'Sin'

[wigginhall]

Vlad is just thrashing about, trying to hide his poverty-stricken defence of theism, and instead using his switcheroo, or as we might say, a giant tu quoque.  'Since I can't mount a defence of theism, I will keep on about ontological bollocks, hoping nobody notices.'

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence (even though life is more than just naturalistic) - and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life.  I, for one, quite enjoy the accusations becaue it means that yet again you can't give an answer.  It's rather like the occurrence of words like bigot/bigoted on other topic threads.

Hope. Any chance of a reply to my response to this. Msg 110?

Ta

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad is just thrashing about, trying to hide his poverty-stricken defence of theism, and instead using his switcheroo, or as we might say, a giant tu quoque.  'Since I can't mount a defence of theism, I will keep on about ontological bollocks, hoping nobody notices.'

No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of)  to theism.

What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.

Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of)  to theism.

What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.

Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.

And who is a ontological naturalist?

I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.

[wigginhall]

No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of)  to theism.

What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.

Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.

Oh, I've had plenty of slaps.   I don't see anyone actually defending ontological naturalism, although you seem to be suggesting that some people are. 

The solution would be to start a thread on it, and see what happens.    To bring it into threads on theism is a classic tu quoque, or, in the vernacular, a derail. 

[wigginhall]

And who is a ontological naturalist?

I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.

Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'.   I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And who is a ontological naturalist?

I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.

whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.

[Stranger]

No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of)  to theism.

One of your favourite straw men.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that nobody is making that argument?

[wigginhall]

One of your favourite straw men.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that nobody is making that argument?

I don't think it's stupidity.   Vlad knows quite well that his defence of theism has gaping holes in it, putting it charitably.   One solution is the venerable tu quoque, that is, instead of talking about my ideas, let's talk about yours, then hopefully my own threadbare arguments will be overlooked.   But he also has to invent the other ideas, since nobody is actually putting them forwards.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'.   I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.

Look harder then. In any case, you used to point it out to people when they made the ontological naturalistic argument.....at least someone with the same screenname did.

[Stranger]

whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.

So, in Vlad speak, "ontological naturalism" translates to: "the belief that it is reasonable to require some sort of reasoning or evidence before accepting the probable truth of a proposition".

It would help if you used English.

[wigginhall]

Look harder then. In any case, you used to point it out to people when they made the ontological naturalistic argument.....at least someone with the same screenname did.

I don't recollect anyone making the argument for that.   Atheism does not equate with it, for sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, in Vlad speak, "ontological naturalism" translates to: "the belief that it is reasonable to require some sort of reasoning or evidence before accepting the probable truth of a proposition".

It would help if you used English.

You can gussy ontological materialism into whatever you like just don't involve me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'.   I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.

I don't see anybody doing the former .....certainly not in discussions of God.

In any case making observations of nature is science. who is doing science?

[Shaker]

Professor Davey does it for a living, I believe. A few others have scientific qualifications.

[Stranger]

You can gussy ontological materialism into whatever you like just don't involve me.

I don't give a toss about it - it's you who won't leave the subject alone.

Anyway, it was ontological naturalism a few minutes ago, at least make your straw men consistent!

[wigginhall]

Actually, there are a number of well-known atheists, who are dualists.   Most well known probably, is David Chalmers who has formulated the issue of the 'hard problem' of consciousness in articles and some well-known films (available on YouTube).    Also relevant here is Nagel, whose book 'Mind and Cosmos' got wiped all over the kitchen floor by various critics.  But anyway Nagel seems to be a dualist, and is famous for his paper, 'What is it like to be a bat?'.

I think also Bertrand Russell at one point was not a materialist or physicalist.   So atheism does not equate with materialism.   Many Buddhists are atheists, but would not be described as materialist or naturalists or whatever, since they tend to deny that matter or nature actually exist!   Plonkers, eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Professor Davey does it for a living, I believe. A few others have scientific qualifications.

But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.

Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.

[Stranger]

In any case making observations of nature is science. who is doing science?

 

We all make observations of nature all the time - it's how we avoid tripping over stuff, falling down stairs and the like...

[wigginhall]

But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.

Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.

You can always tell when Vlad is losing an argument badly, he uses one of his stock phrases, pissing on your bonfire and so on, as a kind of comfort to himself, fiddling while Rome is burning, I suppose. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, there are a number of well-known atheists, who are dualists.   Most well known probably, is David Chalmers who has formulated the issue of the 'hard problem' of consciousness in articles and some well-known films (available on YouTube).    Also relevant here is Nagel, whose book 'Mind and Cosmos' got wiped all over the kitchen floor by various critics.  But anyway Nagel seems to be a dualist, and is famous for his paper, 'What is it like to be a bat?'.

I think also Bertrand Russell at one point was not a materialist or physicalist.   So atheism does not equate with materialism.   Many Buddhists are atheists, but would not be described as materialist or naturalists or whatever, since they tend to deny that matter or nature actually exist!   Plonkers, eh?

Now that is something we should open a thread on.
How many atheists on here have admitted though that everything is just material though?......well those who argue that consciousness is a property of matter. For starters and that's evidence of ontological materialism.

[Stranger]

But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.

Why don't you define exactly what you mean by "ontological naturalism" and then justify that statement...?

Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.

Day dreams.

[Shaker]

But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.

No it doesn't.

[wigginhall]

Now that is something we should open a thread on.
How many atheists on here have admitted though that everything is just material though?......well those who argue that consciousness is a property of matter. For starters and that's evidence of ontological materialism.

No, that's not correct.   You can argue that consciousness is a property of matter, and still not claim that 'there is only nature', or 'there is only matter'.   

That is just too strong for many people.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can always tell when Vlad is losing an argument badly, he uses one of his stock phrases, pissing on your bonfire and so on, as a kind of comfort to himself, fiddling while Rome is burning, I suppose.

You can tell when Wigginhall is losing an argument badly, he starts playing the man instead of the ball........(several winking smileys)