U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2015, 10:50 PM
 
39,336 posts, read 10,954,803 times
Reputation: 5107

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Now, now Arq . . . you ignore or deny the existence of personal knowledge that is not subject to scientific verification . . . and then call reliance on said experience irrational! Some of us have information not available to you that makes our certainty rational, Arq. Get over it.
You know better than that, old mate. Rationalism atheism and me are always open to such claims being made valid, tenable and believable. You know beter than any how much effort I have put into that.

But the burden of proof remains upon those presenting hypotheses using explanations of experiences that can also be explained -at least in principle - by the existing corpus of knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2015, 10:56 PM
 
39,336 posts, read 10,954,803 times
Reputation: 5107
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll View Post
Said theists have little (if any) grasp of what constitutes "knowledge" or "knowing" versus a simple willingness to wrap "belief" around whatever concept or idea and embrace it as "true" even though you truly have no epistemological basis for saying that such concept or idea is "true" in an evidentiary sense. They don't seem to understand the premise of what constitutes "evidence" from "pseudo-evidence" or "non-evidence". They really, really, really need to take a curriculum or at least a series of courses in logic and in epistemology in a Philosophy Dept. of a good university or college to strengthen their thinking and reasoning skills. I have (though that wasn't my major, but I've taken courses in a Philosophy Dept. in "History of Western Philosophy", "Logic", "Philosophy of Science", and "Intellectual Heritage I" and "Intellectual Heritage II") and was exposed to enough critical thinking in the rest of my university-level degree pursuit and in my many readings over the decades.
Congratulations. Philosophy is great. I love it. I assert, however, that it can only make suggestions, hypotheses and lines of inquiry. It needs science to validate these. Philosophy cannot prove facts (as distinct from human conventions of thought) by mind -experiments, even with a certificate attached.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 11:24 PM
 
2,417 posts, read 2,436,693 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll View Post
Said theists have little (if any) grasp of what constitutes "knowledge" or "knowing" versus a simple willingness to wrap "belief" around whatever concept or idea and embrace it as "true" even though you truly have no epistemological basis for saying that such concept or idea is "true" in an evidentiary sense. They don't seem to understand the premise of what constitutes "evidence" from "pseudo-evidence" or "non-evidence". They really, really, really need to take a curriculum or at least a series of courses in logic and in epistemology in a Philosophy Dept. of a good university or college to strengthen their thinking and reasoning skills. I have (though that wasn't my major, but I've taken courses in a Philosophy Dept. in "History of Western Philosophy", "Logic", "Philosophy of Science", and "Intellectual Heritage I" and "Intellectual Heritage II") and was exposed to enough critical thinking in the rest of my university-level degree pursuit and in my many readings over the decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Congratulations. Philosophy is great. I love it. I assert, however, that it can only make suggestions, hypotheses and lines of inquiry. It needs science to validate these. Philosophy cannot prove facts (as distinct from human conventions of thought) by mind -experiments, even with a certificate attached.

Philosophy of some type or other is what underlies ALL modes and schools of human thought and endeavor. Even the practice of science (i.e., as exempified in the so-called "scientific method") and the practice of law (or at least as practiced in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA) are both based upon the foundations of epistemology. That is, the "philosophy of science" (which is rests on the foundation established by the philosophical field of epistemology) asks "What constitutes 'knowledge' versus 'non-knowledge'?" and "How do we know when we know something to be true or real versus that something being not true or not real?". And the practice of law (or at least in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA), as well, is based upon the "standard rules of evidence" as spelled out in the philosophical field of epistemology . . . essentially the same "standard rules of evidence" that science (i.e., the scientific method) is based upon.

In summary, an underlying philosophy of one type or another functions as a foundation for thinking and, where applicable, for methods of proof. Even reliperfectly acceptable and valid to embrace a philosophy or way-of-thinking which says that if an idea simply resonates with them or feels OK with them inside their personal selves, THAT ALONE is enough to call it valid and true and real (a personal experience or personal belief) without a need for any other types of validation or proof. Or if said religious believers believe there is a cause-and-effect relationship to some event or phenomenon (e.g., "I had a cancerous tumor and I prayed for it to go into remission and it eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers" or "I hoped to find a parking space on the street when I drove into downtown and I eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers"), THAT ALONE is enough to validate to themselves their holding on to this way-of-thinking. Their personally-held underlying phiiosophy justifies to them (in their own minds) that it is valid to embrace the way-of-thinking which says that it wasn't just random chance or luck that the event or phenomenon in question just happened to turn out as they wanted it to turn out but MUST HAVE BEEN the intervention of a "personal god" operating on their behalf for their personal benefit. In summary, there is a philosophical foundation of one form or another which underlies the thinking of ALL of these parties (scientists, legal practitioners, and religious believers).

It is not a case of "philosophy versus science" but rather that "The philosophy of science (which rests of the premises establshed by the philosophical field of inquiry called epistemology) is the very foundation of the scientific endeavor itself".

Last edited by UsAll; 04-30-2015 at 11:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 02:00 AM
 
2,417 posts, read 2,436,693 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll View Post
Philosophy of some type or other is what underlies ALL modes and schools of human thought and endeavor. Even the practice of science (i.e., as exempified in the so-called "scientific method") and the practice of law (or at least as practiced in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA) are both based upon the foundations of epistemology. That is, the "philosophy of science" (which is rests on the foundation established by the philosophical field of epistemology) asks "What constitutes 'knowledge' versus 'non-knowledge'?" and "How do we know when we know something to be true or real versus that something being not true or not real?". And the practice of law (or at least in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA), as well, is based upon the "standard rules of evidence" as spelled out in the philosophical field of epistemology . . . essentially the same "standard rules of evidence" that science (i.e., the scientific method) is based upon.

In summary, an underlying philosophy of one type or another functions as a foundation for thinking and, where applicable, for methods of proof. Even reliperfectly acceptable and valid to embrace a philosophy or way-of-thinking which says that if an idea simply resonates with them or feels OK with them inside their personal selves, THAT ALONE is enough to call it valid and true and real (a personal experience or personal belief) without a need for any other types of validation or proof. Or if said religious believers believe there is a cause-and-effect relationship to some event or phenomenon (e.g., "I had a cancerous tumor and I prayed for it to go into remission and it eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers" or "I hoped to find a parking space on the street when I drove into downtown and I eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers"), THAT ALONE is enough to validate to themselves their holding on to this way-of-thinking. Their personally-held underlying phiiosophy justifies to them (in their own minds) that it is valid to embrace the way-of-thinking which says that it wasn't just random chance or luck that the event or phenomenon in question just happened to turn out as they wanted it to turn out but MUST HAVE BEEN the intervention of a "personal god" operating on their behalf for their personal benefit. In summary, there is a philosophical foundation of one form or another which underlies the thinking of ALL of these parties (scientists, legal practitioners, and religious believers).

It is not a case of "philosophy versus science" but rather that "The philosophy of science (which rests of the premises establshed by the philosophical field of inquiry called epistemology) is the very foundation of the scientific endeavor itself".

I noticed, a few hours later, that the first two sentences of my second paragraph from my above-seen quote of my own last posting to this thread has some words inexplicably chopped out or missing from it. From the beginning of the second paragraph going forward to the very ending of my above-seen posting should instead correctly read as follows:
In summary, an underlying philosophy of one type or another functions as a foundation for thinking and, where applicable, for methods of proof for ALL modes and schools of human thought and endeavor. Even the ways-of-thinking of religious believers are based on a "philosophy of religion" (i.e., the underlying philosophical foundation of religious thinking). Their underlying philosophy or thinking is that they think it is perfectly acceptable and valid to subscribe to the thinking that if an idea or concept simply resonates with them or feels OK with them inside their own minds, THAT ALONE is enough to call the idea or concept valid and true and real (based solely on their personal experience or personal-held belief) without a need for any other types of validation or proof to establish said idea or concept as valid and true and real. Or if said religious believers perceive, in their own minds, that there is a cause-and-effect relationship to some event or outcome encountered in their lives (e.g., "I had a cancerous tumor and I prayed for it to go into remission and it eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers" or "I hoped to find a parking space on the street when I drove into downtown and I eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers"), THAT ALONE is enough to validate to themselves their holding on to this way-of-thinking. Their personally-held underlying phiiosophy justifies to them (in their own minds) that it is valid to embrace the way-of-thinking which says that it wasn't just random chance or luck that the event or outcome in question just happened to turn out as they wanted it to turn out but rather MUST HAVE BEEN the intervention of a "personal god" operating on their behalf for their personal benefit. In summary, there is a philosophical foundation of one form or another which underlies the thinking of ALL of these parties (scientists, legal practitioners, and religious believers).

It is not a case of "philosophy versus science" but rather that "The philosophy of science (which rests of the premises establshed by the philosophical field of inquiry called epistemology) is the very foundation of the scientific endeavor itself".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 02:14 AM
 
Location: New Zealand
1,423 posts, read 753,913 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Wrong. the rationalist position -scientifically validated evidence and logically sound reasoning - is the default or the preferred position for considering all claims. In respect of the god claims (or the mystical or spiritual) atheism is based on the rationalist position and is therefore rational. The god claim or related claims is not and is therefore irrational. Try again.
And especially militant atheism is the worst kind of atheist irrationality. Belief is irrational, no matter which foot the sock is on. Theism. Atheism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 03:41 AM
 
39,336 posts, read 10,954,803 times
Reputation: 5107
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll View Post
Philosophy of some type or other is what underlies ALL modes and schools of human thought and endeavor. Even the practice of science (i.e., as exempified in the so-called "scientific method") and the practice of law (or at least as practiced in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA) are both based upon the foundations of epistemology. That is, the "philosophy of science" (which is rests on the foundation established by the philosophical field of epistemology) asks "What constitutes 'knowledge' versus 'non-knowledge'?" and "How do we know when we know something to be true or real versus that something being not true or not real?". And the practice of law (or at least in democratic nations such as the Britain and the USA), as well, is based upon the "standard rules of evidence" as spelled out in the philosophical field of epistemology . . . essentially the same "standard rules of evidence" that science (i.e., the scientific method) is based upon.

In summary, an underlying philosophy of one type or another functions as a foundation for thinking and, where applicable, for methods of proof. Even reliperfectly acceptable and valid to embrace a philosophy or way-of-thinking which says that if an idea simply resonates with them or feels OK with them inside their personal selves, THAT ALONE is enough to call it valid and true and real (a personal experience or personal belief) without a need for any other types of validation or proof. Or if said religious believers believe there is a cause-and-effect relationship to some event or phenomenon (e.g., "I had a cancerous tumor and I prayed for it to go into remission and it eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers" or "I hoped to find a parking space on the street when I drove into downtown and I eventually did . . . and that proves that there is a personal God who answers prayers"), THAT ALONE is enough to validate to themselves their holding on to this way-of-thinking. Their personally-held underlying phiiosophy justifies to them (in their own minds) that it is valid to embrace the way-of-thinking which says that it wasn't just random chance or luck that the event or phenomenon in question just happened to turn out as they wanted it to turn out but MUST HAVE BEEN the intervention of a "personal god" operating on their behalf for their personal benefit. In summary, there is a philosophical foundation of one form or another which underlies the thinking of ALL of these parties (scientists, legal practitioners, and religious believers).

It is not a case of "philosophy versus science" but rather that "The philosophy of science (which rests of the premises establshed by the philosophical field of inquiry called epistemology) is the very foundation of the scientific endeavor itself".
I take that point in the sense that 'Philosophy' is a term that can be applied to many things, but which don't get into the philosophy books or courses. And of course they work together, or should.
What I beef about is when science gives us a corpus of data and a logical framework for analyzing it and then someone with a Philosophy degree comes along and starts spouting a lot of jargon intended to prove it is all wrong.

That, rather than what I'm saying, is where the science vs. Philosophy comes from. And so far this misuse of philosophy (as a university subject) seems to be because it is being put to the service of some unsupported religious or mystical or spiritual idea which requires that everything that science thinks it knows is wrong in order that some pet theory about hypothetical entities can be wangled into credibility, or logic has to be made to look like a hog's breakfast in order to make room for 'God's logic'.

I agree that Science and Philosophy ought to work together, but sometimes some in the Philosophy class prefer to put their erudition at the service of myth, fantasy and superstition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 03:53 AM
 
39,336 posts, read 10,954,803 times
Reputation: 5107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan View Post
And especially militant atheism is the worst kind of atheist irrationality. Belief is irrational, no matter which foot the sock is on. Theism. Atheism.
Your view of atheism is a quite common one, though of course we may get a slanted view because believers or those who ought to know better come here and bash us with it.

Let me tell you how I see it.

Atheism is logical and rational. It is based on the knowledge position of agnosticism

"I do not know whether there is a god or not" (agnosticism)
"so I will not believe in any until I do know" (atheism)

That is the logic and all the rest is confusion. As an accredited philosopher you ought to know this already but I was appalled to read the entry on atheism in Stanfords. It must have been written by Plantinga who showed in an interview posted on these very boards that he understood nothing about atheism.

Militant atheism is like "New" atheism, or Fundamentalist atheism. It is just the same as the Old atheism, except that we are not afraid to talk about it. It is not Fundamentalist as there is no dogma or creed to be fundamentalist about.
It is militant because something needs to be done about the stranglehold of religious myth on the human mind and especially the influence of organized religion on the body politic.

Your suspicion and misunderstanding about militant atheism is not uncommon. I am glad to help your misunderstanding, if you are willing to listen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 10:12 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,033,398 times
Reputation: 1369
The scientifically valid position is "something" is more probable than "no-nothing". And "Omni-dude" is less likely than "no-nothing" "no-nothing" and "Omni-dude "not only don't have any observational data they actually counter the observations. They both are "blind faith statements". Actually they are worse than blind.

Then we can address emotional and psychological considerations if one NEEDS to settle on one of these three labels as a personal descriptor to identify oneself past just a definition in Wiki. If you need to be called and atheist or a theist, and are trying to recruit people, that's fine, just don't go round pushing of as more than what it is. Keep the words 'validated by science" out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
603 posts, read 568,182 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Your view of atheism is a quite common one, though of course we may get a slanted view because believers or those who ought to know better come here and bash us with it.

Let me tell you how I see it.

Atheism is logical and rational. It is based on the knowledge position of agnosticism

"I do not know whether there is a god or not" (agnosticism)
"so I will not believe in any until I do know" (atheism)

That is the logic and all the rest is confusion. As an accredited philosopher you ought to know this already but I was appalled to read the entry on atheism in Stanfords. It must have been written by Plantinga who showed in an interview posted on these very boards that he understood nothing about atheism.

Militant atheism is like "New" atheism, or Fundamentalist atheism. It is just the same as the Old atheism, except that we are not afraid to talk about it. It is not Fundamentalist as there is no dogma or creed to be fundamentalist about.
It is militant because something needs to be done about the stranglehold of religious myth on the human mind and especially the influence of organized religion on the body politic.

Your suspicion and misunderstanding about militant atheism is not uncommon. I am glad to help your misunderstanding, if you are willing to listen.
Thanks for this post AREQUIPA - I think this post helped me understand what people were talking about when they used the term "militant atheism" since it really was throwing me off. That said, I did not really "come out" as an atheist until about a year ago (I called myself an agnostic for more social acceptability and not truly understanding what an atheist was). But this whole "new atheism" I guess that is when I jumped on board the openly atheism train so that is all I know. If being out-spoken about being an atheist, meeting other atheists socially, and [when necessary] becoming active locally to work towards atheist causes (separation of church and state matters, etc.) then I guess I am a militant atheist.

[EDIT] I'm not editing, but I do want to apologize for my horrible grammar above. Too lazy to fix.

Last edited by Annilyna; 05-01-2015 at 03:07 PM.. Reason: Just FYI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 06:47 PM
 
39,336 posts, read 10,954,803 times
Reputation: 5107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annilyna View Post
Thanks for this post AREQUIPA - I think this post helped me understand what people were talking about when they used the term "militant atheism" since it really was throwing me off. That said, I did not really "come out" as an atheist until about a year ago (I called myself an agnostic for more social acceptability and not truly understanding what an atheist was). But this whole "new atheism" I guess that is when I jumped on board the openly atheism train so that is all I know. If being out-spoken about being an atheist, meeting other atheists socially, and [when necessary] becoming active locally to work towards atheist causes (separation of church and state matters, etc.) then I guess I am a militant atheist.

[EDIT] I'm not editing, but I do want to apologize for my horrible grammar above. Too lazy to fix.
Don't worry about either grammar (I am always correcting mine, but I usually make it worse) - looks ok to me, anyway - or some misconceptions about terms applied to atheists. I began by seeing atheists as not -believers and agnostics as 'Not-sure -ists'. And in a way, that's the case, but the logical position of atheism is as I have set it out and that's our story, as they say, and we are sticking to it.

Concepts before definitions. It matters more what we are, think and do than what labels we wear. There was a discussion about how we should distance ourselves from Militant Atheism because of the bad connotations militancy has. Well, 'New' atheism hasn't a good one either -heck nor does atheism!

I have said I won't distance myself from militant atheism - I am militant. I won't adopt the term 'bright' either. I know why it was done and it worked for Gays. Passing myself off as something else isn't for me though. I am not ashamed of being atheist and relabelling myself is just like saying it is something shameful, so let's change our name and pretend we are 'Agnostic' or something.

I will explain that agnosticism is the basis but I will not wear a agnostic mask in the hope that it won't offend the religious. If they are offended by us, that goes with the territory, because we say that religion is wrong and false and we are going to do something about it (if we can). That is what makes us militant, and recourse to having the law on people who discriminate against us is part of it. Right up to the top.

When that stops and when religion has no influence on politics, education or society at large, we can be as sweet as you like about those who do have a religion.

Just my take, of course, but I commend it to the atheist community as a game -plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top