Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Are most Atheists empiricists?

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This may deserve to be in the pihlosophy channel but I get the feeling there are 1) more atheists in the religion channel and 2) there is more traffic flow here.

When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving. It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins. It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move. To a rationalist this makes sense. But to an (or many) empiricist this does not. The empiricist will claim that one or both premises are false (usually the second) because we have no empirical evidence for its notion and thus opts to a form of sceptisism.

So, to address the subject, is it fair to say that most atheists are empiricists? Can such an observation be said accuratly? Just curious :)
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 5:43:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You just gave me a nosebleed. Thanks.

Good topic though. I will need to pay attention here. (Sit's back, crosses arms and waits for it......)
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 5:45:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 5:43:15 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
You just gave me a nosebleed. Thanks.

Good topic though. I will need to pay attention here. (Sit's back, crosses arms and waits for it......)

Sorry ><
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:47:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rationalism and empiricism have been philosophically dead for a while.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:47:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rationalism and empiricism have been philosophically dead for a while.

I am fairly new to philosophy in general. Why would you say that? Would you say they have been trumped by existentialism? I really don't know what existentialism is entirely just yet.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 7:03:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:50:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:47:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rationalism and empiricism have been philosophically dead for a while.

I am fairly new to philosophy in general. Why would you say that? Would you say they have been trumped by existentialism? I really don't know what existentialism is entirely just yet.

empiricism implodes on itself. It cannot prove its own assumption empirically.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 7:09:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 7:02:04 PM, Mystical wrote:
Lol, no. Only silly atheists for empirical evidence for a god/gods existence.

Asking for, or even requiring empirical evidence in order to believe a claim (or a certain class of claims), isn't the same as being an empiricist.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 11:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving.

That's nuts. If there was a first thing, it couldn't have had a cause. There wouldn't have been something before it to cause it.

It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins.

How is the eternal thing not itself an infinite regression? That's what eternal means.

It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move.

Can you rephrase that? It does not appear to make sense.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 12:16:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 11:55:54 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving.

That's nuts. If there was a first thing, it couldn't have had a cause. There wouldn't have been something before it to cause it.


Especially if it a saturated infinity that still exists outside the universal subject/object sphere of relativity.

It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins.

How is the eternal thing not itself an infinite regression? That's what eternal means.

Because it is a "forward" moving over-unity saturate.

It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move.

Can you rephrase that? It does not appear to make sense.

What if it also is Self procreating and has been at this since forever?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 6:12:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
This may deserve to be in the pihlosophy channel but I get the feeling there are 1) more atheists in the religion channel and 2) there is more traffic flow here.

When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving. It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins. It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move. To a rationalist this makes sense. But to an (or many) empiricist this does not. The empiricist will claim that one or both premises are false (usually the second) because we have no empirical evidence for its notion and thus opts to a form of sceptisism.

So, to address the subject, is it fair to say that most atheists are empiricists? Can such an observation be said accuratly? Just curious :)

I'm not sure what one (unmoved mover argument) has to do with the other (atheists being empiricists) but to address the question, I would say it is fair to say that most atheists depend on empirical observations, whether or not they are strict adherents to the Empiricist philosophy.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 6:51:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 12:16:10 AM, Archistrategos wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:55:54 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving.

That's nuts. If there was a first thing, it couldn't have had a cause. There wouldn't have been something before it to cause it.


Especially if it a saturated infinity that still exists outside the universal subject/object sphere of relativity.

It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins.

How is the eternal thing not itself an infinite regression? That's what eternal means.

Because it is a "forward" moving over-unity saturate.

It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move.

Can you rephrase that? It does not appear to make sense.

What if it also is Self procreating and has been at this since forever?

I am convinced Archistrategos is a duplicate account for The_Fool. Unless......oh no....he's procreated!
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:47:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 11:55:54 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/3/2012 5:39:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
When presented with the topic of the unmoved mover most rationalists will say that the first thing the begins must have had a cause and that the cause is 1) eternal and 2) self determining and moving.

That's nuts. If there was a first thing, it couldn't have had a cause. There wouldn't have been something before it to cause it.


It must be eternal because the alternative is an infinite regression and thus never actually begins.

How is the eternal thing not itself an infinite regression? That's what eternal means.

Exactly. If God is eternal, we would have the problem of an infinite regression of thoughts within God's mind. If an infinite regress of thoughts isn't a problem, why is an infinite regress of moments a problem? It's called special pleading, something the theists do very well.



It must be self determining and moving because there is nothing outside of the first cause to be moved upon to move.

Can you rephrase that? It does not appear to make sense.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most Atheists are just normal people who were raised that way and aren't really into philosophy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord