Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Erebus]

I agree that reality is subjective, but I think only in comparison to what we percieve as "real", or "reality".
I think that what can be verified by one observer should be verfiable by all observers.

But that would suggest an objective reality not a subjective one?

Even going off what you have suggested, a great deal of scientifically established fact would fall down simply because many people do not accept certain phenomena even if they experience it.
For example, if two people observe an object fall from a building and one person claims that this is the effect of gravity, the other person could easily claim that the object falling was due to a spirit pushing it to the ground. In this case the only fact that both people can verify is that the object did indeed fall to the ground. The means by which the object falls to the ground remains speculation and is ultimately unmeasurable.

 

[Atheologian]

But that would suggest an objective reality not a subjective one?

Even going off what you have suggested, a great deal of scientifically established fact would fall down simply because many people do not accept certain phenomena even if they experience it.
For example, if two people observe an object fall from a building and one person claims that this is the effect of gravity, the other person could easily claim that the object falling was due to a spirit pushing it to the ground. In this case the only fact that both people can verify is that the object did indeed fall to the ground. The means by which the object falls to the ground remains speculation and is ultimately unmeasurable.

Objectivity deals with the possible, subjectivity deals with the relative.
What I mean by this, is kind of what I've been saying about the stupid Duck.
To look at something objectively, you have to consider all available frames of reference. To look at it subjectively, you only need one frame of reference.

 

[YmirGF]

so, the duck which can be named is not the Eternal Duck?

this "absolute duck" of which you speak, does it reside in heaven and is it all-powerful? however, i find it amusing that you also have said we may each have our own 'personal duck". just like our own personal jesus. u gotta love it! :angel2:

Talk about ducking the question.

In regards to the alleged intent of the OP, I am not convinced that atheists have nothing to say about god to theists, but I am pretty certain that Atheologian should think twice before entering into such discussions.

 

[Troublemane]

thats the fact jack.

 

[Atheologian]

Talk about ducking the question.

In regards to the alleged intent of the OP, I am not convinced that atheists have nothing to say about god to theists, but I am pretty certain that Atheologian should think twice before entering into such discussions.

I did answer genius, about eight posts back.

 

[Atheologian]

absolute means encompasses the idea as a whole in this context. Look the word up, now you just sound silly. Have you been to bed yet?

I have a blue duck.
John has a red one.
I rip the feathers and beak off the blue duck, and now he's pink, with no feathers and no bill. I set him on fire. Then I throw him at John from a moving vehicle.
Relative to me, John is moving toward my car with a red duck in his hands, and when I drop my duck, he crashes into it.
Relative to John, I threw my dinner at him from the window of a moving car.
Objectively, we know now a duck can be red, blue, pink, featherless and on fire, among many other things.
Subjectively, my duck is dead. This is true in relation to all observers, making the death of the duck constant, and absolute, at least in a measurable sense, which is all we are worried about.
At the same time, I can't say all ducks are dead, so dead is one more objective position the duck can have. I can say however, that he was absolutely a duck before I killed and ate him, he absolutely is a duck now, and the duck that John had absolutely was a duck as well. Even While I ate my duck, he absolutely WAS a subjectively delicious duck, relative to my own tastes, of course, but still absolutely a duck.
All of the objective ducks in this story, red, blue, dead, cooked and chewed, they were ABSOLUTELY and CONSTANTLY DUCKS. The absolute idea of a duck is simply a duck, regardless of the possible states or subjective position of the duck.

I never mentioned "an eternal duck" of any kind. You did. Your trolling, plain and simple.
I'm not the one that believes in god. You explain the "eternal duck"

 

[Troublemane]

Objectivity deals with the possible, subjectivity deals with the relative.
What I mean by this, is kind of what I've been saying about the stupid Duck.
To look at something objectively, you have to consider all available frames of reference. To look at it subjectively, you only need one frame of reference.

nope, nope and nope. Objectivity requires demonstrable proof, facts, evidence that is objective. Not the possible. Not some strange mystical "frames of reference". Sheesh, is this the result of government-run schools?

I'd ask for a refund on your education, dude. Seriously.

 

[Troublemane]

You have said one thing I agree with, YmirGF is a genius! :trampo:

 

[Erebus]

Objectivity deals with the possible, subjectivity deals with the relative.
What I mean by this, is kind of what I've been saying about the stupid Duck.
To look at something objectively, you have to consider all available frames of reference. To look at it subjectively, you only need one frame of reference.

I don't understand how this links to faith? Even something as objective as an object falling to the ground still becomes subjective when a person asks why does it fall to the ground. Again, I believe that to assert that the object falls to the ground as a result of gravity does take faith, as does the assertion that a spirit caused the effect. Sure, the gravity argument may be better thought out and sound more plausible, but it still remains subjective and to a degree, it remains a matter of faith. Sometimes, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's true (and vice versa).

*Edit* I think perhaps we have different interpretations of "Objective" and "Subjective".

*Edit again* I'm not saying that I believe spirits cause things to fall to the ground, it's only an example

 

[Atheologian]

You have said one thing I agree with, YmirGF is a genius! :trampo:

A cockroach views a rat as a genius too, Im sure

 

[Atheologian]

I don't understand how this links to faith? Even something as objective as an object falling to the ground still becomes subjective when a person asks why does it fall to the ground. Again, I believe that to assert that the object falls to the ground as a result of gravity does take faith, as does the assertion that a spirit caused the effect. Sure, the gravity argument may be better thought out and sound more plausible, but it still remains subjective and to a degree, it remains a matter of faith. Sometimes, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's true (and vice versa).

*Edit* I think perhaps we have different interpretations of "Objective" and "Subjective".

But what if we can give you an equation for gravity that works, atleast on the macro level of weak forces, the ones you refer to, and is consistent?

 

[Atheologian]

nope, nope and nope. Objectivity requires demonstrable proof, facts, evidence that is objective. Not the possible. Not some strange mystical "frames of reference". Sheesh, is this the result of government-run schools?

I'd ask for a refund on your education, dude. Seriously.

frames of reference aren't mystical. I'm not sure, but maybe you should have went to a school of some sort.
A frame of reference is the standard way to say the position of the observer, You've obviously never even had a physical science course, one you didn't skip or get hight in, let alone a Physics course.

 

[Erebus]

But what if we can give you an equation for gravity that works, atleast on the macro level of weak forces, the ones you refer to, and is consistent?

It would be the same as me providing you with scripture asserting that things do indeed fall to the ground because a spirit did it. You would still have to choose which one makes sense to you and this would be done at least partly on faith.

 

[Troublemane]

Ive said the same thing the entire time. The IDEA of a duck is absolute. No matter who thinks of a duck, they think of a duck...

exactly my point, meaning the idea of a duck is RELATIVE.

I get it, you've just been joking with me the entire time. Nothing you said had any real meaning because you were simply having a good chuckle! Why didnt you just say so?:slap:

 

[Atheologian]

It would be the same as me providing you with scripture asserting that things do indeed fall to the ground because a spirit did it. You would still have to choose which one makes sense to you and this would be done at least partly on faith.

I think there's a big difference between scientific data and scripture though. How would we go about verifying the scripture, as we could if we had proper tools to verify the equation. What sort of tools would you need to verify a scripture?

 

[Atheologian]

I get it, you've just been joking with me the entire time. Nothing you said had any real meaning because you were simply having a good chuckle! Why didnt you just say so?:slap:

Nope, i typed the wrong word.
here i'll even fix it for you.

You've basically said that the theory of relativity is not true, apparently you have supreme knowledge the scientific community doesn't.

 

[Erebus]

I think there's a big difference between scientific data and scripture though. How would we go about verifying the scripture, as we could if we had proper tools to verify the equation. What sort of tools would you need to verify a scripture?

Let's see... You could measure somebody's weight to determine how much the spirit is pressing down on them. You could measure the speed and impact of a falling object to determine how much effort the spirit is putting into pushing them down. You could even tie a weight to an elastic band and measure how much the spirit pushing the weight down deforms the band.
See my point?

 

[Troublemane]

..okay, well now the entire rest of the second post i quoted doesnt make any sense. Now it reads "the idea of a duck is ABSOLUTE" and then goes on to argue that to measure anything you need it to relate to something....which is the basis of relativity.

See, m8, you really do agree with me already, you just dont know it yet! :trampo:

 

[Atheologian]

nope, nope and nope. Objectivity requires demonstrable proof, facts, evidence that is objective. Not the possible. Not some strange mystical "frames of reference". Sheesh, is this the result of government-run schools?

I'd ask for a refund on your education, dude. Seriously.

what is possible is demonstrable in fact...
you aren't proving anything but how poor your command of the english language is

 

[Atheologian]

..okay, well now the entire rest of the second post i quoted doesnt make any sense. Now it reads "the idea of a duck is ABSOLUTE" and then goes on to argue that to measure anything you need it to relate to something....which is the basis of relativity.

See, m8, you really do agree with me already, you just dont know it yet! :trampo:

I never said i disagreed with the statements you made that were true. Just the ones you made when you were talking out your ***.

Like i said, what is possible, IS demonstrable in fact, or objective.
By considering possiblities that are not your own observations, but those that are possible, or demonstrable in fact, you take an objective approach. Since your own observation is not the only one possible, an objective approach must consider all that IS possible, or demonstrable in fact.