To Erasmus

Strictly speaking, this should probably be in the atheism forum, but I figure that Erasmus visits this forum more frequently. So, I'm posting it here. I don't like to post threads concerning the non-existence of God in the Christianity forum. You guys probably don't want to hear it, and that's fine. This thread is directed at Erasmus. So, the rest of you can just ignore it if you like, but feel free to chime in. The more the merrier. Now, let's get to the point.

Erasmus, you have frequently made reference to the idea that atheism/scientific naturalism are "outdated." What do you mean by this? What philosophical or scientific developments have been made in the recent past that make atheism untenable? If you could site some sources, that would be great.

 

Good luck getting any amount of evidence or reason out of Erasmus.

 

Have a bit of "faith," Libertine. It's not a tough question.

 

It is in fact a very tough question ~ for those who are already 100% reliant upon outdated and irrellevant scriptures, that is.

 

/\ That's pretty fucking inappropriate, and Skip should probably ban this brat. Anyway,

I don't think that Erasmus, if he chooses to reply, will choose to rely on scripture for his argument. I think his argument will rely on more recent, albeit misguided, philosophy. There are many contemporary philosophers who argue against naturalism and atheism, but Erasmus is still unjustified in calling these ideas "outdated" because there are just as many contemporary philosophers who argue in favour of naturalism and atheism. So, while he'll have a very difficult time proving that these concepts are outdated, he may still be able to present a few good arguments that they are false, which is what really counts.

 

Seems to me that you are unaware that christian fundamentalism is based entirely upon biblical text and scripture.
That's pretty fucking inappropriate, and Skip should probably ban this brat.
Have an opinion? ~ That's life.

 

Of course I know that. But I don't see what a book written 2000 years ago has to do with the argument that atheism and naturalism have recently become outdated philosophical positions. But I guess we'll see soon, if Erasmus ever decides to reply.

Haha, I think you've misunderstood. After you wrote, some kid posted some porn, but now it's gone. So, it looks like Skip did ban that brat. That comment wasn't directed at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

After you wrote, some kid posted some porn, but now it's gone
Thanks for the clatrification.
But I don't see what a book written 2000 years ago has to do with the argument that atheism and naturalism have recently become outdated philosophical positions
I read the challenge as that you wanted christians to debate you using new contemporary christian knowledge (which of course is non-existant).

 

As a logical positivist, I must insist that you are speaking literal nonsense here.

 

It is based upon (some) incorrect understandings of scripture.

 

Which are in turn based upon (mostly) incorrect translations of scripture.

It's sad to see how distorted Christianity has gotten, in my opinion, from its original intentions.

 

I notice a lack of Erasmus in this thread.

 

LOL
no ~ I literally wrote illogical nonsense
(nuthin unusual)

 

that's probably because of the username of the member who posted this thread.

I've noticed alot of religious people have an aversion to Common Sense.

 

^hahaha, that's great

 

Awwww.. thats cute someone left a topic about me while I was on vacation.

It threw me off for a second,... I thought it was an old post from about 1974 but I realised this forum is not that old yet.

I can no more 'prove' atheism does not exist than I can prove that Santa Clause or a Pink Unicorn in the Sky does 'not exist'.
How is that for an answer?

 

I hope you had a nice vacation, but this thread only has anything to do with atheism by extension. So, I don't find your answer satisfactory. We're talking about naturalism here. Again, you imply that naturalism is somehow outdated but offer no evidence that suggests such. I posted the following in another thread that you conveniently ignored. It is a list of contemporary philosophers who are naturalists:

W. V. O. Quine (1908-2000)
Hilary Putnam (1929-present)
Richard Dawkins (1941-present)
J. C. C. Smart (1920-present)
Paul and Patricia Churchland (1942-present) and (1943-present)

Now, it's one thing to say that naturalism is false. I can understand that. But it's quite another to say that naturalism has gone the way of the dinosaurs in some veiled attempt to say that it is false without providing any real argument, especially when so many academic philosophers today are naturalists. So, do you have an argument or just prejudice?

 

Right, I understand that you are not necessarily asking for it to be true or false depending on some appeal to authority (or majority).
I notice the names of some old people up there and dont get me wrong, I love old people and have Grandparents in their 80's and 90's myself!

Listen, Im late for work here so your gonna have to google yourselves any applicable stats and surveys but the truth is that there are more 'theistic' evolutionists now than there ever has been.
That is to say that an increasing majority of even those groups (THE hardest core of Naturalist it seemed once) believe 'some sort of 'ID' must have been involved.
"According to the poll of professional scientists, over one-fifth—20.6 percent—completely reject evolution. Less than half of the scientists—48.3 percent—believe that it is even possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without supernatural intervention. Do the scientists think that scientific creationism is hurting science education? According to this poll, 39.9 percent say `No.' "

But yeah, you can use stats and polls to say anything it seems and I am probably at an unfair advantage in that I hang around with these people from time to time and I can just say this - at the end of the day, in the backroom, over a beer and after all is said and done - - nobody 'actually' believes it happened by chance out of nothing.
Everyone agree's 'something' is 'behind it'.

Thats not necessarily great news, cults have started on this and back in the old days it was a little 'dark secret' that a lot of the hardcore 'university prof' types held 'theistic' beliefs that (and this is serious) there was some sort of mysterious power to be found and gained by them.
Its funny now but right up to the 80's there was a sort of 'culty' insider type mentality that believed humans would be able to 'transcend' once they discovered the secret behind Evolutionism.
(you can actually see that theme in some of the popcult sci-fi themes of the day).

Anyways.. gotta run but yeah, there are so few atheists nowadays that its getting nearly impossible to get actual figures and stats now because 'statistically speaking' they dont even have enough numbers to 'exist' as an actual demographic.

More Later....

 

Yes, they are old, but so are most noteworthy philosophers. Nevertheless, they all still have many followers today. I'm a big fan of Quine myself, which is why I included him even though he's dead.

Good, that's all I was asking for. And all the nay-sayers who said you'd appeal to a Bible verse or something should take note. Now, I don't know much about science, let alone the statistics on the religious affiliation of scientists. I'm far more familiar with philosophy, and naturalism is certainly a dominant trend in contemporary philosophy. I'm also not familiar with the particular poll you've made reference to, but it seems to me that in the long run more scientists today would be atheists as opposed to, say, 200 years ago. But that's simply because there are more atheists today than 200 years ago.

Well, it's clearly not the case that everyone agrees to that.

Don't get me started on these scientology and wicca fads. Anyway, I asked you to provide some justification as to why you believe that naturalism is outdated, and you've done so. So, there's really no need to press the matter further. Actually, I was under the impression that you were speaking of naturalism as a philosophical school and not in the more general sense. I also think that perhaps you are underestimating the numbers of atheists. If you want to move on to the question of whether naturalism is true or false, I'd talk about it. But otherwise, you've met the challenge.

More Later....[/QUOTE]

 

I start out by saying that 'Anything is Possible'.
Anything 'could' turn out to be true or false.
The problem I have with Naturalism (which I do say in a general sense yes) is that I have to go on 'the best and most likely explanation' and I can only get there by what I see, taste, observe and if possible repeatedly test in the world around me.
When I do this - it becomes nearly impossible for me to find examples where 'random chance' or 'unguided forces' can assemble any sort of working order.
Even with the fastest and loosest possible definitions of 'work' or 'order' or 'information' or 'design' and so on.
Oh sure... 1 in a 1000 times, you could throw a bunch of marbles down a hill and see what 'kinda, sorta' looks like a 'pattern'.
Not really but if you really squint hard.
However, every single bloody time I see anything of any 'working order' (in which I can observe the cause of course) then guess what: Some sort of Intelligent Design.
The LAst thing I can suggest is that 'naturalism' is any sort of cause considering that, as a rule, when left to to its own self, life and matter will degenerate and become less complex - not more.

annnnd of course you have exactly the same problem with Naturalism as they like to point out in 'Theism' or 'ID' and this - 'Where did IT come from'.
"Well the big Bang'.
Great.
That asks for an even more astonishing question of where that muthersucker came from itself.
Geeezzz... if I was to accept it all, Supermolecules exploding and creating the Universe through Zillions of chance reactions?
Id be all the MORE a Theist than I am now because that is so mindfucking amazing in its own right that you GOT to ask who/how/what is behind 'Naturalism' then!