Where is the inconsistency of atheists?
1⃣ Setting standards they themselves violate ... (pretending to seek certainty, yet in daily life, they tend to rely on probabilities).
2⃣ In discussions, they force others to be straightforward and avoid going in circles:
〰 However, when not under pressure, they throw rapid-fire questions to confuse theists (which means they aren't genuinely seeking the truth >< but their actions seem to suggest they are).
〰 When cornered, they dodge, go in circles, and avoid accepting what should be acknowledged, rather than veering off-topic and giving the impression that there is much the theist does not know.
〰〰 Indeed, no one knows everything, and many mysteries in the world remain unsolved.
⭕️ Atheists are aware that NOT ALL MYSTERIES CAN BE SOLVED. NOT EVERYTHING MUST BE CERTAIN. THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS AND MAKE IT A PRINCIPLE OF THEIR LIFE. YET, THEY DEMAND PERFECTION FROM OTHERS (THEISTS).
👉 For themselves, they seek the truth according to their ability, but impose on others a demand for perfection.
- 〰 Worse yet, theists who are still beginners, still learning philosophy, get baited into thinking, "THIS MUST HAVE AN ANSWER," and then theists fall into the trap set by atheists.
3⃣ They demand proof, but cannot prove "something that cannot be proven."
〰 However, just because something cannot be proven does not mean it cannot serve as proof or that it lacks evidence.
〰 NOR DOES IT MEAN "IF ONE BELIEVES SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE IT" ❌
Rather, "something considered non-existent" can be proven (there is a burden to prove - burden of proof).
This is done by proving the ABSENCE OF ITS TRACE.
If someone says, "there is no apple on the table," they must prove the absence of any trace of an apple on the table.
... or even deeper ...
If someone says, "there is no €)#)?25%€]@#& on the table," they must prove the absence of any trace of €)#)?25%€]@#& on the table.
⭕️ If atheists refuse to prove the non-existence of something they consider non-existent❓ABSURD❗️AB-SURD. WHY?
It is the same as saying, "I believe it exists because there is no example"? What does that mean? In all forms of understanding, examples and models of reality are necessary. Whether one is trying to understand what is visible or what is perceived by the eye (particles), an example is still needed. Because we cannot fully grasp the shape of a particle, except to the extent that it can be tested to observe its TENDENCY, NOT ITS COMPLETE CERTAINTY. Why? Because all forms of empirical observation are LIMITED TO GETTING CLOSER, NOT TOUCHING (except for particle collisions).
So, in the end, the final result of empirical observation is merely to test the limits of consistency.
This means that because the object cannot be fully understood, a "model" is needed so that it can be recorded for analysis. This model is, of course, not taken from "x-=&-€€xcyv€&€€yy]f" (which is unclear) but from an "empirical model" that we know as an "example."
Then, when they refuse to prove "the non-existence of something" without proving the absence of its traces, it means that, consistently and consequently, they must also be able to accept the truth without an example that is visible in life.
The Benefits of Controlling the Ego
However, an atheist who can rid themselves of ego will see a reduction in arrogance, and their awareness will become like soft clay that easily takes on the impressions of incoming information. This results in the imprint of information being left on their softened awareness.
Thus, what initially could not be seen becomes visible—various imprints from empirical observations.
They can see the silhouette lines of imprints from information that has been stamped on their awareness, now unhidden by a thick layer of ego (their soul starts to become cleaner).
The spirit (awareness) can then recognize which imprint paths overlap.
Once aware of the direction of these imprint paths, empirical data becomes easily interpretable through a broader human perspective. From this limited empirical data scan, one can deduce the various contexts and perspectives, leading to an understanding of the Divine.
✅ Be a self-aware atheist, not a self-righteous one.
✅ Recognize that "existence or non-existence" of something can be proven through the observation of the presence or absence of experiential or knowledge traces.
Do not consider atheists intelligent merely because their thinking is critical if it is absurdly inconsistent. Even ordinary young people who have not studied logical thinking can be taught to debate critically, provided they are trained to "find faults (holes) as you see fit" (later, the ego will perceive this as a defensive instruction, and naturally, the ego will provide any data to counter it).
Except for sincere atheists, whose reasoning system is calm and clean, willing to be refined, making the thin imprints of information easily stimulate (open the inner eye) their pure nature, so they can see the imprints of experience/knowledge leading to the Divine.
Responding to the Opportunity - Pascal's Wager
What if atheists believe that everyone is destined for hell? Does that render Pascal's Wager irrelevant? ❌
In that case, it would be fair for both atheists and theists to ask whether this belief is a certainty or an assumption. If it is a certainty, but atheists cannot prove "the non-existence of something," then there is an inconsistency in reasoning, indicating an assumption. This returns us to the issue of the burden of proof discussed earlier.
- 👉 Does this mean theists can also assume the existence of heaven? Is it acceptable for theists to use Pascal's Wager?
Are there 1,000 religions? Even if there are trillions of religions, the fundamental point is to return to the core issue.
🎯 Should one accept God or not?
Regarding which God is the true one, it is essential to start with an initial step.
If the initial step is not taken, it is absurd to jump directly to which God is the true one.
👉 This is like searching for something considered better without confirming if what is sought actually exists—absurd.
📌 Next steps: Filter the thousands of religions down to 10 or 5 major ones.
〰 Study each one thoroughly. Whatever the result (if there is a God—Pascal's Wager again), it should be accountable for genuinely seeking.
📌 Why focus on the top 10 or 5 religions? Is there a correlation between the prominence of a religion and its truth?
👉 We must reason objectively, logically, and realistically. Our lifespan does not extend to 100 trillion years, so within a lifespan of 100 years, it is practical to limit the scope.
〰 Unless you have only half an hour left before buying food at a stall and need to take it to a lab to test if it’s safe to eat—just kidding!
〰 The top 10 or 5 major religions reflect significant influence. Since God is associated with POWER and INFLUENCE, it is reasonable to measure based on the rating of influence and the efficiency of our limited lifespan.
Top comments (0)