Atheism is a position with assumptions...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2015, 11:06 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 11:12 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 04:01 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 07:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.


You stupid cunt. Facepalm


I use evidence to determine my reality to the best of my ability. By definition the supernatural is outside of nature, thus is unable to have evidence in support of it (as evidence has to be natural, supernatural evidence isn't evidence, because we cannot verify the supernatural). So could the supernatural exist? Maybe. Is there any reason whatsoever to consider it possible, let alone probable? No, not even remotely. There is no reason, outside of thought experiments, to posit the existence of things outside of existence.

By definition we cannot have evidence for the supernatural (How do you evaluate evidence that exists outside of our reality? You cannot.), so it's probability will always remain zero. So philosophical naturalism could be wrong, but we'll never know. Philosophical naturalism is consistent with all of the evidence, and since I'm an evidentialist, it's simply far more probable than the contrary.

So until you can provide me evidence in favor of the existence of the supernatural (and good luck with that), I'll continue to operate as if it does not. Because to be philosophically consistent I'd also have to admit that we may all be brains in vats in some massive computer simulation, but sans evidence, there is nothing to be gained in entertaining that possibility in anything other than a thought experiment.

So if you're committed to militant agnosticism vis a vis nature and the supernatural, to remain consistent, you also need to remain militantly agnostic towards the possibility that...

We're all brains in vats in a simulation.
We're all computer programs in a simulation.
This is all a dream.
This is all your dream.
I am god.
There is 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto.
You are the reincarnation of a tabby cat.
You are the byproduct of a government experiment to study the effects of LSD on newborns.
Kane's last thoughts were not "Rosebud".
All of your memories prior to five minutes ago were implanted.
You are a clone.
You are not yourself.


You've still never explained your non-evidence based epistemology. How do you determine what is and is not true? Because right now you're just pulling the same bullshit CNN does, claiming that both sides could be right, and instead of actually reporting chooses to just commit to being non-committal.

You still continue to misunderstand the meaning of the word atheist, and considering how many times it has been explained to you, you're either an asshole or a stupid cunt. Evidence says you're probably both. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 11:07 PM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 10:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 07:45 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  What gives you that impression?

Am I to think another idiot has taken your place? Again, I find that unreasonable since I find it highly improbable that there could another person on this planet as stupid as you are.

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

And you are too fucking stupid to have been capable of learning that methodological naturalism is completely dependent philosophical naturalism.

Learn something ffs:

Methodological Naturalism:

It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_...losophy%29


Since the rest of what you said only demonstrates more of your stupidity, no need to embarrass you more than you've already embarrassed yourself.

Carry on.

Drinking Beverage

Also from your inability to answer the rest of my post I will assume that just demonstrated the issues with your retarded position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 01:27 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 09:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly. But is IS the fallacy of the false analogy. Apparently you never took Logic. Tell us how it is a true analogy.

No idea what "is IS the fallacy" is.

Love how so many atheists use the "fallacy of.... " to refute any claim while also claiming to be logical. If you can't understand something this doesn't make it a fallacy, it means you're thick.

I don't claim to not believe in a god, much the same way as I don't believe in collecting stamps. Neither term atheist or aphilatelist are useful descriptions.
I hope you understand this, it gets deep in places, however this does not mean it's a fallacy, just means you're a little dim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 01:53 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2015 01:57 AM by Brownshirt.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:01 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.
You stupid cunt. Facepalm
I use evidence to determine my reality to the best of my ability.
Do you use any reason, or is it purely a monkey see, monkey believe type scenario? It appears so given you can't logically rationalise your position.

Don't get cross as I point out where you've fucked up, you need to take ownership of your thoughts and inability to justify them
Quote:By definition the supernatural is outside of nature, thus is unable to have evidence in support of it (as evidence has to be natural, supernatural evidence isn't evidence, because we cannot verify the supernatural). So could the supernatural exist? Maybe.

Philosophical naturalism claims that the supernatural does not exist. Oh oh you're getting confused again.

Quote:Is there any reason whatsoever to consider it possible, let alone probable? No, not even remotely. There is no reason, outside of thought experiments, to posit the existence of things outside of existence.

Your rambling is getting incoherent and contradictory here. You acknowledge the supernatural could exist, yet state there is not even a remote possibility of it existing.
If you make the assumption we possess the capabilities to account for existence, this is an assumption as we have no reason to believe this to be the case, given the obvious and bountiful lack of evidence to account for existence.

For some reason your version of 'reason' allows this assumption without evidence to prove it, but denies any other possibility without evidence. Hypocritical and contradictory? Yes, but you either fail to grasp it due to your emotions and vested energy, or you're trolling.

Quote:By definition we cannot have evidence for the supernatural (How do you evaluate evidence that exists outside of our reality? You cannot.), so it's probability will always remain zero. So philosophical naturalism could be wrong, but we'll never know. Philosophical naturalism is consistent with all of the evidence, and since I'm an evidentialist, it's simply far more probable than the contrary.

I don't subscribe to the belief set that evidence can be obtained, so I'm not looking for any, you are.
Until you possess some evidence to even rationalise your position is like a sieve.
You really have nothing. Even many of your ilk recognise this, what does that tell you? Seemingly not too much.

Quote:So until you can provide me evidence in favor of the existence of the supernatural (and good luck with that), I'll continue to operate as if it does not. Because to be philosophically consistent I'd also have to admit that we may all be brains in vats in some massive computer simulation, but sans evidence, there is nothing to be gained in entertaining that possibility in anything other than a thought experiment.

So if you're committed to militant agnosticism vis a vis nature and the supernatural, to remain consistent, you also need to remain militantly agnostic towards the possibility that...

We're all brains in vats in a simulation.
We're all computer programs in a simulation.
This is all a dream.
This is all your dream.
I am god.
There is 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto.
You are the reincarnation of a tabby cat.
You are the byproduct of a government experiment to study the effects of LSD on newborns.
Kane's last thoughts were not "Rosebud".
All of your memories prior to five minutes ago were implanted.
You are a clone.
You are not yourself.

All I'm claiming is I don't know, not anything beyond that. Obviously you're not god though, your intellect is too limited (unless you're just trolling me god?).

Offering any random possibility is such a typical atheist ploy, preferably to more ridiculous the better to really demonstrate why existence is exactly as we perceive it.
Evolution, apart from being a 'survival of the fittest' also provided the benefit of the ability to observe and assess existence (which contains both evolution and us) as it is, not merely as we perceive it to be. Fascinating assumption don't think? It make sense that we can perfectly account for existence, irrespective of the lack of survival attributes it would provide.

Quote:You've still never explained your non-evidence based epistemology. How do you determine what is and is not true? Because right now you're just pulling the same bullshit CNN does, claiming that both sides could be right, and instead of actually reporting chooses to just commit to being non-committal.

I believe methodological naturalism to be a valid assumption to help us assess our material reality. No more.

Quote:You still continue to misunderstand the meaning of the word atheist, and considering how many times it has been explained to you, you're either an asshole or a stupid cunt. Evidence says you're probably both. Drinking Beverage

It's not my fault that only active atheists label themselves as such. Sorry you only get to define yourself. If someone else lacks belief, but sees this "lack of position" as weak as piss and doesn't identify with it then they don't become an atheist.

Most traditional atheists disbelieve in a god, they don't lack belief. Only the new lot who like to dodge burdens and claim a 6 out of 7 based on fairies claim the "lack of" position. It's weak and pretty pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 01:55 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 01:27 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  ...... If you can't understand something this doesn't make it a fallacy.......

Or... when people explain to yourself that the post you've added does not make sense to them and perhaps you'd like to re-word or explain it... To which you ignore and/or castigate the person seeking clarification for lacking something.

Dodgy

Yeah.. right.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 02:00 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 01:55 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(11-01-2015 01:27 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  ...... If you can't understand something this doesn't make it a fallacy.......

Or... when people explain to yourself that the post you've added does not make sense to them and perhaps you'd like to re-word or explain it... To which you ignore and/or castigate the person seeking clarification for lacking something.

Dodgy

Yeah.. right.

Much cheers to all.

WeepingLaughat

Don't pretend to be a victim, it doesn't suit you sir.

[Image: FastShow_682x800_1380937a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 02:35 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2015 02:40 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 04:01 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.
You stupid cunt. Facepalm


I use evidence to determine my reality to the best of my ability.
Do you use any reason, or is it purely a monkey see, monkey believe type scenario?

Evidence. It's the best epistemology we have yet developed, and for which you have failed to provided justification for an alternative. Probably because you're a stupid cunt. Drinking Beverage



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  By definition the supernatural is outside of nature, thus is unable to have evidence in support of it (as evidence has to be natural, supernatural evidence isn't evidence, because we cannot verify the supernatural). So could the supernatural exist? Maybe.

Philosophical naturalism claims that the supernatural does not exist. Oh oh you're getting confused again.

And the claim 'the supernatural does not exist' is far more probable than it's alternative 'the supernatural does exist' according to all available evidence. Therefor I find philosophical naturalism to be far more probable than the alternative.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is there any reason whatsoever to consider it possible, let alone probable? No, not even remotely. There is no reason, outside of thought experiments, to posit the existence of things outside of existence.
Your rambling is getting incoherent and contradictory here. You acknowledge the supernatural could exist, yet state there is not even a remote possibility of it existing.

No, you fail to understand the difference between possibility and probability. That's okay, most stupid cunts cannot. Based on the evidence, I rate the probability of the supernatural at 0%, but that is dependent upon evidence. Which for the record, evidence exists in the natural world. Maybe somebody will come up with a way to garner reliable evidence from the supernatural, but as far as I can tell, that's not even close to being possible.

So the existence of the supernatural is just as probable as the existence of a 57' Chevy orbiting Pluto. Actually, it's less probable than that, as we know that 57' Chevy's and Pluto actually exist, and we have the technology to put one into orbit.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you make the assumption we possess the capabilities to account for existence, this is an assumption as we have no reason to believe this to be the case, given the obvious and bountiful lack of evidence to account for it.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

You are assuming that we will never posses such capabilities.

So based that that assumption, you are reasoning that anything is possible. To which I respond that I don't give a flying fuck about the possible, I'm interested in the probable. You continuously fail the understand the fundamental difference between the two, probably because you are a stupid cunt.

I make no such assumptions, rather I am merely make a probabilistic judgement based on the currently available evidence. If new evidence comes along, I reserve the right to change my opinion.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  For some reason your version of 'reason' allows this assumption without evidence, but denies any possibility without evidence.

Please explain how one attains evidence of the supernatural. Once you can do that, then we'll talk about the next step. Wouldn't want to overload your stupid cunt brain with too many steps.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Hypocritical and contradictory? Yes, but you either fail to grasp it due to your emotions and vested energy, or you're trolling.

What are you, a newbie troll? Real skill you got there, accusing others of being trolls to throw them off your trail! Next thing we know you'll be showing off your elite, sorry, I meant your '1337' H@X0R skillz.

[Image: 493.jpg]



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  By definition we cannot have evidence for the supernatural (How do you evaluate evidence that exists outside of our reality? You cannot.), so it's probability will always remain zero. So philosophical naturalism could be wrong, but we'll never know. Philosophical naturalism is consistent with all of the evidence, and since I'm an evidentialist, it's simply far more probable than the contrary.
I don't subscribe to the belief set that evidence can be obtained, so I'm not looking for any, you are.

Until you possess some evidence to even rationalise your position is like a sieve.
You really have nothing. Even many of your ilk recognise this, what does that tell you? Seemingly not too much.

Once again....

Please present justification for your non-evidence based epistemology, or get the fuck out you stupid cunt.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So until you can provide me evidence in favor of the existence of the supernatural (and good luck with that), I'll continue to operate as if it does not. Because to be philosophically consistent I'd also have to admit that we may all be brains in vats in some massive computer simulation, but sans evidence, there is nothing to be gained in entertaining that possibility in anything other than a thought experiment.

So if you're committed to militant agnosticism vis a vis nature and the supernatural, to remain consistent, you also need to remain militantly agnostic towards the possibility that...

We're all brains in vats in a simulation.
We're all computer programs in a simulation.
This is all a dream.
This is all your dream.
I am god.
There is 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto.
You are the reincarnation of a tabby cat.
You are the byproduct of a government experiment to study the effects of LSD on newborns.
Kane's last thoughts were not "Rosebud".
All of your memories prior to five minutes ago were implanted.
You are a clone.
You are not yourself.
All I'm claiming is I don't know, not anything beyond that. Obviously you're not god though, your intellect is too limited (unless you're just trolling me god?).

You can't provide evidence I'm not god, just like you can't provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

Prove I can't fly! You entirely fail to understand the null hypothesis, you poor stupid motherfucker.

What now bitch?



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Offering any random possibility is such a typical atheist ploy, preferably to more ridiculous the better to really demonstrate why existence is exactly as we perceive it.

I'm basing my judgement of reality based on evidence.

You use magical thinking.

That makes you the stupid ignorant cunt.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Evolution, apart from being a 'survival of the fittest'...

FAIL. Do not pass 9th Grade Biology. Do not get Diploma. Go sulk in the corner in your dunce cap.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  ...also provided the benefit of the ability to observe and assess existence (which contains both evolution and us) as it is, not merely as we perceive it to be. Fascinating assumption don't think? It make sense that we can perfectly account for existence, irrespective of the lack of survival attributes it would provide.

Word soup. Your lack of even a fundamental understanding of the theory of evolution means it makes for a poor backdrop for your failed attempt at a point.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You've still never explained your non-evidence based epistemology. How do you determine what is and is not true? Because right now you're just pulling the same bullshit CNN does, claiming that both sides could be right, and instead of actually reporting chooses to just commit to being non-committal.
I believe methodological naturalism to be a valid assumption to help us assess our material reality. No more.

And for everything else, there's Magical Thinking™!



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You still continue to misunderstand the meaning of the word atheist, and considering how many times it has been explained to you, you're either an asshole or a stupid cunt. Evidence says you're probably both. Drinking Beverage
It's not my fault that only active atheists label themselves as such. Sorry you only get to define yourself. If someone else lacks belief, but sees this "lack of position" as weak as piss and doesn't identify with it then they don't become an atheist.

Most traditional atheists disbelieve in a god, they don't lack belief. Only the new lot who like to dodge burdens and claim a 6 out of 7 based on fairies claim the "lack of" position. It's weak and pretty pathetic.

Nope. Only theistic trolls pull the 'boo-hoo atheists are dodging the burden of proof' card. Because only they're so fucking stupid as to think they have a valid point, or that they can get away with shifting the burden of proof from claim-makers onto skeptics.

Also, nice hypocrisy there. You say that "you only get to define yourself" then follow that immediately with "most traditional atheists disbelieve in a god, they don't lack belief". So only you get to define atheism to other atheists? How cute.

[Image: giphy.gif]

You truly are a bastion for exemplary stupidity.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 02:43 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Do you use any reason, or is it purely a monkey see, monkey believe type scenario?

Evidence. It's the best epistemology we have yet developed, and for which you have failed to provided justification for an alternative. Probably because you're a stupid cunt. Drinking Beverage



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Philosophical naturalism claims that the supernatural does not exist. Oh oh you're getting confused again.

And the claim 'the supernatural does not exist' is far more probable than it's alternative 'the supernatural does exist' according to all available evidence. Therefor I find philosophical naturalism to be far more probable than the alternative.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your rambling is getting incoherent and contradictory here. You acknowledge the supernatural could exist, yet state there is not even a remote possibility of it existing.

No, you fail to understand the difference between possibility and probability. That's okay, most stupid cunts cannot. Based on the evidence, I rate the probability of the supernatural at 0%, but that is dependent upon evidence. Which for the record, evidence exists in the natural world. Maybe somebody will come up with a way to garner reliable evidence from the supernatural, but as far as I can tell, that's not even close to being possible.

So the existence of the supernatural is just as probable as the existence of a 57' Chevy orbiting Pluto. Actually, it's less probable than that, as we know that 57' Chevy's and Pluto actually exist, and we have the technology to put one into orbit.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you make the assumption we possess the capabilities to account for existence, this is an assumption as we have no reason to believe this to be the case, given the obvious and bountiful lack of evidence to account for it.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

You are assuming that we will never posses such capabilities.

So based that that assumption, you are reasoning that anything is possible. To which I respond that I don't give a flying fuck about the possible, I'm interested in the probable. You continuously fail the understand the fundamental difference between the two, probably because you are a stupid cunt.

I make no such assumptions, rather I am merely make a probabilistic judgement based on the currently available evidence. If new evidence comes along, I reserve the right to change my opinion.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  For some reason your version of 'reason' allows this assumption without evidence, but denies any possibility without evidence.

Please explain how one attains evidence of the supernatural. Once you can do that, then we'll talk about the next step. Wouldn't want to overload your stupid cunt brain with too many steps.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Hypocritical and contradictory? Yes, but you either fail to grasp it due to your emotions and vested energy, or you're trolling.

What are you, a newbie troll? Real skill you got there, accusing others of being trolls to throw them off your trail! Next thing we know you'll be showing off your elite, sorry, I meant your '1337' H@X0R skillz.

[Image: 493.jpg]



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I don't subscribe to the belief set that evidence can be obtained, so I'm not looking for any, you are.

Until you possess some evidence to even rationalise your position is like a sieve.
You really have nothing. Even many of your ilk recognise this, what does that tell you? Seemingly not too much.

Once again....

Please present justification for your non-evidence based epistemology, or get the fuck out you stupid cunt.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  All I'm claiming is I don't know, not anything beyond that. Obviously you're not god though, your intellect is too limited (unless you're just trolling me god?).

You can't provide evidence I'm not god, just like you can't provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

Prove I can't fly! You entirely fail to understand the null hypothesis, you poor stupid motherfucker.

What now bitch?



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Offering any random possibility is such a typical atheist ploy, preferably to more ridiculous the better to really demonstrate why existence is exactly as we perceive it.

I'm basing my judgement of reality based on evidence.

You use magical thinking.

That makes you the stupid ignorant cunt.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Evolution, apart from being a 'survival of the fittest'...

FAIL. Do not pass 9th Grade Biology. Do not get Diploma. Go sulk in the corner in your dunce cap.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  ...also provided the benefit of the ability to observe and assess existence (which contains both evolution and us) as it is, not merely as we perceive it to be. Fascinating assumption don't think? It make sense that we can perfectly account for existence, irrespective of the lack of survival attributes it would provide.

Word soup. Your lack of even a fundamental understanding of the theory of evolution means it makes for a poor backdrop for your failed attempt at a point.



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I believe methodological naturalism to be a valid assumption to help us assess our material reality. No more.

And for everything else, there's Magical Thinking™!



(11-01-2015 01:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  It's not my fault that only active atheists label themselves as such. Sorry you only get to define yourself. If someone else lacks belief, but sees this "lack of position" as weak as piss and doesn't identify with it then they don't become an atheist.

Most traditional atheists disbelieve in a god, they don't lack belief. Only the new lot who like to dodge burdens and claim a 6 out of 7 based on fairies claim the "lack of" position. It's weak and pretty pathetic.

Nope. Only theistic trolls pull the 'boo-hoo atheists are dodging the burden of proof' card. Because only they're so fucking stupid as to think they have a valid point, or that they can get away with shifting the burden of proof from claim-makers onto skeptics.

Also, nice hypocrisy there. You say that "you only get to define yourself" then follow that immediately with "most traditional atheists disbelieve in a god, they don't lack belief". So only you get to define atheism to other atheists? How cute.

[Image: giphy.gif]

You truly are a bastion for exemplary stupidity.

Have you got any other outlandish beliefs? Your rationalisation for philosophical naturalism is not as funny as it once was. Every dog has it's day I guess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 02:53 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 02:43 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Have you got any other outlandish beliefs? Your rationalisation for philosophical naturalism is not as funny as it once was. Every dog has it's day I guess.

Ah, I love the smell of victory in the morning.

You see, the problem is, you are a stupid cunt.

Besides that, you fail to grasp the idea that I judge things based on probability. It's not a black and white proposition. When given the dichotomy between 'the supernatural exists' and 'the supernatural does not exist', it's not as simple as knowing one or the other is 100% correct forevermore.

You see that problem and cry 'agnosticism', you simply refuse to make a probabilistic judgement. I evaluate the available evidence and came to the conclusion that the proposition that 'the supernatural does not exist' is far more probable than the alternative.

But you probably still don't get it, because you've demonstrated what a stupid cunt you are. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 03:09 AM
RE: Atheism is a position with assumptions...
(11-01-2015 02:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-01-2015 02:43 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Have you got any other outlandish beliefs? Your rationalisation for philosophical naturalism is not as funny as it once was. Every dog has it's day I guess.

Ah, I love the smell of victory in the morning.

You see, the problem is, you are a stupid cunt.

Besides that, you fail to grasp the idea that I judge things based on probability. It's not a black and white proposition. When given the dichotomy between 'the supernatural exists' and 'the supernatural does not exist', it's not as simple as knowing one or the other is 100% correct forevermore.

You see that problem and cry 'agnosticism', you simply refuse to make a probabilistic judgement. I evaluate the available evidence and came to the conclusion that the proposition that 'the supernatural does not exist' is far more probable than the alternative.

But you probably still don't get it, because you've demonstrated what a stupid cunt you are. Drinking Beverage

Excellent, care to tell me what evidence you have for existence and what % you have assigned to each set of evidence, to then calculate the probability?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: