Posts: 67288
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm
There are plenty of things of which we're ignorant, and we'll never learn everything. That doesn't mean that the supernatural is among those things. We know an awful lot about the supernatural.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 4503
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2020 at 4:55 pm by Belacqua.)
(May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.
No worries.
As I say, I'm through working on it. It's pretty clear that a number of people would like me to stop.
(May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: One is; "...Entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance,"
While the other is: "...There are things of which we are ignorant."
If I said "I don't know, therefore it must be a certain way," that would be an argument from ignorance.
But I'm not saying that.
I typed it all out yesterday, so that's enough.
Posts: 17181
Threads: 462
Joined: March 29, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 6:32 pm
(May 14, 2020 at 10:54 am)Editz Wrote: Quote:In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...losophy%29
Atheism describes people on RELIGION's terms (it owns most of the word, literally)....the only problem I can see with describing myself as a naturalist from here on out is that some people might think I go hang out at the beach butt naked...this could be quite witty though, thinking on, so no bad really! Thoughts?
Maybe it depends on the situation.
You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Posts: 1001
Threads: 12
Joined: October 20, 2017
Reputation:
23
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 7:00 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2020 at 7:01 pm by possibletarian.)
(May 29, 2020 at 4:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: (May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.
No worries.
As I say, I'm through working on it. It's pretty clear that a number of people would like me to stop.
(May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: One is; "...Entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance,"
While the other is: "...There are things of which we are ignorant."
If I said "I don't know, therefore it must be a certain way," that would be an argument from ignorance.
But I'm not saying that.
I typed it all out yesterday, so that's enough.
Yesterday you were claiming that there is 'plenty of evidence for the supernatural' based almost entirely on 'there are things we do not know'
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
Posts: 4503
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 7:07 pm
An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."
The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.
Posts: 1001
Threads: 12
Joined: October 20, 2017
Reputation:
23
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 7:24 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2020 at 7:47 pm by possibletarian.)
(May 29, 2020 at 7:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote: An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."
The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.
First we would have to have a reason to show the supernatural existed at all, that there was sufficient reason to engage in a non~material world as even a possible explanation. Which 'model' as you call it people use, really is irrelevant. Not knowing an answer to something is not evidence of anything period.
To ask for evidence or proof is not a prior, to believe you know the answer, or who has the answer is. Theism has a prior of god is in control, so even if i don't have an answer, then god does.
(May 29, 2020 at 6:32 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: (May 14, 2020 at 10:54 am)Editz Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...losophy%29
Atheism describes people on RELIGION's terms (it owns most of the word, literally)....the only problem I can see with describing myself as a naturalist from here on out is that some people might think I go hang out at the beach butt naked...this could be quite witty though, thinking on, so no bad really! Thoughts?
Maybe it depends on the situation.
You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.
I generally say 'I am not theist' I can see see confusion in their eyes and is almost always followed by the question 'what do you believe then'.
It's as if they cannot image not having some kind of belief of the beyond, or that an alternative theory is needed.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
Posts: 11341
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 8:47 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2020 at 8:52 pm by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."
The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.
No ones argued that
And your the one who literally said . The supernatural is evidenced by our ignorance .
Quote:I disagree with you.
To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact.
To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption.
If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.
You literally said the evidence for the supernatural is our ignorance . So yes you were doing an argument ignorance
(May 29, 2020 at 7:24 pm)possibletarian Wrote: (May 29, 2020 at 7:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote: An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."
The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.
First we would have to have a reason to show the supernatural existed at all, that there was sufficient reason to engage in a non~material world as even a possible explanation. Which 'model' as you call it people use, really is irrelevant. Not knowing an answer to something is not evidence of anything period.
To ask for evidence or proof is not a prior, to believe you know the answer, or who has the answer is. Theism has a prior of god is in control, so even if i don't have an answer, then god does.
(May 29, 2020 at 6:32 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Maybe it depends on the situation.
You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.
I generally say 'I am not theist' I can see see confusion in their eyes and is almost always followed by the question 'what do you believe then'.
It's as if they cannot image not having some kind of belief of the beyond, or that an alternative theory is needed. And it is an argument . We don't know therefore it's evidence is an argument from ignorance . He's trying to wiggle out .
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 237
Threads: 4
Joined: January 7, 2020
Reputation:
0
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 9:53 pm
(May 29, 2020 at 7:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote: An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."
The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.
After countless requests you are still unable to furnish a definition of the word supernatural so why should I take anything you have to say on the subject Seriously?
Miserable Bastard.
Posts: 4503
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 9:59 pm
(May 29, 2020 at 9:53 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote: After countless requests you are still unable to furnish a definition of the word supernatural so why should I take anything you have to say on the subject Seriously?
I gave a definition right at the beginning.
Posts: 11341
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 29, 2020 at 10:13 pm
Quote:I gave a definition right at the beginning.
No you did not
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
|