Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2015, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2015 11:24 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 10:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 09:17 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  That is called assuming your conclusion or "begging the question".

If you can provide a solution to account for existence then your retarded circular position would have a foundation. Unfortunately it's drowning in bullshit.

Is this your game on these threads.? to ignore people who willfully state they don't assert to know all that exists is natural and don't assert they could account for existence or that, that is even a position that makes sense.

Instead just focus on randomness. And people ignored deltabravo because that was a jumble of nonsense unrelated to the thread. I'm proud that was just glossed over which usually doesn't happen.

Are you claiming jack has denied philosophical naturalism? link or it didn't happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:18 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 09:55 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A house is built with a secret room in the basement that the home owner knows nothing about.

There are no entry ways into the room.

Just because people cannot discover this room, doesn't negate the wonderful properties that rest of the house possesses.

So what if we can't know everything.
So what if we don't know how this natural universe naturally emerged.

I'm not going to believe something until I have some Damn good reason to believe it. And that reason will contain evidence.

We have evidence that the universe exists.
We have evidence that It's expanding.
We can examine that expansion and plot where stuff was in the past. We can do that based upon the information we have gathered about the physical laws of our universe.

The things we don't know...... we don't know.
But don't act like we don't know anything, just because we don't know everything

we know what we know. this does not mean anything beyond that. i presume you allocate more philosophical value to this than i do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:21 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 09:57 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Is anybody else amused how everybody has collectively skipped over DeltaBravo?

(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Of course it does. It asserts the natural is all there is. You would hope that you would have evidence for this claim, such as accounting for existence so nothing beyonf our sphere of knowledge would be required.

Naturalism can also be a categorical claim about how we define all things or all potential things. Which would be a pedantic/ definitional argument and I'm sure that's beneath you.

hence why i keep writing philosophical naturalism.

i personally believe most atheists subscribe to this notion but lack the balls to claim it as it comes with a side of burden of proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...



See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:26 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2015 11:57 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:27 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  No. (Though philosophical naturalism doesn't hold the burden of proof either.)
Of course it does. It asserts the natural is all there is.

Yes, it's a category. We are in the natural world, everything we can observe and detect, by the very fact that we can observe or detect it interacting with the natural world, is part of the natural world. So things outside of the natural world, the super-natural, are those things beyond our ability to say anything about them. We know nothing about it, we cannot detect or interact with it, we don't even know if it's possible for anything to be outside of nature and thus fall within the definition of super-natural; so we're entirely unable to make any reasonable judgement upon what may or may not exist outside of the natural world. So that being said, philosophical naturalism only deals with the natural world, because to the best of our knowledge, that's all there is to deal with. We've never had evidence for the super-natural, and by definition the super-natural is beyond nature, and thus beyond the scope of philosophical naturalism.

So at this point, what is to be gained by remaining religiously agnostic about the existence of the super-natural (that which is by definition beyond nature and our ability to interact with and observe)? Nothing more than being a pedantic shit-troll on an atheist forum apparently. Drinking Beverage



(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You would hope that you would have evidence for this claim, such as accounting for existence so nothing beyonf our sphere of knowledge would be required.

Right, so how helpful has been assuming 'magic' is the answer to a question we currently don't yet know the answer to?



(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 12:55 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  I have talked about nothing but physical laws, have I not?
The scientific method Reason is the only viable path for the advancement of human knowledge, and is responsible for our current knowledge of the known universe. That's my position.

Shame he doesn't use reason when something is unknown.

Wrong again. Reason only gets you so far. Reason alone would have dictated that it was entirely logical to believe that the Earth, and us on it, were at the center of all creation. It meshed well with the stories that had been passed down to us, the sun and stars appeared to rotate in the sky around us. Reason would dictate that it was sound to assume we were at the center of all things.

But reason was wrong, and reason had to give way to observations and evidence. It was upon those observations, the evidence, the facts, that we had to find a new reasoning; one that made sense of the new data. Reason has it's place, but it is now subservient to the facts and evidence. Reason helps us make sense of the evidence, but it cannot replace evidence.

Reason got us to atoms, evidence got us to atomic theory.

Reason got us to the Theory of Impetus, evidence got us to the Theory of Gravity.

Reason got us to geocentrism, evidence got us to heliocentrism.

Reason got us to Genesis, evidence got us to the Big Bang.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-01-2015, 11:39 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
What brownshart is saying is if we don't know what we don't know. Then how do we know what we don't know exists. He is basing his bullshit on reason alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:40 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:15 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 10:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Is this your game on these threads.? to ignore people who willfully state they don't assert to know all that exists is natural and don't assert they could account for existence or that, that is even a position that makes sense.

Instead just focus on randomness. And people ignored deltabravo because that was a jumble of nonsense unrelated to the thread. I'm proud that was just glossed over which usually doesn't happen.

Are you claiming jack has denied philosophical naturalism? link or it didn't happen.

Not quite sure what he said. You asked me what I deny and basically have been saying from multiple posts here I deny any definitive naturalism. There's some other posts trying to indicate that basically as well.

I would also say your points against Chas aren't logically sound. I've seen him say he doesn't hold a position and you jump to say he therefore hold an opposing position. But concepts aren't universally one or the other in this area. You seem to want to insist generalized statements about people in an all one way manner.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 09:57 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Naturalism can also be a categorical claim about how we define all things or all potential things. Which would be a pedantic/ definitional argument and I'm sure that's beneath you.

hence why i keep writing philosophical naturalism.

i personally believe most atheists subscribe to this notion but lack the balls to claim it as it comes with a side of burden of proof.

That's got very little to do with what I meant. I'd like to direct you too EK's response to the same point.

(02-01-2015 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Shame he doesn't use reason when something is unknown.

Wrong again. Reason only gets you so far. Reason alone would have dictated that it was entirely logical to believe that the Earth, and us on it, were at the center of all creation. It meshed well with the stories that had been passed down to us, the sun and stars appeared to rotate in the sky around us. Reason would dictate that it was sound to assume we were at the center of all things.

But reason was wrong, and reason had to give way to observations and evidence. It was upon those observations, the evidence, the facts, that we had to find a new reasoning; one that made sense of the new data. Reason has it's place, but it is now subservient to the facts and evidence. Reason helps us make sense of the evidence, but it cannot replace evidence.

Reason got us to atoms, evidence got us to atomic theory.

Reason got us to the Theory of Impetus, evidence got us to the Theory of Gravity.

Reason got us to geocentrism, evidence got us to heliocentrism.

Reason got us to Genesis, evidence got us to the Big Bang.

I always thought science was a specific way of applying reason. A "best practices guide" if you will.

Am I wrong? (Genuine question. Always hard to tell in text.)

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:01 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 10:59 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 09:33 PM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  I know all to well what mankind doesn't know. But I'm not looking for religion to give me the answers.
I'm not either, religion has nothing to do with it.

If you're asserting we can observe everything and account for existence then you need to rationalise it.
What can't we observe? Please enlighten us. I'm pretty sure I exist and everything else does too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:53 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  I always thought science was a specific way of applying reason. A "best practices guide" if you will.

Am I wrong? (Genuine question. Always hard to tell in text.)

It can be, but the key is that reason is subservient to the evidence. Data is data, evidence is evidence; reason can help you interpret it, and the scientific method is the best way we have yet formulated to arriving at sound conclusions based upon the evidence. But the reason has to give to the observation, to the data, to the fact. Reason is subservient to evidence.

We may not know, or ever know, the 'reason' for the Big Bang (or even if that very question actually makes any sense); but that doesn't change the evidence that exists in support of the rapid expansion of the observable universe. To the best of our knowledge the big bang happened, even if 'reason' leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions, even if it doesn't match your own personal 'reasoning', even if you'd really rather wish it wasn't.

Reason doesn't change the evidence, only our interpretation of it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: