A False Dilemma, in Atheism

Exactly!

 

OK, but I don't need the crutch of making up something just to believe in something....that's assinine….... I believe in reality....

 

I would say your perception of reality. Because, if you believe in a godless universe, that is just a belief.. it is not empirical reality. Its just 'made up'.

It is not even true, as there really is a Creator/God, that we are accountable to, whether anyone believes it, or not.

But everyone can believe whatever they want. We'll find out soon enough, what the ultimate Reality is.

Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.

 

That is all anyone has.

If you believe in a god , that's just a belief.

Its just 'made up'.

Which NO one has ever proven.

And that includes those who do not believe in a god.

...without interference from others who may have different beliefs.

 

You're under the impression, perhaps, that this is a revelation to theists in general?

 

You attack when someone does exactly as you do but in the opposite direction. You claim to have a belief in this god yet discard it if anyone has a different concept of reality.

This is why theists like you are considered not credible.

 

You see an ATTACK!! in that post?

 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence as opposed to irrefutable proof of nonexistence.

 

The point in the mystical literature is to understand that concepts and understanding can't be made into st

I think Nagarjuna covered this point when he was trying to conceptually wrap his mind around reality and he came to these premises- for the mind to be able comprehend something it is conceptual and dualistic. Since the mind is dualistic it has to come to 4 conclusions of reality and all of them are false, so the mind is ultimately false. ...

He said...

 

I would suspect that a better formulation would be:

"Lack of evidence of God's existence is lack of evidence of God's existence".

And, the position of this question in one's life is going to be very different.

For those who believe in god, that belief is (or should be) a major feature in every decision made - a foundation of one's life.

For those who doubt, this particular question doesn't necessarily feature in any decision made.

It's not like thinking, "well, since I don't know the answer to this god question, this is what I'm going to do."

Operationally, the "other choice" of belief isn't "no god" - it's a belief in other principles.

 

So not only have you doctored my quote to take out the part where I point out that theists will not ever discuss evidence for their god but you miss the point of mystical literature, it is mystical, its woo woo, its fairy tales for the gullible.

 

It's not about theism or secularism, its about the actual nature of reality. If you're stuck on a belief system, well you need to move past it...the actual pure essence of reality is partly represented by woo woo mythology but it turns out that is only a small part of the perspective.

"Evidence" is looking at reality directly as the first-person point of view. It's actually very up front and "zen" for example has a lucid "path" to go about actualizing this reality past any theory, mythology or "woo". The pure nature of nondual reality is described in many ways but it typically depends on the stage of psychological development that one finds themselves at, as to how it reveals itself, so to speak.

It boils down to how reality itself, is actually composed of an ontological "inside" and "outside" of truth. Science is set up to study the outside, while meditative and contemplative traditions tend to "study" the insides. If you are only acknowledging the outside, you're really missing out on describing reality to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

 

And, typically those "principles" involve studying reality solely from the third-person point of view. It gets caught up in the "the only thing that is real is considered real is what I can see" fallacy. What materialism cannot square is that it's own conceptual assertion of truth, the actual concept itself, cannot be found by science, it cannot be pointed to. This ironic nature of this scientific principle also divulges the pure 1st-person essence of reality.

The way one interprets this nature of reality depends on their psychological stage of development...of how they perceive reality at all.

 

This all depends on if your worldview involves denying the first-person reality of experiential awareness or if you have an authoritative worldview that only the 3rd-person claims to reality are "real".

If you choose to believe there is no first-person claims to truth or ontological reality, you seem to run into an intellectual hurdle rather quickly that the belief itself "that only the third-person perspective of objective reality" itself is a subjective conceptual entity and cannot be pinned down by material or the third person value claim.

You can see the physical correlate of someone perhaps getting a brain scan while they think of the concept, but this is a clumsy attempt at justifying an EEG as correlation as causation. The actual first-person nature of reality cannot be confined to a conceptual framework that denies the existence of conceptual frameworks.

 

No, it depends on whether you want to endlessly contemplate your own navel or actually live your life! But still when you give me some evidence to support the claims of a god, get back to me, otherwise persist with your woo woo for the uneducated and gullible.

 

Interesting overview and I primarily agree with it. The issue comes from substituting internal retrospect with external religious dogma and literature which quells further understanding and growth by placing blinders on the seeker.

 

I think the binders are unavoidable in a way, in part because as many philosopher's have pointed out, we have to process reality through a psychological framework. We have to have some type of stigma to even begin with conceptualizing because conceptual nature is the subject object duality. If we transcend the subject/object duality we transcend conceptuality, in the now.

But the "intellectual binders on the seeker" are more about the psychological stage that many people find themselves at when approaching religion and it's truth and the history of mythological perspective on this issue that permeates it's literature.The mythological perspective to religion is not a required mark of interpretation, and in fact, it's out-dated.

 

While true, the psychology becomes a major detriment to reality acceptance due to a devout and mindless devotion to the religion and the inherent blindfold it presents to anything objective. Thus do I (as you probably) avoid the Godhead problem by choosing a personal Buddhist path to enlightenment and growth within the reality presented.

 

The stigma with the whole "God" problem turns into a neurotisim, because people look at history and proclaim how the believers in God were pre-rational...and that's fine...but I don't think it's valid to throw away the entire approach of approaching a spiritual life that includes devotion or some semblance of humility as compared to the divine.

I think people gravitate to their level of complexity, I think we represent ourselves as we see reality, we portray who we think God is. I tend to gravitate toward zen and dzogchen approaches to busting reality open. This "path" doesn't have God's to worship but it shows you divinity is your true nature. In zen, it's sometimes referred too as "ultimate reality" and in dzogchen it's sometimes called "pure awareness" or "pure presence"...our primordial ground of being... but in the Christian perspective, we see God from more of a third-person perspective, an "it" and in zen we would call that the "I". As we break through the delusion of "it" and "I", we see they are non-separate...only our viewpoints are separate.

 

It is impossible to ignore the role of propaganda and Indoctrination. The whole, 'Religion is for ignorant, superstitious losers!' meme, that you see constantly in the public discourse, does not stem from tolerance, freedom of conscience, or 'science!', as the indoctrinees like to portray it. They are pounded with phony narratives of anti-christian caricatures, and ANY 'religious!' belief is ridiculed as irrelevant and stupid.

So, not wanting to be 'stupid!', these bobbleheads lap it up, and jump on the anti religion bandwagon, but it is only OTHER'S 'religions' that they ridicule. The indoctrinated belief of atheistic naturalism, or the pseudo science 'religion' of Progressivism is the New State Religion, and it is indoctrinated exclusively from pre school.

But it is just religious bigotry, approved by the state, and indoctrinated into gullible dupes who have lost the ability to think critically.

Any belief about the nature of the universe, including a perception about God, or no God, is religious, at its root. And any demeaning disdain thrown at a competing worldview is just old fashioned religious bigotry.

 

..or existence...

'Irrefutable Proof!' is a fantasy. Even personally verified, commonly accepted 'facts' have exceptions, variations, and conditional qualifiers.

'Evidence' can consist of:
1. Empirical, testable, repeatable observation
2. Personal, anecdotal.
3. Faith in someone else's perception

All are common and legitimate forms of evidence.

If someone experiences something, say they claim to have personally met Trump at a rally, and conversed with him. Lacking pictures or other hard evidence, others might doubt the claimed experience. And, if they could prove that Trump wasn't there, the evidence for doubt of the claim becomes compelling.

But denial of the experience from skeptics has little effect on those who had the experience. If you chatted with Trump, shook his hand, and sat for a coffee, others can doubt all they want. You know what happened.

If some want to have very high standards of 'evidence!', fine. But to arbitrarily and exclusively apply their skepticism ONLY to those with claimed experiences of the supernatural, is beyond rational, and becomes bigotry.

To put all the basis for 'reasoning' in a false dilemma, just exposes irrational bias, not rational skepticism.

 

I see you attack in every post that defies your specific bigotry.

 

YOU conclude? By what authority do you claim to have influence over anyone else? Yet you try to impose your beliefs on all others.

What you THINK is your business, you don't have to share it and insist on it veracity, usually to your own detriment.

 

..

Right. Projection, much?

I am CONSTANTLY promoting freedom of belief, tolerance, and chiding religious bigotry that constantly rears its ugly head.

"Why cannot a very simple rational progression be followed, without moral indignation, and fanned up 'atheists vs Christians!' flame war memes?"

 

Are not opinions allowed in an open forum, on a philosophical topic? Or can only YOUR beliefs be considered?