Atheism is a position with assumptions...

[ClydeLee]

Do you believe X? Nah... that's all atheism is, An answer; and it contains no assumptions. To call yourself an atheist is also noting nothing more but being aware of that.

Some outward atheists have other world views that hold assumptions. Well go figure, that's natural for everyone unless they're a masterful unwavering skeptic who can withhold their mind of any assumption.

[houseofcantor]

(30-12-2014 08:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 08:37 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Got a minute...

Ohh so the intelligibility of the universe means atheists are right?

This certainly does smack down any assumptions stating atheists assume things huh?

Merely an illustration of one 900 page text by a mathematical physicist which lends support to my Pure Number hypothesis, the creation tale of Gwynnite, a thing simply a swipe away - that it is patently ridiculous to assume that what you ask for can be adequately expressed in a forum reply - leading to the inevitable conclusion that your only purpose here is to yank on people's chains.

[Brownshirt]

(30-12-2014 09:02 PM)BryanS Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 08:59 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Oh you think that's semantics? Wow. To be fair to you, atheists are not remotely objective so I am setting you up.

Also to be fair, describing an entire group of people as having a certain character flaw will win you neither debate points nor friends.

Based on my views, and that of atheists this was never going to be a debate or a looking for friends kinda thing.

[Rahn127]

And my ignore list grows by leaps and bounds.

[Brownshirt]

(30-12-2014 09:03 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 08:58 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  

I tried to treat you like a reasonable adult.
My mistake.

When you've heard the same canned rhetoric repeated over and over again, it's laughable.

Let me know when you've found a solution.

[pablo]

(30-12-2014 08:56 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  

Quote: Sorry you don't get to define my position. Also, atheists us the lack of belief position to remove any burden of proof for philosophical naturalism.

Damn all you guys sing from the same hymn book.
It's as if you all hold the same position, with the same doctrinal text. Oh yes, you do.


I'm not an atheist, and I am interested in science. It does not determine the philosophy I adhere to. IF science finds something relevant to answering the riddle of existence then I will listen. Until then I'm not using what it has proven to assume something it hasn't proven.


Sure, what has it proven around existence. Is the multiverse true for example?

Some do, some don't. There are strongly implied overtones by many atheists which claim the 'natural' (what we can observe) is all there is, otherwise why would so many address this as pivotal towards justifying atheism.

Observable or not, natural or supernatural are putting too fine a point on it as far as I'm concerned.
I want the guy in the bible to convince me.
I want Jesus Fucking Christ himself to materialize right here in front of me, sit down on the couch, and have a conversation with me.
I will accept no less.

[Stevil]

(30-12-2014 08:56 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  There are strongly implied overtones by many atheists which claim the 'natural' (what we can observe) is all there is, otherwise why would so many address this as pivotal towards justifying atheism.

It's not pivotal towards justifying atheism.
What is pivotal is that that there is no convincing evidence for gods, not even any useful definition of gods.

The abundance and complexity of life could have been considered a compelling case for an intelligent creator but then along came Darwin and Wallace who both realised the simple natural mechanism of evolution (decent with modification and natural selection).

As yet there is no evidence to suggest any magical supernatural causes are required to explain any events, mechanisms or phenomena pertaining to our observable universe.

[ClydeLee]

(30-12-2014 09:06 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 09:03 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I tried to treat you like a reasonable adult.
My mistake.

When you've heard the same canned rhetoric repeated over and over again, it's laughable.

Let me know when you've found a solution.

You realize you're assuming there is such a thing as a solution or answer to a question of existence by asking it right? What's the value in that assumption and why make it?

[Brownshirt]

(30-12-2014 09:04 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 08:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Ohh so the intelligibility of the universe means atheists are right?

This certainly does smack down any assumptions stating atheists assume things huh?

Merely an illustration of one 900 page text by a mathematical physicist which lends support to my Pure Number hypothesis, the creation tale of Gwynnite, a thing simply a swipe away - that it is patently ridiculous to assume that what you ask for can be adequately expressed in a forum reply - leading to the inevitable conclusion that your only purpose here is to yank on people's chains.

When you contest a position devoutly held by a group of people, which gives them a sense of certainty over the uncertain you don't expect group hugs do you?

Let me know how your Pure Number hypothesis goes.

[Brownshirt]

(30-12-2014 09:06 PM)pablo Wrote:  

(30-12-2014 08:56 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Some do, some don't. There are strongly implied overtones by many atheists which claim the 'natural' (what we can observe) is all there is, otherwise why would so many address this as pivotal towards justifying atheism.

Observable or not, natural or supernatural are putting too fine a point on it as far as I'm concerned.
I want the guy in the bible to convince me.
I want Jesus Fucking Christ himself to materialize right here in front of me, sit down on the couch, and have a conversation with me.
I will accept no less.

Meh I'm not bothered about Jebus.