Argument against atheism

[Jaysyn]

Science does not exist outside of our conscious perception.

That's one of the dumbest things ever posted on this forum, & you've got a lot of competition just in this thread.

[Perhaps]

Why? -Results.

Why?

Why? -Why what, why doesn't science prove anything? Because thats not what it was designed to do. Why is it useful in producing results if everything were illusory? That's inexplicable isn't it? (Which is why I dont argue for that proposition) Nevertheless, it is, as the results are the very evidence for it's effectiveness.

Why?

Why? -Again, that the evidence that leads us to conclude this produces results, the argument that you proposes leads to exactly nothing but a thought, not even remotely useful or demonstrable.

Why?

Why? -Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and does?

Why?

Why? _Now this one is just you being a douche, answering a direct question with "Why?" as though it even formed a coherent thought. Next.

Why?

Why? -Another worthless question meant to appear as honest inquiry...there isn't even anything to why in this one, as it is an explanation of "why" already.

Why?

Why? -Because our assumptions have led to unproductive wastes of time and been shown to be very flawed many many times.

Why?

---

There will be a finite regress as I continue to ask 'why?' until you either make an assumption or assert ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me tell you how this will end, and cut right to the chase. When you reach a point where I have no answer for a question..you'll get an "I don't know"..not an assumption. Conveniently that's exactly what science does. Which doesn't bode well for your argument from assumptions.

As far as your second level down, you're going to have add something to "Why ?", as you aren't asking questions, you're just expressing frustration. I'm not going to waste my time on that unless you put a little time into it. I'll answer one to throw you a bone and give you some incentive.

---

Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and does?

---

Why? -Lack of interest on your part?

[amkerman]

The point of perhaps exercise, in case you don't get it, and in case you have never gotten to the point with your toddlers, is that sooner or later you will ultimately have to say, "because it is" or, "because I said so". That will be based upon an assumption.

Jaysyn: how does science exist outside of conscious perception?

[Perhaps]

Science does not exist outside of our conscious perception.

That's one of the dumbest things ever posted on this forum, & you've got a lot of competition just in this thread.

Now this is an honest inquiry: why?

[amkerman]

If you believe something to be true but don't know why you are nevertheless assuming it to be true

[Perhaps]

Let me tell you how this will end, and cut right to the chase. When you reach a point where I have no answer for a question..you'll get an "I don't know"..not an assumption. Conveniently that's exactly what science does. Which doesn't bode well for your argument from assumptions.

As far as your second level down, you're going to have add something to "Why ?", as you aren't asking questions, you're just expressing frustration. I'm not going to waste my time on that unless you put a little time into it. I'll answer one to throw you a bone and give you some incentive.

As ignorance does not allow us to proceed through life, we must make assumptions. If we simply said I don't know in regards to all things fundamental then we could not do anything. Thus, we created axioms - assumptions which allow us to function.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we could make assumptions, or we could demand evidence and results instead....If your argument held any weight then mollusks would be unable to survive, which they do, despite "knowing nothing" with regards to "all things fundamental". I think you'll need to be a little more specific. When you are a little more specific I think you'll find that the room left for assumptions is of a less practical nature than you'd imagined, and that those assumptions don't actually enable you in any way. Assumptions, btw, are not in any way the opposite of ignorance, and it's as easy to proceed in ignorance as it is to proceed in assumptions. Quite often the two have been one and the same.

[amkerman]

I find it hard to believe that you "demand evidence and results" for every iteration of every possible question or every observable phenomenon. You have successfully ventured into an argument of definition. If you simply don't believe the things you observe as real which there is no explanation for you are, as I define it, an atheist. If you accept those things as true because you observe them to be true yet acknowledge that you cannot explain them you, as I see it, believe in "God". One is logical because it coincides with observation, the other is blind faith and contrary to all scientific observation. Ironically, atheism, as I define it, is illogical, not the other way around. But again, the definitions are solely my own. I wouldn't classify most, if any, of the atheists I know as "atheists" under my definition. Accept you rhythm, because you neither assume nor believe anything you can not explain, even if you observe it to be true in reality.

---

*except

[Perhaps]

Well, we could make assumptions, or we could demand evidence and results instead....If your argument held any weight then mollusks would be unable to survive, which they do, despite "knowing nothing" with regards to "all things fundamental". I think you'll need to be a little more specific. When you are a little more specific I think you'll find that the room left for assumptions is of a less practical nature than you'd imagined, and that those assumptions don't actually enable you in any way.

Mollusks - being without consciousness - do not experience 'life' or 'reality' as we do. And yes, that is an assumption.

As we do have consciousness and we do experience life and reality we need to assume things in order to function.

You continually neglect what I'm actually talking about, while continually asserting that I'm wrong. There are fundamental assumptions which we base our understanding of perception off of. We then proceed to 'prove' 'truths' to ourselves, but these 'proofs' and 'truths' are dependent completely on our original assumptions.