Atheism on Trial

[The Inglorious One]

Fucking Hell. I knew you were desperate but you have sunken to a new low.

What got your feathers in a bunch?

If you challenge atheism (which we are still waiting for), then some mention of god might be useful.

I don't. I challenge its rationality.

Let's pretend that you did not mention god. You DID mention "unifying principle".
So what do YOU mean by it?

unifying (adj)
1. Combining into a single unit
2. Tending to unify

principle (noun)
1. A basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct
2. A rule or standard especially of good behavior
3. A basic truth, law or assumption
4. A rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system
5. Rule of personal conduct
6. (law) the fundamental reasons or logic behind something; the justification for something

Any moron can bring two words together...

but you can't?

Inglorious. This is a perfectly reasonable request because I'm probably not alone in not understanding what you mean. What is the nature of this unifying principle to which you refer?

Satisfied?

[Obvious Leo]

Satisfied?

Not even a little bit. I have plenty of dictionaries of my own and in any event know perfectly well what the words mean. I was asking you to explain what the fuck you're talking about and you come out with this shit! How old are you? Am I trying to have an adult conversation with a child?

[The Inglorious One]

Satisfied?

Not even a little bit. I have plenty of dictionaries of my own and in any event know perfectly well what the words mean. I was asking you to explain what the fuck you're talking about and you come out with this shit! How old are you? Am I trying to have an adult conversation with a child?

[gcomeau]

I laid out one SPECIFIC unifying principle of the universe. If you are talking about a DIFFERENT one then say so instead of constantly hiding behind vaqueness so you don't have to defend your position.

A "principle" cannot be seen or measured by definition.

Wow.

You know, to say something that clueless if I hadn't yet provided an example of unifying principles would be one thing... but to say it after already having had it pointed out to you that *the laws of physics* are a unifying principle of the universe is a whole other level of stupid. Because the laws of physics can damn sure be seen and measured kiddo. And not one single thing in the definition of a principle says anything at all about principles being immeasurable.

In fact, an immeasurable principle would be *completely freaking useless*.

And if you think the laws of physics "leave no room for the human condition" I suggest you go back to school.

[The Inglorious One]

I laid out one SPECIFIC unifying principle of the universe. If you are talking about a DIFFERENT one then say so instead of constantly hiding behind vaqueness so you don't have to defend your position.

A "principle" cannot be seen or measured by definition.

Wow.

You know, to say something that clueless if I hadn't yet provided an example of unifying principles would be one thing... but to say it after already having had it pointed out to you that *the laws of physics* are a unifying principle of the universe is a whole other level of stupid. Because the laws of physics can damn sure be seen and measured kiddo. And not one single thing in the definition of a principle says anything at all about principles being immeasurable.

In fact, an immeasurable principle would be *completely freaking useless*.

And if you think the laws of physics "leave no room for the human condition" I suggest you go back to school.

Are you saying a child's laughter and the beauty of a flower are "completely freaking useless"? The laws of physics are indeed a unifying principle, but it is hardly complete. Neither do they explain themselves. "I believe that all verifiable and observed matter, energy and phenomena that have been identified through reproducible testing and observation exist" does not tell me why child's laughter warms my heart (or even what that means). Neither does it tell me why an encounter with a beautiful flower can evoke an emotional response without being its cause. For if the effect of a flower were simply a matter of physics, the effect could be "reproducibly verified to exist through direct observation and [independent] testing." A ToE is not a ToE unless it's a ToE.

The unifying principle you propose works magnificently well for the quantity-side of our existence, but ignores entirely the quality-side. Therefore, atheism (or at least your version of it) is irrational.

[gcomeau]

A "principle" cannot be seen or measured by definition.

Wow.

You know, to say something that clueless if I hadn't yet provided an example of unifying principles would be one thing... but to say it after already having had it pointed out to you that *the laws of physics* are a unifying principle of the universe is a whole other level of stupid. Because the laws of physics can damn sure be seen and measured kiddo. And not one single thing in the definition of a principle says anything at all about principles being immeasurable.

In fact, an immeasurable principle would be *completely freaking useless*.

And if you think the laws of physics "leave no room for the human condition" I suggest you go back to school.

Are you saying a child's laughter and the beauty of a flower are "completely freaking useless"?

Are you trying to claim " a child's laughter" is a unifying principle of the universe?

(I've got news for you... it's not)

The laws of physics are indeed a unifying principle, but it is hardly complete. Neither do they explain themselves. "I believe that all verifiable and observed matter, energy and phenomena that have been identified through reproducible testing and observation exist" does not tell me why child's laughter warms my heart (or even what that means).

Evolutionary biology and neurology does. Which depend on... the laws of physics.

[The Inglorious One]

Are you trying to claim " a child's laughter" is a unifying principle of the universe?

Does it have meaning? If yes, then it does not stand apart from any unifying principle worth considering.

Evolutionary biology and neurology does. Which depend on... the laws of physics.

You should look up the etymology of the word "principle." Doing that leads to more questions, questions like are the laws of physics necessary or are they contingent? What are the implications if the laws of physics are necessary? And so on.

Moreover, the laws of physics are indeterminate (unless you believe the most successful and most tested the theory in the history of science and the world is wrong). You have to ask yourself why they exhibit a tendency to self-organize. Only when you answer that can you call it a proper unifying principle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Summing Up: So the Atheists win the day.

Rational, check
Reasonable, check
Able to offer ideas, and opinions, check
Inquisitive, check
Open minded, check.
Open to discussion, check.

Conclusion: No evidence offered.

We seem still unchallenged by taking the position that there is no god. And has no one seems willing or able to offer an alternative position and has not even suggested an alternative; Atheism is not guilty and is free to leave the court.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Are you trying to claim " a child's laughter" is a unifying principle of the universe?

Does it have meaning? If yes, then it does not stand apart from any unifying principle worth considering.

Evolutionary biology and neurology does. Which depend on... the laws of physics.

You should look up the etymology of the word "principle." Doing that leads to more questions, questions like are the laws of physics necessary or are they contingent? What are the implications if the laws of physics are necessary? And so on.

None of this has anything to do with atheism.

[The Inglorious One]

Are you trying to claim " a child's laughter" is a unifying principle of the universe?

Does it have meaning? If yes, then it does not stand apart from any unifying principle worth considering.

Evolutionary biology and neurology does. Which depend on... the laws of physics.

You should look up the etymology of the word "principle." Doing that leads to more questions, questions like are the laws of physics necessary or are they contingent? What are the implications if the laws of physics are necessary? And so on.

None of this has anything to do with atheism.

It has to do with atheism's supposedly rational foundation.

[The Inglorious One]

Summing Up: So the Atheists win the day.

Rational, check
Reasonable, check
Able to offer ideas, and opinions, check
Inquisitive, check
Open minded, check.
Open to discussion, check.

Conclusion: No evidence offered.

We seem still unchallenged by taking the position that there is no god. And has no one seems willing or able to offer an alternative position and has not even suggested an alternative; Atheism is not guilty and is free to leave the court.

Do you have a God-fetish of some kind? Why do you bring it up? We were not talking about that. We're talking about the rationality of atheism, not atheism per se.

( see my edited post.)

[Hobbes' Choice]

Summing Up: So the Atheists win the day.

Rational, check
Reasonable, check
Able to offer ideas, and opinions, check
Inquisitive, check
Open minded, check.
Open to discussion, check.

Conclusion: No evidence offered.

We seem still unchallenged by taking the position that there is no god. And has no one seems willing or able to offer an alternative position and has not even suggested an alternative; Atheism is not guilty and is free to leave the court.

Do you have a God-fetish of some kind? Why do you bring it up? We were not talking about that. We're talking about the rationality of atheism, not atheism per se.

( see my edited post.)

Is that the Royal "WE". Is that you and God?

We, that is all the posters but you, are talking about the errors of the article in PN.
You should be on another board.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is perfectly rational to only accept into knowledge that which can be show to be the case through evidence, logic, and reason.

Since there is no case here that contradicts the reasonable position that god is nothing more than a fiction of the human imagination, then atheism is the default position.

Only when you can alter this position, are you able to put "atheism on trial".

[Obvious Leo]

It is perfectly rational to only accept into knowledge that which can be show to be the case through evidence, logic, and reason.

Since there is no case here that contradicts the reasonable position that god is nothing more than a fiction of the human imagination, then atheism is the default position.

Only when you can alter this position, are you able to put "atheism on trial".

Neatly summed up. Atheism doesn't need to face a trial because it has no case to answer. It makes no statement of claim.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is perfectly rational to only accept into knowledge that which can be show to be the case through evidence, logic, and reason.

Since there is no case here that contradicts the reasonable position that god is nothing more than a fiction of the human imagination, then atheism is the default position.

Only when you can alter this position, are you able to put "atheism on trial".

Neatly summed up. Atheism doesn't need to face a trial because it has no case to answer. It makes no statement of claim.

Indeed. I've been telling Inglorious that from the outset but he won't let it sink in.