What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Udayana]

In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.

“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.
It doesn’t matter though. The only problem is if you change the definition half way through evaluating the statement.

I find the whole natural / supernatural dichotomy problematic. As soon as you have enough evidence that something supernatural exists, you relabel it as natural.

This is essentially correct - in fact "the law of the excluded middle", axiomatic in classical logic. Other logics exist though.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

[jeremyp]

OK - I see that now. I was thinking of tautology in the rhetorical sense - as in 'we reconvened again'

I apologise for not making it completely clear that I was using "tautology" in the technical sense.

Fun fact: all of maths is tautologies.

. Surely though 'god' and 'no god' is a dichotomy?

It is a dichotomy but it is not a false dichotomy. Either there is a god or there isn't a god. Both statements can't be  true at the same time or both false at the same time.

What is a false dichotomy is the way Christians often frame the statement "either there is no god or the Christian god exists".

[ippy]

As Richard Dawkins says it's not about how much nonsense you keep on coming out with Vlad, the question is, is it true stands.

You're religious beliefs don't amount to much if you can't substantiate them, and as such there's not much point discussing them.

Why don't you join the Sherlock Holmes society they're always into discussing some aspect of CD's novels or another with the benefit of not needing to falsely declare some form of supernatural prior knowledge about Sherlock. 

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Richard Dawkins says it's not about how much nonsense you keep on coming out with Vlad, the question is, is it true stands.

You're religious beliefs don't amount to much if you can't substantiate them, and as such there's not much point discussing them.

Why don't you join the Sherlock Holmes society they're always into discussing some aspect of CD's novels or another with the benefit of not needing to falsely declare some form of supernatural prior knowledge about Sherlock. 

ippy.

External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You should be looking for the necessary in the god you claim exists.

Oh, what, you can’t find that god? Well that’s your problem.

I have found Him.

[jeremyp]

I have found Him.

Prove it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prove it.

You have to either prove or disprove God yourself.

[jeremyp]

You have to either prove or disprove God yourself.

You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.

OK.

[ippy]

You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.

j p you've summed up in short all of the excessively voluminous tripe Vlad's always coming out with, in one.

ippy

[Roses]

I have found Him.

Where was he hiding?

[ippy]

External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.

Hasn't it clicked in your head yet Vlad, that going around the houses without giving a straight answer to anything is giving the game away?

[Nearly Sane]

Where was he hiding?

he's been hiding behind a big stone for a couple of days.

[Udayana]

External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.

There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.

Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything, some have been dismissive of philosophical arguments and some have shown scientism as expressed in the faith that science will come up with the answers.

I'm quite prepared to discuss Science. I even have no horse in the debate on whether science will explain human consciousness.....It needs to. Science is not all of reason IMV.

I think though the message board is somewhat of an atheist hangout.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything ...

But science is a method, not a conclusion. And the whole point about science as a method is that it is verifiable and also, crucially the whole point about science is if the evidence changes then so does the conclusion.

[Roses]

But science is a method, not a conclusion. And the whole point about science as a method is that it is verifiable and also, crucially the whole point about science is if the evidence changes then so does the conclusion.

Agreed, which is more than you can say for the more extreme religionists who will believe their version of faith to be factual in spite of there being no evidence to support it.

[ippy]

Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything, some have been dismissive of philosophical arguments and some have shown scientism as expressed in the faith that science will come up with the answers.

I'm quite prepared to discuss Science. I even have no horse in the debate on whether science will explain human consciousness.....It needs to. Science is not all of reason IMV.

I think though the message board is somewhat of an atheist hangout.

If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad.

ippy

It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.

In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.

In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.

Your panic buying of straw has been used up in that post.

[Walter]

It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.

In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.

Vlad

It's simple, if you want to become more highly regarded, become an atheist 

[ippy]

It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.

In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.

The words I actually wrote were:

'If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad'.

This post of yours that followed a post of mine and included my comment doesn't relate to that post of mine, why is that Vlad? This post looks like you've jumped a post and it's an answer to someone else, why's that Vlad? Was it a mistake? If it wasn't a mistake well it could be a worrying sign? Are you OK Vlad, Vlad?

Regards, ippy.

[jeremyp]

There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.

They can be resolved. Vlad and his religious friends can admit that their beliefs are based on faith alone and admit they have no evidence. Then we can all go away happy.

[jeremyp]

Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything

It is the final word on matters of reality¹. Despite all the long words and philosophical waffle that people spout on the subject of science, the core idea is very simple (to paraphrase Feynman): "if your idea disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". i.e. if you compare your idea with what actually happens in the World and what happens is not what your idea says happens, your idea is wrong.

It really is that simple and nobody has yet invented a better way to find out about the World that exists outside of our minds.

¹but it is a final word that can change when new evidence comes in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

It's simple, if you want to become more highly regarded, become an atheist 

Maybe after I win The X factor on TV.