Atheism on Trial

[Obvious Leo]

When you come right down to it, every proposition is derived from a belief of some kind.

Is this it? Is this what passes for a useful comment in your idea of an adult conversation? In my country we get more profound wisdom in our fortune cookies.

[The Inglorious One]

When you come right down to it, every proposition is derived from a belief of some kind.

Is this it? Is this what passes for a useful comment in your idea of an adult conversation? In my country we get more profound wisdom in our fortune cookies.

Then you should pay more attention to your fortune cookies. You might learn something.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am not trying to prove anything except the limitations on human knowledge

HC claimed there was no evidence and I simply stated that his powers of observation were limited

I would not deny the possibility of said teapot any more than I would deny the possibility of the existence of purple wombats on Jupiter...

as I said elsewhere, "propositions have little worth for me in any event..."

-Imp

I don't think fairies and unicorns exist. There is every reason to think they are fantastic. Same with god.
I don't give a rat's arse for the possibility of a purple green spotted horse, with the tail of a fish, and I don't throw my life away contemplating the existence of invisible dragons that might stalk me on a dark night. The same goes for God.
Nothing you say changes that.

If there were a god then you would have to judge him by the nature of his creation. Such a god is unworthy of anything but my utter hatred and distain (childhood disease). God if such a thing exists is not the one as described by you, or the bible, or any other weird fantasy that has been invented. It's not just about the absence of evidence but the positive evidence all around us speaks against a god.
As an atheist I am not making any claim, I'm just rejecting your idiotic fantasy. Get a life!

[The Inglorious One]

Philosophy moves essentially in the realm of a universality (the ground of all being) that includes particulars within itself.

Philosophy is the dialectic between universality and particulars.

The ground of all being has been determined by particulars to be indeterminate.

Therefore, our understanding of particulars is extrapolated from perceived averages and every proposition, without exception, is derived from beliefs.

Philosophy presumes and presupposes that the perceived average has a rational structure or order: it presumes and presupposes that although indeterminate, the ground of all being is inclusive of a unifying principle of some kind.

Therefore, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." -- Francis Bacon

[The Inglorious One]

I don't think fairies and unicorns exist. There is every reason to think they are fantastic. Same with god.
I don't give a rat's arse for the possibility of a purple green spotted horse, with the tail of a fish, and I don't throw my life away contemplating the existence of invisible dragons that might stalk me on a dark night. The same goes for God.
Nothing you say changes that.

If there were a god then you would have to judge him by the nature of his creation. Such a god is unworthy of anything but my utter hatred and distain (childhood disease). God if such a thing exists is not the one as described by you, or the bible, or any other weird fantasy that has been invented. It's not just about the absence of evidence but the positive evidence all around us speaks against a god.
As an atheist I am not making any claim, I'm just rejecting your idiotic fantasy. Get a life!

Obviously you believe in the wrong god (a rather primitive one at that) just so you can deny him/her/it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think fairies and unicorns exist. There is every reason to think they are fantastic. Same with god.
I don't give a rat's arse for the possibility of a purple green spotted horse, with the tail of a fish, and I don't throw my life away contemplating the existence of invisible dragons that might stalk me on a dark night. The same goes for God.
Nothing you say changes that.

If there were a god then you would have to judge him by the nature of his creation. Such a god is unworthy of anything but my utter hatred and distain (childhood disease). God if such a thing exists is not the one as described by you, or the bible, or any other weird fantasy that has been invented. It's not just about the absence of evidence but the positive evidence all around us speaks against a god.
As an atheist I am not making any claim, I'm just rejecting your idiotic fantasy. Get a life!

Obviously you believe in the wrong god (a rather primitive one at that) just so you can deny him/her/it.

No, I do not believe in ANY god. The clue is in the word "Atheist".
I deny all "him/her/its" as undefined fantasies.
Belief is not equivalent to knowledge. I'm not interested in wishful speculation: I seek to know.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Philosophy moves essentially in the realm of a universality (the ground of all being) that includes particulars within itself.

Philosophy is the dialectic between universality and particulars.

The ground of all being has been determined by particulars to be indeterminate.

Therefore, our understanding of particulars is extrapolated from perceived averages and every proposition, without exception, is derived from beliefs.

Philosophy presumes and presupposes that the perceived average has a rational structure or order: it presumes and presupposes that although indeterminate, the ground of all being is inclusive of a unifying principle of some kind.

Therefore, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." -- Francis Bacon

Well Bacon was well ahead of you, but he'd never heard of Darwin, which pretty much squashes "providence", and negates the need for Deity.

But your whole post is confused. Whilst what you say about philosophy might describe aspects of its practice, you have fallen very far short of defining it, and nothing you say about it warrants the "THEREFORE" that precedes the quote.
This is the usual flim-flam from the religiously minded who will swallow anything as long as it suits their prejudice.

[The Inglorious One]

Obviously you believe in the wrong god (a rather primitive one at that) just so you can deny him/her/it.

No, I do not believe in ANY god. The clue is in the word "Atheist".
I deny all "him/her/its" as undefined fantasies.
Belief is not equivalent to knowledge. I'm not interested in wishful speculation: I seek to know.

I suppose, then, that makes me an atheist, too, since I also deny what what you seem to require in the entity you deny: a magical being somewhere that can make everything better with the wave of a magic wand.

There is no knowledge: only a perceived average. Or do you also deny the most successful and most tested theory in the history of science and the world?

Well Bacon was well ahead of you, but he'd never heard of Darwin, which pretty much squashes "providence", and negates the need for Deity.

What is the underlying principle that makes evolution work? Why does the average lead to life at all? What makes it a workable process at all? Is your answer "just because"? News flash: that's not philosophy.

But your whole post is confused. Whilst what you say about philosophy might describe aspects of its practice, you have fallen very far short of defining it, and nothing you say about it warrants the "THEREFORE" that precedes the quote.
This is the usual flim-flam from the religiously minded who will swallow anything as long as it suits their prejudice.

So please tell us why what you say makes any sense at all. What unifying principle makes it intelligible? Here: This video might help. (You can skip the first 17 1/2 minutes of it.)

Remember: atheism is in trial here. "Regurgitated dogmatic statements" won't do you any good.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Obviously you believe in the wrong god (a rather primitive one at that) just so you can deny him/her/it.

No, I do not believe in ANY god. The clue is in the word "Atheist".
I deny all "him/her/its" as undefined fantasies.
Belief is not equivalent to knowledge. I'm not interested in wishful speculation: I seek to know.

I suppose, then, that makes me an atheist, too, since I also deny what what you seem to require in the entity you deny: a magical being somewhere that can make everything better with the wave of a magic wand.

There is no knowledge: only a perceived average. Or do you also deny the most successful and most tested theory in the history of science and the world?

Well Bacon was well ahead of you, but he'd never heard of Darwin, which pretty much squashes "providence", and negates the need for Deity.

What is the underlying principle that makes evolution work? Why does the average lead to life at all? What makes it a workable process at all? Is your answer "just because"? News flash: that's not philosophy.

Necessity! THAT IS philosophy. And Necessity is a thing that requires no GOD.

But your whole post is confused. Whilst what you say about philosophy might describe aspects of its practice, you have fallen very far short of defining it, and nothing you say about it warrants the "THEREFORE" that precedes the quote.
This is the usual flim-flam from the religiously minded who will swallow anything as long as it suits their prejudice.

So please tell us why what you say makes any sense at all. What unifying principle makes it intelligible? Here:


What childish fantasy leads you to think that the universe would be intelligible, and what arrogance makes you think you have it? .

This video might help. (You can skip the first 17 1/2 minutes of it.)

Remember: atheism is in trial here. "Regurgitated dogmatic statements" won't do you any good.

Atheism is not a claim making position. The Trial is and always is the person making the claim: and that is the Theist.
And don't waste my time with childish Youtube bollocks.(Though I love the way he is too stupid to write "particular without stopping and thinking). If you have not the wit to express your own view then give it up. This sort of video is no substitute for a college education - I suggest you get one!!!.

[HexHammer]

Looooooooooong talkative nonsense as usual.

[The Inglorious One]

Thank you, Hobbes, for that textbook example of irrational atheism.

Calling necessity "philosophy" is identical to calling a child's "just because" philosophy. You can, I suppose, call it philosophy, but it's really just the regurgitation of a dogmatic statement.

What childish fantasy leads you to think that the universe would be intelligible, and what arrogance makes you think you have it?

This is cute. Do you want me to explain it to you or would you rather have my ten-year old grandson explain it? I mean, you are trying to communicate something, aren't you? How can you do that if the universe itself is not intelligible?

Atheism is not a claim making position.

Not explicitly, but implicitly it does make at least one assumption: that there is a unifying and self-organizing principle undergirding the way the universe works, for example. (You did, after all, posit evolution as a causative agent in your argument.)

The Trial is and always is the person making the claim: and that is the Theist.

Apart from claiming what you assume, what exactly am I claiming? An external causative agent? Not hardly.

And don't waste my time with childish Youtube bollocks.(Though I love the way he is too stupid to write "particular without stopping and thinking). If you have not the wit to express your own view then give it up. This sort of video is no substitute for a college education - I suggest you get one!!!.

Assuming you went to college, I suggest you demand a full refund of your tuition fees.

I don't believe all the arguments made in the article are good arguments, but I think you have done a good job of proving the verdict was right.

[gcomeau]

Atheism is not a claim making position.

Not explicitly, but implicitly it does make at least one assumption: that there is a unifying and self-organizing principle undergirding the way the universe works, for example.

Which is the common assumption all positions share (at least all positions of people not occupying padded rooms). So I assume you're not challenging it.

And if you're not challenging it then what point in calling attention to it?

Atheism makes the absolute bare minimum of assumptions. Theism makes the same, then tacks on many additional ones. So if any assumption is going to be wrong, guess where it's going to be wrong?

[The Inglorious One]

Atheism is not a claim making position.

Not explicitly, but implicitly it does make at least one assumption: that there is a unifying and self-organizing principle undergirding the way the universe works, for example.

Which is the common assumption all positions share (at least all positions of people not occupying padded rooms). So I assume you're not challenging it.

And if you're not challenging it then what point in calling attention to it?

Atheism makes the absolute bare minimum of assumptions. Theism makes the same, then tacks on many additional ones. So if any assumption is going to be wrong, guess where it's going to be wrong?

Where, pray tell, did I "tack on" any additional assumptions? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein.

The problem is, atheists tend to make things simpler than is possible: "necessity," for example, has no explanatory power in an indeterminate universe. It's just a dogmatic statement, not philosophy.

[gcomeau]

Not explicitly, but implicitly it does make at least one assumption: that there is a unifying and self-organizing principle undergirding the way the universe works, for example.

Which is the common assumption all positions share (at least all positions of people not occupying padded rooms). So I assume you're not challenging it.

And if you're not challenging it then what point in calling attention to it?

Atheism makes the absolute bare minimum of assumptions. Theism makes the same, then tacks on many additional ones. So if any assumption is going to be wrong, guess where it's going to be wrong?

Where, pray tell, did I "tack on" any additional assumptions? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein.

I'm quite certain I said "theism" tacks on... not "The Inglorious One" tacks on.


As for where theism does so, in innumerable places.


Assuming supernatural powers exist, assuming some kind of supreme being possessing said powers exists, assuming properties of that supreme being, assuming it created the universe, assuming why it created the universe, assuming wants and desires that supreme being has for human conduct, and on and on and on and on...

Now is every flavor of theism going to make ALL of these assumtions?> No. But they all make some of them (or others) in some combination.

The problem is, atheists tend to make things simpler than is possible: "necessity," for example, has no explanatory power in an indeterminate universe.

Atheism doesn't attempt explanation. It is not a philosophy. It is not a claim. It is simply the state of not accepting the claims of theism due to lack of compelling reasons to do so.

[The Inglorious One]

Atheism doesn't attempt explanation. It is not a philosophy. It is not a claim.

Sorry, but this in itself is is a philosophic claim -- a cheap way of dodging the bullet.

It is simply the state of not accepting the claims of theism due to lack of compelling reasons to do so.

Every negation is a claim: they are two side of the same coin.