The atheists dilema
By urbandekay
@urbandekay (18278)
November 3, 2011 4:32pm CST
There is a rather cheesy claim made sometimes by atheists, I believe it was also made by a popular celebrity atheist, who, like a tale told by a fool, is full of sound and fury but signifies little. It takes the form that the burden of proof lies with the believer or put it another way, that the atheist holds the most logical position
The claim that the burden of proof is on those that say God exists is exactly that; just a claim. We must ask is it a valid one? Well, there are many things we accept as true without being able to prove them (Where proof means 3rd person proof)An example of such is consciousness; you cannot prove to me you are conscious and I cannot prove to you that I am, we do however accept that we are conscious because we experience it. Similarly, I can not prove to you that I know God exist or that I experience him but my experience of him is of the same kind as my experience of being conscious and similarly unmistakable.
So the atheist is faced with a logical dilemma; either they must accept that their belief that they are conscious is no more valid that the believers faith in God,
OR
They must admit that they are logically inconsistent
all the best urban
1 person likes this
3 responses
@ReverendShaggy (415)
• Philippines
4 Nov 11
I am going to use Courts as an example for this.
In a court of law it is the prosecutors responsibility to prove that the defendant committed their crimes. Whether it is theft or murder.
We may know full well this person committed these crimes and have video and blood on his hands, but it still has to be proven by the prosecutor.
That is the Burden of Proof. If that prosecutor does not prove it then that person goes free, even if they committed the crime.
Even if someone sees God and can video tape God and knows where God is, It is there burden to prove it if they are asked.
Several very good examples were given of similar aspects. Such as everyone says oh Santa Claus is not real, he is made up. The truth of the matter is that Santa Claus is very real. A legend born from a simple toymaker who enjoyed seeign joy in his local village children. Chris Kringle was indeed real and has been proven to be and is the basis for Santa. God has not been proven to exist yet so many more people are quick to say He is real you just have to accept it. I say to you then that you just have to accept that Santa is real.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
4 Nov 11
But those that testify of God have not committed a crime, your analogy is bad. We do not say, you must prove you have consciousness to a jury of 12 good men and true nor could you. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to demand such a standard of proof for the same.
No one has a personal experience of Santa Claus in the way many do of God
all the best urban
@ReverendShaggy (415)
• Philippines
5 Nov 11
The analogy used was simply applying to the burden of proof aspect that you say does not fall on the believer. As a prosecutor they "believe" that the person on trial is guilty. That in my eyes is a rather apt analogy. I am not pointing to the fact that a crime is what the must prove. It is pointing that the Burden of Proof falls to that side.
As far as no one have personal experiences of Santa, ask kids what Santa got them for Christmas one time, that is a personal experience. That experience either helped or hindered that child's beliefs for that much longer. The same goes for religion. Whether experiences help or hinder determines a persons belief threshold. Like it or not faith is based on a person's threshold of joy and disappointment. Faith is very much an emotion based thing.
And you do not like the Santa aspect so I will bring up the simple fact of mythology as I do many times. Before it was Mythology it was religion. They were real and all knew it. Look where that is today. If you believe thats is fine but to say athiests are being unrealistic by asking you to prove to them the existence is being ignorant of the fact that christianity bashed Greek mythology simply because it didn't fall in with the teachings that they wanted the people to follow. When people question something and you can give them actual proof then it solidifies your stance that much more so why would you not want that chance?
@urbandekay (18278)
•
5 Nov 11
The burden of proof falls clearly on those that believe they have consciousness with no more evidence for than that possessed by those that believe in God, which they seek to deny.
Yes, children, including apparently Smilingjack, believe in Santa, because their parents lie to them, but those of any intellectual capacity soon grow out of it.
Many come to belief in God late in life however.
all the best urban
@urbandekay (18278)
•
8 Nov 11
Well, science may be hard but philosophy is harder
all the best urban
@urbandekay (18278)
•
8 Nov 11
I am a believer and a philosopher, both philosophy, science and religion start in wonder and whilst there is nothing incomparable between religion and science. As a person with a passion for philosophy you will no doubt be aware that there are a number of issues between science and philosophy, some of which I have briefly described in a previous discussion,
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2587606.aspx
all the best urban
@_sketch_ (5742)
• United States
8 Nov 11
Philosophy is the love of knowledge. Any "philosophy" that isn't compatible with science is not one worth having. Philosophy is about seeking truth and wanting to understand the world. Religion is accepting without question and so is a hindrance to understanding. So I can see why you would say it's hard. I am an atheist and I have a passion for philosophy.
@ladym33 (10979)
• United States
19 Nov 11
Very interesting discussion topic and you make some very good point. I myself am a Christian but I can't honestly say I have never had my doubts and I can not say that some atheists have never made some good points. But belief is belief and being a Christian that means I have to believe and not look further in to believing otherwise if that makes any sense.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
22 Nov 11
Well, having doubts is part of faith but I am confused when you say,
"...being a Christian that means I have to believe and not look further in to believing otherwise"
It seems, at least to me, that questioning what one believes and even entertaining and examining other beliefs only makes faith stronger
all the best urban
