Re: What is SCIENCE?

On 3 Dec 2003 14:45:00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Still) wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee wrote...
>> 
>> >Such evidence would be part of a larger explanation of reality that
>> >includes atheism.  Scientific Naturalism is the common view. 
>> 
>> Nope. The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is  
>> at most a conclusion, and incidential. It is not the a priori
>> philosophical commitment you pretend.
>
>What do you mean?

You have invented an -ism where there isn't one, to turn simple
accptance of realty into something it isn't, as though it were a
philosophical commitment.

Which you would realise if you were actually the ex-atheist you
pretend to be.

>> The ex-atheist you lie about being, would know that this is simply
>> reality.
>
>Scientific Naturalism is not simply reality.  It seems to be obvious
>to you.  But it is not simply reality to everyone.  Reality to me is
>there is ultimate morality, there is obvious design in the universe,
>mere chance is not an adequate explanation...  I have seen no support
>from you to accept Scientific Naturalism.

It's your straw man. Which you would realise if you were actually the
ex-atheist you pretend to be.

What "ultimate morality"? The ex-atheist you lie about being would
know that there is no such thing because morality is OBSERVED to vary
between religions, cultures, countries, regions within country, social
and economic strata etc.

And  the ex-atheist you lie about being would know that there is no
"obvious design" in the universe, because he would know that you would
have to know how a designer designs which presupposes this designer. 

Also that you need something not-designed for comparison in order to
determine the difference.

But that if everything (the universe) was designed there is nothing
not-designed that can used to campare and determine whether something
actually was designed.

The ex-atheist you lie about being would also not have use the
"chance" false dichotomy and strawman either.
 
>> The ex-atheist you lie about having been would also realise that it's
>> the theist's premise and as such the theist has the burden of proof so
>> there's still nothing to rebut.
>
>I've mentioned this before that the true issue here is not theism vs
>atheism.  It is Christianity vs Islam vs Judaism vs Secular Humanism
>vs Nihilism vs Scientific Naturalism vs Hinduism vs Buddhism vs... 
>But let's just limit it to Christianity vs Scientific Naturalism. 
>Neither is the default position.  Why would one be?  They are all
>explanations of reality.

The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is not the
case. The issue is not even theism vs atheism, but theism per se.

And also that your "secular humanism, nnihilism and scientific
naturalism" are all straw men.

>> The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is a fact, not
>> a claim.
>
>Sorry, you're wrong.  You're claiming that no evidence has ever been
>presented.  What do you base that claim on?

The ex-atheist you lie about being would never have made such a stupid
remark and would realise that this is because no evidence has ever
been presented. He would realise that this is not a claim but a fact,
and that the falsifiable conclusion is that there isn't any. 

The ex-atheist you lie about being would not introduce such
transparent cop-outs and red herrings instead of falsifying this
conclusion.

>> The ex-atheist you lie about being would also know that remarks like
>> yours are simply dodge-ball, attempting to cop out of their not
>> parovinding this alleged evidence.
>
>You know, it's ironic that you say that because I honestly think you
>are doing just that.  I'm being totally serious.  I think you are
>avoiding the issues I am raising.

The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is a
slanderous falsehood.

Because the ex-atheist you lie about being would realise that your
"issues" are straw men. And that the only place where there could even
be such issues is inside your religion where they daren't have them.
 
>Dan