Debunking the thiest/athiest dichotomy

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

Humanity is more focused on individual rights and opinions than ever before. This is the manure in which the false dichotemy of athiest vs. thiest worldview sprout from.

This phrase sums up the majority of the many proponents of this supposed dichotemy: "because I have no overt evidence of God, it's a matter of personal belief which determines whether or not God exists, some believe God does, some don't, and I sit on the fence as an agnostic because I believe there's no evidence either way."

However, saying this is akin to saying, because I do not have direct evidence of a murder taking place, there is no such thing as murder itself.

In other words, the comfort zone that agnostics and athiests lodge themselves is non-existent because it only exists when you muddy the waters between God and evidence of God in the universe (this is assuming one already denies the very existence of the universe as evidence). You can find the same denial of the nature of truth in every agnostic, athiestic, and dead religion "world view" delusion.

Even the concept of separate truths and world views and opinions denies the very nature of truth. We've slid deeply into a mess of legalistic quantification where "truth" is defined by a mass of blind persons, none of which has the least shred of real honesty to admit that quantifying anything by their individual, subjective experiences would be quite a bit of assumption mixed with a tiny bit of emotional interpretation. Even if you combine a mass of this it still would not give you substantial evidence to determine truth by subjective means.

Now I know! I know this is a matter of survival, of having no greater means of truth to function by (to you) so calm down. All I'm getting at is this: which is harder to believe: that God exists, or that the desperate denial of the nature of truth by atheists and agnostics will somehow alter the nature of it? If one honestly considers the comparative likeliness then you'll see that the thiest\athiestic dichotemy is nothing but imaginary.

 

[dala]

That is a poor analogy. If you were to say, 'there is no evidence that any murder has ever occurred, therefore I don't believe murderers exist' or 'there is no evidence that this specific person was murdered, therefore I don't believe this person was murdered' and you would have a more accurate and logical analog. In each case, assuming that the evidence did, in fact, not exist for either the existence of murderers or a specific murder, respectively, then the conclusion is logical if not necessarily correct in each case. Lacking evidence, it doesn't really seem logical to just assume someone was murdered. In fact, it seems downright irresponsible.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about after that, since one statement does not seem to logically follow the next. However, I will point out that you have included a somewhat bizarre false dichotomy in your final paragraph.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

...

Do you have parents? Yes, I'd assume. Let's for the sake of an accurate comparison, there is no birth record or way to locate them physically.

Since you have no proof they exist, in the same delusion the thiest/athiest dichotomy is formed, I could make a dichotomy of personal opinion on whether or not they exist, then tell everyone it's up to them to decide for themselves what they believe because we have no proof.

So really, it is this behavior of delusion that steps away illogically.


Now, let's say you narrow it down, as you have, by saying, all this shows is that you don't have proof that my parents exist, it doesn't prove they don't. True. So why, in the same sense, don't we contain the lack of proof of God to merely being a lack of proof? No, instead it becomes a false dichotomy and a delusion.



This is where I am asserting (through my "bizarre" dichotomy ) that the probability that God exists is greater than the dichotomy (which, if we had remained reasonable, we would have rejected) being true, and that being true, the dichotomy itself dissolves and the basis, imaginary.

 

[miss fortune]

I really don't think that you understand others' viewpoints at all, which completely spoils your attempts at logic up there

 

[dala]

That would only be a relevant analogy if all other universes had gods. I personally don't know of any other universes or whether they have gods or not.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

That would only be a relevant analogy if all other universes had gods. I personally don't know of any other universes or whether they have gods or not.

The same principle still applies: you don't have proof of other universes, and whether other universes have respective gods, so you're still unreasonably falling to the assumption that they don't.

What I am saying is, if we're truly scientific, this bias wouldn't exist at all, and without the bias, the default would fall upon God's existence, not lack thereof. Even if you make a dichotomy of this discussion... a dichotomy of whether we have the dichotomy of God's existence in the first place or not, you still have to take a large degree of assumption at the root of such an idea which simply shouldn't exist in objective empirical reasoning.


So you ask, how? Compared to what? Compared to the way we compare and observe anything else in the natural universe. Just like with your parents existing, the explanation falls naturally on yes, they do, by default. So why, with God's existence alone, do we allow this fallacy to thrive? Like I said: humanity is more focused on individual rights and opinions than ever before. When you take a step, you assume the sidewalk exists in front of you because you can see it.

but God, by nature, is unseen, not seen. So saying God does not exist because we don't observe the evidence is like saying because we have not evidence of one victim's murder or another, that murder doesn't exist. Murder itself creates the possibility of evidence existing. Saying God doesn't exist because we don't observe evidence muddies the water between God who creates and what God created, and it's only in this false jump in reason that athiesm and agnosticism find itself comfortable.

 

[miss fortune]

nice to see that you can't even overcome an argument as simple as "you don't understand what you're talking about"... REALLY sharp logic you've displayed

 

[A window to the soul]

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

nice to see that you can't even overcome an argument as simple as "you don't understand what you're talking about"... REALLY sharp logic you've displayed

The only way I could overcome that claim would be with personal qualifications, and personal qualifications are highly overrated in the realm of logic (I think many INTPs will agree)

 

[A window to the soul]

The only way I could overcome that claim would be with personal qualifications, and personal qualifications are highly overrated in the realm of logic (I think many INTPs will agree!)

I think you're an angel.

 

[Rasofy]

is right

 

[A window to the soul]

is right

I am not an angel. Don't test me boy.

 

[dala]

Assuming is precisely what I am not doing. I am not assuming that anything does or does not exist, whereas you are assuming that the existence of something for which there is no proof should somehow default to existing. I am unsure of what it means to 'take a large degree of assumption at the root of such an idea which simply shouldn't exist in objective empirical reasoning.'

I will go ahead an answer to the general gist of what I believe you're saying in the third paragraph (please correct me if I'm wrong), that being that you believe that everything was created by something, and therefore the universe was created by god. This is what is commonly called 'begging the question,' or circular reasoning. It is illogical because the premise (everything was created by something) presupposes the conclusion (something that created the universe exists).

 

[miss fortune]

The only way I could overcome that claim would be with personal qualifications, and personal qualifications are highly overrated in the realm of logic (I think many INTPs will agree)

and the only side of argument that you are presenting is your own viewpoint, which is equally logical... either way, you can't apply logic to religion, and you can't explain religion or lack of religion without looking at personal viewpoints... you've caught yourself in a dangerous spiral here

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

No, what I am saying is that this comfort zone "I am not assuming that anything does or does not exist" itself does not exist, by the very nature of truth. When we observe it can't, then we begin to see the pattern that emerges is one that supposes incorrectly, the same basis behind something like saying whether or not i have murder of one victim or another, murder by default doesn't itself exist.

What I'm saying, basically, is that by remaining in the comforts of the lack of physical evidence as the basis of being real or not, you're taking a large degree of assumption when it comes to the nature of God's existence, God being unseen.

So you say, so what? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is that everything else of this nature, that we do not see, we be default assume one way. This is if your faith is based on what you observe. Even science itself would not exist or progress without the notion that something we have not yet observed is in fact true or not. And yet with God, we assume Atheism is the more scientifically likely belief. The whole line of reasoning is full of contradiction.

However, a true measurement with reason will display the opposite, and eradicate the dichotomy altogether if your perception is deep enough.

The bias exists because of sociological observations, nothing scientific. Scientists as by nature cynical, and see faith or perspective on anything of an unseen nature as ignorant of the empirical pattern of thought. This has lead to a proclivity towards Athiesm, and an assumption of Athiesm being the more scientific viewpoint. Then, a certain few more individuals recognize in terms of proof you cannot lean one way or another, but if we had removed this unreasonable proclivity towards Athiesm as being "science"-belief in the first place, the entire dichotomy collapses. Furthermore, if you wanna be ambitious, start to weigh out the matter of belief sociologically rather than evidently, a root of false empirical bias becomes evident.

 

[dala]

You do realize that a vast majority of what you're saying makes no sense, right? Even after two or three reads through I can't follow your train of thought. Maybe you should take a step back and clarify what you're saying. Without using analogies (your analogies don't make sense) or dichotomies (the ones you have presented are false, as I mentioned before).

 

[Rasofy]

I am not an angel. Don't test me boy.

Hey, it was the only time we've ever ''agreed'' on a religious subject, I had to quote you.
Anyways, I don't feel like defending atheists anymore...as long as ppl don't make it seem like a sort of satanism, I don't really care.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

You do realize that a vast majority of what you're saying makes no sense, right? Even after two or three reads through I can't follow your train of thought. Maybe you should take a step back and clarify what you're saying. Without using analogies (your analogies don't make sense) or dichotomies (the ones you have presented are false, as I mentioned before).

Case in point, you assume I'm wrong by default and assume I must prove otherwise, a byproduct of the comfort zone I was explaining in my previous posts.


Edit: my conscience became bothered that I made this thread, since it will probably only lead to strife. Considering that I have to bow out of this topic. I apologize for making it and if this leaves anyone feeling slighted in the least. Delete this if we can, please.

 

[giegs]

Belief in god.
Non-belief in god.

Seems like a dichotomy to me.

 

[Ginkgo]

Someone will come in here and wreck this thread's face.