Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2015, 10:45 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.

No, I said i was agnostic about it. I don't know whether or not it is true.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-01-2015, 10:47 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.

Scientists, whether theist or atheist, assume methodological naturalism as that is the basis for the scientific method.

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
04-01-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:13 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  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??
We shouldn't, and don't. Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it's a belief claim -- or more exactly, an unbelief claim.

I can allow that I could possibly be wrong about the existence of a deity somewhere, but that doesn't change how likely I think such a beast is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
04-01-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 08:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 05:33 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So you're no different in being Intellectually dishonest and having too strong an agenda as well. Then you're going to go nowhere by your current paths if your assumptions are true. What is joining a group?

Are you just going to ignore anyones points to what bucks your claim of atheists. What would it take me to say or demonstrate that would make you not blindly disbelieve my position of not believing a definitive belief in naturalism?

I'm devout in that you or I have no idea, that's my agenda. You claim to be justified in looking for answers, I'm not criticising that., I'm criticising that' you've assumed an answer without evidence for it. Sounds a very theistic concept huh?

This forum is a group, where you can find like-minded fundies to affirm how right you are in your baseless assertions. Christians go to church, you come here.

For me to stop thinking that would require you to stop making statement like "hen you're going to go nowhere by your current paths if your assumptions are true". This implies your assertion is true. I have no issue with searching for truth, but claiming truth without evidence for it is bullshit.

What have I assumed? I'm missing your claim on what I have assumed because I'm not seeing it anywhere prior to this. Would you be an elaborate enough of a speaker to actually tell a person what you claim they are doing?

What answer have I assumed? What are my assumptions?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
04-01-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 02:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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

points EK for patience & perseverance!!!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
04-01-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:23 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 02:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.




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.




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).




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.




Right. Sure you can.

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




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.




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




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.




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




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




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




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.




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.




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




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.




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

points EK for patience & perseverance!!!

Points EK in the direction of telling the retarded bastard to go fuck himself.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
04-01-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 11:45 AM)mordant Wrote:  Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it's a belief claim -- or more exactly, an unbelief claim.

Atheism is a claim about the power of human reason to credibly answer questions about the ultimate nature of reality.

The fact that we don't even know what the word "reality" refers to is swept aside as being intolerably inconvenient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:49 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:44 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 11:45 AM)mordant Wrote:  Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it's a belief claim -- or more exactly, an unbelief claim.

Atheism is a claim about the power of human reason to credibly answer questions about the ultimate nature of reality.

The fact that we don't even know what the word "reality" refers to is swept aside as being intolerably inconvenient.

FFS how stupid can you be? An atheist simply means "one who has no beliefs in any gods."

It's not a claim. It's not a position.

It's a state of being.

If fact, it is the state of being we were all born with; we were all born with no beliefs in any gods.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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....

Yes, agreed. All assertions bear the burden of proof. It's the simplest thing.

But we'll never get this most basic rule of reason past our fellow member's emotional barriers.

And because we keep trying to do the clearly impossible, we can reasonably be declared as irrational as they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 12:50 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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....

Yes, agreed. All assertions bear the burden of proof. It's the simplest thing.

But we'll never get this most basic rule of reason past our fellow member's emotional barriers.

And because we keep trying to do the clearly impossible, we can reasonably be declared as irrational as they are.

The two of you make retards look like geniuses.

BS has had it explained to him ad nausium, and so have you, but neither of you can grasp anything anyone is saying.

You are too fucking stupid for this conversation, both of you.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: