Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 12:09 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:01 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 10:59 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

I'm still waiting for him to go full-bore militant-agnostic and just declare that Cogito Ergo Sum is an unwarranted assumption.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-01-2015, 12:17 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.

That makes sense; so I should probably apoligise to Jacky.

Jack_Ripper: It was always pointless exactitude and I was being a pedant. More importantly; I was also wrong.

I'm sorry.

(Not very sorry. It's not a big deal and I barely care. I'm just presuming that you also barely care.)

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
[+] 2 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
03-01-2015, 12:18 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
I don't care.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 12:01 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  What can't we observe? Please enlighten us. I'm pretty sure I exist and everything else does too.

I'm still waiting for him to go full-bore militant-agnostic and just declare that Cogito Ergo Sum is an unwarranted assumption.
You forgot National Socialist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:17 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  That makes sense; so I should probably apoligise to Jacky.

Jack_Ripper: It was always pointless exactitude and I was being a pedant. More importantly; I was also wrong.

I'm sorry.

(03-01-2015 12:18 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  I don't care.

[Image: fap-now-kiss-l-copy.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-01-2015, 12:21 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
^I'm game if he is.

(03-01-2015 12:18 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  I don't care.

Well then that was a total waste of text.

You should be passionate and petty so I don't assume that you're passionate and petty. It saves everybody time in the long run. Tongue

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, 12:25 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:20 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 12:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'm still waiting for him to go full-bore militant-agnostic and just declare that Cogito Ergo Sum is an unwarranted assumption.
You forgot National Socialist.

I'm pretty sure he went full Godwin when he picked that user name. Drinking Beverage

[Image: polls_BrownShirts_2258_258791_poll_xlarge.jpeg]

SA, abbreviation of Sturmabteilung (German: “Assault Division”), by name Storm Troopers, or Brownshirts, German Sturmtruppen, or Braunhemden, in the German Nazi Party, a paramilitary organization whose methods of violent intimidation played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/514736/SA

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:34 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
A bigger bunch of Assholes have never existed. I feel safe making that assumption.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 01:48 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 09:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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

Firstly I don't care how you see me. If you'd able to defend your position of philosophical naturalism. Based off what you've written above your trying to set the scene for it. Philosophical naturalism makes the claim that the is all there is, not what you say of "being to the best of our knowledge". It asserts that's all there is not that the super natural is out of bounds, it's non existent. Perhaps that's correct but there's no reason to assume that to be true, we expect that as a by product of existence and the process of evolution (our own unfalsified theory) we possess the capability to
accurately determine and account for existence bases on our ability to observe.

Quote:
(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?

None , just because religion has posited various views doesn't mean you have to propose that we can determine our own non magical solution
Quote:
(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.

He used the term reason, not me
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 01:53 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:39 PM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  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.

So much better to assume that we can observe everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: