"Gen Z far less likely to be atheists than parents and grandparents"

[Steve H]

Then one wonders why many of these "validation seekers" are prepared to selectively abandon the principle of sufficient reason And fail to see that methodological empiricism itself finds no empirical evidence for thinking that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality (philosophical empiricism). In other words ,selective validation and scientism.

I'm all for methodological empiricism, as much as you but that isn't warrant to claim it is the only way to truth or reality.

Pretentious gobbledegook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to note that your misuse of the principle of sufficient reason contradicts your bit on empiricism since you are making it absolute when that cannot be demonstrated. Your thinking is a soggy mess of bombast and idiocy

I think I've said twice before that it is not so much THAT people suspend the principle of sufficient reason but that they choose when to do it.

By "demonstration" I take it you mean demonstrated under methodological naturistic or empiricist contexts.

I mean in philosophy and metaphysics where circular argument is not "virtuous". Nor is empiricism or naturalism which doesn't meet it's own criteria of what it considers to be truth.

[Nearly Sane]

I think I've said twice before that it is not so much THAT people suspend the principle of sufficient reason but that they choose when to do it.

By "demonstration" I take it you mean demonstrated under methodological naturistic or empiricist contexts.

I mean in philosophy and metaphysics where circular argument is not "virtuous". Nor is empiricism or naturalism which doesn't meet it's own criteria of what it considers to be truth.

Your claiming it as an absolute thar is suspended illustrates your lack of understanding. You are also misrepresenting what people have said to you. It's stupidly tedious and once again makes it look as if you are a number trying to make religious people look like lying idiots.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your claiming it as an absolute thar is suspended illustrates your lack of understanding. You are also misrepresenting what people have said to you. It's stupidly tedious and once again makes it look as if you are a number trying to make religious people look like lying idiots.

So, you don't like absolutes. You seemed to be ignoring the it's not that, but when part. In other words, some people are using a principle when it suits them to.

[Nearly Sane]

So, you don't like absolutes. You seemed to be ignoring the it's not that, but when part. In other words, some people are using a principle when it suits them to.

why are you lying about what people have said? Is it something you cannot stop? Or are you just wanting to make  religious people look bad,?

[Outrider]

Then one wonders why many of these "validation seekers" are prepared to selectively abandon the principle of sufficient reason

Oh, good grief. Not wanting to jump on your particular hobby-horse backwards, as you prefer to do, does not meant they're 'abandoning' anything, let alone the 'principle' of sufficient reason.

And fail to see that methodological empiricism itself finds no empirical evidence for thinking that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality (philosophical empiricism). In other words ,selective validation and scientism.

Nobody thinks empiricism has any objective proof, that's why we talk about 'validation'. No-one is suggesting that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality, there are offerings from mathematics and logic as well - not accepting divine revelation or deeply-felt sentiment without some equivalent level of proof or validation is the absolute opposite of arbitrarily dismissing anything, it's about having consistent standards. You want something to over-rule empirical findings, all you need is a reliable methodology... still.

I'm all for methodological empiricism, as much as you but that isn't warrant to claim it is the only way to truth or reality.

And if anyone says it is, you can stand right behind me and talk about someone rushing on stage to be funny, or something. But until anyone does actually suggest that, how about sticking to the point?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, good grief. Not wanting to jump on your particular hobby-horse backwards, as you prefer to do, does not meant they're 'abandoning' anything, let alone the 'principle' of sufficient reason.

Nobody thinks empiricism has any objective proof, that's why we talk about 'validation'. No-one is suggesting that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality, there are offerings from mathematics and logic as well - not accepting divine revelation or deeply-felt sentiment without some equivalent level of proof or validation is the absolute opposite of arbitrarily dismissing anything, it's about having consistent standards. You want something to over-rule empirical findings, all you need is a reliable methodology... still.

And if anyone says it is, you can stand right behind me and talk about someone rushing on stage to be funny, or something. But until anyone does actually suggest that, how about sticking to the point?

O.

Then if there is no empirical proof of naturalism, what is the logic for it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why are you lying about what people have said? Is it something you cannot stop? Or are you just wanting to make  religious people look bad,?

I'm talking mainly of course about Bertrand Russell who famously said that the universe just is and there's an end to it and those here who have expressed sympathy with that, no names, no pack drill.

Do you have any evidence of me making religious people worse to people who didn't think they were bad enough already?
It seems to me that there is a type of theist who many atheists prefer, and that type is quite often not percievably different from a quiet agnostic IMHO.

[Outrider]

Then if there is no empirical proof of naturalism, what is the logic for it?

Pragmatism. It works, so far. If it stops, we'll likely rethink. If you, or someone else, comes up with something equally effective, we'll add that to the list.

O.