Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Discuss.

How does that statement under-ride atheist claims, and who made it?

It's very awkwardly phrased - hard to tell what it means exactly. Clarification?

How does that statement under-ride atheist claims,

ie automatically canning anything that falls outside of reductionist paradigms


and who made it?
quite a few people

It's very awkwardly phrased - hard to tell what it means exactly. Clarification?
simply put, if any occurrence cannot be explained by natural laws, it is simply because the said laws have not been researched in full

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

A certain song (http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/anythingyoucando.shtml) comes to mind:

Annie:
Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.

Frank: No you can't.
Annie: Yes, I can.
Frank: No, you can't.
Annie: Yes, I can.
Frank: No, you can't.
Annie: Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Really, I don't think there is much to rationally discuss about the atheist proposition in the OP. Discussion among people who are not of equal status /not of equal qualification eventually comes down to matters of vanity and honor, not objective arguments.

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Discuss.The statement you post is merely an axiom by which science operates. Not atheism, but science. And while the latter might lead one to the former, they are not synonymous.

I'm not sure what you intend from this thread - are you intending to question whether axioms are actually just beliefs?

Or do you specifically doubt this axiom?
And to whose (and what) "issues of incredulity" are you asking if it is impervious? Care to give an example?

How does that statement under-ride atheist claims,
”
ie automatically canning anything that falls outside of reductionist paradigms From some atheistic paradigmatic approaches, such as certain schools of Zen Buddhism, any given theism is necessarily reductionist, in the usual sense of the word. But falling outside the reductionist approach of some theism does not lead those particular atheists to "can" their beliefs.

The statement you post is merely an axiom by which science operates. Not atheism, but science. And while the latter might lead one to the former, they are not synonymous.
hence
Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

I'm not sure what you intend from this thread - are you intending to question whether axioms are actually just beliefs?
the thread OP is quite simple

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

From some atheistic paradigmatic approaches, such as certain schools of Zen Buddhism, any given theism is necessarily reductionist, in the usual sense of the word. But falling outside the reductionist approach of some theism does not lead those particular atheists to "can" their beliefs.

so after all the canning of theism has been said and done by whatever means in the name of whatever branch of atheism, is the statement in the OP a fundamental for atheism?

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Discuss.
I think this is often unconscious , this axiom you have written. I think often there is an assumption that if, given the scientific knowledge we have now, some phenomena seems unlikely - how anyone has great confidence in this estimation, I donät know - then it is unlikely and future discoveries within science or improvements in technology will not change this.

I also think an axiom that goes along with the one you suggest is that natural laws are not local and do not develop or change.

So in a sense I think you are being very, very fair when you give the axiom as worded above. Most will think it is unnassailable.

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Discuss.

What makes you think atheists are impervious to belief? Isn't empiricism itself the strongest statement of belief?:D

hence
Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.You are still being disingenuous, and trying to create an argument regarding atheism where it is in fact regarding science.

the thread OP is quite simple

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?For the second time, then:

Firstly, it is an axiom - not a belief.

Secondly, please give an example of an "issue of incredulity" that you think it might be impervious to.

is the statement in the OP a fundamental for atheism? No.

No.
so what is the atheistic conclusion of miracles attributed to god or saintly people?

What makes you think atheists are impervious to belief?
if I am to accept their statements on face value. atheists.

Isn't empiricism itself the strongest statement of belief?:D
depends on how highly one regards one's senses

shades of leibniz perhaps?
why something rather than nothing?
i mean....parsimony prefers nothing, ja?
therefore god

crap really

in any case, does'nt shit pop into existence?
causality and conservation be damned?

What makes you think atheists are impervious to belief? Isn't empiricism itself the strongest statement of belief?:D

so?
imagine a ridiculous belief
i bet you would insist on being nuanced when defending your own

nein????:mad:

i figured out how sam can bash atheists
pseudo skeptism is what passes for atheism these days
crap materialism
i mean, a simple non belief transmuting into ......shit?

so what is the atheistic conclusion of miracles attributed to god or saintly people? Depends on the atheist. And the attributer.

If it's me, and the attributer is a Mexican carpenter discovering the face of Jesus in his burrito wrapping last week and wondering if the Virgin Mary was intervening in his life, I might point out to him that he's in the Irish district of Saint Paul now - more likely leprechuans are playing a trick on him.

see?
another dumbfuck materialist

Depends on the atheist. And the attributer.

If it's me, and the attributer is a Mexican carpenter discovering the face of Jesus in his burrito wrapping last week and wondering if the Virgin Mary was intervening in his life, I might point out to him that he's in the Irish district of Saint Paul now - more likely leprechuans are playing a trick on him.
and lemme guess ...leprechauns can be accommodated wholly according to natural laws .....:D

shades of leibniz perhaps?
why something rather than nothing?
i mean....parsimony prefers nothing, ja?
therefore god

crap really

in any case, does'nt shit pop into existence?
causality and conservation be damned?
I see two main anomalies from parsimony
the universe
and
consciousness (or experiencers - who are local no less)

Any atheist argument based on the oddness of theist beliefs is has a very wild 7 on its oddness (base and acid extremes) PH scale.

I see two main anomalies from parsimony
the universe
and
consciousness (or experiencers - who are local no less)

ja
since there is something
it must be god
or so it is claimed (swinburne)

and lemme guess ...leprechauns can be accommodated wholly according to natural laws .... Bad guess - as usual. Fundie theists are terrible guessers about my opinions, I've noticed.

Bad guess - as usual. Fundie theists are terrible guessers about my opinions, I've noticed.
so leprechauns cannot be accommodated wholly to naturalistic laws?
:p

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Discuss.

So that means, "All events can be explained by natural laws (if not now, eventually)"?

I s'pose what you're saying is that this statement is sort of a dogmatic manifestation of naturalist belief: that nothing is supernatural (which implies that everything can be explained through natural laws). And I suppose you're saying that this is based on the principle of Okham's Razor, which you might be saying is the faith at the heart of atheism.

I can see how you might say this (especially after I've put all the words in your mouth) and I'd like to see how the adoption of Okham's Razor is justified.