Optical Illusion: Both Atheism & Theism Are Equally Valid

[theirishfrog]

Who the fuck are you... Schrödinger? Either God does or doesn't exist, but we make discernments based on evidence. So when someone claims there is a God, but fails to provide scientific evidence... YOU REJECT IT!

You would (I hope) apply the same level of skepticism for the existence of unicorns, fairies or the Loch Ness monster... So why not God? Why does religion get the free pass? Seems pretty hypocritical for me.

Also, your analogy sucks, sir... Please find a different one.

[NemoUtopian]

An argument from bad analogy mixed with verbal diarrhea, bad generalizations, a lack of understanding of subject matter.

"Flip your world view"? Seriously? Gee wiz! With my complete lack of understanding of theistic perspective, one almost has to wonder how I was ever one.

[TheAnimeAtheist]

One requires the person to indulge themselves in harmful gullibility. Then other validly demands evidence. They are not the same and they are not both right. Your analogy is terrible.

[Cafeeine]

Your analogy does not work. You are confusing perception with reality. We can perceive two faces in the illusion, but in reality it is just a 2-d image, and neither of the two faces exist outside our perception of them. Likewise, there there are perceptions of reality aligned with theism as well as some aligned with theism. But in reality, any particular god either exists or doesn't exist. Whether any of the perceptions are right is irrelevant to this.

[AtheistKharm]

3. If you don't accept that principle then you are forced into believing every existence claim that anyone comes up with until proven false. Now atheist and theist will argue endlessly over if there is evidence for the existence of God. I think its clear where I stand on this. I have looked at all the evidence that they have asserted and to this date all of their arguments have been answered by skeptics. This leaving me with the conclusion that there is no reason to believe there are God(s).

[AtheistKharm]

@WearTheWhiteRobe I see no paradox here. Do you understand what falsifiable means? It means that something can be shown to be false. I'm a male, this is falsifiable, but it is true. You could find evidence to find that I'm a female meaning that my statement "i'm a male" is false. This contradicts what you said, "if something is true, it is then known to be not falsifiable." Either you don't have a good grasp on logic or you don't understand what falsifiable means.

[AtheistKharm]

@WearTheWhiteRobe I see no paradox here. Do you understand what falsifiable means? It means that something can be shown to be false. I'm a male, this is falsifiable, but it is true. You could find evidence to find that I'm a female meaning that my statement "i'm a male" is false. This contradicts what you said, "if something is true, it is then known to be not falsifiable." Either you don't have a good grasp on logic or you don't understand what falsifiable means.

[WearTheWhiteRobe]

@AtheistKharm Falsifiability is a hoax. It does not mean anything reasonable. Everything is falsifiable except truth itself. Even "white swans do exist" is logically falsifiable.

You can not come up with any claim that would not be logically falsifiable.

[AtheistKharm]

@WearTheWhiteRobe What you are saying comes across as incoherent when you make statements like: "Nothing can be both true and falsifiable at the same time." and "You can not come up with any claim that would not be logically falsifiable." Maybe you can elaborate on this for me in a private message where there are no character limits.

[WearTheWhiteRobe]

@AtheistKharm What I am saying is that a natural science hypothesis that would not be falsifiable is a paradox. It can not be done. Any natural science hypothesis you make will always be falsifiable. So the whole requirement for falsifiability is nonsense. Even "there are no pink unicorns" is logically falsifiable.

[AtheistKharm]

2. Having said that I think its important to talk about these world views and consider if they are justified. No doubt there are atheist as well as theist who believe and don't believe in God(s) for bad reasons. However I think among the vast majority of people who do call themselves atheist are also methodological naturalist and skeptics. We think belief should be suspended until there is sufficient evidence to give you a reason to believe.

[AtheistKharm]

Theism and atheism are true dichotomies -- meaning either God(s) exist or they don't. Both atheism and theism can't be true or not true at the same time other wise you get logical contradictions.

I think your analogy has more to do with how atheist and theist view the universe in support of their belief or non-belief. God's existence is not contingent on how we view the universe or whether we believe or not -- God(s) either exist or they don't.

[TheAnimeAtheist]

@AtheistKharm no they really aren't. They are only about peoples beliefs not actually if the beliefs are true. So this point doesn't really dismantle this persons point. Though it is wrong, the best you can pull from this that it is "true' that one person believe this is and that the other person holds a nonbelief to that. But there are reasons to both points of view and this analogy doesn't address those. which is why it is invalid.

[AtheistKharm]

@TheAnimeAtheist You're right, I made a mistake saying "theism and atheism is a true dichotomy." Theism and atheism have to do with belief. Whether God(s) exist or not is a true dichotomy and this was the point I was trying to make. When he says "this is reality right here, god exist and god does not exist." That is what I'm trying to address -- that it is logically impossible for both of those to be true.

[TheAnimeAtheist]

@AtheistKharm And for you to admit your mistake, revise your statement and make clear what you meant in a kind, clear, and proactive manner you sir exemplify what it is to be a true rational. 300 points for griffindor!

[AtheistKharm]

@TheAnimeAtheist Thanks for the compliment and thanks for pointing out the mistake. I have been wrong about nearly everything in my life before. So I really value the ability to put bias aside, understand the argument someone is making, and admit that I'm wrong. This virtue should have a name and should be exalted to the level that faith enjoys. Too bad we live in a world where it is so hard to change someones mind.

[TheAnimeAtheist]

@AtheistKharm True words my friend, those are true words. You've got a good head on your shoulders.

[julzabro]

You actually CAN argue about god's existence or nonexistence but only as far as the logic or lack of logic behind the belief or disbelief regarding any potential god. Obviously, neither side can prove or disprove any god....otherwise there's be no argument. BUT we can argue about how our reasoning and our logic created our views and what reason n logic we used. Most Atheists were believers initially.

[julzabro]

Problem with ur theory is that with an optical illusion...all perseptions are true and correct. The question of a god's existence isn't about perceptions becuz the reality is either there IS a god or their isn't.