A False Dilemma, in Atheism

By what proof do you mean "evidence"?

 

The people of the "progressive religion" are impressed by your "irrational loyalty", better known as "faith", in an unproved and unprovable supernatural being and where "reason, facts and common sense are ignored" in the name of an ideology. That of course goes for all religions.

 

That's not a third option, it's just relabeling the "no God" option.

I'd say that's not in the ballpark, were it anywhere near the right planet; but such a silly question does serve to illustrate the superficiality of the stereotypical atheist's understanding of the essence of religion.

Ladies first.

No it wouldn't, because ethics is only tangentially related to what he was getting at.

Setting aside that nonsensical claim, it's clear you've never read the full quote.

 

The OP has stooped to flamebaiting and trolling his own thread!

Obviously the OP post itself was such an absurdly illogical fallacy that everyone saw right through it and dismissed it.

The smart move would have been to just walk away from this disaster of a thread and try something different.

Instead once it dawned on the OP that it was a trainwreck he posted the hissyfit tantrum above thereby unwittingly projecting his own limitations onto those who were smart enough to not be duped by illogical nonsense.

 

Thats your best bet. Unfortunately, a God who is in hiding has exactly the same evidence as one who is fictional. A father must have a real good reason to hide from his children, and then make their believing in him the only way for them to get atonement and not burn in hell.

No explanation given why he wants to leave others to wonder. You might just want to default to #1.

So an all-powerful God can't make himself into a form that sinful humans can observe? Didn't he do this when he was Jesus? Also, he can't upgrade us so we can observe him? Doesn't he already do this with good Christians and turn them into angels to live in heaven? Even the best Christians sin and have a sinful nature, even if their sins are atoned for, and yet they are able to live with God just fine. There is also no explanation given how people who have sinned all their lives will suddenly stop sinning when they reach heaven.

If God just appeared to all of us on national tv to help out some hurricane survivors, I am pretty sure people would be quite aware of that.

Another interesting possibility. Its also a possible reason why Zeus, Thor, and Vishnu haven't cared to show up publicly.

As for your dilemma, it is a false dilemma. There is a third option: There is a lack of evidence for God, and no reason to believe in him, but that doesn't mean we won't one day uncover evidence.

 

No the big question most people are gripped with is "how did the universe begin?" there are a group called theists who like to say something called a god created it, they have no evidence or theory, but should they ever come up with any, feel free to get back to us.

 

It is sad when theists abandon faith and attempt to use logic and reason, then when it fails they abandon their faith in another way and simply start screaming abuse!

 

If you believe in a god that created the universe then please provide evidence for your claim.
I do not know how the universe was created, I have no evidence to produce.

The big dilemma for theists is that they make a positive assertion without evidence!

 

Why?
.

Why?

Why?
.

Why?

Ya.

I have no dilemma....I neither have to prove nor disprove something someone else made up.

 

There is a sub-group of theists (and non-theists) that don't ponder as much to the start of the universe as much as realizing and acknowledging that it has a much deeper nature that is existentially and experientially undeniable. This depth of consciousness can hardly be processed by the dualistic mind much less a rigid conceptual framework that must process everything through a third-person "it" perspective.

They realize that this underlying "part" of reality cannot be ignored and so the entire framework of science is insufficient to completely define reality.

 

This presents a problem. If god created the universe, who created god?

God just always was! doesn't work for me. At that point, god is just a middle man to explain how we got from nothing to BANG! One has to wonder why if god created the universe, why he'd spend so much time focusing on one species on one tiny, insignificant planet. If there is a sentient god, he's a war loving sadist.

 

"God" is unborn and unceasing, has no causes and conditions. Any super-impositions made turn into religion, which is fine, but is conceptual. "God" is nondual and nonconceptual. Always-present as pure awareness is as close a definition can get before the concepts collapse.

 

prove any of this.

as well as any of this.

Just an FYI............you will first need to prove a god exists in the first place, before you can even begin to make the above assertions.

 

Why not? The argument is POSSIBILITIES, not 'proof!' Those are rational possibilities, and expose the argument of,

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

..As a false dilemma. There are other possibilities.

I do wish people would read and understand a simple argument..

 

Yup, a variation the old "god works in mysterious ways" crap when the believers have NO answers

 

I say use the scientific method yourself. Do the experiment of observing the observer. Become aware of your own point-blank awareness.

When Galileo proclaimed the moons of Jupiter were actually orbiting Jupiter, did everybody just take his word for it? No, they were skeptical, and they looked through the telescope to see for themselves...some ever refused to look through the telescope because they were too invested in the belief of the Aristotelian geometry of the universe.

As today, many people are refusing to look through the telescope of a meditative or contemplative practice to see "proof" for themselves.

 

So in other words, you can't back up a single assertion you made. Thank you.

 

"Back up" as in what? Point you back to your own source? Breakdown conceptual boundaries for instant recognition of pure awareness? The absolute nature of reality is non-objectifiable, it's total presence. The pure nature of reality can't be found by the dualistic mind, because it's already present...the dualistic mind can only zone-in to things that are moving, thoughts, concepts, emotions, etc.. but pure awareness is unrestricted, clear eternal luminescence.

It doesn't even take meditation...as a zen masters say...
"This is practice of the supreme samadhi, which is the knowing of unborn, unobstructed, and spontaneously arising Awareness...This goes beyond the patterns of holy and profane, goes beyond confusion and wisdom. This is the realization of unsurpassed enlightenment as our own nature." -Kaizen

"Here it is--right now. Start thinking about it and you'll miss it." - Huang Po

 

I don't think anyone has said they can't see the false dilemma (although I'd probably rather consider it a non-sequitur or some kind antecedence fallacy), indeed, I think the fallacy is pretty obvious.

Similarly, the list you present of responses, you seem to miss the point that most people are trying to get across to you, that the argument is a lot rarer than you suggest. Since you won't answer many of the questions and comments, you've left it unclear whether you've managed to find some poor sod who actually makes that argument, or if you've just misinterpreted the arguments made, just like you've misinterpreted the arguments in your list.

 

Your opinion only and you have demonstrated a bias on the subject. Does not give it any more import than opinions differing from yours.

You only make suppositions on the subject and reject any that differ from yours. Shaky.

 

Simple, mythology.

 

You made several declarations of fact/assertions in the post I quoted. You were challenged to prove any of them. You of course know you can in no way do this, and so does everyone else.

You should word your posts differently. If you say you "believe" those things, that's entirely different. But when you state them as fact, you are going to have to provide evidence for them when challenged.

 

Don't worry, we will not be infected by your beliefs.

 

Do you think that only Christians have the only, correct version of things?

 

Do you know how many of his beliefs and statements were wrong in his life?