Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote:
For the umpteenth time, 'evidence' for the veracity of a logical argument comes in the form of its soundness.

And, for the umpteenth time, if that is all you have in the way of "evidence" then all you have is an assertion.
All your foot stamping and repetition will not change this/

Logic can distinguish between truth and falsity. As such, logic serves as its own evidence.

You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

jamest wrote:Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

Right. Premises that are based on logical argument.

So you're using logic to establish your premises on which you base your logical argument.

Does this throw up no red flags for you?

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

I'm sure the fact that this response addresses a completely different question than the one asked is lost on a maximum of one poster.

It's also cool that it doesn't even address the imagined question appropriately.

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

And, for the umpteenth time, if that is all you have in the way of "evidence" then all you have is an assertion.
All your foot stamping and repetition will not change this/

Logic can distinguish between truth and falsity. As such, logic serves as its own evidence.

You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

Descartes? So, you exist and that's it. Tell me how you get beyond that without assuming something more.

ElDiablo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote:
For the umpteenth time, 'evidence' for the veracity of a logical argument comes in the form of its soundness.

And, for the umpteenth time, if that is all you have in the way of "evidence" then all you have is an assertion.
All your foot stamping and repetition will not change this/

Logic can distinguish between truth and falsity. As such, logic serves as its own evidence.

If you take a course on logic, you'll realize just how silly your statements about logic are

If my statements are silly, then explain why they're silly. Don't just say that they're silly.

jamest wrote:
Furthermore, if you try to uphold the claim that evidence must come in empirical form, you too will find that you have to rely upon logical argument for there is no empirical evidence that 'evidence' must always be in empirical form. So, given your stance on logic, your argument will be self-defeating.

See my reply from above.

What of it? It's just another unjustified negative assertion. Utterly worthless and a waste of my time.

An argument consists of premises and a conclusion. There is a distinction between the logical form of an argument and whether its true or not. You are clearly conflating the two and totally fucking up what logic is.

Wtf are you talking about? Of course an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and whether the conclusion follows from the premises is determinable through the way reason works. It's a self-assessing means of providing evidence for the conclusions of arguments. If you manage to produce a sound argument, then the conclusions are impossible to reject. If that doesn't constitute 'evidence' then we might as well stop trying to think for ourselves and turn the lights off.

jamest wrote:
There are infinite possibilities even for one entity, even in a realm constrained by the laws of physics. The imagination is not constrained by the laws of physics. Enough said.

The white flag of surrender of someone who knows they lost the argument.
"Anything is possible."
Well at least you admit that it's all in your head.

Why have you suddenly started to talk absolute bollocks? You were being perfectly reasonable earlier. My comments about the imagination being infinite are correct since there are no limitations on the number/type of entities or scenarios the imagination can conjure. Indeed, the scenarios/entities don't even have to conform to physical laws. Whether some infinities (imaginations) are bigger than others does not detract from my statement.

My supply of frozen badgers is running low. I used several of them last night whilst watching England in the World Cup, and Thomas drove me to utilise one at lunch-time. Show a guy some mercy!

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

I'm sure the fact that this response addresses a completely different question than the one asked is lost on a maximum of one poster.

It's also cool that it doesn't even address the imagined question appropriately.

I'm sure that someone knows what you mean. Perhaps they'll PM me...

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

I'm sure the fact that this response addresses a completely different question than the one asked is lost on a maximum of one poster.

It's also cool that it doesn't even address the imagined question appropriately.

I'm sure that someone knows what you mean. Perhaps they'll PM me...

You didn't answer the question, he said. It made perfect sense. Try again jamest!

jamest wrote:

tolman wrote:But atheism isn't a system.
There is nothing that an atheist has to do or think other than not having belief in the existence of gods.

Yes, but as a critical thinker you cannot not believe in Gods unless arguments for them have not persuaded you to do so. And they can only fail to persuade you because of how you go about rejecting them: by gauging them in relation to pre-established opinions, expectations and emotions. The term 'system' was used in this loosest of contexts, but it's basically a reference for how all atheists achieve their state of atheism.

So in that sense there is no such thing as a meaningful belief-in-itself, only belief systems, which makes 'belief system' in that context a pointless phrase, since it refers just to the belief and what led up to it.

And it also makes it a personal thing - making it bogus in that context to say 'atheism' as a thing is a belief system, rather than what you are saying - that any atheist's lack of belief in deities is a particular and individual belief system based on various arguments they have seen and judged lacking.

So my lack of belief that my mum will visit tomorrow is 'a belief system', rather than a simple passive lack of belief or an active belief to the contrary, or it can become a belief system simply by my considering the idea?

jamest wrote:For reasons given I don't buy into using the term atheist for creatures unable to formulate conceptual thought, nor for those who are but are indifferent to assessing the arguments. Whenever I use the term, it's wrt people who have taken the time to assess evidence for theistic arguments.

So what would you call someone who had, for example, formed an active disbelief in gods while a child because they seemed as silly an idea as Santa Claus, or because that was what they were told the situation was, and persisted with that disbelief without making active critical dissections of arguments for deities later on, assuming they were exposed to such arguments?

Sure, you could say that what they think is lacking what you would see as adequate justification, but is their active disbelief in gods something other than atheism?
if so, what should it be called?

Conversely, if someone just accepted that there was a god or that there were gods because that was what people had said, and they believed in god[s] despite not adequately and rationally analysing any supposed rational arguments for their existence, you seem to suggest that they shouldn't be called theists?
So what should they be called?

jamest wrote:Atheism has influenced science and vice versa, not to mention the majority of contemporary philosophers (which does culminate with an impact upon society). This was inevitable given mutual demands that evidence be wholly empirical in nature, so there's much more to atheism than a bunch of people saying that they have no belief in Gods.

We're back to the stupid reformulation of a basic absence of belief in gods in other terms, and pretending it is some extra part of a system.
If someone fails to set aside a special place for gods (or pixies, or elves) in physics or chemistry or biology, that is not some extra part of a belief system, it is simply evidence of a lack of belief that gods (or pixies, or elves) exist as real things.

jamest wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

And, for the umpteenth time, if that is all you have in the way of "evidence" then all you have is an assertion.
All your foot stamping and repetition will not change this/

Logic can distinguish between truth and falsity. As such, logic serves as its own evidence.

If you take a course on logic, you'll realize just how silly your statements about logic are

If my statements are silly, then explain why they're silly. Don't just say that they're silly.

This has already been explained, many times. Your dishonest ignoring, wibbling and straw-manning notwithstanding.

jamest wrote:

jamest wrote:
Furthermore, if you try to uphold the claim that evidence must come in empirical form, you too will find that you have to rely upon logical argument for there is no empirical evidence that 'evidence' must always be in empirical form. So, given your stance on logic, your argument will be self-defeating.

See my reply from above.

What of it? It's just another unjustified negative assertion. Utterly worthless and a waste of my time.

The irony and misplaced arrogance is just so sad.

jamest wrote:My supply of frozen badgers is running low. I used several of them last night whilst watching England in the World Cup, and Thomas drove me to utilise one at lunch-time. Show a guy some mercy!

Maybe if you'd engage with us with so,e intellectual rigour and honesty, you'd not have that problem.

Jamest, how do you establish the truth of the premises you use to do logic? I'm not asking what those premises are, though if you wish to explain how you establish their truth with an example, you may of course use one of your premises.

So, how jamest?

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm still waiting for the big gotcha. Is there a point to all this jamest?

That atheism is a belief-based system, so my earlier reference to atheism and theism being two extremes (polar opposites) of belief/thought, would be justified. Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

Bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact is the very antithesis of "belief". Fucking learn this once and for all will you?

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote: All I have to do is prove that you cannot reject arguments for God with an empty-head, such that any rejection is a consequence of those arguments failing to get through the filter of an established set of beliefs..

No, you have to demonstrate that it is not possible for someone to lack belief in deities without having a considered basis for doing so.

Actually, it's worse than this. He has to demonstrate that all refusal to treat the unsupported assertions of his pet mythology as fact, is based upon treating other unsupported assertions as fact. Which he'll fail at.

Sendraks wrote:Given this is patently not true, after all, many people have little or no interest in many things and do not have a considered basis for that beyond "lack of interest" or "having not given it previous thought." Gods are not a "special" form of subject matter that every person must have given consideration to before forming a view of it.

But even those who have deliberated long and hard over the issue, aren't indulging in "belief", if they don't treat unsupported assertions of any sort as fact. But James will keep posting this duplicitous trope regardless of this inconvenient fact.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

For a master at logic and philosophy you do seem to struggle with elementary concepts such as the difference between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism.

Given your failing to understand that your atheism is a consequence of having preferable beliefs

Well that prediction came true in record time, didn't it?

James, your assertion is duplicitous bullshit. Once again, NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact, is the very antithesis of "belief". Now fucking learn this once and for all, and drop the "atheist belief" bullshit and lies, because it IS bullshit and lies.

jamest wrote:and given your failing to understand that agnostics would not share those beliefs

How many times do you need to be fucking told, James, that NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT FUCKING "BELIEF", BUT THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF?

Learn this fucking lesson once and for all,and drop the bullshit and lies.

jamest wrote:I think that at this juncture I can get the salt out and take a little pinch of it.

Bollocks.

This, everyone, is why I loathe supernaturalism. It encourages exactly the sort of apologetic duplicity displayed above.

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote: All I have to do is prove that you cannot reject arguments for God with an empty-head, such that any rejection is a consequence of those arguments failing to get through the filter of an established set of beliefs..

No, you have to demonstrate that it is not possible for someone to lack belief in deities without having a considered basis for doing so.

Given this is patently not true, after all, many people have little or no interest in many things and do not have a considered basis for that beyond "lack of interest" or "having not given it previous thought." Gods are not a "special" form of subject matter that every person must have given consideration to before forming a view of it.

I've discussed this already (head lice, etc.), where I explained why it is absurd to classify things incapable of conceptual thought as atheists, and where I explained why someone who doesn't understand what theism is (because he/she is utterly disinterested) cannot state that they are atheists (how would you know, if you didn't know what theism amounted to? And if you did, then how can you say you do not share those beliefs without rejecting them in favour of your own?).

Once again James ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT FUCKING "BELIEF", BUT THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm still waiting for the big gotcha. Is there a point to all this jamest?

That atheism is a belief-based system, so my earlier reference to atheism and theism being two extremes (polar opposites) of belief/thought, would be justified. Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

How was the conclusion of agnosticism arrived at? Surely you have to have some sort of reason to decide on being agnostic, it's not like agnostics don't offer arguments and evidence in support of their agnosticism?

Agnostics must be willing to be skeptical of all established belief-based mindsets, including atheism

Once again James ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT FUCKING "BELIEF", BUT THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.

Now drop this bullshit and lies you're posting once and for fucking all.

Plus, I've already told you how an agnostic is defined rigorously ... going to pay attention when someone exerts the effort to educate you?

jamest wrote:and its views about empirical evidence, etc..

Once again, James, the utility value of empirical evidence isn't a fucking "belief", it's afucking observed fact. That you type this bullshit on a working computer, made possible by said empirical evidence, really demonstrates the seething dishonesty of supernaturalism.

jamest wrote:In such a state, one has the capacity to judge all arguments without bias

Excuse me, but this is EXACTLY what NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT is. Learn this lesson.

jamest wrote:such that only reason remains to 'process' said arguments.

Bollocks. Your specious attempt to give a free pass to made up shit is precisely that - specious.

jamest wrote:Anyone who calls themselves an agnostic yet still adheres to unquestioned assumptions

Oh wait, what is the foundation of atheism? Once again ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT.

jamest wrote:has abused the concept. I have been a true agnostic, because I've been skeptical of both religious and atheistic (read materialistic) bias/assumption.

This is such manifest horseshit, it's beneath deserving of a point of view.

jamest wrote:I don't desire to live in a theistic state unless that comes as a consequence of FIRST living amongst true agnostics.

Yawn.

jamest wrote:We're talking specifically about theism/metaphysics, so if you are an agnostic in this area then you MUST question a belief which has such significant repercussions for metaphysical enquiry!!

Oh wait, this isn't just the purview of agnostics, James, despite your rampantly and seethingly dishonest apologetics erected to try and suggest otherwise. Once again, the basis of atheism is ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT.

Fucking learn this, James, and drop the apologetic lies and bullshit.

jamest wrote:Anyone who would argue contrary to this obviousness, is fucking deluding themselves.

Pot, kettle, black much?

Once again, James ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT FUCKING "BELIEF", BUT THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.

jamest wrote:Certainly, they are not - nor have they ever been - an agnostic.

Except that one doesn't need to be an agnostic to be sceptical. One simply has to adhere to the principle of ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT.

jamest wrote:

tolman wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm still waiting for the big gotcha. Is there a point to all this jamest?

That atheism is a belief-based system, so my earlier reference to atheism and theism being two extremes (polar opposites) of belief/thought, would be justified. Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

But atheism isn't a system.
There is nothing that an atheist has to do or think other than not having belief in the existence of gods.

Yes, but as a critical thinker you cannot not believe in Gods unless arguments for them have not persuaded you to do so.

Wrong, James. All that we need to do, is recognise that supernaturalist assertions are unsupported, and as a corollary, not treat those assertions as fact.

jamest wrote:And they can only fail to persuade you because of how you go about rejecting them: by gauging them in relation to pre-established opinions, expectations and emotions.

Bollocks. It isn't "emotion" that tells me that several supernaturalist assertions are either unsupported or plain, flat, wrong, James, it's evidence. Drop once and for all this duplicitous apologetic lie you're trying to spin here, that NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT somehow equals "belief", just because you need this to be the case to prop up your own beliefs.

jamest wrote:The term 'system' was used in this loosest of contexts, but it's basically a reference for how all atheists achieve their state of atheism.

Except that your assertions here, James, are not merely false, they're manifest lies.

jamest wrote:For reasons given I don't buy into using the term atheist for creatures unable to formulate conceptual thought, nor for those who are but are indifferent to assessing the arguments. Whenever I use the term, it's wrt people who have taken the time to assess evidence for theistic arguments.

Oh, so now you want to redefine "assessment of evidence" as "belief" as well now? A classic example of supernaturalist apologetic duplicity.

jamest wrote:

Despite various theists or supposed theists trying to say it's a 'system', I have yet to see any of them explain what other things are a necessary consequence of atheism which are not simply a restating of 'lack of belief in gods', or the result of not being a theist in a society with meaningful theist influence.

Atheism has influenced science

Citation? Only I don't recall even seeing the word "atheist" in any of the three and a half thousand scientific papers in my collection.

All that's happened, James, is that the success of scientists, in finding testable natural processes to account for ever larger classes of entities and phenomena, has rendered "Magic Man" superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

jamest wrote:and vice versa, not to mention the majority of contemporary philosophers (which does culminate with an impact upon society). This was inevitable given mutual demands that evidence be wholly empirical in nature

I don't recall hearing mathematicians calling for this. But don't let inconvenient facts such as this get in the way of your apologetics.

jamest wrote:so there's much more to atheism than a bunch of people saying that they have no belief in Gods.

Yawn. Once again, James ...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT FUCKING "BELIEF", BUT THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.

jamest wrote:

For example most theist belief systems include, as well as the belief that one or more gods exist, associated beliefs about what gods can do, what they have done, what they like and dislike, what they want people to do and not to do in terms of everyday life and ritual behaviours, and to what extent they communicate with people in general or with representatives of people in particular.
Those opinions would seem to actively exist even in a theistic monoculture.

There are no parallels for such god-dependent 'beliefs' in the case of atheism.

There are repercussions for the emergence of atheism as a prominent mindset, not least the demise of religion and the consequence this has upon the attitudes and behaviour of everyday people.

Consequences aren't beliefs, James.

jamest wrote:Atheism has had a massive impact upon our culture and attitudes towards life.

Oh really? Please explain how this squares with such things as an established church here in the UK, privileged positions in the House of Lords for clerics, etc?

What has actually happened here in the UK, James, is that people have stopped treating supernaturalist assertions uncritically as fact. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of room for improvement here, but this is basaically what's happened. And a large measure of this actually has nothing to do with "rejection" of supernaturalist assertions, but has rubbed off thereunto as a result of becoming suspicious of unsupported assertions from politicians. People have simply decided that The Cake Is A LieTM with respect to political assertions, and have slowly but surely applied the same principle to supernaturalist assertions.

jamest wrote:And I'm not saying that it's all been bad. I'm not an advocate for burning witches, for instance.

We're supposed to be relieved at this?

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:I'm sure that someone knows what you mean. Perhaps they'll PM me...

You didn't answer the question, he said. It made perfect sense. Try again jamest!

Thanks. I appreciate you saving me the trouble of needing to repeat my answer to James in words of one syllable.

It's slightly sad to see him use this primary school technique of "I know you are, but what am I" style parroting back of criticism he receives as though it's just as valid of others as it is of him.

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:
Logic can distinguish between truth and falsity. As such, logic serves as its own evidence.

You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

Descartes? So, you exist and that's it. Tell me how you get beyond that without assuming something more.

My philosophy is still evolving/developing but basically I start-out by showing that thoughts/experiences yield the definite reality of yourself, though your identity/nature at this juncture is unknown. You can also discuss things relating to the experienced world not being a world itself and then discuss the limitations of empirical/scientific evidence, as I've done here to some extent. I've been able to say a lot more about the experienced world to the extent that I think I can prove the world cannot exist itself (beyond experience) due to the order inherent within our perceptions being Eisteinian as opposed to Newtonian. I also think that QM bears this out. Another argument which I think refutes the world itself has to do with why brains could not yield knowledge of the world from signals from the sensory organs. In fact, I've got numerous arguments for lots of things - you might remember our discussion about codes, for instance (yeah, I know, you didn't agree with me).

On the flip-side, I can also refute what I call naive solipsism by acknowledging that there must be more to you or than you (than the conscious observer) because you're not responsible for what you're aware of. To make this distinction clear I often refer to this you as 'X'. I've think I've got some good arguments as per why X must orchestrate/create its own conscious content to the extent that no external [to it] reality is required. In fact, again, I've produced quite a few arguments which draw-out the nature of X to the extent that I can call it 'God'. Incidentally, I produced a thread in which I present an objective/philosophical definition of God, which lends merit/meaning to those conclusions.

Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
You need premises to do logic. How do you establish the truth of your premises?

Me personally? I use similar premises to Descartes. In fact, I don't think that any other premises exist as a sound basis to metaphysical enquiry.

I don't know if you/anyone want to discuss the above, but it's probably not fair/right to discuss it in this forum/thread.

Descartes? So, you exist and that's it. Tell me how you get beyond that without assuming something more.

My philosophy is still evolving/developing but basically I start-out by showing that thoughts/experiences yield the definite reality of yourself, though your identity/nature at this juncture is unknown. You can also discuss things relating to the experienced world not being a world itself and then discuss the limitations of empirical/scientific evidence, as I've done here to some extent. I've been able to say a lot more about the experienced world to the extent that I think I can prove the world cannot exist itself (beyond experience) due to the order inherent within our perceptions being Eisteinian as opposed to Newtonian. I also think that QM bears this out. Another argument which I think refutes the world itself has to do with why brains could not yield knowledge of the world from signals from the sensory organs. In fact, I've got numerous arguments for lots of things - you might remember our discussion about codes, for instance (yeah, I know, you didn't agree with me).

On the flip-side, I can also refute what I call naive solipsism by acknowledging that there must be more to you or than you (than the conscious observer) because you're not responsible for what you're aware of. To make this distinction clear I often refer to this you as 'X'. I've think I've got some good arguments as per why X must orchestrate/create its own conscious content to the extent that no external [to it] reality is required. In fact, again, I've produced quite a few arguments which draw-out the nature of X to the extent that I can call it 'God'. Incidentally, I produced a thread in which I present an objective/philosophical definition of God, which lends merit/meaning to those conclusions.

Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

That's another question you didn't answer. It's remarkable how many words you spend not answering my question.

jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

More thank you think you have, but still this realisation is perhaps a sign of a greater degree of self-awareness than I might have perceived.

Rumraket wrote:Jamest, how do you establish the truth of the premises you use to do logic? I'm not asking what those premises are, though if you wish to explain how you establish their truth with an example, you may of course use one of your premises.

So, how jamest?

The premises are self-evident, requiring no proof. That an occurrence we call experience/thought/emotion is happening to 'me' (nature/identity unknown) cannot be disputed by me. If you are like me, then the argument is applicable to you also.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

More thank you think you have, but still this realisation is perhaps a sign of a greater degree of self-awareness than I might have perceived.

Yes Thommo, whatever.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

More thank you think you have, but still this realisation is perhaps a sign of a greater degree of self-awareness than I might have perceived.

Yes Thommo, whatever.

Nono, that's a compliment. I'm trying to encourage this positive trend in your posting, please keep it up!

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm still waiting for the big gotcha. Is there a point to all this jamest?

That atheism is a belief-based system, so my earlier reference to atheism and theism being two extremes (polar opposites) of belief/thought, would be justified. Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

Bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact is the very antithesis of "belief". Fucking learn this once and for all will you?

That's exactly what I'm trying to teach you!! How have you got the gall to say that to me after parroting assumptions about evidence for metaphysical claims having to be empirical in nature?

Try your best to rationalise that for me, and then get back to me later.

jamest wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm still waiting for the big gotcha. Is there a point to all this jamest?

That atheism is a belief-based system, so my earlier reference to atheism and theism being two extremes (polar opposites) of belief/thought, would be justified. Not least my preference to live in an agnostic state.

Bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact is the very antithesis of "belief". Fucking learn this once and for all will you?

That's exactly what I'm trying to teach you!!

That you think you can teach me anything is unwarranted hubris on your part, as your posts repeatedly demonstrate.

jamest wrote:How have you got the gall to say that to me after parroting assumptions about evidence for metaphysical claims having to be empirical in nature?

Bullshit. Which in turn shows that you didn't bother reading my posts properly. Because what I actually said, if you had bothered to read the relevant posts, and address the question you've been avoiding the way Kent Hovind avoided taxes, is that any complete metaphysical model (note the emphasis on complete here) must necessarily take into account the origins and mechanisms of appearance of observational data. If it fails to do so, then the model is incomplete, and is in no position to dictate to us about "actual reality", particularly if said model purports to try and tell us why observational data doesn't tell us anything important about the "actual reality" of the model. As a corollary, any complete metaphysical model must give an account for the origins and mechanisms of appearance of observational data. The moment it does this, then by definition, that model places constraints upon said observational data, constraints that amount to predictions about the classes of observational data we should or should not see. The moment said model does this, it becomes empirically testable by definition. As a corollary thereof, your assertion that empirical evidence is worthless with respect to testing metaphysical claims is falsified, because those metaphysical claims in the above scenario, now have observational consequences.

You've been avoiding this ever since I first alighted upon it and brought it to discoursive attention here, because the above scenario is manifestly inconvenient for your apologetics, and moreover, provides an example of the very reasoned argument you keep asserting is a part of metaphysical enquiry, but fail to back with an example such as the above.

jamest wrote:Try your best to rationalise that for me

I don't deal in made up shit, James, I leave that to supernaturalists and "metaphysics" fanboys.

Care to address the above problem with something other than snide condescension or evasion?

jamest wrote:and then get back to me later.

The hubris in your above comment, when contrasted with your failure to provide substance, is duly noted.

Unfortunately for that hubris, you cannot escape this particular trap. Because, if a metaphysical model doesn't address the issue of the origins and mechanisms of appearance of observational data, it is not only incomplete, but cannot be used as a means of purportedly "invalidating" empirical data as a source of substantive information. The only way a metaphysical model can rule out empirical data as a substantive source of information with respect to its own postulates about "actual reality", is if that model addresses those issues, and provides substantive reasons for said invalidation. Which it can only do if it addresses the issue of the origins and mechanisms of appearance of said empirical data, in order to have a foundation upon which to build a case excluding said data as a substantive source of information about its own postulates. The moment it enters this arena, then by definition, the model will make predictions about the permitted classes of observational data, and at that moment, the model becomes empirically testable. Indeed, the model becomes falsifiable, because it now takes the risk of predicting the complete absence of a class of observational data, only for that class subsequently to be observed.

Come back when you have something other than the usual petulant ripostes in answer to the above.