Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
I'm being ignored.

Heart

Clap

Thumbsup

Big Grin


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
10-01-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 07:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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

Ok then, if that's not your position what is it? That as methodological naturalism is used for for us to assess our material reality, philosophical naturalism is correct.

That's what you've outlined so far.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:37 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:12 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I don't follow this can you rephrase it?


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.



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

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.

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.

Quote: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 know what hipster principles are.

If you're going against the norm, then saying you lack belief in whatever the norm posits, then it has value. Now, since religion is plummeting saying you lack belief in what a minority states is virtually redundant.

Quote: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.

So why bother using the label of atheist then? You don't generalise about theists, just lack belief in one thing they state. I don't believe collecting stamps is fun, but I'm not an a-philatelist

Quote: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.

This pertains to what Ive said above. You're only going to espouse atheism unless you think it has some purpose. Just being an atheist, and coming here makes no sense. You need to have a purpose, an agenda, call it what you like.

Quote: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.

I'm talking about the drivers behind atheists, not atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 05:00 AM)gofish! Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Tell me again how philosophical naturalism is true as it's the only option...

Still makes me laugh. Laughat

[Image: stupiditydemotivator.jpg]

Have nothing? Use a generic meme.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:12 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 07:22 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:48 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.


Sorry your personal opinion does little to sway my experience. Don't know why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 04:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:08 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So why bother using the label of atheist then? You don't generalize about theists, just lack belief in one thing they state. I don't believe collecting stamps is fun, but I'm not an a-philatelist

A-theism is one thing only. Dismissal of theism. "They" don't *say* anything. Like all groups, "they" have many opinions on many subjects, (just like theists).
Your stamp-collecting analogy is false, on many levels. YOU dismiss all gods except one. You're a Special Pleading atheist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-01-2015, 05:30 PM
Atheism is a position with assumptions...
He's still hard at it.[Image: a6ee19b4dbbcc8f9bf39304879e98436.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jack_Ripper's post
10-01-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
wibble
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 07:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:03 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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





Except I don't think that Dawkins has a case, but then he does say "maybe".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 07:51 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 09:01 AM)Free Wrote:  
(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?

What gives you that impression?

Quote: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.

You're confused, it's methodological naturalism that allows us to assess reality, you're conflating the two out of ignorance or stupidity.

"Determining existence" you say, could you be a little more vague? You've assumed again that we possess the faculties to determine existence without even saying what you're talking about.

Quote:It's been proven to be true.
Nope, it hasn't. You have no evidence (which is your own requirement) to demonstrate this baseless assertion beyond harping on about that it's the only option. Why is it the only option, who knows? You found some rambling and illogical rationale to claim it to be true.

Quote: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.

I don't need to, your claim asserts that the natural is all there. You need to be able to justify this assertion by at least demonstrating that existence was created by nature for it to be justified. You're going in a circular loop which claims all we can observe or account for everything in existence, failing to recognise that we are a product of this and the limitations evolution has provided us, along with asserting that existence was self-created as we can observe what we can observe is completely unfounded.

I don't need to provide evidence for anything, for 2 reasons. Firstly I'm not asserting anything, you are and secondly, evidence is the basis for your epistemology.
Secondly, I don't rest my entire rational on assuming we can get evidence, nor depending on the lack of it to justify why I must be right.

Given you want evidence and request, it it's odd to be asserting anything with a complete absence of it. You switch between when you want evidence and when you're trying to reason your position to make sense.

If you use were using reason you would say, "does the best option we have equate to that we're able to determine existence" no from me, but for you this is a yes, who knows why.

If you use an evidence as a basis I would expect you to have some, but you don't. This is where you switch to reason, and as demonstrated above it's a yes from you as being the best option equates to be able to do it.

You should try jumping the grand canyon on the 'best option' for a vehicle you can find using this logic. Go really fast and affirm, it must work, this is the best option i have.

Quote:Therefore, with nothing to contest the 100% effectiveness of philosophical naturalism, it therefore remains as being true.
Do you actually believe this?

Quote: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.

That is one of the worst analogies I've seen. Well done.



Quote: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.

Your position is "philosophical naturalism" of the gaps, it's a claim to truth without evidence, logic, or reasoning being demonstrated beyond the assumption that we can and have assessed everything as it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: