XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sbalneav@alburg.net
In alt.atheism TheInquirer wrote:
> On 27/12/2012 8:49 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> this assumes there is something to be shifted. my approach, as an
>>> independent inquirer, is different.
>>
>> And incorrect.
>
> just because people say so?
That's generally how it works, yes. Because the people who say so have put a
lot of thought and reasoning behind it. You can pick up any book on critical
thinking to understand the reasons why.
>>> Both parties have the burden of
>>> proof.
>>
>> You're more than welcome to think that way, but over 2500 years of
philosophy
>
> does this help humans to discover truth?
Yes, because it puts the burden of proof where it belongs: with the person who
asserts something.
> does this help humans to be less bigoted?
A bigoted person doesn't follow critical thinking rules, by definition. So,
yes, if people actually used reason and logic, as they've been developed over 3
millenia or so, they would be less bigoted.
> does this help humans achieve synthesis (incorporating seemingly
> opposing views)?
Is synthesis necessarily a good thing thing, if one of the views is
demonstrably incorrect? Isn't helping humans understanding approach reality
more important?
>> existence, proving that something DOESN'T exist is pretty nigh on
impossible.
>
> and even worse if different people have different defintions and
> different presumptions, isn't it?
Yes, that's why it's important to define things ahead of time, and be clear on
definitions.
>> First, while you may consider yourself a "customer", it doesn't necessarily
>> mean the atheist feels that they are a "vendor". I have arrived at my
>> conclusions on my own.
>
> i am interested in investigating presumptions and definitions,
> especially hidden / unconscious ones. conclusions follow logically once
> those become clear, don't they?
No, not necessarily. Quantum mechanics is a classic example of a field that
dosen't conform to our preconceived notions of how we thought the universe
operated. We discovered this through OBSERVATION and experimentation. When
discussing the nature of the universe, it is demonstrably not sufficient to
just base our reasoning on pure logic and definitions. Observation and
experimentation must take primacy.
>> great. If you think the theists have a better argument,
>
> If i think the theists have a better argument, why am i asking both parties?
How can you tell if the theists have a better argument until you ask both
parties?
> it doesn't change the fact that the atheist does not have a
>> burden of proof.
>
> but there are unsettled questions:-
>
> * what is the defintion of god / Gods that an "atheist" does not have?
The one that theists give us. Many times, theists do not precisely define
their God(s), or define them in such a way as to make any investigation into
their God(s) impossible *by definition*.
> * is there a real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?
Again, it's the theist that asserts the supernatural. So far, there's been no
evidence of what the theist asserts is "the supernatural" existing.
> The atheists position is that the theist has not fulfilled
>> his or her burden of proof that a deity of some kind exists. The atheist
>> simply has to point out to YOU that fact, as the justification of their
>> position.
>
> have you heard of ignosticism?
Yes. It's the position that that all the other -isms assume too much about the
nature of God.
I'd like to ask: on what do they make that assumption?
> [ i don't necessary call myself an ignosticist. i'll sort this out
> later. but for now, i'll just call myself a "questionist", for want
> of a better term. ]
--
__ _ | Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(_ |_) | Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
__)|_) | -- Groucho Marx
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
