Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Ontological naturalism
We naturalists demand evidence for the supernatural. We find that natural causes and explanations suffice as I previously discussed here.
Theists cannot claim that people have a sensus diivinatus- a sense of the divine as a basic matter.For something to be basic it must be natural .
Ontological naturalism, philosophy, perforce rests on methodoglical naturalism. Supernaturalists use the latter when doing real science.
We naturalists find that they rely instead on intuion not evidenced-based, revelations and faith and inisinterpretations of evidence.
Nature, not supernature, provides for what can lead to that more abundant life!
The supernatural and the paranormal, twin superstitions are what the late,grat Paul Kurz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Ontological naturalism proffers reality instead of fantasy. Science is acquired knowledge, whilst as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Faith contradicts our conservation -background- of knowledge.
Previous essays here further this one.
What do you maintain?
Skepticism
We skeptics apply methodological naturalism to matters; we full skeptics find that it presents no evidence for the supernatural and thus, God doesn't exist, making the empirical argument.
Supernaturalists can prattle all they want, but never have they produced evidence for other venues of knowledge. Haughty John Haught ,therefore, begs the question thereof. Intuition, revelation, traditions hardly quality as valid methods; intuition has to come from knowledge to be right or else, it will be disconfirmed, revelations are only people's own imaginations at work and traditions can err .
How then could Haught be against any paranormal matter as the paranormal rests on the same false methods?
We can do better without the superstitions of the supernatural and the paranormal! We full skeptics find that morality stems from our evolved moral sense that we do refine, and we base it ontologically in our nature. Theistic moralities are just simple, mainly egregious rants of mere men. Some even approach our humanistic one when theists use reason and facts instead of whims and preferences.
Supernaturalists must deliver evidence, not definition,intuition faith, postulation andpresuppositional theology.We have no sensus divinatus, despite the evil John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga, sophist- no sense of the divine.
Misinterpretation of evidence that the supernaturalists deliver ranks as nothing; they must deliver real evidence. They misinterpret mechanism and patterns with the pareidolias^ of teleology and design. They misinterpret the parameters as evidence for fine-tuning and they misinterpret the Big Bang as creation instead of transformation of eternal energy.
They misinterpret incompleteness of science with their Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps and add the supernatural as the overarching, ultimate explanation with the Lamberth the God of the explanatory gap.
Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian, finds :"Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation." Yes, the occult contradicts real explanations.
We have no need of that superfluity!^
What do you think?
^ Lamberth's the argument from pareidolia
^the Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument
Monday, January 21, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Apocalyptc woo!
What rational person would ever accept apocalyptic events, as they always fail to occur? Why would she accept the ranting of an apocalyptic in person or from a writing who provides no evidence but a revelation, the product of his own mind? As with all other religious experience, apocalypticism has no foundation, just a rant.
Then many people just haven't known about the failures or just think that for once one will occur. James' will to believe presents itself thereby. People can will themselves to believe.
"Faith doth that to people."
We skeptics urge others to please not demean themselves into making rash decisions in following any apocalyptic.
Yeshua said that no one knew when he'd return, yet predicted he would in his hearers lifetimes. That is a contradiction and a failed prophecy. Apologists rationalize about both.
We full skeptics urge others not to accept the uncorroborated works of uncorroborated writers of scriptures anyway.
We see that Yeshua had no corroboration as a trusted preacher when we see his apocalyptic ethic and his love of Hell! He was the narcissistic cult leader who came not to bring peace but a sword, to break up families and have his sheep love him more than others and that people would persecute them! Apologists rationalize all that.
Whether religious or - secular apocalyptics just make up their prophecies.
http://lordI.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)