Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by moonbus
I would be quite happy to discuss Pascal's wager, but it deserves a thread unto itself.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
“Atheism turns out to be too simple.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
―C.S. Lewis

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Forget the dark side. He's gone full Jabba the Hutt.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
'There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God.
If I believe in the Risen Christ and it's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose.
If true, then I have everything to gain.' -Pascal (1623-1662)

There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God.

Originally posted by googlefudge

There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God.

Prove it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are a Wendy, incontrovertible evidence!

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have looked up your insult of the week and find no meaning even remotely relevant.

Making your post meaningless as well as idiotic.

But then you have always lacked any sort of content to back up your lies and abhorrent opinions.

“Atheism is the default position in any scientific inquiry, just as a-quarkism or a-neutrinoism was. That is, any entity has to earn its admission into a scientific account either via direct evidence for its existence or because it plays some fundamental explanatory role. Before the theoretical need for neutrinos was appreciated (to preserve the conservation of energy) and then later experimental detection was made, they were not part of the accepted physical account of the world. To say physicists in 1900 were 'agnostic' about neutrinos sounds wrong: they just did not believe there were such things.

As yet, there is no direct experimental evidence of a deity, and in order for the postulation of a deity to play an explanatory role there would have to be a lot of detail about how it would act. If, as you have suggested, we are not “good judges of how the deity would behave,” then such an unknown and unpredictable deity cannot provide good explanatory grounds for any phenomenon. The problem with the 'minimal view' is that in trying to be as vague as possible about the nature and motivation of the deity, the hypothesis loses any explanatory force, and so cannot be admitted on scientific grounds. Of course, as the example of quarks and neutrinos shows, scientific accounts change in response to new data and new theory. The default position can be overcome.”
― Tim Maudlin

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I believe I made some earlier remark about Robbie living in a Wendy House. He appears to have absorbed this insult, misunderstood it and then rebounded it back at yourself in a way that only Robbie could..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL clearly you need some ASMR, you too inflexible man! 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My illustrious friend (and how I hesitate to use the term due to all the injustices and injuries you have done me!) a Wendy is a well known Glaswegian colloquial term for an impuissant pansy, a wuss, a wooster, a weak and spindly sapling, a wallflower, a shrinking violet, etc etc See how I enrich you with these cultural gems!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My illustrious friend (and how I hesitate to use the term due to all the injustices and injuries you have done me!) a Wendy is a well known Glaswegian colloquial term for an impuissant pansy, a wuss, a wooster, a weak and spindly sapling, a wallflower, a shrinking violet, etc etc See how I enrich you with these cultural gems!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahh, but GB doesn't discuss Pascal's Wager. He just posts it over and over again as if
repeated viewings will make it into a better argument.

The fact that we have repeatedly pointed out that it's a completely logically invalid argument
at length and in detail does nothing whatsoever to stop him using it again five minutes later.

Then of course ...[text shortened]... cker slogans... which, true or not, is an accurate representation of his posting on
this site.

Originally posted by moonbus
Let us pursue your metaphor of the ripples on the surface of the water, shall we? The ripples you caused break the light into jagged fragments, confusing and disjointing the image of the clear sky which had been reflected there before. Confused and disjointed images trouble the mind, giving it no peace. Cease disturbing the waters and you will see the reality as it is, intact and whole, freed from jagged, disjointed, confused, and dogmatic fragments.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok, hands up everybody here who thinks I am a 'shrinking violet'...

Anybody here think I back away from a challenge, or am weak, or am a wallflower, or think
that this in any way applies to me...

See, RC, by your own definition of the term, it doesn't apply to me.
In fact I would hazard a guess that most people here asked to describe me would u ...[text shortened]... nded.

In fact it's even less applicable than the meanings I found for the term in common use.