Apostates versus converts

Hume said:
I have no idea what the context would be.
Any professional scientist would state the standard of judgment. Going around saying, who's to know, is absurd.
Click to expand...
How would a scientist answer the question I just asked Ob?

Do any sentient beings live on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?
 
Ross Dolan said:
For some people...saying "I do not know" is intolerable. So they do what Ob is doing...invent ways to avoid saying it when discussing the existence or non-existence of gods.
Click to expand...

I just told you I don't Know is a perfectly rational position if one feels they do not have sufficient evidence either way. Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my position.

I, personally, feel that I have sufficient evidence to fail to reject the null hypothesis. But I am also willing to accept that I may be in error.

I would use the EXACT SAME REASONING on ANY GIVEN TRUTH CLAIM PRESENTED TO ME.

Why is this so frustrating to you?????????????????
 
Ross Dolan said:
Tell me, Ob...are there any sentient beings living on any planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?
Click to expand...
Hume said:
No, agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge.

Like skeptics, they think saying "it cannot be known," should end all discussion.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Agnostic can mean both unknown OR unknowable.

Now, the philosophy of what is knowable and how is an entirely different matter.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Demonstrably not.
Click to expand...

I have...and you are having trouble acknowledging that I have.

Obtenebrator said:
So you think a jury verdict is "laughable"? Because the rubric I am using is nothing more or less than a jury verdict.
Click to expand...

Your reason for your attempts to justify your "atheistic" views are laughable, Ob.

You would do well to finally see that.

Obtenebrator said:
Your hubris and self-regard are off the charts. You demonstrably have not understood anything I've said and yet you think the problem is me not understanding what I wrote and what I supported with actual references.
Click to expand...
Apparently that is what you think.

Okay, you are allowed that.

I think I understand your position better than you do. You simply refuse to live with, "I do not know"...and want to justify your side-stepping it by doing this dance that you do.

Hey, it is entertaining.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Your reason for your attempts to justify your "atheistic" views are laughable, Ob.
Click to expand...

I see you are unable to tell me why. That is your problem. You refuse to explain why it is different.

Ross Dolan said:
I think I understand your position better than you do.
Click to expand...

Is that why you can't explain the difference between my position and a jury verdit?

Ross Dolan said:
You simply refuse to live with, "I do not know"
Click to expand...

I already showed you that this is a lie.



Ross Dolan said:
...and want to justify your side-stepping it by doing this dance that you do.

Hey, it is entertaining.
Click to expand...

This is why you are tedious. You clearly are out of your depth and your screaming isn't getting you what you want. Try reading and discussing the topic for a change.

Just tell me how my position is fundamentally different from a jury verdict.
 
If the agnostic is stating a preference, such as liking chocolate ice cream, then there is nothing to talk about.
If the agnostic is stating why others should like chocolate, then we expect reasons.
 
Obtenebrator said:
How is it flawed? I am presented with a claim that "there is a God".

Why is it flawed to then test that claim?



Then forget science. Talk about the jury verdict. It is the same thing. They are testing against the null hypothesis of "not guilty". That is the essence of our judicial system. Why is it not allowable to apply it to other claims? You surely can't believe juries make most of their verdicts on numerical data. It is the same reasoning, the same rubric, however.

You disallow that one may use scientific reasoning to draw a conclusion, now you seem to be denying the use of any reasoning to come to a conclusion.

I am curious how you test claims in your life. Or are you literally agnostic about any and every claim presented to you?
Click to expand...
The court analogy is just stupid.

A trial presumes adequate evidence actually exists to render a verdict.

That's not the case here.

Science attempts to explain mechanistically how matter, energy, and motion operate. That's it, period, end of story.

We cannot get outside of time and space to get an eternal view of the ontological nature of being.

There are no test tubes, microscopes, or mass spectrometers that are going to shed any light on whether or not the Tao exists.
 
domer76 said:
I listened to an interesting podcast this morning. Studies that looked at the differences between people who left their religion versus people who joined one.

People who left their religions did it after long and careful study. It was an arduous and difficult journey for most, to abandon everything they had been taught. And suffer the potential ostracism that followed. Ironically, it was the very religion that encouraged them to “seek the truth” that brought them to leave that faith. It was an intellectual decision rather than an emotional one. One didn’t choose to become an atheist. They merely discovered they were one.

The reverse was the case for those joining a religion. It was typically to fill some sort of an emotional or social need at some point in their lives. They had a crisis and the church people or their peers were comforting to them. There was no study of the faith or really knowledge of its teachings. Merely an emotional choice.

Makes perfect sense. Intellect versus emotion. Knowledge versus faith.
Click to expand...
hmm.....

sound like a bunch of made up bullshit.

gotta link?
 
Obtenebrator said:
Please point me to "society's definition". I am genuinely curious what you are working off of.
Click to expand...
as recently as 1998 this was everyone's definition.......

Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God.
Click to expand...

your approach is often referred to as New Atheism and didn't even begin until the first decade of the 21st Century.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
 
Cypress said:
The court analogy is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Not even slightly. It is the exact same reasoning. I'm surprised you don't understand it better.

Cypress said:
A trial presumes adequate evidence actually exists to render a verdict.
Click to expand...

And I assume that if God is real then his existence can be verified and tested for.

Cypress said:
That's not the case here.
Click to expand...

Clearly we disagree. You are agnostic about something you don't think can be verified (?)

Cypress said:
Science attempts to explain mechanistically how matter, energy, and motion operate. That's it, period, end of story.
Click to expand...

Then stick with the jury verdict. The reasoning is exactly the same. That is why it is taught that way when you learn about inferential statistics and hypothesis testing.

Cypress said:
We cannot get outside of time and space to get an eternal view of the ontological nature of being.

There are no test tubes, microscopes, or mass spectrometers that are going to shed any light on whether or not the Tao exists.
Click to expand...

You have created a "god" that is unfalsifiable and hence of no value as a truth claim.

As such your debate on this topic is kind of meaningless. You are agnostic about a meaningless claim. That seems strange to me.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Naw. It’s impossible for any human to know everything on every issue. Especially in science. “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer and preferable to faked bullshit.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you are referring to. Can you give a situation as an example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top