E Day

[Walt Zingmatilder]

E Day......AKA Empiricism day, empirical day, science day, The enlightenment

An event, moment or paradigm shift assumed by atheists when the world became empiricist, when logic and reason became interchangeable with science,  when atheism became the default position because after all, everyone was now an empiricist, when infinite regression became obvious to anybody, when everything became contingent, when it became possible for something to both pop out of nowhere and be contingent.

[Stranger]

Isn't it a bit early in the day...?

[Roses]

Isn't it a bit early in the day...?

I was thinking that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was thinking that too.

The day you came on the board was CA day.

[Sebastian Toe]

Every day is SM day for Vlad!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Every day is SM day for Vlad!

And when you grace me with your presence it's an ST day, Sebastian. It's also a PLTLA day.

[jeremyp]

E Day......AKA Empiricism day, empirical day, science day, The enlightenment

An event, moment or paradigm shift assumed by atheists when the world became empiricist,

The Enlightenment was driven by people who would count themselves as Christians, mostly.

[Sebastian Toe]

And when you grace me with your presence it's an ST day, Sebastian. It's also a PLTLA day.

You forgot, GOSBIWO day?

[Nearly Sane]

You forgot, GOSBIWO day?

Isn't everyday GOSBIWO day?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

You forgot, GOSBIWO day?

“God’s” Only Sustained By Irrationality With Obduracy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anyway back to the full and unexpurgated story of how atheism became the default position.

So who is going first?

[bluehillside Retd.]

It's the default position for exactly he same reason a-leprechaunism is the default position in response to the claim "leprechauns": the arguments tried so far to justify the claims "god" and leprechauns alike are either wrong or not even wrong.

Job done. Game over. Move along now, nothing to see here etc...

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the default position for exactly he same reason a-leprechaunism is the default position in response to the claim "leprechauns": the arguments tried so far to justify the claims "god" and leprechauns alike are either wrong or not even wrong.

Job done. Game over. Move along now, nothing to see here etc...

We are not here about God claims or leprechaun. We are here to find out why atheism is the default position particularly when it has a good rival in agnosticism. It seems to me that the only way agnosticism drops out of the frame is with the claim that there is no God in reality, that it is Godfree.

So Hillside, will you now join with me in a spirit of amity and declare agnosticism as the default position?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We are not here about God claims or leprechaun. We are here to find out why atheism is the default position particularly when it has a good rival in agnosticism. It seems to me that the only way agnosticism drops out of the frame is with the claim that there is no God in reality, that it is Godfree.

So Hillside, will you now join with me in a spirit of amity and declare agnosticism as the default position?

Happy to join anyone (well, almost anyone) in a "spirit of amity" but as so often before you misdescribe the meanings of "atheism" and "agnosticism". Atheism the position you arrive at when you have no good reasons to think there to be god(s); agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the epistemic status of the claim "god/s" is unknowable.

Ignosticism by the way is the position "I have no idea what you mean by god (and nor have you) so the question is meaningless".

You knew all this though didn't you, what with it having been explained to you 47,856,429 times already.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Happy to join anyone (well, almost anyone) in a "spirit of amity" but as so often before you misdescribe the meanings of "atheism" and "agnosticism". Atheism the position you arrive at when you have no good reasons to think there to be god(s); agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the epistemic status of the claim "god/s" is unknowable.

Ignosticism by the way is the position "I have no idea what you mean by god (and nor have you) so the question is meaningless".

You knew all this though didn't you, what with it having been explained to you 47,856,429 times already.     

Having no good reason is a claim though isn’t it? Get going,! Blimey, that was easy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Having no good reason is a claim though isn’t it? Get going,! Blimey, that was easy.

Bit early for pigeon chess isn't it?

[Stranger]

Having no good reason is a claim though isn’t it? Get going,! Blimey, that was easy.

Having no good reason is a statement about personal experience, not a claim that no good reasons exist. 

If you actually did as I keep suggesting and post a thread (or several) with what you consider to be a good argument for some defined notion of a god, instead of just naming them, hinting at them, refusing to defend them, and criticising other people's ideas, maybe a good reason would emerge.

Blimey, was that a flock of pigs that just flew past my window....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Happy to join anyone (well, almost anyone) in a "spirit of amity" but as so often before you misdescribe the meanings of "atheism" and "agnosticism". Atheism the position you arrive at when you have no good reasons to think there to be god(s); agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the epistemic status of the claim "god/s" is unknowable.

Ignosticism by the way is the position "I have no idea what you mean by god (and nor have you) so the question is meaningless".

You knew all this though didn't you, what with it having been explained to you 47,856,429 times already.     

Doesnt really answer the question why atheism is the default position.
I would hazard that atheism once wasn’t the default position, that a necessary entity once was considered the reasonable ground. Of course in those times some could argue from a more pantheistic naturalism and then of course there were the deists.

At some point though empiricism has snuck, in as has a nasty tendency to think that if there is even a whiff of an alternative. Poppinoutonothin or netralinfinuhtee then theism is done.

Is it God dodging. Preferring infinuhtee n poppinoutanothin’ i.e majique and rejecting god. Judge for yourself.

[Stranger]

Doesnt really answer the question why atheism is the default position.

Well it's been explained to you so many times, if you're too dim to get it yet, you probably never will.

I would hazard that atheism once wasn’t the default position...

The default position for most people is to believe in whatever god(s) or other mythologies the culture they were born into believed in. I'd guess that everybody who's ever lived has disbelieved in pretty much all the gods humanity has dreamed up.

...that a necessary entity once was considered the reasonable ground.

Still waiting for that argument.

Is it God dodging. Preferring infinuhtee n poppinoutanothin’ i.e majique and rejecting god. Judge for yourself.

Where the hell do you get all the straw from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having no good reason is a statement about personal experience, not a claim that no good reasons exist. 

If you actually did as I keep suggesting and post a thread (or several) with what you consider to be a good argument for some defined notion of a god, instead of just naming them, hinting at them, refusing to defend them, and criticising other people's ideas, maybe a good reason would emerge.

Blimey, was that a flock of pigs that just flew past my window....?

Thank you for beginning to clear up the mess Hillside has made. That really was pigeon crap on the old board.

Theist arguments are discussed, transmitted, commented on all the time here.

A world which apparently is god free is rarely discussed let alone justified and yet that has become the default. Since it is the unfalsifiable empiricist account. I’m interested in how that in my view became the default position.

[Stranger]

Theist arguments are discussed, transmitted, commented on all the time here.

I've never seen you actually put forward a full argument for some defined version of god and say that you agree with it and attempt to defend it. It's all just hints and refusal to do anything but attempt to shift the burden of proof.

A world which apparently is god free is rarely discussed let alone justified and yet that has become the default.

Another straw man.  And you go on about it all the time - again attempting to shift the burden of proof.

[Roses]

Thank you for beginning to clear up the mess Hillside has made. That really was pigeon crap on the old board.

Theist arguments are discussed, transmitted, commented on all the time here.

A world which apparently is god free is rarely discussed let alone justified and yet that has become the default. Since it is the unfalsifiable empiricist account. I’m interested in how that in my view became the default position.

As belief in god doesn't have any actual evidence to support it, the default position is a god free world, that seems obvious to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Thank you for beginning to clear up the mess Hillside has made. That really was pigeon crap on the old board.

Theist arguments are discussed, transmitted, commented on all the time here.

A world which apparently is god free is rarely discussed let alone justified and yet that has become the default. Since it is the unfalsifiable empiricist account. I’m interested in how that in my view became the default position.

Squawk!

Feed the troll
Tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence
Tuppence a bag...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never seen you actually put forward a full argument for some defined version of god and say that you agree with it and attempt to defend it. It's all just hints and refusal to do anything but attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Another straw man.  And you go on about it all the time - again attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Well it's been explained to you so many times, if you're too dim to get it yet, you probably never will.

The default position for most people is to believe in whatever god(s) or other mythologies the culture they were born into believed in. I'd guess that everybody who's ever lived has disbelieved in pretty much all the gods humanity has dreamed up.

Still waiting for that argument.

Where the hell do you get all the straw from?

What has been expressed several times is that it just is and we’d better all get over it. What hasn’t been expressed is how the empirical view of the universe became the status quo probably displacing a theistic status quo.

I guess what I’m saying that unless anyone can explain why everyone should accept the empiricist view as the status quo then atheism may have a burden of proof.

I cheerfully accept my burden of proof alas I cannot prove it empirically.

[Roses]

Vlad,

Squawk!

Feed the troll
Tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence
Tuppence a bag...

Now, now, one has to feel very sorry for Vlad and his infirmity.