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."No ones argued that
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.
And your the one who literally said . The supernatural is evidenced by our ignorance .
Quote:I disagree with you.You literally said the evidence for the supernatural is our ignorance . So yes you were doing an argument ignorance
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.
(May 29, 2020 at 7:24 pm)possibletarian Wrote:And it is an argument . We don't know therefore it's evidence is an argument from ignorance . He's trying to wiggle out .(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.
"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
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