How do you feel about atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punisherthunder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Not at all.

In fact, it is quite trenchant that the wiki article did NOT use heads and tails.

That would have been a much, much simpler example, no?

Why didn’t they use it?

Because it’s not appropriate to limn what was attempting to be explained.

When one rejects the claim: it’s heads…

it implies that the belief is: it’s tails.

Your 10 yr old son is crying right now, MrE.
Click to expand...
Then using you very logic is someone rejects the claim that the number of balls is odd then it must imply that the belief is even. If not why not?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Someone either committed the crime or they did not, they ARE either guilty or innocent of the crime and they ARE mutually exclusive. Someone can NOT be guilt of carrying out an assault and at the same time of be innocent of the assault they are guilty of committing.

But if you want to avoid the court lets talk about the odd and even balls after all you seem to be able to understand the concept when it is applied to that.
Click to expand...
Based on who’s definition of crime?
 
estesbob said:
Based on who’s definition of crime?
Click to expand...
No, lets not talk about interpretations of crime as it has nothing to do with discussion. The fact is that someone either did what there are accused of or they did not, the definition of crime is utterly irrelevant.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
But if you want to avoid the court
Click to expand...
Yes, please.
lets talk about the odd and even balls after all you seem to be able to understand the concept when it is applied to that.
Click to expand...
If I say, “I don’t believe that the number of gumballs is odd”…

What does that necessarily imply?

It means…

“I do believe that the number of gumballs is…even.”

Now, if I just look at the bowl of gumballs, you are correct in asserting that it’s fine to suspend judgement until you have more information.

But, MrE…WHEN YOU REJECT ONE VIEW, it NECESSARILY means that you accept the other view…when things are mutually exclusive.
 
PRmerger said:
I’m sorry. The sentence above appears incoherent.

Could you please re-phrase?
Click to expand...
Ok we have two outcomes A or B. Critical thinking, which I do for a blinking living by the way, states I can reject the claim that A is the outcome without accepting that B is the outcome. You disagree, your though process seems to be as follows…

If faced with two outcomes (A or B) and one rejects A then by necessity they must accept B.

So your stance is since a coin can only be a head or tails (A or B), if I reject the claim it is a tails then I must affirm it is a heads…

HOWEVER, If we apply that to the number of balls in a jar…

The number of balls can ONLY be odd or even (A or B), so clearly following your criteria if I reject the claim he number of balls is odd, then I must affirm the number is even…

However you have already admitted this is NOT the case. So there is a clear inconsistency that you need to explain.
 
PRmerger said:
Yes, please.

If I say, “I don’t believe that the number of gumballs is odd”…

What does that necessarily imply?

It means…

“I do believe that the number of gumballs is…even.”

Now, if I just look at the bowl of gumballs, you are correct in asserting that it’s fine to suspend judgement until you have more information.

But, MrE…WHEN YOU REJECT ONE VIEW, it NECESSARILY means that you accept the other view…when things are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the odd and even are not mutually exclusive?

And if someone tosses a coin, I am also you are correct in asserting that it’s fine to suspend judgement until you have more information.
 
PRmerger said:
Now, if I just look at the bowl of gumballs, you are correct in asserting that it’s fine to suspend judgement until you have more information.
Click to expand...
I think, MrE, that the problem with this discussion is that we are starting from 2 different points in the argument.

You are looking at the bowl and saying, “I don’t have enough information to make a guess.”

I agree with you here. We are certainly free to remain agnostic about whether there are an even number or odd number of gumballs in the bowl.

At this point of the argument.

Now, let’s look at it from my POV.

WHEN someone says, “I reject the idea that there are an even number of gumballs”…

can you agree with me that this NECESSARILY means, “I accept then that there are an odd number of gumballs”?

Yes?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Ok we have two outcomes A or B. Critical thinking, which I do for a blinking living by the way, states I can reject the claim that A is the outcome without accepting that B is the outcome. You disagree, your though process seems to be as follows…

If faced with two outcomes (A or B) and one rejects A then by necessity they must accept B.

So your stance is since a coin can only be a head or tails (A or B), if I reject the claim it is a tails then I must affirm it is a heads…

HOWEVER, If we apply that to the number of balls in a jar…

The number of balls can ONLY be odd or even (A or B), so clearly following your criteria if I reject the claim he number of balls is odd, then I must affirm the number is even…

However you have already admitted this is NOT the case. So there is a clear inconsistency that you need to explain.
Click to expand...
It’s not the case because you haven’t rejected one claim in the gumball example

All the gumball example is saying is this: I don’t have enough information to hazard a guess.

And I agree with that position.
 
Just to clarify, do you accept the me **rejecting **the claim the number of balls in a jar is even is NOT the same claiming it is NOT even.

Just like rejecting the claims it is heads is NOT the same as claiming it is not heads?

Which is the crux of the matter, it is logically fine to reject a claim without making the positive assertion that the claim is false.
 
PRmerger said:
It’s not the case because you haven’t rejected one claim in the gumball example

All the gumball example is saying is this: I don’t have enough information to hazard a guess.

And I agree with that position.
Click to expand...
It is identical for I am rejecting it is even, as “I don’t have enough information to hazard a guess.”

Just like I reject the claim it is a heads, as “I don’t have enough information to hazard a guess.”

That is the whole point and the difference between rejecting a claim and making a positive claim.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Just to clarify, do you accept the me **rejecting **the claim the number of balls in a jar is even is NOT the same claiming it is NOT even.

Just like rejecting the claims it is heads is NOT the same as claiming it is not heads?

Which is the crux of the matter, it is logically fine to reject a claim without making the positive assertion that the claim is false.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
I think, MrE, that the problem with this discussion is that we are starting from 2 different points in the argument.

You are looking at the bowl and saying, “I don’t have enough information to make a guess.”

I agree with you here. We are certainly free to remain agnostic about whether there are an even number or odd number of gumballs in the bowl.

At this point of the argument.

Now, let’s look at it from my POV.

WHEN someone says, “I reject the idea that there are an even number of gumballs”…

can you agree with me that this NECESSARILY means, “I accept then that there are an odd number of gumballs”?

Yes?
Click to expand...
No because rejecting the claim it is even Is not the same as claiming it is not even. I can reject the claim it Is even and still be open to the possibility that it is even.
 
Seriously, your gifs and stories are not doing anything for you. I do this for a living, every other critical thinker on EARTH agrees with me including the Christian ones. I am trying my best to be patient with you and help you but if you are not interested you just have to say so and we can move on.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Of course one can accept the claim, the article is explaining the misunderstanding people seem to have surrounding rejecting claims, i.e. if there are two possible outcomes and one rejects A then they must accept B. That is simply incorrect. Let me explain using a different example, the judicial system. I am going to use Scottish verdicts as they make it easier to understand and the verdict of “not proven”…

"Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. As with other judicial systems, the burden to prove guilt rests with the prosecution.

Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”).[1][2]

Historically, the two verdicts available to Scots juries were that the case had been “proven” or “not proven”. However in a dramatic case in 1728 the jury asserted “its ancient right” to bring in a “not guilty” verdict even when the facts of the case were proven (see jury nullification). As the “not guilty” verdict gained wide acceptance amongst Scots juries, Scots began to use “not guilty” in cases where the jury felt the “not proven” verdict did not adequately express the innocence of the person on trial. Shrewd defence then further encouraged this interpretation in order to persuade juries unwilling to bring in a “not guilty” verdict that the “not proven” could be brought in as a lesser or “third verdict”.

The result is the modern perception that the “not proven” verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."

So in court there are two possible circumstances…

The defendant is guilty
The defendant is not guilty

The claim is the defendant is guilty, if there is not sufficient evidence for one to accept that claim then they can reject it without accepting the defendant is innocent (which is the opposite of the claim). Just like if someone is throws a coin of a cliff then claims it must be showing tails, given I do not have sufficient evidence to evaluate the claim I can reject it without believing the coin is showing a heads.

It really is important that people understand this concept as it is a basic principle, yet critical component, of rational thinking.

Do the thought experiment yourself. I have just thrown a coin out my window I have no idea what side is landed on but I am going to assert based on nothing but a guess that it is showing heads. Do you accept my claim that it is 100% definitely showing heads? (Clearly the answer has to be no), does that mean you are claiming it is 100% definitely showing tails?
Click to expand...
Logically, if all gumballs are even, it negates the claim that all gumballs are odd. There is not a logical third choice, of not proven to not be all odd. The point being, if you’ve proven there is something, it is logical that there is the opposite of something. If you are saying there is a third choice of “not something”, then the burden of proof for this nothing that is something, or something that is nothing, is now yours. Just understand it is logically absurd, like saying even that is odd, or odd that is even.

BTW, nothing cannot exist as we’re discussing the concept of nonexistence.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The point being, if you’ve proven there is something, it is logical that there is the opposite of something. If you are saying there is a third choice of “not something”, then the burden of proof for this nothing that is something, or something that is nothing, is now yours. Just understand it is logically absurd
like saying even that is odd, or odd that is even.
Click to expand...
Logically, if all gumballs are even, it negates the claim that all gumballs are odd. There is not a logical third choice, of not proven to not be all odd.

Totally agree, but until we have evidence to go on I happily reject both the claim it is odd and the claim it is even.

I am sorry I do not follow the rest of the post.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Logically, if all gumballs are even, it negates the claim that all gumballs are odd. There is not a logical third choice, of not proven to not be all odd.

Totally agree, but until we have evidence to go on I happily reject both the claim it is odd and the claim it is even.

I am sorry I do not follow the rest of the post.
Click to expand...
Do you accept there is something? If so, do you accept that something is the opposite, of.what we call nothing?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Seriously, your gifs and stories are not doing anything for you. I do this for a living, every other critical thinker on EARTH agrees with me including the Christian ones. I am trying my best to be patient with you and help you but if you are not interested you just have to say so and we can move on.
Click to expand...
I am enjoying this immensely, MrE.

The fact that you do this for a living is irrelevant, BTW.

Some people can be very bad at their profession.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Some people can be very good at their profession.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So the fact of your profession notwithstanding, you still need to acknowledge that if your son says, “I believe it’s not heads!” and you don’t give him the coin when it’s…not heads (because it’s…tails)…you would be unfair and illogical.

Yes?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Totally agree, but until we have evidence to go on I happily reject both the claim it is odd and the claim it is even.
Click to expand...
Yes!!

You are correct!

But when you say, “I don’t believe that it’s even” this NECESSARILY means…

“I do believe that it’s odd.”

There is agnosticism first. We agree it’s fine to say, “I don’t know if it’s even or odd…until I have more evidence.”

BUT!!!

When you say, “I don’t believe the number of gumballs is even”…

You have taken the next step. You have passed agnosticism…

And this means…

“I do believe that it’s odd.”

#necessarily
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top