Philosophy Now Forum

Still with the red herring, eh? Can you answer the question or at least challenge the observations?

The Inglorious One wrote:Still with the red herring, eh? Can you answer the question or at least challenge the observations?

What was the question again? In all the excitement I seem to have missed it.

The Inglorious One wrote: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.

You are really profoundly stupid aren't you. Next time try to understand the CONTEXT. Let me spell it out for your poor brain. Attributing necessity to evolution is philosophical. Should I make it more simple, or can you now run along and get a grown up to translate for you.

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.)

Jesus christ. Get a life. YOU mentioned evolution first not me. But any fuck-witted brain dead moron, with a high school diploma in biology, knows that evolution is NOT a cause, but an effect. You are now walking in territory for which you poor mind is not equipped to deal with. Once again I've made no "argument". I don't need one. All I have to do is refute your idiotic idea that there is some kind of supermind behind it all.

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.


Nope. See above.


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.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

The Inglorious One wrote: I think Catholics who say that God does not exist as such would disagree. It is not at all uncommon to hear some theists say, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."

I can call a carrot a beef patty, but that does not mean I have a burger. And you can call what is between your ears a brain, but that does not mean you have an intellect.

You might want to start by defining what you mean by god. Then you can call green, red and red green a get hit by the next car coming through the stop sign.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You are really profoundly stupid aren't you. Next time try to understand the CONTEXT. Let me spell it out for your poor brain. Attributing necessity to evolution is philosophical. Should I make it more simple, or can you now run along and get a grown up to translate for you.

So, the process of evolution operates on the basis of "just because"? That's a pretty deep philosophical statement.

Jesus christ. Get a life. YOU mentioned evolution first not me.

Go back and look again. You said something about Bacon never hearing of Darwin.

But any fuck-witted brain dead moron, with a high school diploma in biology, knows that evolution is NOT a cause, but an effect.

An effect of what? You never did answer the question: 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"? The answer to the last question seems to be "yes."

You are now walking in territory for which you poor mind is not equipped to deal with. Once again I've made no "argument". I don't need one. All I have to do is refute your idiotic idea that there is some kind of supermind behind it all.

Where did I say there was some kind of "supermind" behind it all? Unless the dictionary I use needs to be rewritten, "principle" and "supermind" are not the same thing. If you think the the terms are synonymous, that's you, not me, coming to that conclusion.

The emotion you express and the vulgarity you use, I suspect, is the result of cognitive dissonance: reason leads you to believe the undergirding principle at play is some kind of "supermind" but your habit of thinking denies any such thing. Get a grip, man. I think you're losing it.

You might want to start by defining what you mean by god.

Why? I've been trying to avoid any reference to God or a deity altogether. Atheists are the ones that keep bringing it up.

Evolution is an effect of change. Change is the result of the necessary law of cause and effect. Shit happens. There is nothing under or over this. It is complete in and of itself. Fingo nil hypothesis. I simply Describe what I see. I'm not pretending there is a god in the machine. Adding a god for which there is no evidence is not advancing any kind of argument. Its just a pretend solution to a non problem.

The Inglorious One wrote:
Where did I say there was some kind of "supermind" behind it all? Unless the dictionary I use needs to be rewritten, "principle" and "supermind" are not the same thing. If you think the the terms are synonymous, that's you, not me, coming to that conclusion.

If you are taking a stance against atheism then ipso facto are making a case for theism. If god is mindless, then god is no god at all, but the necessity of cause and effect.
If god is mindless, then you are making my case for me. Thanks.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Evolution is an effect of change. Change is the result of the necessary law of cause and effect. Shit happens. There is nothing under or over this. It is complete in and of itself. Fingo nil hypothesis. I simply Describe what I see. I'm not pretending there is a god in the machine. Adding a god for which there is no evidence is not advancing any kind of argument. Its just a pretend solution to a non problem.

So I was right: you believe it all happens "just because." Deep, man. Really deep.

If you are taking a stance against atheism then ipso facto are making a case for theism.

I'm glad you used the word "if" because I'm not making a case against atheism. With your help, I'm making a case for the irrationality of atheism.

If god is mindless, then you are making my case for me.

I'm not saying one way or the other. You're drawing conclusions from things never said. Cognitive dissonance, man. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. Why else would you do that?

Why are you so fixated on God, anyway? I never brought God into the discussion. That's off-topic. Atheism is on trial here, not God.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Evolution is an effect of change. Change is the result of the necessary law of cause and effect. Shit happens. There is nothing under or over this. It is complete in and of itself. Fingo nil hypothesis. I simply Describe what I see. I'm not pretending there is a god in the machine. Adding a god for which there is no evidence is not advancing any kind of argument. Its just a pretend solution to a non problem.

So I was right: you believe it all happens "just because." Deep, man. Really deep.

If you are taking a stance against atheism then ipso facto are making a case for theism.

I'm glad you used the word "if" because I'm not making a case against atheism. With your help, I'm making a case for the irrationality of atheism.

Everything I have said is perfectly rational and nothing you have said has shown otherwise.
I think you problem is a basic arrogance that you believe.
Belief is about desire and nothing to do with reason. You believe there is an answer to "why". You believe your life has meaning. You believe you are more clever than others. None of this has any merit whatever.

Fact is you don't know shit, because your standard of proof is much lower than mine. I'm content to speak on matters that can be demonstrated to be the case; you are not. You have the desire to actualise your deepest wishes: for their to be a big answer to the all-too-human questions that evolution has provided you with. There may be very good reasons why people think the way you do. There are clearly advantages to assume a universal teleology, and a thought that everything has a purpose, and deeper meaning. Such a mechanism has aided humans to walk out of Africa. But we are staring to grow up in the world, and the solutions millions have taken for granted for millennia have all been show to contradict one another, lead to wars and disappointment, and cause confusion and encourage magical thinking. This way of thinking is going out of fashion for equally good reasons.
There is a good reason that science has strict limits of replicability, demonstrability through evidence and proof. But anyone who has read my posts know that science does not very well shine a light on human behaviour or cultural logic. So I am not making any case for science as such. Except to say that what you can show to be the case, is the case. Beyond that humans muse and speculate to little effect, and develop houses of cards they call ideologies, and aspirations of moral realities. Some such beliefs are good in an aspirational sense but only a fool thinks they are real, absolute or objective. This is all human invention, and such is the way our worlds are constructed; the the earth abides without regard for human desire.

As an atheist, per se, I have rejected all attempts, so far to demonstrate or make an argument for the existence of anything you might want to call "god". I can show you, this case by case, if you have the time. The only clear method or refutation of that position, has to be a convincing argument FOR god. So give it your best shot or STFU.

The Inglorious One wrote:So I was right: you believe it all happens "just because."

" Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"....Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Clearly biology is not your long suit, Inglorious, but Hobbes is 100% correct. The only law which governs an evolutionary process is the meta-law of cause and effect. "Shit happens" is quite literally true in biology so if you ask any biologist why our biosphere is the way it is today instead of some other way he will tell you it is the way it is because that's the way it happened. That's it.

If you examine the above post carefully you'll find that exactly the same meta-law can be applied to the evolution of your very own self.

Q. Why are you the way you are instead of some other way?

A. Because that's the way life turned out.

There is no fucking plan, Inglorious, shit quite literally does just happen.

Worse, in opinion, this article was disingenuous (meaning less politely that it was dishonest). It is presented, until near the end as by one making enquiry, an academic, "philosophical" discourse, on atheism. But the author never, even at the end, came clean about his position, of which by then it was obvious that he had something to admit.

His opinion should accordingly be treated as suspect on such subjects and issues, if not others too.

Not worthy one who would call himself philosopher.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Evolution is an effect of change. Change is the result of the necessary law of cause and effect. Shit happens. There is nothing under or over this. It is complete in and of itself. Fingo nil hypothesis. I simply Describe what I see. I'm not pretending there is a god in the machine. Adding a god for which there is no evidence is not advancing any kind of argument. Its just a pretend solution to a non problem.

So I was right: you believe it all happens "just because." Deep, man. Really deep.

If you are taking a stance against atheism then ipso facto are making a case for theism.

I'm glad you used the word "if" because I'm not making a case against atheism. With your help, I'm making a case for the irrationality of atheism.

If god is mindless, then you are making my case for me.

I'm not saying one way or the other. You're drawing conclusions from things never said. Cognitive dissonance, man. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. Why else would you do that?

Why are you so fixated on God, anyway? I never brought God into the discussion. That's off-topic. Atheism is on trial here, not God.

I had a recent 'trial' where I was compelled to deny a charge of 'tresspass' upon our CN Railway or accept the charge. I did not actually tresspass as I was only approaching the train bridge in question and was merely charged based on the CN cop's anticipation that I was going to. As such, while I may have actually intended to, I yet to have tresspassed and he should have simply warned me not to. Yet since he had this predisposed power upon the society we live in to give me the ticket, it required me to have to attempt to fight it. In this way, I figured it was me who has been tresspassed upon! But given the CN cop's recognized authority, in court, it was me who was burdened to try to prove a negative. How fair is this?

My point in illustration here is that an atheist only exists with respect to the theist's posited belief which garners an authoritative acceptance to most people in society. Yet just because this is the case, it does not mean that should we take a defensive position, that it is implying a logical burden upon us because of it. It is an imposed 'burden' upon us as atheists to have to reconfirm a state which should not have been imposed upon us in the first place.

I was burdened to defend myself in court because the previous authoritative stance imposed a charge upon me to require defending only. It was either that or I had to accept paying the fine....just another kind of burden. This is what religions impose upon society. By simply declaring a belief and having the power to use such justification against others, this only accidentally appears to those such as yourself that we even require going to trial. And to me, this is an unjust penalty we as atheists are forced to endure.

So for all atheists, I declare we are NOT GUILTY here. I have no doubt that if our judges or jury here have the authoritative bias here, our own defense is merely a joke as we'll remain GUILTY as charged. We still won't pay the fine even though we know that when your 'peace -officers' find us, we'll end up imprisoned for it. So be it. But then don't complain if you discover us revolting against you with more force in the future.

If the other side can't take money out of your pocket, or food off your table, or shingles from off the roof over your head, then why, oh-why, do you give a flip what the other side thinks about your theism/atheism, or about you?

Let the other side try you, convict you.

Shrug, say 'who gives a flip?', go about your business.

Really, what profit is to be had in the back and forth?

'Oh, I kicked that theist/atheist keister but good! I gave 'em what-for! That theist/atheist will think twice before tangling with my like again!'

Is being 'right' really that damned important? Especially when -- in my experience -- thinking rarely changes one way or the other in these exchanges...no one is moved...every one goes home sour.

As I say up-thread if the theist/atheist is using the stick against you, then -- yeah -- defend yourself, but in the absence of the stick, what's the friggin' point to any of this back and forth?

Mebbe I'm missin' sumthin'...

The Inglorious One wrote:Still with the red herring, eh? Can you answer the question or at least challenge the observations?

Would you care to explain how addressing what those Catholics you brought up *actually believe* instead of what a few of them *pretend to believe* is a "Red Herring?


And I assume you're talking about these "observations"?

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.

...and your question of where those observations lead? You would have been better served making an argument for where they lead yourself, because where I see them leading is absolutely nowhere. It's a lot of hand waving "look over here at how I can use academic sounding terminology" nonsense to distract from the fact that theists don't actually believe anything like what you're talking about. You remind me of this Metacrock guy that used to frequent another board I was on, this kind of crap argument is all he would do, day in and day out, but then challenge him on what he actually believed and lo and behold, he didn't believe this.

Since you brought up the Catholics let's just focus there.

They don't believe in some nebulous undefined "Ground of Being".

They believe in God who loves them, and thus their deity possesses personality and emotion.

They believe in God who procreated with a human to produce offspring, and thus their deity has some interest in reproduction.

They believe in God who gave his progeny magic powers and that has magic powers itself and uses them to intervene in human affairs when it feels like it.

They believe in God who has rules of conduct that govern human activities and actually gives a crap about how humans have sex or how they manage their marital status or whether they take Sunday off from work.

They believe in God who demanded a human sacrifice of his own progeny in order to "forgive" humanity for routinely violating all his fussy little rules.



Etc...

THAT is what Catholics believe in, and that is all the magic man in the sky. Not the nebulously defined "Ground of Being". The "Ground of Being" is the Red Herring. Nobody actually believes in that, you just wave it around to draw attention away from the far more ridiculous and indefensible thing that theists really believe in.


There, I answered your question. Now deal with my points.

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?