Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2015, 06:10 PM
Brownshirt's Intellectual Breakdown
Brownshirt makes the following statement:

Quote:Those who do seem use science are addressing creationists and then take it that step further and assume that existence will be accounted for by science.(i.e philosophical naturalism). This is an assumption with no basis beyond assumption.

Is anyone who holds this position able to rationalise it beyond the standard canned arguments, which convince only the converted?

The process of rationalizing something implies that other options exist. For example, if a child gets poor grades in school it can be rationalized that the teacher was at fault, but the other options are numerous such as the kid was at fault, his parents were at fault etc.

Yet he admits that there are no other options to consider. Therefore, when there are no other options to consider then any kind of rationalization is not only absurd, but impossible and unnecessary.

The act of rationalizing in regards to a position held necessarily implies that the process of justifying the held position has an opposing position to consider.

Since Brownshirt admits that there are no opposing positions to consider, then justifying the only available option is pointless and meaningless.

But he can't see this bit of logic for some reason.

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, 06:29 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 03:00 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  But atheists feel they dont need to justify any claims made. You ought to submit yourselves to the same rules as non-atheists. Then perhaps atheism will not appear as its own religion.

Yes, that's it.

The only quibble I can offer is that you should narrow your definition of the particular atheists you are addressing.

Not all atheists are dogma chanting fundies such as we see here, in fact, most are not. I call the fundies "forum atheists" but I don't claim that's the perfect label, hopefully you can do better.

Quibble stated, I believe you are exactly right in your fundamental point.

The fundies here are probably too young to realize this, but they are relentlessly undermining their own anti-theist cause (and the goals of this website) by replicating many of the worst aspects of religion under a new banner.

Yes, reason is a form of surrender, just like faith. Surrender to a process.

Most members here have no intention of surrendering to anything, they are determined to drive the logic bus to their preferred destination.

That's not reason, that's ideology.

Trying to have intelligent conversations with fundies of any flavor is not reason either, but foolishness.

I'm afraid dear Brownshirt that you and I are going to have to face our own foolishness if we wish to keep pointing at it in others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
The answer is not 42 pages.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
04-01-2015, 08:57 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 03:33 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  At the moment, yes. Note when you say atheist, I only apply this label to people who claim to be an atheist.
I see no criticism of an unjustified claim of philosophical naturalism. Everyone is glossing over his ridiculous claim and
attempting to attack me, or even justifying the statements he's made. Guilt by association and/or keeping quiet.

You tend to band together, which is to be expected but justifies my claim of atheism being like a religion. Perhaps it's more
through fear of losing the social elements here. Who knows. I'm not here to make friends, and as such am being very honest.

Is this your manner of showing how you will ignore a persons points if they don't fit into your pre-generalized points. You complain to others about dodging or avoiding questions so why do you continually avoid the response of those who don't assert philosophical naturalism?

Sports fan also band together as do anime fans on forums. The claim of "like a religion" is another ridiculous misattribution of a label that carries nothing but an emotional negative weight in your head.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
04-01-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 05:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 05:16 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  None. Uncertainty abound.

You have too much entitlement in your position.

And you have no entitlement to yours.

If there are no other options, then how does any rationalization exist on the only available option?

Let me explain something to you.

Your issue is with the use of natural philosophy. In relation to this discussion, here is the definition of rationalize:

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize

Since you agree there are no other options such as a supernatural explanation, what then do we substitute it with?

The problem is obvious, and the question remains:

How do you justify your rationalization that we can somehow rationalize natural philosophy when there is no substitute to consider?

The only answer is that no rationalization is possible, or required.

You've intertwined methodological and philosophical naturalism. I'm not arguing against methodological naturalism.

I'm arguing against evolution kills perspective of philosophical naturalism. His argument conflates the two, which argues that the lack of proof for the supernatural justifies his claim that thenatural is all that exists. Not quite the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 08:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 03:33 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  At the moment, yes. Note when you say atheist, I only apply this label to people who claim to be an atheist.
I see no criticism of an unjustified claim of philosophical naturalism. Everyone is glossing over his ridiculous claim and
attempting to attack me, or even justifying the statements he's made. Guilt by association and/or keeping quiet.

You tend to band together, which is to be expected but justifies my claim of atheism being like a religion. Perhaps it's more
through fear of losing the social elements here. Who knows. I'm not here to make friends, and as such am being very honest.

Is this your manner of showing how you will ignore a persons points if they don't fit into your pre-generalized points. You complain to others about dodging or avoiding questions so why do you continually avoid the response of those who don't assert philosophical naturalism?

Sports fan also band together as do anime fans on forums. The claim of "like a religion" is another ridiculous misattribution of a label that carries nothing but an emotional negative weight in your head.
If you show support for a claim of philosophical naturalism or ccritique my response to philosophical naturalism, it's a safe assumption to make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:00 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 05:27 PM)Free Wrote:  And you have no entitlement to yours.

If there are no other options, then how does any rationalization exist on the only available option?

Let me explain something to you.

Your issue is with the use of natural philosophy. In relation to this discussion, here is the definition of rationalize:

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize

Since you agree there are no other options such as a supernatural explanation, what then do we substitute it with?

The problem is obvious, and the question remains:

How do you justify your rationalization that we can somehow rationalize natural philosophy when there is no substitute to consider?

The only answer is that no rationalization is possible, or required.

You've intertwined methodological and philosophical naturalism. I'm not arguing against methodological naturalism.

I'm arguing against evolution kills perspective of philosophical naturalism. His argument conflates the two, which argues that the lack of proof for the supernatural justifies his claim that thenatural is all that exists. Not quite the same.

That does not reflect my point at all. It's very simple;

To rationalize one position requires an alternative position in contrast.

Since none exist, as you also admit, then philosophical naturalism cannot be rationalized.

It's all we have. That's it.

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, 09:05 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 05:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 04:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  why do you propose science can answer the question of existence?

uhhhh, maybe because they're doing it and shit.

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

I'm not talking about abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
04-01-2015, 09:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2015 09:12 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:04 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 08:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Is this your manner of showing how you will ignore a persons points if they don't fit into your pre-generalized points. You complain to others about dodging or avoiding questions so why do you continually avoid the response of those who don't assert philosophical naturalism?

Sports fan also band together as do anime fans on forums. The claim of "like a religion" is another ridiculous misattribution of a label that carries nothing but an emotional negative weight in your head.
If you show support for a claim of philosophical naturalism or ccritique my response to philosophical naturalism, it's a safe assumption to make.

Where did I support the claim?

I am not going to avoid critiquing responses that are poorly made.

I don't support philosophical naturalism because I don't support any definitive claim of a set way to achieve knowledge or a goal. I remain skeptical of as much as I can be and I've said it before with you disbelieving me. What about these claims of mine makes you not believe me?

"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
04-01-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(04-01-2015 09:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 09:00 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You've intertwined methodological and philosophical naturalism. I'm not arguing against methodological naturalism.

I'm arguing against evolution kills perspective of philosophical naturalism. His argument conflates the two, which argues that the lack of proof for the supernatural justifies his claim that thenatural is all that exists. Not quite the same.

That does not reflect my point at all. It's very simple;

To rationalize one position requires an alternative position in contrast.

Since none exist, as you also admit, then philosophical naturalism cannot be rationalized.

It's all we have. That's it.

Sorry that doesnt make it valid or that it doesn't require rationalisation.

Saying you dont know is all we have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: