Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 11:13 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you intend to defend philosophical naturalism, go learn what it is. As I've said before methodlogical naturalism is considered true by theists, agnostics and atheists. It's not my fault you're ignorant of its meaning.

consider today to be a learning day better still just keep quiet when there are big words being used.

No, methodological naturalism isn't considered true (or false), it is used as an assumption because it gives results.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you intend to defend philosophical naturalism, go learn what it is. As I've said before methodlogical naturalism is considered true by theists, agnostics and atheists. It's not my fault you're ignorant of its meaning.

Defend it from what? Your repeated declarations of 'nuh-uh!'? Drinking Beverage

[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, 11:28 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
His answer for everything is nothing. Forget about the people who have bucked conventional wisdom for the last 600 years. Forget about the fact we have mapped the universe with radio telescopes. Forget about the work of Fermi, Newton, Bohr, Einstein and a thousand other great minds. He thinks that because we can't answer one question that none of it matters. Someday someone will ask that question correctly, and answer it . It's just a matter of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jack_Ripper's post
03-01-2015, 11:32 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Everything exists, prove me wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 11:37 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 10:31 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So I would presume you to be atheistic towards it as well? Or does that lack of belief only come out on special occasions?

It is clear that you do not understand the meanings of the words agnostic and atheistic. Drinking Beverage

What's clear is you're trying to dodge the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 11:46 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you intend to defend philosophical naturalism, go learn what it is. As I've said before methodlogical naturalism is considered true by theists, agnostics and atheists. It's not my fault you're ignorant of its meaning.

Defend it from what? Your repeated declarations of 'nuh-uh!'? Drinking Beverage

You still don't know what it is do you?

Do you understand what the burden of proof is? And when you assert philosophical naturalism (i.e. the natural is all there is) you need to be able to justify this claim, or at least have evidence (ironically) which can account for why the natural is all there is.You have not presented this at all, mainly because it's an invalid position.

Even one of your own thinks it's not defensible and facepalms to your ignorance.Facepalm



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 11:54 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you intend to defend philosophical naturalism, go learn what it is. As I've said before methodlogical naturalism is considered true by theists, agnostics and atheists. It's not my fault you're ignorant of its meaning.

consider today to be a learning day better still just keep quiet when there are big words being used.

No, methodological naturalism isn't considered true (or false), it is used as an assumption because it gives results.

It's an assumption IF you're an atheist, as you've assumed there to be no god.
How would it be an assumption for a theistic scientists to use this definition.

"This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:21 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:37 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is clear that you do not understand the meanings of the words agnostic and atheistic. Drinking Beverage

What's clear is you're trying to dodge the question.

Your question is nonsensical because you are misusing words.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2015, 12:22 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, methodological naturalism isn't considered true (or false), it is used as an assumption because it gives results.

It's an assumption IF you're an atheist, as you've assumed there to be no god.
How would it be an assumption for a theistic scientists to use this definition.

"This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge"

Scientists who are theists also assume methodological naturalism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2015, 12:35 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2015 12:43 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Defend it from what? Your repeated declarations of 'nuh-uh!'? Drinking Beverage
You still don't know what it is do you?

I do know.

"Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is."



(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Do you understand what the burden of proof is?

I do. Do you understand what proving a negative is?



(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  And when you assert philosophical naturalism (i.e. the natural is all there is) you need to be able to justify this claim, or at least have evidence (ironically) which can account for why the natural is all there is.You have not presented this at all, mainly because it's an invalid position.

Well, in order to invalidate philosophical naturalism, you'd need to provide evidence of the supernatural. Therein lies your problem. How do you provide evidence for the supernatural? You cannot. All evidence we have is natural, it is all evidence of the natural (and lack of evidence is not evidence for the supernatural). If evidence were supernatural, it wouldn't be evidence.

You're bitching that I cannot 'prove' the 'claim' of philosophical naturalism, that nature is all there is.
(Also, for the record, it's not a 'claim' but rather a 'doctrine' or 'operating principle' that nature is all there is.)

But all evidence is natural by definition.

Therefore evidence for the supernatural is impossible.

Therefore the supernatural will never have evidence.

Therefore believing in the supernatural (rejecting naturalism) is not based upon any evidence.

Therefore we have no evidence for the supernatural, no basis at all to believe it exists.

Therefore belief in the supernatural is irrational.

If you value evidence in your epistemology, naturalism is all there is. If the supernatural does exists, it will always be without evidence, and is thus indefensible. Unless you're claiming that you have another way of 'knowing' the supernatural that doesn't use evidence, in which case, make your case for your non-evidence based epistemology.

How do you know the supernatural exists?

How do you know that nature isn't all there is?

What evidence do you claim to have that invalidates philosophical naturalism?



(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Even one of your own thinks it's not defensible and facepalms to your ignorance.Facepalm




Thanks, but I can think for myself fucktard. Maybe you should try it some time? Consider

Nice call to authority though... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: