Can atheist and theist both have missed the point?

Question

I have asked this before and what I am trying to say is that atheist and theist are right about God's existance or non-existance. God is so evasive from universal rules that the universal laws of "existing" or "not existing" doesn't even apply to him. God is both too powerful to be real and at the same time God is so powerful that he is unreal. Where do we go once atheism and theism are both believed to be right? Imagine what kind of power that is where the terms "existing" and "not existing" doesn't even apply, it blows the mind.

Answer 1

Maybe. That's too deep for me, Dude. I can't wrap my head around existing and not existing both at once. Pass the bowl.

Answer 2

One can argue that the nature of existence may or may not differ between this life or not, but one may not argue that something can exist and not exist at the same time.

Something either occupies space or it doesn't.

It either has matter, or it doesn't.

It's black and white, cut and dry.

Everything in our universe to our knowledge is as such, and seeing as everything compared to nothing is a whole lot, it is a very safe assumption that this generality encompasses this and any other life. That it functions everywhere all the time.

So that brings us back to square one.

To be or not to be....

Answer 3

Kind of like Russell's teapot, right?

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 4

i often say that BELIEVERS are misled because what THEY understand is not really the point. However, Athiests miss the point because many believe in science and humanistic traditions that prevent them from actually achieving faith.
in a sense of the word both parties are missing the Truth.

God on the other hand does exist. therefore believing that he doesnt exist if dillusion or the fact of believeing in a LIE.

Answer 5

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 6

Yes, we are both wrong. The only logical answer is a half god that really means there is a god but at the same time there isn't one. (rolls eyes).

Answer 7

That kind of thinking is not encouraged, you will be accused of smoking weed, but i like the way you think, and i sometimes think the same way, except when things turn to a paradox and contradiction, God created our minds, and what doesn't fit logic doesn't fit God, beause God is logic.

Answer 8

Um, both your arguments claim that god isn't real. How, exactly, can theism be right under those circumstances?

Answer 9

I agree with the first 3 folks. hehe

Answer 10

If God "is" then he exist. That's what "is"means.