Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2015, 02:37 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 12:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: h9C11DBF6]

[Image: retardtoday.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 03:06 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(09-01-2015 07:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 02:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

Labelling yourself an atheist generations ago actually held some value, as you would have been in a minority. Now it seems like a worthless label to me. Much like any lack of belief in another's claim would be.

It would make more sense to be anti-theist, or anti-religion to me.

Quote: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.

Whatever gets you through your life.

Quote: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.

From my perspective there's nothing to say, no one knows. End of.

My trollish posts wanted to draw out 'Free' and anyone else who holds such a baseless position. Sorry if you took offence, but this is the internet, it's not as if real relationships exist here.

Define this Value. What makes something a minority position more VALUABLE? To say i's valuable doesn't actually answer how it's more significant. And why should one desire this sense of what you find more valuable?

It being anachronistic doesn't mean it is not valuable. YOU may think so, but that's a position of opinion if you think so. As I already mentioned, it's valuable to many because it makes the population of those not accepting religious/theistic claims better known to let others know it is a growing position.

And to add to your later comment, what is a "real" relationship. What about the internet makes it so different you give up attempted sensible communications. What makes not-internet presumably person to person relationships "real?"

You keep doing the exact things you complain about other people doing. Asserting things as true when you're giving no reasonable explanation for doing so.

No person is JUST an Atheist... Simply because a person may frequently be an atheist and naturalist, sciencist, Buddhist, etc. Does not mean that Atheism is these positions. If you can't logically understand that you will be continually justly be unable to see that sensible communication is possible. A person joining a forum for multiple reasons doesn't make each possible position meld into one unified position. I have a haunting supposition, I wish weren't true, that you think agnosticism is just agnosticism though... wonder how that comes to be.

"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
10-01-2015, 03:10 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 02:37 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 12:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: h9C11DBF6]

[Image: retardtoday.jpg]

So, clumsy mother it is then? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:03 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 03:10 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:37 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  [Image: retardtoday.jpg]

So, clumsy mother it is then? Drinking Beverage

Tell me again how philosophical naturalism is true as it's the only option...

Still makes me laugh. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:12 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 02:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 07:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Labelling yourself an atheist generations ago actually held some value, as you would have been in a minority. Now it seems like a worthless label to me. Much like any lack of belief in another's claim would be.

It would make more sense to be anti-theist, or anti-religion to me.


Whatever gets you through your life.


From my perspective there's nothing to say, no one knows. End of.

My trollish posts wanted to draw out 'Free' and anyone else who holds such a baseless position. Sorry if you took offence, but this is the internet, it's not as if real relationships exist here.

Define this Value. What makes something a minority position more VALUABLE? To say i's valuable doesn't actually answer how it's more significant. And why should one desire this sense of what you find more valuable?

I don't follow this can you rephrase it?


Quote:It being anachronistic doesn't mean it is not valuable. YOU may think so, but that's a position of opinion if you think so. As I already mentioned, it's valuable to many because it makes the population of those not accepting religious/theistic claims better known to let others know it is a growing position.

If you live in a religious part of that states I can see it's value, otherwise it's pretty redundant. I assume most people are non theists, unless someone says that so and so is theist. And then everyone usually goes "oh" and gives the ma wide berth.

Quote:And to add to your later comment, what is a "real" relationship. What about the internet makes it so different you give up attempted sensible communications. What makes not-internet presumably person to person relationships "real?"

Are you trolling me here good sir, well played if you are.

Quote:You keep doing the exact things you complain about other people doing. Asserting things as true when you're giving no reasonable explanation for doing so.
Such as I know I don't know, is this the same as saying I know? I don't think so, but I can't say i know so.

Quote:No person is JUST an Atheist... Simply because a person may frequently be an atheist and naturalist, sciencist, Buddhist, etc. Does not mean that Atheism is these positions. If you can't logically understand that you will be continually justly be unable to see that sensible communication is possible. A person joining a forum for multiple reasons doesn't make each possible position meld into one unified position. I have a haunting supposition, I wish weren't true, that you think agnosticism is just agnosticism though... wonder how that comes to be.
The typical vocal atheist espouses a very typical view, there are exceptions. Perhaps you are one. If you follow the dawkins, harris, hitchens, etc line of thought then you're my target.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
10-01-2015, 04:37 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:12 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Define this Value. What makes something a minority position more VALUABLE? To say i's valuable doesn't actually answer how it's more significant. And why should one desire this sense of what you find more valuable?

I don't follow this can you rephrase it?

Quote:It being anachronistic doesn't mean it is not valuable. YOU may think so, but that's a position of opinion if you think so. As I already mentioned, it's valuable to many because it makes the population of those not accepting religious/theistic claims better known to let others know it is a growing position.

If you live in a religious part of that states I can see it's value, otherwise it's pretty redundant. I assume most people are non theists, unless someone says that so and so is theist. And then everyone usually goes "oh" and gives the ma wide berth.


Quote:And to add to your later comment, what is a "real" relationship. What about the internet makes it so different you give up attempted sensible communications. What makes not-internet presumably person to person relationships "real?"

Are you trolling me here good sir, well played if you are.

Quote:You keep doing the exact things you complain about other people doing. Asserting things as true when you're giving no reasonable explanation for doing so.
Such as I know I don't know, is this the same as saying I know? I don't think so, but I can't say i know so.

Quote:No person is JUST an Atheist... Simply because a person may frequently be an atheist and naturalist, sciencist, Buddhist, etc. Does not mean that Atheism is these positions. If you can't logically understand that you will be continually justly be unable to see that sensible communication is possible. A person joining a forum for multiple reasons doesn't make each possible position meld into one unified position. I have a haunting supposition, I wish weren't true, that you think agnosticism is just agnosticism though... wonder how that comes to be.
The typical vocal atheist espouses a very typical view, there are exceptions. Perhaps you are one. If you follow the dawkins, harris, hitchens, etc line of thought then you're my target.


All I'm asking about "value" is what your basis for saying atheism was a more valuable position 100 years ago. In what sense is it more valuable? It's still a minority position today also, but being in a minority isn't reason for something having value... except within Hipster principals.

I don't go around assuming people are theist/atheist this or that anyway. I don't get how you think that is relevant. The "religious part of a state" is a point of making so little sense. Day to day interactions aside, the well known world and political majority are religious and act in manners to favor religion. That is still a position many people find value to be against. I'm really not seeing your perspective on these topics at times. It's not that I don't agree, it's that I can't see where you are coming from with some of your stances because they aren't rationally defined.

And no I'm not trolling you.. That's what I'm talking about with the asserting things to be true. I'm not talking about saying you don't know, I'm talking about things like that you keep doing. Saying X isn't Real or a person is dodging, or a person is position is really more than it is, or that has more value then, etc. These are just assertions as well. Just like someone saying X is the only way the universe can be. It may be less significant to you but they're still the same mental actions.

I'm talking about the term/position atheism itself... How is there exceptions to what the term? People and their beliefs aren't the same as the position itself.

"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
10-01-2015, 05:00 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 03:10 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So, clumsy mother it is then? Drinking Beverage

Tell me again how philosophical naturalism is true as it's the only option...

Still makes me laugh. Laughat

[Image: stupiditydemotivator.jpg]

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gofish!'s post
10-01-2015, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 11:06 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 08:26 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  1. In your opinion only. The label has a great deal of value to many people, on both sides of the issue. Luckily for us your not in charge of dictating value.

2. We are still the minority I'm nearly every part of the world so.....ya... Facepalm

In the western world apart from the US, atheism is an anachronistic position.
Ya...no. You have failed to actually demonstrate this to be true and your personal opinion is neither a convincing argument nor is it informed or educated enough to be really worth the consideration.

You're making a bunch of idiotic assurtions and failing to support them or even understand the basics of the conversation. That might fly with some here but with me it's just pedestrian and boring.

I'm not impressed with your ability to make shit up.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-01-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 03:10 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So, clumsy mother it is then? Drinking Beverage

Tell me again how philosophical naturalism is true as it's the only option...

Still makes me laugh. Laughat

That's a misrepresentation, but it doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to understand that.

You've still yet to explain your non-evidence based epistemology. 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
10-01-2015, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 11:26 AM by Free.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Tell me again how philosophical naturalism is true as it's the only option...

Hey dummy, you're still here?

If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the only method used to determine existence.

Since philosophical naturalism has demonstrated itself to be 100% effective thus far in determining existence, then the science has conclusively demonstrated itself to be true.

It's been proven to be true.

Why?

Since you cannot provide one single alternative to philosophical naturalism that can be demonstrated to contest it, then philosophical naturalism by default becomes true since it is the only known effective means of determining existence.

Therefore, with nothing to contest the 100% effectiveness of philosophical naturalism, it therefore remains as being true.

It is not unlike ten people going into a room, and there is one chair in the room. Everyone can see it, and everyone agrees that a chair is in the room. Therefore, how reasonable is it to say it is not true that a chair is in the room?

Just like it is unreasonable to say that a chair is not truly in the room, likewise it is equally unreasonable to say philosophical naturalism is not true.

Here's a list of logical fallacies that you are guilty of employing:

Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

"This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.

A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, as more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies."


Since you are suggesting that something else is greater than Philosophical Naturalism- but provide no evidence of its existence which would render philosophical naturalism to not be true- then you are guilty of the following:

Negative Proof

A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.


And that, dummy, is exactly why you appear to be suffering from some hybrid form of mad cow disease.

[Image: mad-cow-disease-diagnosis-809157-1-s-307x512.jpg]

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: