How do you feel about atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punisherthunder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
What happened to the “but I am open to” part?

Why can’t you apply it here? :confused:
Click to expand...
Because in this case we do not have two clearly defined outcomes. I know exact what is involved in number of balls being odd or even, I understand what its means to be odd and means to be even. I cannot say the same for a god. I am not sure If I am open to there being a god, I am sure that I am not making the claim that there is no god.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Because in this case we do not have two clearly defined outcomes.
Click to expand...
Of course we do. Either the arguments for God’s existence are true, or they are not true.

Yet for some reason you seem to be unable to apply your formula “When I reject A it still means I am open to the possibility of A” here.

#inconsistent
#peculiar
 
PRmerger said:
Just indulge me, please.

If your son said, “It’s not heads”, in the scenario already provided, would you be correct in refusing to give him the coin which came up as tails?
Click to expand...
MrEmpiricism said:
I have no wish to be side tracked into irrelevant discussion.
Click to expand...
LURKERS: please note the above.

It’s quite clear that my point is not going to be ceded by MrE.

Suffice it to say that by the refusal to answer, we know that the point has been understood.

If his son says “It’s not heads”, and MrE does not give his son the coin when it’s tails, it would be a grave injustice to his son.

Why?

Because we all understand that when his son said, “I reject the fact that the coin is heads” means…

“I believe that the coin is tails”.

And he should have received his $1 coin.
 
PRmerger said:
Of course we do. Either the arguments for God’s existence are true, or they are not true.

Yet for some reason you seem to be unable to apply your formula “When I reject A it still means I am open to the possibility of A” here.

#inconsistent
#peculiar
Click to expand...
The arguments for god existence and the claim a god exists are two totally different things.
 
Addressing the original question, then:
Hopelessly confused, but we must love them anyway.
 
PRmerger said:
LURKERS: please note the above.

It’s quite clear that my point is not going to be ceded by MrE.

Suffice it to say that by the refusal to answer, we know that the point has been understood.

If his son says “It’s not heads”, and MrE does not give his son the coin when it’s tails, it would be a grave injustice to his son.

Why?

Because we all understand that when his son said, “I reject the fact that the coin is heads” means…

“I believe that the coin is tails”.

And he should have received his $1 coin.
Click to expand...
No, this is utterly irrelevant. You are comparing making a choice between A and B with assessing the a claim that A is true, there is no analogy.

If I have to choose between A or B and I choose !A then I have chosen B, with that I agree. Now please explain what that has to do with rejecting the claim A is true?

Edit: Please do not explain, mods want the topic back to the OP and to be fair we are not getting anywhere.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
No, like this. I reject the claim a god exists due to the fact that none of the arguments can with stand critical analysis. However, I am not making the positive assertion that there is NO god.
Click to expand...
Do you similarly reject love in that none of the arguments it exists can withstand critical arguments? How about Beauty?
 
It could be a trick coin so it might be heads even if it is not…but it equally might not be heads or tails…in fact, in the hands of a magician, it might be anything…!

One could equally assess the gumballs and consider them at least somewhat odd if not actually odd…if so, they might truly not be even gumballs… 😉

Finally, in a court of law can one not be found guilty, not guilty, or not proven…? Or perhaps innocent of intent, but guilty of the act (as in one perpetrating an act in his/her sleep)?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
If I have to choose between A or B and I choose !A then I have chosen B, with that I agree. Now please explain what that has to do with rejecting the claim A is true?
Click to expand...
To bring this back en pointe…

Either the universe has always existed…or it began to exist.

There are no other options.

As an atheist, what is your position?

It began to exist.
It always existed.
Or
I don’t know.
 
estesbob said:
Do you similarly reject love in that none of the arguments it exists can withstand critical arguments? How about Beauty?
Click to expand...
No arguments from ignorance are not my thing. Btw I currently have journal paper undergoing peer review the covers the science of beauty, you are incorrect in your assumption that we do not understand it.
 
PRmerger said:
To bring this back en pointe…

Either the universe has always existed…or it began to exist.

There are no other options.

As an atheist, what is your position?

It began to exist.
It always existed.
Or
I don’t know.
Click to expand...
The evidence shows that the observable universe has a beginning, but I am not sure I would stretch that to the cosmos, but yes the observable universe had a beginning as we currently understand it.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
The evidence shows that the observable universe has a beginning, but I am not sure I would stretch that to the cosmos, but yes the observable universe had a beginning as we currently understand it.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

And “whatever begins to exist has a cause”.

You seem to have a problem with this.

What is the error in this argument?
 
PRmerger said:
Thank you.

And “whatever begins to exist has a cause”.

You seem to have a problem with this.

What is the error in this argument?
Click to expand...
It is applying the law of cause and effect (an observation that as far as we know may only hold to this universe) to that which lies outwith it. Furthermore if there was no time before the universe then what would it even mean to have a cause and effect relationship?

What we do know is under certain conditions the laws of this universe breakdown, let me give you an example…

F=MA therefore A=F/M, every observation we have ever made shows that if you take an object that is moving and apply a sufficient positive force to it in the direction of movement it will speed up. However, we now understand, thanks to Albert, that under certain conditions this relationship does not hold. So that is an example of an observation like the law of cause and effect that is not universal.

So while inductive reasoning tells us it is probably true, I am not convinced it is definitely true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top