Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's evident from his post that our friend hasn't read the thread, or at least has failed to understand it, simply reducing the topic of the philosophy of mind to "substantiating" proof of God.
False. I have read it in it's entirety since day 1 and have understood it just fine thank you. That you, on request, can not actually pick out one of these good arguments you claim is on the thread makes it seem more likely it is you that has failed to read or understand any of it.
However we can sit here and cheaply and easily accuse each other of not having read the thread in circles forever, or you can just as easily (hah) pick out one of the arguments on the thread you feel was cogent and a good argument against the idea atheism, is logical, and/or more logical than theism.
So far I have not seen one. If you have then by all means adumbrate your basis for thinking so.
I already said that philosophy incubates ideas at an "ivory tower" level of abstraction and that sometimes those ideas actually are testable and actionable -- but often, not. In fact not infrequently, the ideas are inherently not actionable and testable. Philosophy might be likened to theoretical physics and it needs, I think, more "applied technology" as it were, just as quantum physics led in a roundabout way to cell phone technology
I think this comment is a good demonstration of how your lack of knowledge of philosophy translates to a skewed cognitive bias against the discipline.
You apparently aren't aware that the very concept of testability is itself established by philosophy. This means that to argue against philosophy by claiming that it is "untestable" is simply meaningless and self-refuting. Furthermore, to claim that philosophy requires more "actionability" is ignorant of the fact that the very first principles of science are established upon a philosophical framework. In other words, it has had more than ample "practical application".
I'm afraid you'll need to apply critical reasoning at a far more foundational level if you want such a criticism to be substantive, or to have traction.
False. I have read it in it's entirety since day 1 and have understood it just fine thank you. That you, on request, can not actually pick out one of these good arguments you claim is on the thread makes it seem more likely it is you that has failed to read or understand any of it.
However we can sit here and cheaply and easily accuse each other of not having read the thread in circles forever, or you can just as easily (hah) pick out one of the arguments on the thread you feel was cogent and a good argument against the idea atheism, is logical, and/or more logical than theism.
So far I have not seen one. If you have then by all means adumbrate your basis for thinking so.
If you've read and understood the thread as you insist, you should be aware that, when presenting an affirmative case for the proposition "atheism is more logical than theism", the responsibility for opening the case necessarily falls upon the atheist. Where is your opening case?
That's actually covered in the first few pages of this thread, I suggest you go back and read it again if you've misunderstood it.
you should be aware that, when presenting an affirmative case for the proposition "atheism is more logical than theism", the responsibility for opening the case necessarily falls upon the atheist.
It is a discussion forum. As such it is just as valid for me to discuss the cases presented by others as it is to present one of my own. I post a lot more around here than you do son, I do not need your advice on how to do so.
If you want my case however I would simply say that given there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer by anyone, much less by you, to support the case of theism.... then clearly adopting a non theistic position is more logical.
Put simpler I think it is logical to not adopt an unsubstantiated position than to adopt it.
It is a discussion forum. As such it is just as valid for me to discuss the cases presented by others as it is to present one of my own. I post a lot more around here than you do son, I do not need your advice on how to do so.
If you want my case however I would simply say that given there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer by anyone, much less by you, to support the case of theism.... then clearly adopting a non theistic position is more logical.
As has been pointed out, that's an empirical case for agnosticism, not a logical case for atheism. This point is alluded to in the OP, and the distinction between empiricism and logic is also covered later in the thread.
You can shift the definitions of atheism and agnosticism around all you like. There have been enough threads on that topic already. For me "Atheism" means without (a) theism (theism).
Since the case for theism is absent, it is an unsubstantiated position, therefore I do not adopt a theistic position. To adopt an unsubstantiated position is illogical.
Therefore my position is without theism. Atheism.
However you are now ducking the original posts I made to you by derailing this conversation into one about my case for the OP. I replied to posts you made and you have not responded to any of that yet at all. Nice deflect.
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 04-18-2013 at 08:12 AM..
I'll tell you what. Instead of watching you flounder in a sea of semantic pluralism, let me actually help you create proper arguments for atheism.
Read up on:
- The arguments for Causal Closure that attempt to reject the prognosis of Descartes/Leibniz.
- Donald Davidson's Anomalous Monism.
- Functionalism in the philosophy of mind.
These ideas aren't without their problems, but unlike the majority of arguments presented so far, they actually address the OP. Learn these ideas, and their defenses, and I'll helpfully take them apart for you.
If you want to pretend my position is other than it is, or my own words mean other than it is not me lost in a sea of semantics.
Again I have read all the things you crassly just say "read up on" before running off. If you actually have an argument to add to the thread I am all ears. If you are just going to keep telling me to read things I have already read then this is going to go in pointless circles for some time. Your choice.
I am still waiting for you to actually reply to my question about which arguments you think were made by the other users you listed on this thread that support the notion that atheist is either not logical or is less so than theism. As I said I see little more from them than the fancy misuse of terms with the intention of bamboozling those who do not know what they mean.
I am still waiting for you to actually reply to my question about which arguments you think were made by the other users you listed on this thread that support the notion that atheist is either not logical or is less so than theism. As I said I see little more from them than the fancy misuse of terms with the intention of bamboozling those who do not know what they mean.
Quote:
If you've read and understood the thread as you insist, you should be aware that, when presenting an affirmative case for the proposition "atheism is more logical than theism", the responsibility for opening the case necessarily falls upon the atheist. Where is your opening case?
In other words, this discussion concerns a defense of atheism, not theism.
You apparently aren't aware that the very concept of testability is itself established by philosophy. This means that to argue against philosophy by claiming that it is "untestable" is simply meaningless and self-refuting.
Except that's not what I said nor what I argued against. Clearly, you haven't read the post. Go back and read it and respond to what it actually said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
