ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 6th May 2012, 10:03 AM   #41
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyong our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?
Turtles obviously.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:06 AM   #42
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats not the quest of this topic.
We know that the Quest is the Quest.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:07 AM   #43
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,340
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyong our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?
Supernaturalism is more: it makes the assertion nothing else beyond the Supernatural world exists. How can it be supported?

Why do you have a problem with natural being an assumed all encompassing concept but not Supernaturalism?

Probably because "supernatural" is where your Woo lives. I've noticed that people that demand that the edges be spread just a little wider then "natural" only want it spread far enough to encompass their Woo, then they stop playing the "But what's beyond that?" game.

I'm sick of Woo Slingers and Navel Gazers playing this "But what's beyond that?" game because you only want to play it until their level of Woo is acknowledged then they magicall don't feel like digging anymore.

It's not so much "Turtles as the Way Down" as tsig said, it's "Turtle after Turtle until we get to my Turtle, then we can stop here."
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 6th May 2012 at 10:14 AM.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:11 AM   #44
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,031
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?
I'll do even better. I was told by my mother and father how it worked and I saw it work when my daughter and son were born. I haven't seen the births of everyone, but I assume they work pretty much the same way.

I haven't seen your birth either, and I'm willing to grant you may be an exception to the general rule.

This might seem shallow when it comes to explanations, but that's why naturalism is so powerful -- I am familiar with it, it happens a lot without any special conditions and it seems to happen whether I want it to or not, and whether I believe in it or not. The more esoteric realms of naturalism are all built from this same character and lineage.

The building of deeper understandings on previous ones is also a good property -- unlike mysticism, you don't have to "get it all" in one chunk, there's a stepwise progression and a logical framework. Still, even so, there are enough surprises to keep things interesting.

There's another attribute worth noting here. I stopped my explanation at what I had witnessed. However, if I like, I can delve deeper and unearth an explanation for that explanation and so on. I can also simply accept what I understand so far and just move on to other things that might interest me more. That saves time and brain effort. If I want to make a baby, I can just do the parts I already know about and be done with it.

Last edited by marplots; 6th May 2012 at 10:14 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:24 AM   #45
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,031
Another thought. Doesn't the idea of the supernatural already accept the natural? It's an add-on, isn't it?

So the task then becomes: What part of the universe is best put in the natural category and what part the supernatural?

As far as I can tell, that's all we are doing anyhow. The other posters on the thread are only asking for examples of what doesn't fit in the natural category and how this was determined. If you create a category and don't have anything that goes into it, you might as well put it back on the shelf for later when you want to indulge in a little bit of "let's pretend."
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:29 AM   #46
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?
Seriously? You're arguing a gap god? As if adding a supernatural/god/pixie dust layer adds anything to our understanding of those questions.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th May 2012 at 10:30 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:30 AM   #47
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,340
It's not evening a Gap God. It's a "Make up Gaps that Don't Even Exist and the Put God In Them" God.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:34 AM   #48
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So what data do you have on hand that supports naturalism ?
all of it.
I encourage you to type a search in pubmed.com or isiknowledge.com or scopus.com on any topic. You will find evidence supporting naturalism.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the question is, what caused them into existence ?
Interesting question. As far as we can observe. Nothing is needed to explain the beginning of existence (assuming there is even such a thing).
Of course, there is nothing precluding that something DID start the universe. But of course, we have no evidence of such a thing so....
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:42 AM   #49
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Originally Posted by X View Post
What data do you have that supports supernaturalism?
thats not the quest of this topic.
Oh, but it is.

There are only two answers here:

naturalism explains our existence.
or
Supernaturalism explains our existence.

You are attempting to draw out the obvious point:
There is no direct evidence that naturalism MUST be the answer to the origin of existence.

However, the counterargument is equally true.
There is no direct evidence that Supernaturalism MUST be the answer to the origin of existence.

as such, we are at a stalemate with the data. So we must infer from what we have already learned about the universe. Thus far, natural arguments have fit every single observable phenomenon. Indeed, this is so true that we are able to predict behaviors (e.g., fluid mechanics, heat transfer, orbital mechanics, ....) based upon our understanding of the observations.

So we must ask if nothing in the known universe requires a supernatural explanation, why would we expect the origin of the universe to require a supernatural explanation?


ETA:

By the way, Welcome back GIBHOR. I trust finals treated you well.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

Last edited by joobz; 6th May 2012 at 10:50 AM.
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:44 AM   #50
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Along with every thing ever. Nothing is ever going to advance if we accept the mentality of all the pretentious Navel Gazers that watched the Matrix while stoned too many times and think going "But how do we know reality is real?" makes them the wise old man on the mountain.

Either reality is real or we're all having an unreasonably persistent shared delusion. I think the former is more reasonable conclusion and certainly the more useful one.

In the last 500,000 years we've advanced from Og rubbing two sticks together to make fire to today. I don't understand why the Navel Gazers think we'd be better off if after 500,000 years we were still sitting around that fire trying to prove it's real or not.

Actually I know exactly why, because it lets them think Woo.
Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented

Last edited by tsig; 6th May 2012 at 10:46 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:45 AM   #51
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,432
Originally Posted by JoeBentley
It's not evening a Gap God. It's a "Make up Gaps that Don't Even Exist and the Put God In Them" God.
This.

I've looked at the papers on biogeochemistry of the Hadean. They're incredibly complex, information-dense and more boring than you can imagine. The question "how did life arise?", from a geological perspective, is answered by careful and minute analysis of the geochemistry of incredibly ancient rocks, which means you have to discuss diagenesis, taphonomy, tectonics, geochemistry, etc. etc. etc.--a sure-fire wire to cure insomnia. But if you can push through all of that, the information is fascinating. We can actually look at a world so alien to our own that no on in sci-fi has made anything comparable--and we can examine microscopic life on a world so ancient that many people don't believe it's real!

The problem for woosters is, getting to the point where you can make sense of all this takes in incredible amount of time and effort. The information is there, but knowing what it means takes decades of study. The reason I don't pretend to know abiogenesis is because I know what goes into knowing it, and I haven't done it. If I wanted to, however, I could examine the literature, attend conferences, and learn it all.

The supernatural is a shortcut to circumvent that requirement. People don't want to put in the effort, so they make up stories to explain things. It's worse than laziness--it's arrogant, smug laziness. I'll gladly admit that I'm not willing to put forth the effort necessary to know the current state of abiogenesis--but I'm humble enough to follow that up with saying "...therefore I'm not an expert on it." People peddling the supernatural lack the willingness to say that last bit. They want to be experts, without going through the process of BECOMING experts.

And as someone who HAS gone through the process, and proven to my employers that I AM knowledgeable enough to pay to study the history of life on Earth, I take that rather personally. Saying that the supernatural explains where we come from doesn't just use bad logic--it also means that I have to contend with charlatans in my field. It makes my job infinitely harder, by putting unnecessary obstacles in my path. It's annoying.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:48 AM   #52
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 10:58 AM   #53
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,296
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc
What atheism is is itself a subject of some debate.
This was said in response to this:

If you looked at what Twiler was saying--basically, that atheism means that we don't believe in any gods--and what Twiler was responding to--someone suggesting that we simply reject the CHRISTIAN god--you'd realize that your various definitions of atheism simply don't matter, because no matter which one you pick the atheist applies it to ALL gods, not just the Christian one. Because Twiler's statement is equally applicable to all the definitions you gave, we can ignore them.

You're arguing for a broad definition of "atheist". Twiler, on the other hand, is saying "Atheist doesn't simply mean that I reject Jesus".

Your response was akin to me asking a mechanic what's wrong with my car, and my mechanic giving me the history of the automobile. There's a tenuous connection, and the information isn't necessarily wrong--it's just irrelevant to this particular situation, since it doesn't deal with the issue at hand.

ETA: TL;DR version=context matters.
Twiler provided a definition of atheism; I disagreed with it.

How is that off-topic is a thread about how naturalism entails atheism?
mijopaalmc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:02 AM   #54
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,432
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc
Twiler provided a definition of atheism; I disagreed with it.
No, Twiler provided a REFUTATION OF a SPECIFIC AND ERRONEOUS definition. Twiler's point wasn't, by any rational reading of Twiler's post, to define atheism--it was merely to point out that atheism includes other gods than the Christian god.

Quote:
How is that off-topic is a thread about how naturalism entails atheism?
I wasn't aware that that WAS the point of this thread. Many people have implied or stated that it's true, but the point of this thread is whether or not naturalism is a justified or proven assumption. Atheism is a side-issue, and a rather minor one at that.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:09 AM   #55
Donn
Illuminator
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 3,869
"Stic happens." T-shirts invented
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
Donn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:11 AM   #56
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented
Reminds me of Samuel Johnson.

"Matter doesn't exist? I refute it thus!" *stubs toe*
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:25 AM   #57
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,820
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the question is, what caused them into existence ?
This is the god of the gaps fallacy.

The answer 'We don't know' is one of the best answers we can ever have. Because the real answer is 'We don't know, but we want to find out!'.

Otherwise, the answer given is 'We don't know. Therefore it must be god.'

The world is full of 'We don't know' answers, that have been answered over time, though it may have taken a long time to do so.

Where does lightning come from? Well, in ancient times, the answer 'We don't know, therefore, it happens when the gods are angry'. Well, now we know the answer with that much certainty, and it isn't a supernatural answer.

Naturalism comes around because of all these previous 'I don't knows', none of which have ever had a supernatural explanation. All have been naturalistic.

We follow the evidence, and the evidence has never pointed to a supernatural agent, so why should we start now?
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:32 AM   #58
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
"Stic happens." T-shirts invented
I get 10% of the gross. Capitalism invented.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:41 AM   #59
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
This is the god of the gaps fallacy.

The answer 'We don't know' is one of the best answers we can ever have. Because the real answer is 'We don't know, but we want to find out!'.

Otherwise, the answer given is 'We don't know. Therefore it must be god.'

The world is full of 'We don't know' answers, that have been answered over time, though it may have taken a long time to do so.

Where does lightning come from? Well, in ancient times, the answer 'We don't know, therefore, it happens when the gods are angry'. Well, now we know the answer with that much certainty, and it isn't a supernatural answer.

Naturalism comes around because of all these previous 'I don't knows', none of which have ever had a supernatural explanation. All have been naturalistic.

We follow the evidence, and the evidence has never pointed to a supernatural agent, so why should we start now?
Because some people just aren't happy without a daddy.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 11:41 AM   #60
Donn
Illuminator
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 3,869
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I get 10% of the gross. Capitalism invented.
"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.




Og had some inventive grandkids.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
Donn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:03 PM   #61
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,568
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So your world view is based on a negative ? any positive evidence on hand for naturalism ?
Is there any evidence for any of the billions of gods humans have dreamed up? Or any other supernatural phenomena?
catsmate1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:05 PM   #62
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,568
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
*Sighs* And the begging the Woo begins.

GIBHOR before we get into this is every question we answer just going to be dropped down a metaphysical level and/or restated in a more convoluted way and lobbed back at us?

Do you honestly have intentions of accepting any possible answer we could give you or are you just waiting for us to answer so you can just go "But what caused that / evidence do you have for that" ad nauseum?
Probably. This is a standard xian apologetic tactic.
catsmate1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:29 PM   #63
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,068
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
*Sighs* And the begging the Woo begins.

GIBHOR before we get into this is every question we answer just going to be dropped down a metaphysical level and/or restated in a more convoluted way and lobbed back at us?

Do you honestly have intentions of accepting any possible answer we could give you or are you just waiting for us to answer so you can just go "But what caused that / evidence do you have for that" ad nauseum?
Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:42 PM   #64
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.
We should see how many posts we can get out of GIBHOR before he turns and bravely runs away.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:46 PM   #65
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyond our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?

Incorrect.
Naturalism doesn't asset that things beyond the natural world exist.


I ask again: Why is assuming supernatural things better?
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 12:55 PM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.
...
You're under arrest and I'll take those profits, thank you. Corruption evolves.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:04 PM   #67
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.




Og had some inventive grandkids.
Cops. Civilization invented.

I think we've reinvented recapitulation.

ETA cops have stics

Last edited by tsig; 6th May 2012 at 01:05 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:08 PM   #68
Donn
Illuminator
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 3,869
It's all come unstuc.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
Donn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:11 PM   #69
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,998
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
It's all come unstuc.
The Woos Wonderland always vanishes when poked with the hard stic of reality.

ETA much like the "k" after a hard "c".

Last edited by tsig; 6th May 2012 at 01:12 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:23 PM   #70
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,340
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.
Yeah my fault. I really should learn to check out people's posting history before trying to engage them in an intellectual level.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:26 PM   #71
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,031
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Yeah my fault. I really should learn to check out people's posting history before trying to engage them in an intellectual level.
I would like to file for an exception to this rule. I intend to evolve in a positive direction.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 01:40 PM   #72
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?
Do you have a theistic answer for the same question? You may start with what caused god.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 02:08 PM   #73
George
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 402
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
Did you forget asking this a year ago or are you expecting a bunch of different answers?

'Explain our existence with naturalism'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=203133
George is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 02:24 PM   #74
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
This is the god of the gaps fallacy.<snip for brevity>
Here's the worst part...the demand for a cause and using that as a form of infinite regress. The demand for a causer of the universe isn't even a definition that God fits. If you were to be specific to the actual line of Genesis that God created the Heavens and the Earth (out of sync with what actually happened but hey, Bronze Age myth isn't known for being factual -.-) that isn't synonymous with actually creating the Universe, just the Heavens and the Earth. Maybe the Universe was there and God said, nice Universe, I think I'll build my Condo here and call it Earth.

To equate Genesis to the Big Bang and the origins of the Universe is stretching the texts a bit too much already.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:13 PM   #75
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,144
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Is there any evidence for any of the billions of gods humans have dreamed up? Or any other supernatural phenomena?
.
Putting it in modern parlance... before one can "supersize" a meal, the meal must exist.
As there are no ways that prove the existence of anything not natural, there can't be a "supernatural".
Find something that can't be explained as merely human mental aberrations, then trot out the "super" part.
One shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for this event.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:23 PM   #76
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist.
That does not seem to be quiet true. I am a strong atheist, yet I don't think of myself as a naturalist. I have little use for naturalism or supernaturalism or some such; the world just is -- and that's that.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:33 PM   #77
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what do you think , why did i write STRONG ATHEISM ??
Yes, strong atheism as is "There is no God."

Does not say anything about naturalism, except you think that everything that does not fit naturalism is some kind of deity (~natural = divine). Which is rubbish if you ask me.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:35 PM   #78
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,432
Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth
That does not seem to be quiet true. I am a strong atheist, yet I don't think of myself as a naturalist. I have little use for naturalism or supernaturalism or some such; the world just is -- and that's that.
There's also the possibility for someone to reject gods, because they think that other types of spirits are responsible. Ancestor worship is a great example--you KNOW they were human, because you're human, yet some cultures worshiped them. A person who worshiped their ancestors could be a strong atheist, but not accept the assumption of naturalism.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:36 PM   #79
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,340
Or on a broader cultural level look at the move of people from older traditional religions into new age woo. Neither are atheistic or naturalistic.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 03:41 PM   #80
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
There's also the possibility for someone to reject gods, because they think that other types of spirits are responsible. Ancestor worship is a great example--you KNOW they were human, because you're human, yet some cultures worshiped them. A person who worshiped their ancestors could be a strong atheist, but not accept the assumption of naturalism.
Of course. But you are already importing some kind of spirits. I wouldn't think you would have to go that far into ... errr ... woo territory. How about something that does not fit with naturalism and is totally boring?
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.