Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2015, 12:38 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Alright fucktard, and I mean that as a term of endearment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 12:43 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2015 12:47 AM by Brownshirt.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Get fucked cunt and stop liking my fucking posts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
08-01-2015, 12:58 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
That positive rep has got to be killing you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jack_Ripper's post
08-01-2015, 01:03 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
It's tearing me apart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
08-01-2015, 03:04 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(07-01-2015 05:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(06-01-2015 12:57 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  hopefully there'sa lift. So you deny philosophical naturalism or just lack belief in it?

I suppose I'll actually respond if you're willing to ask. I don't exactly know what you intemperate the concept of denying to be. Since you keep having strong stances on terms indicating this or that and seem to have some opposition to the concept of lack of belief. I would say I definitely lack belief in philosophical naturalism, and have been trying to say so multiple times on this thread to you.

Do I deny it? I don't deny it's possible, I don't refuse to claim it could be there but I also don't assert it is true. I don't actively expect it to be the case, if that's denying it, I deny it. If denying it means I vehemently proclaim it is not true, I don't deny it.

Labels to me aren't all that critical or important in essence to me. So what your choices of labels want to indicate doesn't really matter to me.


(06-01-2015 01:05 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  His position is like yours. I don't define myself on what i dont believe in. Perhaps you're a non collecting stamp person? i dont go to a forum and discuss not collecting stamps anf try to justify why not collecting stamps is rational.

I really felt like responding because I just watched a video that relates to this little diddy I recall seeing. Not to get into your caring about why one defines themselves as a term. But just specifically Matt Dilahunty because of your topic.

In this latest new year opening episode, Matt actually talks about not accepting philosophical naturalism to be a defined position as well. His stance is of being currently in the realm of anticipating things of that way, and understanding using methodological naturalism, but he specifically indicates not asserting philosophical naturalism to be true.

This just right along the lines of a position I've been trying to explain to you I take over the last few days with your counters being unbelieving me because of "guilty by association" or being on an atheist forum I guess. So I wonder, do you have equal arguments to disbelief Matt as not truly holding this position he speaks of?

This is the episode. He beings to talk specifically about Philosophical Naturalism right around the 40:00 minute mark near the end of a lengthy call with a man trying to make an ontological based God argument.



Thanks. Ok no more trolling, well maybe. I find that some atheists will no condemn a claim like philosophical naturalism, despite being logically unsound, yet condemn a theist claiming their god is real. Which is actually ok, if you're just anti-theist, but many atheists claim intellectual superiority (e.g. the 'Brights') over other positions and claim a form of association. Personally I would want nothing to do with such a deranged position. SO the guilt by association is true, if you're not condemning it and co-existing with it, I presume it doesn't bother you.

Yet if I make sweeping generalisation such as I have done, everyone is up in arms.

To be honest a lot of atheism I would have no issue with if it really were a lack of belief, but it seems it's often emotionally charged behind the pretence of objectivity but just reeks of an agenda to me.

I do believe in Captain Crunch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 04:10 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 05:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I suppose I'll actually respond if you're willing to ask. I don't exactly know what you intemperate the concept of denying to be. Since you keep having strong stances on terms indicating this or that and seem to have some opposition to the concept of lack of belief. I would say I definitely lack belief in philosophical naturalism, and have been trying to say so multiple times on this thread to you.

Do I deny it? I don't deny it's possible, I don't refuse to claim it could be there but I also don't assert it is true. I don't actively expect it to be the case, if that's denying it, I deny it. If denying it means I vehemently proclaim it is not true, I don't deny it.

Labels to me aren't all that critical or important in essence to me. So what your choices of labels want to indicate doesn't really matter to me.



I really felt like responding because I just watched a video that relates to this little diddy I recall seeing. Not to get into your caring about why one defines themselves as a term. But just specifically Matt Dilahunty because of your topic.

In this latest new year opening episode, Matt actually talks about not accepting philosophical naturalism to be a defined position as well. His stance is of being currently in the realm of anticipating things of that way, and understanding using methodological naturalism, but he specifically indicates not asserting philosophical naturalism to be true.

This just right along the lines of a position I've been trying to explain to you I take over the last few days with your counters being unbelieving me because of "guilty by association" or being on an atheist forum I guess. So I wonder, do you have equal arguments to disbelief Matt as not truly holding this position he speaks of?

This is the episode. He beings to talk specifically about Philosophical Naturalism right around the 40:00 minute mark near the end of a lengthy call with a man trying to make an ontological based God argument.



Thanks. Ok no more trolling, well maybe. I find that some atheists will no condemn a claim like philosophical naturalism, despite being logically unsound, yet condemn a theist claiming their god is real. Which is actually ok, if you're just anti-theist, but many atheists claim intellectual superiority (e.g. the 'Brights') over other positions and claim a form of association. Personally I would want nothing to do with such a deranged position. SO the guilt by association is true, if you're not condemning it and co-existing with it, I presume it doesn't bother you.

Yet if I make sweeping generalisation such as I have done, everyone is up in arms.

To be honest a lot of atheism I would have no issue with if it really were a lack of belief, but it seems it's often emotionally charged behind the pretence of objectivity but just reeks of an agenda to me.

I do believe in Captain Crunch.

It is rather simple, don't make assertive illogical claims and the issue isn't going to come out against you as often. Guilty by association is an illogical assertion to put on people. Atheism is MORE than a lack of belief is an illogical association to add.

It's not hard to state it plainly. Yes, Atheists have other opinions or ideas than just atheism... but that doesn't change that atheism is just atheism. It isn't more; atheist have more involved but atheism isn't more.

Just last week or maybe now two weeks ago I also lambasted Free for a idiotic thread he started with comments just of that nature indicating atheist superior intelligence to theists and other topics. You don't need to boil everything down to groups.

There is an agenda to basically any label if one chooses to use it. To boil it down that everyones agenda is the same or something you have the answer to is another dickish assertion. You have an agenda to calling yourself agnostic as well. And doing so vaguely when that also could mean you deny the possibility to have knowledge or other definitions. Yet you discount peoples atheist terms scope of definitions and purpose.

"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
08-01-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
So, first off, in case you missed it.

(07-01-2015 11:53 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Show me everything....

Okay... please feel free to go and visit a planetarium or peruse through a good to decent telescope. All the reality we can see, right there. Big Grin

(07-01-2015 11:53 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  ..... And we can then compare the natural with the 'unnatural'.

Ah! But to do that... you need to show us something super-natural/'Unnatural' in return/first. Smile

See? Easy as. Big Grin

(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Thanks. Ok no more trolling, well maybe. I find that some atheists will no condemn a claim like philosophical naturalism, despite being logically unsound, yet condemn a theist claiming their god is real. Which is actually ok, if you're just anti-theist, but many atheists claim intellectual superiority (e.g. the 'Brights') over other positions and claim a form of association. Personally I would want nothing to do with such a deranged position. SO the guilt by association is true, if you're not condemning it and co-existing with it, I presume it doesn't bother you.

So... (If I understand this)... the point is that you don't find any value in philosophical naturalism and think others/every one else should also follow suit?

(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yet if I make sweeping generalization such as I have done, everyone is up in arms.

Um.. you don't see the problem/differences between you making a sweeping statement and others not necessarily even understanding your point of view?

(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  To be honest a lot of atheism I would have no issue with if it really were a lack of belief,

Um... (From mine own personal point of view) that is all my atheism is. A simple lack of belief in the claims made by those of religious bent. The evidence put forwards is generally laughable. "I believe in god for the feels" kind of thing.

(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  But it seems it's often emotionally charged behind the pretense of objectivity but just reeks of an agenda to me.

Sorry if my tone of writing comes across as an agenda. I shall try and write in a more neutral tense.


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(08-01-2015 04:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 03:04 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Thanks. Ok no more trolling, well maybe. I find that some atheists will no condemn a claim like philosophical naturalism, despite being logically unsound, yet condemn a theist claiming their god is real. Which is actually ok, if you're just anti-theist, but many atheists claim intellectual superiority (e.g. the 'Brights') over other positions and claim a form of association. Personally I would want nothing to do with such a deranged position. SO the guilt by association is true, if you're not condemning it and co-existing with it, I presume it doesn't bother you.

Yet if I make sweeping generalisation such as I have done, everyone is up in arms.

To be honest a lot of atheism I would have no issue with if it really were a lack of belief, but it seems it's often emotionally charged behind the pretence of objectivity but just reeks of an agenda to me.

I do believe in Captain Crunch.

It is rather simple, don't make assertive illogical claims and the issue isn't going to come out against you as often. Guilty by association is an illogical assertion to put on people. Atheism is MORE than a lack of belief is an illogical association to add.

It's not hard to state it plainly. Yes, Atheists have other opinions or ideas than just atheism... but that doesn't change that atheism is just atheism. It isn't more; atheist have more involved but atheism isn't more.

Just last week or maybe now two weeks ago I also lambasted Free for a idiotic thread he started with comments just of that nature indicating atheist superior intelligence to theists and other topics. You don't need to boil everything down to groups.

There is an agenda to basically any label if one chooses to use it. To boil it down that everyones agenda is the same or something you have the answer to is another dickish assertion. You have an agenda to calling yourself agnostic as well. And doing so vaguely when that also could mean you deny the possibility to have knowledge or other definitions. Yet you discount peoples atheist terms scope of definitions and purpose.

I understand your position but have one major difficulty with it. The lack of belief atheist often comes with a very standard agenda of proposing science as the answer to everything. People dont assert that they don't believe in something only if they're challenged (by theists) or if they're asserting their own version of what is true.

I'm agnostic as I'm neutral towards a god of some sort. But don't define my own position based on ssomeone else's claims. If we lived a 100 years ago the atheist tag wwould hold more significance as you would be removing your self from the norm of the day.

I'm casting my net wide and some people will be outside that. i realise that but generalisations save time.

i am more interested in how those who don't discount my generalisations and justify their position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(08-01-2015 01:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 04:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It is rather simple, don't make assertive illogical claims and the issue isn't going to come out against you as often. Guilty by association is an illogical assertion to put on people. Atheism is MORE than a lack of belief is an illogical association to add.

It's not hard to state it plainly. Yes, Atheists have other opinions or ideas than just atheism... but that doesn't change that atheism is just atheism. It isn't more; atheist have more involved but atheism isn't more.

Just last week or maybe now two weeks ago I also lambasted Free for a idiotic thread he started with comments just of that nature indicating atheist superior intelligence to theists and other topics. You don't need to boil everything down to groups.

There is an agenda to basically any label if one chooses to use it. To boil it down that everyones agenda is the same or something you have the answer to is another dickish assertion. You have an agenda to calling yourself agnostic as well. And doing so vaguely when that also could mean you deny the possibility to have knowledge or other definitions. Yet you discount peoples atheist terms scope of definitions and purpose.

I understand your position but have one major difficulty with it. The lack of belief atheist often comes with a very standard agenda of proposing science as the answer to everything. People dont assert that they don't believe in something only if they're challenged (by theists) or if they're asserting their own version of what is true.

I'm agnostic as I'm neutral towards a god of some sort. But don't define my own position based on ssomeone else's claims. If we lived a 100 years ago the atheist tag wwould hold more significance as you would be removing your self from the norm of the day.

I'm casting my net wide and some people will be outside that. i realise that but generalisations save time.

i am more interested in how those who don't discount my generalisations and justify their position.

I'm confused by the "would hold more significance" claim. What does is the point of being outside of the norm? You say it like it's valuable or desirably in of itself. I would say the reason I think identifying as non-believers/atheist whatever is beneficial is because it's actually a rising category that is helping to boost social awareness of the opposition to religious belief. To let people know it's alright to be an atheist and that it's a rising group of people. Consider The other issues of what stances one take on topics like science are secondary in my view. They're not primary atheistic/agnostic/theist positions.

You seem to want to focus on those people you already have a position set upon about. That's not my cup of tea but I guess that's what keeps you interested.

And I think when you're in communication, generalizations do the opposite and stifle open dialogue. It's what causes talks to melt down into trollish back and forth bickering. When you're actually in a point of studying or using data, generalizations are time savers. Time and time again people come to forums, generalize the members falsely into one group and it leads to terrible open dialogue... especially when it's done from a sense of superiority.

"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
08-01-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(08-01-2015 01:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The lack of belief atheist often comes with a very standard agenda of proposing science as the answer to everything.
Strictly speaking that position is known as "scientism" and I don't personally subscribe to it. Scientism usually demonstrates a good deal of ignorance of philosophy, and of science's reliance upon it (both in its reliance on logic and math -- which, properly, are branches of philosophy, based as they are on axiomatic givens -- but also in requiring philosophy to inform science how to direct itself and its applied arm --technology -- for the common good). Science gives us, e.g., fission, but doesn't speak to how fission should or shouldn't be used -- to vaporize cities, say.

What I propose (not as an atheist, but as an empiricist) is what works ... and comparing the track record of science for helping us discover how reality actually works, vs the track record of religion for doing the same ... is that science is a wonderful thing which neither promises nor deliver 100% certitude but works and works well. I make no other claim for it than that.

It may be that atheists tend to embrace science because it does the job ... and if theism, or alchemy, or astrology, or any other system of approaching reality worked better, we'd probably tend to favor that. Science just happens to win out.

Notice I did not say that science either does, or could possibly, explain everything ... just that it has tremendous expressive and predictive power and results in highly useful discoveries about reality. There will always the inexplicable and the uncertain, and people will tend to invent gods to live in those places, because it's easier for them than just sitting with uncertainty unless and until it can be properly resolved.

Now if you want me as an atheist to embrace or at least be open to something other than science -- please do tell what that would be. I'm always happy for new tools in the old toolkit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: