Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 01:58 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(02-01-2015 11:40 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 11:15 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

As I've said I think many atheists are philosophical naturalists but don't want the burden. Chas has not denied it, just said he never said that. Not the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 01:59 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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 existence.

He just defined the term in a way that isn't that. It doesn't matter if you think he used the term wrong; you've created a strawman.

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, 02:11 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 02:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

You stupid cunt. Facepalm

"Perhaps that's correct but there's no reason to assume that to be true..."

I'm sorry, do you have evidence in support of the supernatural? No? Then you mean to tell me that all evidence we have, all experience we can draw upon, everything we have ever know, points to the existence of the natural exclusively?

Right, that's what I thought. Drinking Beverage

Now stop and think about the supernatural. By definition, once you have evidence for it, it is no longer supernatural. Why? Because if you have evidence for it, then it has occurred in the natural world, and is part of it, and is now natural rather than supernatural. We will never have evidence for the supernatural because, by definition, we cannot. So when philosophical naturalism states that it only deals with the natural, it's because that's where all the evidence is; the supernatural is without evidence and philosophical naturalism requires evidence.

Which is perfectly fine for Evidentialism.









But I'm going to assume that you're going to continue to grandstand in support that we not dismiss that which cannot possibly be known because there will never be evidence for it. Real winning plan you have there dumbfuck. Drinking Beverage



(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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

Yep, stupid cunt it is... Facepalm

All solutions have thus far been non-magical. What reason is there to entertain magical ones? Once again, magical = supernatural, supernatural = no evidence. For those of us who value evidence, there never will be a 'sufficient' magical answer. Because if all you can do is pull supernatural assumptions out of your ass, the far better and more honest answer to to simply state that you don't know, that you don't have an answer. Assuming the supernatural has never furthered our understanding of anything, and I only need cite all of human history to prove my point.


Assuming the supernatural =/= acknowledging there are limits to our knowledge and observation.

It seems like you're all to eager to label the 'unknown' as the 'supernatural', rather than just the 'unknown'. By definition the supernatural is unknowable, which is a far stretch from something that has yet to be discovered.

[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, 02:31 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.
Strawman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:33 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 12:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 12:20 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  You forgot National Socialist.x

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

Is that all you have? Oh you have cunt too. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:36 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 01:59 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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 existence.

He just defined the term in a way that isn't that. It doesn't matter if you think he used the term wrong; you've created a strawman.

If he can't use the correct words, then he's inept. He has demonstrated that many times though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:37 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 02:36 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 01:59 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  He just defined the term in a way that isn't that. It doesn't matter if you think he used the term wrong; you've created a strawman.

If he can't use the correct words, then he's inept. He has demonstrated that many times though.

Sure I have fucknuts, keep telling yourself that. Does it help you sleep at night? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:40 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 02:31 AM)Brownshirt 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.
Strawman.

Really? Mr. Anti-Assumption draws a line that doesn't dismiss all assumptions?

You know Cogito Ergo Sum is a presupposition, right?

[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, 02:52 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 02:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

You stupid cunt. Facepalm

"Perhaps that's correct but there's no reason to assume that to be true..."

I'm sorry, do you have evidence in support of the supernatural? No? Then you mean to tell me that all evidence we have, all experience we can draw upon, everything we have ever know, points to the existence of the natural exclusively?

Right, that's what I thought. Drinking Beverage

Now stop and think about the supernatural. By definition, once you have evidence for it, it is no longer supernatural. Why? Because if you have evidence for it, then it has occurred in the natural world, and is part of it, and is now natural rather than supernatural. We will never have evidence for the supernatural because, by definition, we cannot. So when philosophical naturalism states that it only deals with the natural, it's because that's where all the evidence is; the supernatural is without evidence and philosophical naturalism requires evidence.

Which is perfectly fine for Evidentialism.









But I'm going to assume that you're going to continue to grandstand in support that we not dismiss that which cannot possibly be known because there will never be evidence for it. Real winning plan you have there dumbfuck. Drinking Beverage



(03-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  None , just because religion has posited various views doesn't mean you have to propose that we can determine our own non magical solution

Yep, stupid cunt it is... Facepalm

All solutions have thus far been non-magical. What reason is there to entertain magical ones? Once again, magical = supernatural, supernatural = no evidence. For those of us who value evidence, there never will be a 'sufficient' magical answer. Because if all you can do is pull supernatural assumptions out of your ass, the far better and more honest answer to to simply state that you don't know, that you don't have an answer. Assuming the supernatural has never furthered our understanding of anything, and I only need cite all of human history to prove my point.


Assuming the supernatural =/= acknowledging there are limits to our knowledge and observation.

It seems like you're all to eager to label the 'unknown' as the 'supernatural', rather than just the 'unknown'. By definition the supernatural is unknowable, which is a far stretch from something that has yet to be discovered.

Well that was painful. Tell me, what evidence do you have to suggest that we're getting closer to finding relevant evidence to existence being a a purely natural process. Of course by natural I don't mean supernatural. Please don't go into one of your supernatural rants, they were dull and boring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:57 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 02:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 02:31 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Strawman.

Really? Mr. Anti-Assumption draws a line that doesn't dismiss all assumptions?

You know Cogito Ergo Sum is a presupposition, right?

Lol you wrote it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: