The stumbling block for atheists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you cannot be an atheist without being a materialist

Why?
Again, atheism is JUST a disbelief in the claims of THEISM.

Theism doesn't have a monopoly on positing immaterial stuff, you know....

Similarly, if you are an atheist of the type that doesn't claim to be partially agnostic,

We've been over this before.
(A)gnosticism is a qualifier of (a)theism and not at all a "different" position.

As I said during that explanation, I don't know a single atheist who identifies as a "gnostic atheist". Every atheist I know is an "agnostic atheist".

then you MUST accept only the material and reject the supernatural which means that you reject God. I still don't see the difference.

Following that logic, I guess that means that not a single atheist that I know MUST accept such things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.

What limits?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Already done dozens of times.

Link to one of those?

 

[Skreeper]

AGAIN! I am not proposing the supernatural! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing for it to sink in?

What on earth are you proposing then? The same rules apply to ID where the designer has to be demonstrated to exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves.

I'm gonna make a guess here and state that that is not an accurate description of Skreeper's actual views.

Having said that Skreeper has 33 posts here. I read most of them, if not all. Not a single one of those posts were replies to you explaining how the supernatural can be demonstrated.

So it seems you are being dishonest again by accusing him of things that he never did.

Your modus operandi doesn't allow it because you illogically equate it with the supernatural. That is your primary stumbling block right there in a nutshell.

You keep saying this, but never make it hard.

Why don't you, for once, answer the question and explain how all this stuff can be rationally tested?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

AGAIN! I am not proposing the supernatural! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing for it to sink in?

Huh???

Then why did you object to his post which said that science currently isn't capable of testing the existance of the supernatural?

 

[Radrook]

What limits?

That matter MUST mindlessly be invariably viewed as totally responsible for designing itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains in order to be acceptable and that any other explanation MUST be bogus by default. This modus operandi results in a hermetically closed mind totally impervious to any evidence to the contrary. That's the limit.

 

[Freodin]

The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

Let's say that, contrary to what TagliatelliMonster said, this was correct: a priori excluding "the supernatural" could make you misinterpret the evidence.

But than the same would be correct for the opposite: a priori assuming "the supernatural" could make you misinterpret the evidence.

So, shouldn't the first step in this dilemma be to find out if there is a "supernatural" at all, and next, find out how it could be responsible for "the evidence"?

We can do that quite well for "the natural". But contrary to (repeated) claims, there doesn't seem to be a way to do that for "the supernatural"... beyond "it must be, it has to be, you don't want to accept it".

This is the basis for "atheism" and the doubt in the supernatural.

 

[Radrook]

I'm gonna make a guess here and state that that is not an accurate description of Skreeper's actual views.

Having said that Skreeper has 33 posts here. I read most of them, if not all. Not a single one of those posts were replies to you explaining how the supernatural can be demonstrated.

So it seems you are being dishonest again by accusing him of things that he never did.



You keep saying this, but never make it hard.

Why don't you, for once, answer the question and explain how all this stuff can be rationally tested?

I don't recall accusing this person of demonstrating the supernatural. Neither am I proposing the supernatural as the necessary conclusion. You are misrepresenting what I am saying and I consider that dishonesty.

 

[Skreeper]

That matter MUST mindlessly be invariably viewed as totally responsible for designing itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains in order to be acceptable and that any other explanation MUST be bogus by default. This modus operandi results in a hermetically closed mind totally impervious to any evidence to the contrary. That's the limit.

But that just isn't true. The problem is when you use the phrasing "matter designed itself..." you inevitably smuggle in the designer. You first have to show why it was indeed DESIGNED and that natural processes CAN NOT account for this.

 

[Freodin]

That matter MUST mindlessly be invariably viewed as totally responsible for designing itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains in order to be acceptable and that any other explanation MUST be bogus by default. This modus operandi results in a hermetically closed mind totally impervious to any evidence to the contrary. That's the limit.

That is false.
The basic assertion, using your terms, is that "mindless matter" CAN mindlessly "design" itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains.

That is the difference that you simply don't want to undertand... that you are "impervious to any evidence to the contrary" to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That matter MUST mindlessly be invariably viewed as totally responsible for designing itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains in order to be acceptable and that any other explanation MUST be bogus by default. This modus operandi results in a hermetically closed mind totally impervious to any evidence to the contrary. That's the limit.

And where did Skreeper say any of this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't recall accusing this person of demonstrating the supernatural. Neither am I proposing the supernatural as the necessary conclusion. You are misrepresenting what I am saying and I consider that dishonesty.

Then why did you object to him saying that the supernatural can't be scientifically demonstrated to exist?

 

[Radrook]

Let's say that, contrary to what TagliatelliMonster said, this was correct: a priori excluding "the supernatural" could make you misinterprete the evidence.

But than the same would be correct for the opposite: a priori assuming "the supernatural" could make you misinterprete the evidence.

So, shouldn't the first step in this dilemma be to find out if there is a "supernatural" at all, and next, find out how it could be responsible for "the evidence"?

We can do that quite well for "the natural". But contrary to (repeated) claims, there doesn't seem to be a way to do that for "the supernatural"... beyond "it must be, it has to be, you don't want to accept it".

This is the basis for "atheism" and the doubt in the supernatural.

You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed. No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.

 

[Radrook]

And where did Skreeper say any of this?

I don't know who this Screeper fellow is and do not recall accusing him of saying anything at all.

 

[Radrook]

Then why did you object to him saying that the supernatural can't be scientifically demonstrated to exist?

I am not striving to prove the supernatural. This is getting tiresome and useless! You are taking my statements out of context.

 

[Skreeper]

I don't know who this Screeper fellow is and do not recall accusing him of saying anything at all.

Now you make me feel like a ghost.

 

[Radrook]

Now you make me feel like a ghost.

Sorry Skreeper, no insult intended. I post in so many forums and so many threads that I cannot keep up with all the names and comments sometimes. If they were faces then it might be easier. But these are names and they tend to become jumbled. My apologies.

BTW
I just backtracked and reviewed my posts and I do see that I did respond to your posts.
I need to focus more on the names instead of just responding to comments. My fault. Also, perhaps it was the way that my response was described that threw me off.

 

[Larniavc]

Why are you on a Christian Forum ?

I certainly can't answer for Dave but CF provides a one stop shop for being exposed to the kind of topics that I would never normally come across in my media feed.

Including (but not limited to) climate change denial, flat Earthers, Jade Helm conspiracies, gun culture, anti vaxers, science denial, racism, misogyny, bathroom access hysteria and homophobia.

That way I don't live in a self imposed bubble.

 

[Freodin]

You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed. No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.

But that is exactly what you are doing: you are claiming that (sorry if I do not quote your exact words) "coded information must be designed"... and therefore when you see "coded information" (or what you identify as that), you call it designed.