Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy is at the interface between inside and outside and between the universal and particulars. It is not a contest between thesis and antithesis, between winning and losing ideas, but rather a dialectic between ideas for the advancement of understanding. That a 'philosopher' would boast about not drawing any conclusions with respect to a set of observations or challenging them is indicative of mental laziness, at best. At worst, cowardice.

The Inglorious One wrote:Philosophy is at the interface between inside and outside and between the universal and particulars. It is not a contest between thesis and antithesis, between winning and losing ideas, but rather a dialectic between ideas for the advancement of understanding. That a 'philosopher' would boast about not drawing any conclusions with respect to a set of observations or challenging them is indicative of mental laziness, at best. At worst, cowardice.

More hot air. You trot out this bullshit from one Youtube crap seminar. But once again your remarks are not relevant. Go on - show us how the universal and particular apply here. I dare you. You just filling up the space between your ears for lack of anything relevant to say.
Atheists as philosophers have not draw any conclusions. They simply remain unconvinced about pleas for the existence of god, whilst you seem to have swallowed them indiscriminately. I note also you have shied away from telling us about your god (which is you only means to trail atheism).

There is only one way to put atheism on trial, but you have failed to attempt the obvious: the attempt would be a failure as most atheists have thought longer and harder about this question than you have.
Instead you have tried to throw a straw man our way: as useless as the article: which incidentally IS the thing on Trial here, despite the Heading of the Thread. Have you even read it?

The Inglorious One wrote:Philosophy is at the interface between inside and outside and between the universal and particulars. It is not a contest between thesis and antithesis, between winning and losing ideas, but rather a dialectic between ideas for the advancement of understanding. That a 'philosopher' would boast about not drawing any conclusions with respect to a set of observations or challenging them is indicative of mental laziness, at best. At worst, cowardice.

You mean... the way you're refusing to lay out your arguments and conclusions and instead insisting everyone else do it for you, then berating them if they don't arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to while still refusing to formulate an argument yourself?

It is not surprising that an atheist would demand things to be spelled out for them in order for it to be simply accepted or rejected.

Beliefs emerge from a synthesis of assumptions, assumptions about how the world at large works and one's place in it. And while most people (not just atheists) might rightly claim to have given things much thought, nothing is more difficult to see than the lens through which they see. The product of their thinking is built on things already there. As it were, they have little practice at emptying their cup so, in effect, all their efforts are directed at putting new wine in old wineskin.

In this trial, the atheist's position has been presented by atheists themselves as: “I am not making a belief-claim about anything beyond the senses; I simply do not accept the proposition that any such thing exists. Someone who dares to assert that there is anything beyond the senses like a unifying principle has to prove it, reasoning be damned. I, on the other hand, have to prove nothing. I am not obligated to think about my relation with the cosmos at large nor am I required to come to any sort of conclusion regarding my place in it.”

If that's rational, then we have different ideas about what it means to be rational.

The Inglorious One wrote:It is not surprising that an atheist would demand things to be spelled out for them in order for it to be simply accepted or rejected.

Yes, amazing how if you're making assertions people expect you to actually present your arguments along with them.

In this trial, the atheist's position has been presented by atheists themselves as: “I am not making a belief-claim about anything beyond the senses; I simply do not accept the proposition that any such thing exists. Someone who dares to assert that there is anything beyond the senses like a unifying principle has to prove it, reasoning be damned.

Reasoning be damned?????

Do you not understand that requiring you to support assertions you are making with argument and evidence is a request for you to provide your reasoning?

It is the exact opposite of "reasoning be damned"

I, on the other hand, have to prove nothing. I am not obligated to think about my relation with the cosmos at large...

Atheists have given plenty of thought to their relation with the cosmos. The fact that that thinking has not led them to make up magical fairy tales to make themselves feel better or more self important about that relationship is what seems to be confusing you.

gcomeau wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:It is not surprising that an atheist would demand things to be spelled out for them in order for it to be simply accepted or rejected.

Yes, amazing how if you're making assertions people expect you to actually present your arguments along with them.

It's not amazing at all. Afre all, it's a lot easier than pondering things for yourself.

Reasoning be damned?????

Yes. And yes, it is an assertion based on what I've seen here. For example, dare to answer this: is there a unifying principle undergirding the cosmos? If 'yes,' what are the implications? If 'no,' how are reason and intelligibility possible? If yes, is the unifying principle necessary or contingent? If it is the former, then the unifying principle is atemporal; if it is the latter, then it is self-actuating -- it is the emergent property of unifying a principle before there was a unifying principle.

Do you not understand that requiring you to support assertions you are making with argument and evidence is a request for you to provide your reasoning?

It goes both ways. Instead of regurgitating the same old doubts (which is REALLY getting tiresome), show how or why you came to believe what you do. I did (above). Failure to do will shows that you rest your laurels on the notion that you don't have to prove anything -- just like I said.

Atheists have given plenty of thought to their relation with the cosmos. The fact that that thinking has not led them to make up magical fairy tales to make themselves feel better or more self important about that relationship is what seems to be confusing you.

Thinking about something and relating to it are entirely different. Considering what the sciences have uncovered, the stand-alone attitude you are exhibiting is nothing more than childish bravado.

gcomeau wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Philosophy is at the interface between inside and outside and between the universal and particulars. It is not a contest between thesis and antithesis, between winning and losing ideas, but rather a dialectic between ideas for the advancement of understanding. That a 'philosopher' would boast about not drawing any conclusions with respect to a set of observations or challenging them is indicative of mental laziness, at best. At worst, cowardice.

You mean... the way you're refusing to lay out your arguments and conclusions and instead insisting everyone else do it for you, then berating them if they don't arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to while still refusing to formulate an argument yourself?

Spot on!

The Inglorious One wrote:It is not surprising that an atheist would demand things to be spelled out for them in order for it to be simply accepted or rejected.
l.

If you are not surprised why have you not done it then?

If you want to put atheism on trial, then please tell me what, as an Atheist I am supposed to believe, and what is wrong with it?
You might also have to have the balls to say what you mean by "god" in the process. In fact that would be a minimum requirement.

If you are not willing to do this, then I am puzzled what you are doing on this thread.

The Inglorious One wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yes, amazing how if you're making assertions people expect you to actually present your arguments along with them.

It's not amazing at all. Afre all, it's a lot easier than pondering things for yourself.

Which is why you appear to require everyone except you to do so?

Reasoning be damned?????

Yes. And yes, it is an assertion based on what I've seen here. For example, dare to answer this: is there a unifying principle undergirding the cosmos?

I have no idea what you mean by "unifying principle".

If you mean basic physical laws? Sure. If you mean something besides that then spell it out.

If 'yes,' what are the implications?

Besides that the fundamental manner in which matter and energy operate tend to be consistent and repeatable? None of relevance that I am aware of.

If yes, is the unifying principle necessary or contingent?

Don't know. If you're claiming you do know, show us how you do. Or... keep hand waving for everything you're worth, you know, whatever.

Do you not understand that requiring you to support assertions you are making with argument and evidence is a request for you to provide your reasoning?

It goes both ways. Instead of regurgitating the same old doubts (which is REALLY getting tiresome), show how or why you came to believe what you do. I did (above).

You didn't provide crap all support for why you believe what you believe. You just asked a bunch of either/or questions and then moved on. That is not an explanation or supporting argument of what you believe. It isn't even saying what you believe.

As for why I believe what I believe? I'm pretty confident I don't believe in a single thing you don't believe in so this is a fairly pointless exercise but fine.

I believe that all verifiable and observed matter, energy and phenomena that have been identified through reproducible testing and observation exist. Cows, people, rocks, stars, radio waves, electrons, and on and on and on...

I assume you do as well , and aren't going to argue I am unjustified in believing in any of those, but just in case... the reason I believe they exist is BECAUSE they have been reproducibly verified to exist through direct observation and testing.

Now, if you wish to also propose the existence of ADDITIONAL things... like, say... a magic universe creating deity figure or something... then provide support for your assertion that these additional things exist.

Atheists have given plenty of thought to their relation with the cosmos. The fact that that thinking has not led them to make up magical fairy tales to make themselves feel better or more self important about that relationship is what seems to be confusing you.

Thinking about something and relating to it are entirely different. Considering what the sciences have uncovered, the stand-alone attitude you are exhibiting is nothing more than childish bravado.[/quote]

Oh please, I love when people throw out vague "what the sciences have uncovered" insinuations that their positions are somehow scientifically backed and then clam right up without specifying what these scientific discoveries that are relevant to their beliefs actually are.

gcomeau wrote: I have no idea what you mean by "unifying principle".

Then what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum? You belong outside, playing in your sandbox of ideas to your heart' content.

The Inglorious One wrote:

gcomeau wrote: I have no idea what you mean by "unifying principle".

Then what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum? You belong outside, playing in your sandbox of ideas to your heart' content.

Meaning, that"unifying principle" can refer to a WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS.

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.

The Inglorious One wrote:

gcomeau wrote: I have no idea what you mean by "unifying principle".

Then what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum? You belong outside, playing in your sandbox of ideas to your heart' content.

Describe and define: "unifying principle". Are you suggesting that this thing is "god"?
As far as I can tell, such an idea is far from any definition of "god" that I have heard.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Describe and define: "unifying principle". Are you suggesting that this thing is "god"?
As far as I can tell, such an idea is far from any definition of "god" that I have heard.

If you cannot extrapolate the meaning of two simple, dictionary-defined words brought together in a single idea, then you belong outside, playing in your sandbox of random and disconnected ideas to your heart's content.

And did I even mention "God"? Why did you even bring it up if you are not suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance?

gcomeau wrote: 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. It is "a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct." Your "SPECIFIC unifying principle" is nothing more or less than materialism or (obsolete) scientism. As such, it's pure mechanism. It leaves no room for the human condition. Does that make it irrational? For 99.9999% of the people in the word, the answer is 'yes.' But then, they have the weird idea that a philosophy should have to deal with the human condition as well as the material.

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Describe and define: "unifying principle". Are you suggesting that this thing is "god"?
As far as I can tell, such an idea is far from any definition of "god" that I have heard.

If you cannot extrapolate the meaning of two simple, dictionary-defined words brought together in a single idea, then you belong outside, playing in your sandbox of random and disconnected ideas to your heart's content.

And did I even mention "God"? Why did you even bring it up if you are not suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance?

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

What are you doing on this thread?
If you challenge atheism (which we are still waiting for), then some mention of god might be useful.
Let's pretend that you did not mention god. You DID mention "unifying principle".
So what do YOU mean by it?
Any moron can bring two words together, but only a damn fool would pretend that the meaning of any two words is universally accepted. I can "extrapolate" an infinity of meanings for these two words, but it seems you are in capable of offering a SINGLE reflection on what you might mean by it. But it was your phrase. So own it or leave the stage.

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?