precisely aimed, to be a shield from the charge too. There is a fundamental difference between the following. Because there is no proof of God's existence, there must not be a God. That does suggest a false dichodomy and is no logically sound.

Now pay attention to what happens when an atheist drops that 'must' word. That word's presence becomes very important here. Saying that because you have not provided any proof of God's existence to me, I choose not to believe in God's existence. This is not a false dichotomy that refuses to recognize other possibilities may exist. They are still possibilities. But without proof for them either, we are still stuck with no proof for any of these possibilities . What then follows is an evidentiary standard that your argument has to make,, before it will be persuasive to me. 'No evidence' or 'no proof' ,which is what all these disparate possibilities (its not a false dilemma of two, just a lot unproven ones) , just does not cut it for me. So I remain an atheist and an agnostic.

 

Why not? Because you have no authority to make such statements.

As for being a "rational cosmic observer', highly doubtful from your previous statements.

 

Apparently some of you do, and continue to deny any fact that displeases you.

 

How the hell can a created god be valid?

 

The "realm of science" can only see reality from a third-person "it " perspective. Looking at reality from this pespective is fine but it can' explain itself. The third-person conceptual perspective is dependent on a 1st-person perspective of awareness and subjective experientiality.

This means the "realm of science" cannot prove your first-person experience of eating breakfast with your family.

 

Since humans gained the attribute of language there have been those who questioned the existence of gods. Often at their peril, in many societies rejection of the gods was an automatic death sentence.

The human consensus on the issue is not as universal as you might think. Once the institution of religion was established it was used as a device of social, political, and intellectual tyranny. It is alot easier to force your opinion on others when you threaten them with death.

 

All that is true, but there is a deeper truth as well, ultimate reality...if I am allowed to even talk about it, is nonconceptual, ever-present, unrestricted.

 

In my personal experience I’ve found this true. Though unfamiliar with the phrase ‘ultimate reality,’ man has always searched through darkness to find a tangible expression for the vast intangible underbelly of the human condition.

Personally, as an agnostic athiest, I have carried sympathies towards the Eastern religions, particularly Zen Buddhism, largely introduced to me through the work of Alan Watts. However, I find most religious expressions (text, art) to be attempts at capturing this elusive presence, always heavily influenced by the politics and culture of their respective societies. But the institution of religion has continuously been an avenue for perversion.

 

The ultimate nature of reality is pure awareness. It's not a belief you have to conceptually accept like a religion. It's your own basic cognizant nature of knowing.

 

Sounds very consistent with Zen Buddhism.

 

Anyone who suggests the existence of a god without any evidence to support their theory is simply talking woo woo, for you to try to debate the nature of something for which you have no evidence for is like debating whether wonder woman gives head.

 

Nope, creating a strawman without being able to offer one single atheist who has said it and then attacking those progressives you hate so much is flinging abuse and insults, as below. You just cannot help yourself can you?

Spitting bile and then claiming you are the victim is what you do, over and over and over.

 

You just nailed the problem that the OP is struggling with.

 

Brilliant logical arguments are not required when you discussing god beliefs, just ask those people to provide evidence for their god, they will not discuss that, EVER.

 

Ironic projection since the only hostility in evidence stems entirely from the OP towards those who do not share his beliefs.

 

No it should be subject to the same laws as any street trader trying to sell a dubious product to the bereaved, un-educated and desperate. Where it offers help in return for money as it so often does then it should have to show its product actually works.

 

The documented history of atheism predates Christianity by about 500 years or so.

 

The argument you made and the argument made by many of the posters may seem the same to you, but the distinction is very clear to me, everyone else who posted and, I daresay, most if not all people you've ever seen this argument from. The "groupthink" you think you see is simply the fact that the objections are painfully clear if you actually understand the arguments made.

If you're interested in having conversations about atheism that don't boil down to you misunderstanding the arguments, you're going to have to figure out the difference. The thread is full of explanations (although not all of them are great explanations) and most of us will be happy to provide answers to any questions.

I mean, I agree, I merely noted the difference between a non-sequitur and a false dilemma, it was you who wanted to drill down on this particular difference. I wouldn't call it an outrage, most of the emphasis has come from you.