Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2016, 02:59:48 pm »
Sounds good. I may launch a new thread or two myself. I don't like going on the CYOT page because it's too tempting to call BS on the abysmally hypocritical political posts there. I do plenty politics on other pages.

A pre-Huxley theologian summed up atheism as denial, or doubt, of the existence of God. I am in the doubt category. My embrace of Naturalism gives me reason to feel that the definition, and/or knowledge of God, or the supernatural, is incapable of proof. I'm not demanding some miracle to establish that knowability, but an argument I can get my head around.

ok cool.

As to your claim about Naturalism giving your reasons to doubt, the act of what you just asserted, that's all I was trying to explain. I may butcher the scholarly notion of burden of proof, but having reasons for our doubts, is basically all i was trying to get at. Earth shattering I know, but that's all i was trying to get at. And my comments about what a soft agnostic may claim, is the only guy off the hook for explaining his doubts...because he simply bows out with an "i don't know".

1

searcherman

  • ***
  • 3082 Posts
  • Man makes religion, religion does not make man
    • View Profile
Re: Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2016, 03:27:16 pm »
That's the first I've heard soft agnostic as a term. I've heard positive agnosticism as equivalent to skeptical atheism. Soon we'll have a full lexicon of all the naturalistic forms of agnosticism and atheism, and we all can agree on who's who. So much of what I see in defending Naturalism involves debunking pseudoscience, aka scientific skepticism. I'm trying to move beyond that and get into deeper questions. I see the FT and ID debate as that, and a distraction from deeper philosophical arguments.
Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.- K. Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

2

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2016, 04:51:07 pm »
That's the first I've heard soft agnostic as a term. I've heard positive agnosticism as equivalent to skeptical atheism. Soon we'll have a full lexicon of all the naturalistic forms of agnosticism and atheism, and we all can agree on who's who. So much of what I see in defending Naturalism involves debunking pseudoscience, aka scientific skepticism. I'm trying to move beyond that and get into deeper questions. I see the FT and ID debate as that, and a distraction from deeper philosophical arguments.

Lol man i can hardly keep up sometimes, i may have read it wrong or mixing up soft/hard with strong/weak ect... So many flavors of ideas. But to me it just denotes the obvious difference between the guy claiming ignorance and the guy claiming its meaningless about any given belief. Both are not claiming pro/con one way or the other, but the second guy still should show reasons for his doubts.

3

lucious

  • ***
  • 4640 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2016, 09:28:33 pm »
That's the first I've heard soft agnostic as a term. I've heard positive agnosticism as equivalent to skeptical atheism. Soon we'll have a full lexicon of all the naturalistic forms of agnosticism and atheism, and we all can agree on who's who. So much of what I see in defending Naturalism involves debunking pseudoscience, aka scientific skepticism. I'm trying to move beyond that and get into deeper questions. I see the FT and ID debate as that, and a distraction from deeper philosophical arguments.


Debunking pseudoscience is just that, debunking pseudoscience. That's not a case for naturalism at all, which requires its own positive philosophical defense.


Whoever thinks that "proper" science, or the findings of, is synonymous with naturalism as a metaphysic needs to go back to the drawing board.

4

searcherman

  • ***
  • 3082 Posts
  • Man makes religion, religion does not make man
    • View Profile
Re: Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2016, 09:20:48 am »
That's the first I've heard soft agnostic as a term. I've heard positive agnosticism as equivalent to skeptical atheism. Soon we'll have a full lexicon of all the naturalistic forms of agnosticism and atheism, and we all can agree on who's who. So much of what I see in defending Naturalism involves debunking pseudoscience, aka scientific skepticism. I'm trying to move beyond that and get into deeper questions. I see the FT and ID debate as that, and a distraction from deeper philosophical arguments.

Lol man i can hardly keep up sometimes, i may have read it wrong or mixing up soft/hard with strong/weak ect... So many flavors of ideas. But to me it just denotes the obvious difference between the guy claiming ignorance and the guy claiming its meaningless about any given belief. Both are not claiming pro/con one way or the other, but the second guy still should show reasons for his doubts.

I do find it incumbent upon my self to learn more of the other arguments, like MOA. But what I know of the other logical arguments, I find I can't fully accept and/or understand the premises. So my doubt is all sided. There are also non-epistemological characterizations of atheism by te Victorian theologians I haven't even delved into yet.
Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.- K. Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right