User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 32

  1. #1
    Senior Member EvidenceOfRedemption's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    131

    Default Debunking the thiest/athiest dichotomy

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member EvidenceOfRedemption's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    ...
    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.

  4. #4
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    I really don't think that you understand others' viewpoints at all, which completely spoils your attempts at logic up there
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member EvidenceOfRedemption's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    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
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #8
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default


  9. #9
    Senior Member EvidenceOfRedemption's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    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)

  10. #10
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. "Debunking the MBTI Debunkers" Article
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-19-2017, 12:36 PM
  2. [SJ] SJs and the "Interesting"/"Boring" dichotomy
    By EJCC in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-06-2015, 02:25 PM
  3. What the J/P dichotomy is and isn't
    By entpersonal in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 04:33 PM
  4. Symbolic learning: Part of the J/P dichotomy?
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO