Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2015, 12:37 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:37 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  What's clear is you're trying to dodge the question.

Your question is nonsensical because you are misusing words.

Ducking and diving just means you have something to hide.

So do you lack belief in philosophical naturalism? Trust me, philosophical naturalism is a belief as it cannot be proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:44 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

One could argue all of us participating in reality do.

We base everything in reality based on nature itself. Even theists making claims to prove to atheists use nature based sources because we all observe nature. Without it, we don't have common ground.

One could say that reality is actually the Matrix, an illusion, or something an outside source 'created' but we can't prove it with the tools we have. We rely on nature because it gets results in nature. If there is something 'out there', then it may as well be impossible to prove using nature on supernatural sources.

Not relying on the assumption that natural reality is real can drive you up the wall. It's just pragmatic to work with nature itself using the tools we have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:46 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:37 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your question is nonsensical because you are misusing words.

Ducking and diving just means you have something to hide.

So do you lack belief in philosophical naturalism? Trust me, philosophical naturalism is a belief as it cannot be proven.

The only things that can be 'proven' are mathematical or legal proofs. Science only ever fails to disprove something after trying really, really hard to do so. So there is that you ignorant cumdumpster. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:50 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

So you're claiming the assumptions made by theists and by atheists are the same? And these do not differ, in private, professional, philological circles?

You seem to have coated yourself in teflon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 01:00 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:50 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  Scientists who are theists also assume methodological naturalism.

So you're claiming the assumptions made by theists and by atheists are the same? And these do not differ, in private, professional, philological circles?

You seem to have coated yourself in teflon.

Science = Methodological Naturalism.

Whenever scientists, who are also theists, argue for their God, they do not do so with any evidence. Go ahead and read Francis Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. His evidence for his God is seeing a frozen waterfall and feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, so he claims. If he had actual evidence for his God that could withstand scrutiny, he'd have won a Nobel Prize for his work, instead of publishing it as a popular book for laypeople. He is not arguing for his belief in the supernatural in the same we he argued and presented evidence for his work in genetics and the Human Genome Project.

When those who believe in the supernatural, argue for the supernatural, they are not using methodological naturalism. They cannot, because they never have any evidence. Drinking Beverage

Collins clearly believes there exists something else beyond nature which includes his God, but he has no evidence for it. So I'm left wondering why I, or anyone else, should take his deeply held belief seriously in light of it's complete lack of evidence?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-01-2015, 01:15 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I do know.
"Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is."

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.

Sorry it doesn't work like that. If you make a claim, you need to rationalise it. Theists say god exists, they need to rationalise. The burden is with you.
It appears that you don't want this burden as you're right, theists think the same thing. Did you come from a devout family or something, your switch has been rotated 360 degrees. Of course you don't know that.

With the assertion that the natural world is all there is you have allocated humanity with the ability to assess everything as it is. There is no noumenal, as our senses are attuned to the thing (evidence) as it is.

This seems to be quite a claim given we lack an explanation for existence, and many other things you would expect you actually have some basis basis beyond, we know everything, as we have evidence for it. Very funny though.
Good on you though for being honest, despite holding a mindbogglingly retarded position, who claims to oppose a mindbogglingly retarded position. I can see you're just one of those people.

Quote: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.)
Not bitching sweetheart, stating a fact. I'm sure to you they're the same though.

Quote: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.
I don't pin my views evidence, given the inherent lack of it and use of it in addressing this question. Try using a court case for an analogy, that's where your hand rests and actually has some value. Unfortunately, analogies hold no value for as anything we use for an analogy we understand, we don't have the faintest (well reasonable people don't) about accounting for eixtsencve.

Quote: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.

I value evidence if we get some, you value the absence of it. Not exactly useful is it?

Quote:How do you know the supernatural exists?
Where did I claim to know it exists? If you don't realise that we don't have an answer with the 'evidence' you so readily accept, then you stupider than you appear. That would take some beating, actually no it won't. Who knows where crazies like yourself pull conclusions from.

Quote:How do you know that nature isn't all there is?
I don't, as I'm not crazy. You know nature is all there is as, despite being a by-product of existence, going through a process of evolution, you've come out the outside and are able to assess existence exactly what it is. Damn, you need help. Talk to your cat or something she'll put your straight.

Quote:What evidence do you claim to have that invalidates philosophical naturalism?
As above, it's your claim sweetheart.



(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
[/quote]

Good for you.

I think for myself, hence why I'm agnostic. You may notice we don't have anyrallies, t-shirts, conventions, seminars, books, publishers etc like atheists. Most of you just march along like theists, preaching the same bollocks. Good to see you preach your own bollocks. I thin kthta's where you've gone off the rails though. You've made a claim, I just want to evidence you have to account for existence being natural. That's the problem isn't it, you don't realise any limitations or even consider them.

You need to think a bit.[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2015 06:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I do know.
"Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is."

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.
Sorry it doesn't work like that. If you make a claim, you need to rationalise[sic] it. Theists say god exists, they need to rationalise[sic]. The burden is with you.

How nice that you cut out the 'proving a negative' part. Quote mining, it's not just for theists anymore!

Claiming that a God exists is a positive claim. They are claiming that a thing, namely their god, does exist. It is up to them to back their positive claim with positive evidence. It is not the atheists job to prove a negative.

So let's try this again.

The doctrine, not claim, of philosophical naturalism is that the natural worlds is all there is. Proving this, in the sense you are demanding proof, would require proving a negative; 'proving' that there is no supernatural. Let's just for a second ignore the fact that you cannot 'prove' anything outside of mathematics and law, because as we've already established, you're an ignorant cumdumpster.

However your demand runs afoul of one thing, that in making the demand you assume there is something else besides the natural world that can exist. Arguing against naturalism requires arguing from the point of accepting the supernatural, which we've already established is a position entirely devoid of evidence; it is a baseless presupposition.

Since naturalism makes less assumptions than supernaturalism, and the fact that naturalism has all of the evidence while supernatruaislsm has none, the only position that can be defended is naturalism. Supernaturalism can't even meet the burden of proof for existence, something a plain-jane all natural rock can do.

I am an evidentialist, I go with the evidence, and naturalism has all of it.

You objection is nothing more than a thinly veiled word game, meant only to confuse and attempt to rearrange the burden of proof, and would be right at home in the halls of street preaching theologians.

In short, you're full of shit, and not at all impressive.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  It appears that you don't want this burden as you're right, theists think the same thing. Did you come from a devout family or something, your switch has been rotated 360 degrees. Of course you don't know that.

No, you simply fundamentally don't understand the question, and at this point I'm not sure whether it's because you're a purposeful jackass or just fucked in the head stupid.

I'm betting on the later.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  With the assertion that the natural world is all there is you have allocated humanity with the ability to assess everything as it is. There is no noumenal, as our senses are attuned to the thing (evidence) as it is.

The natural world is all there is. Anyone who posits that there exists anything outside of the natural world needs evidence to support it.

Once again, something that is yet unknown is not evidence for the something outside of nature (the supernatural).

Radiation wasn't supernatural before we learned how to detect it, and neither was dark matter or dark energy. They are parts of the natural world, and I can guarantee there is more out there to be learned, things that we don't yet know about. But that doesn't make them supernatural. Anything that is supernatural would be outside of nature, and thus would remain outside of our scope of knowledge, thus nobody can say anything intelligent about it at all (including positing it's very existence sans evidence).



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  This seems to be quite a claim given we lack an explanation for existence, and many other things you would expect you actually have some basis basis[sic] beyond, we know everything, as we have evidence for it. Very funny though.

Once again you walking advertisement for post-birth abortion. Facepalm

Something that is yet unknown is not evidence for the supernatural.

Ignorance is not an argument for the supernatural.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Good on you though for being honest, despite holding a mindbogglingly retarded position, who claims to oppose a mindbogglingly retarded position. I can see you're just one of those people.

Right. Sure you can.

Generalization and dismissal! It's not just for theists anymore either!



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.)
Not bitching sweetheart, stating a fact. I'm sure to you they're the same though.

For starters, you can't properly format a forum post to save your life.

Your 'fact' is nothing more than you entirely misunderstanding the question, which for the record, is not a fact; it's a word game. So there is that.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
I don't pin my views [sic] evidence, given the inherent lack of it and use of it in addressing this question.

Right. So what non-evidence based epistemology do you use? What is is called? How does it work? How accurate is it?



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Try using a court case for an analogy, that's where your hand rests and actually has some value. Unfortunately, analogies hold no value for as anything we use for an analogy we understand, we don't have the faintest (well reasonable people don't) about accounting for eixtsencve[sic].

Once again, claiming that nobody has evidence "to account for existence" (ignoring of course the fact that we do, to the best of our knowledge, exist) is not an argument against naturalism you pig-fucking simpleton.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
I value evidence if we get some, you value the absence of it. Not exactly useful is it?

Cool, so you have evidence for the supernatural? Where is your Nobel Prize?



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How do you know the supernatural exists?
Where did I claim to know it exists? If you don't realise[sic] that we don't have an answer with the 'evidence' you so readily accept, then you stupider than you appear.

No, I just demand evidence for my beliefs, because I'm not a gullible shitheel like you.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  That would take some beating, actually no it won't. Who knows where crazies like yourself pull conclusions from.

Evidence. Which you have continuously failed to provide. Because you have none.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How do you know that nature isn't all there is?
I don't, as I'm not crazy.

No, you're fucking denser than a pile of bricks, and pointing that out is a great insult to masonry everywhere for which I apologize.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You know nature is all there is as, despite being a by-product of existence, going through a process of evolution, you've come out the outside and are able to assess existence exactly what it is. Damn, you need help. Talk to your cat or something she'll put your straight.

See, this is how we know you're a fucked in the head moron. Evolution and the nature of existence have zero bearing on this at all. Nice red herrings you have there you stupid cunt.

There are those who demand evidence, and there are those who do not. Those who do not are gullible shills.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What evidence do you claim to have that invalidates philosophical naturalism?
As above, it's your claim sweetheart.

As above, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the question in a poor attempt to reverse the burden of proof.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 12:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thanks, but I can think for myself fucktard. Maybe you should try it some time? Consider

Nice call to authority though... Drinking Beverage
Good for you.

I think for myself, hence why I'm agnostic. You may notice we don't have anyrallies[sic], t-shirts, conventions, seminars, books, publishers etc like atheists. Most of you just march along like theists, preaching the same bollocks. Good to see you preach your own bollocks. I thin kthta's[sic] where you've gone off the rails though. You've made a claim, I just want to evidence you have to account for existence being natural. That's the problem isn't it, you don't realise[sic] any limitations or even consider them.

Once gain, you are either purposefully or ignorantly misunderstanding the nature of the question and attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

The entire premise of your argument is a simple word game, nothing more.



(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You need to think a bit.

I do, quite a bit more than you it seems. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-01-2015, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2015 11:44 AM by mordant.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:28 PM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  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.
There is reason to believe that some questions are beyond really answering -- requiring, as they do, the ability we lack to step outside of reality and observe it at a meta-level. But even IF we NEVER answer "that" question, it doesn't matter, because until we do, the correct response is the three magic words, "we don't know", followed by a refusal to Make Things Up as a placeholder for not knowing.

Religion, at bottom, sells certitude. Uncertainty is something that we do not naturally tolerate, as we are honed by evolution to equate not being able to explain and pattern-match everything, with being existentially threatened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
04-01-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:08 AM)mordant Wrote:  There is reason to believe that some questions are beyond really answering -- requiring, as they do, the ability we lack to step outside of reality and observe it at a meta-level.

But even IF we NEVER answer "that" question, it doesn't matter, because until we do, the correct response is the three magic words, "we don't know", followed by a refusal to Make Things Up as a placeholder for not knowing.

If "we don't know" is the right answer, why should we then, in the very next breath, claim TO KNOW that religion is wrong??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:13 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 09:08 AM)mordant Wrote:  There is reason to believe that some questions are beyond really answering -- requiring, as they do, the ability we lack to step outside of reality and observe it at a meta-level.

But even IF we NEVER answer "that" question, it doesn't matter, because until we do, the correct response is the three magic words, "we don't know", followed by a refusal to Make Things Up as a placeholder for not knowing.

If "we don't know" is the right answer, why should we then, in the very next breath, claim TO KNOW that religion is wrong??

Because religions are made out of groundless assertions, which when held up to scrutiny, are either unfalsifiable or flat out wrong.

Might there be something out there greater than us? Sure. Is it an all-powerful, trans-dimensional, petulant space wizard who answers your prayers and cares about who, when, where, and how you fuck? There is zero reason to think that is at all even remotely probable, and as such, basing your life on the premise that it is true is nothing but delusional folly.

Lets not also forget that we have good evidence indicating that all religions are man made. So go ahead and follow the words of a 'god', as dictated and created by other flawed human beings, at your own peril. But don't get pissy whenever we point out how fucking stupid that is. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: