A good argument that atheists use, and one that fumbles me

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousSoul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Moritz said:
Correct. 👍

(I agree as a scientist.)

Many people confuse philosophical opinions of scientists, or opinions based on philosophical interpretation of science by others, with scientific statements.

Science proper is neutral regarding worldview.
Click to expand...
Contrary to what Dawkins preaches.
 
Crescentinus said:
Contrary to what Dawkins preaches.
Click to expand...
But Dawkins is profoundly illiterate when it comes to philosophy. And when you are ignorant about philosophy, then constant confusion of science with philosophy is bound to be the result.

I highly value Dawkin’s explanations of evolution, however, *The Blind Watchmaker *and especially Climbing Mount Improbable. *The God Delusion *on the other hand is pathetic, ludicrous drivel.
 
SophiaK said:
Logical arguments for and against theism are fallacious (saying this from the philosophical standpoint) in that both assume their position is true and both expect the opposing party to prove their argument.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean that both parties tend to already have faith in what they are trying to prove.

Why would it be fallacious to attempt to prove philosophically what you already believe in for other reasons?
 
Al_Moritz said:
But Dawkins is profoundly illiterate when it comes to philosophy. And when you are ignorant about philosophy, then constant confusion of science with philosophy is bound to be the result.

I highly value Dawkin’s explanations of evolution, however, The Blind Watchmaker and especially Climbing Mount Improbable. The God Delusion on the other hand is pathetic, ludicrous drivel.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.
Last I checked, he didn’t even touch it. For him, it’s all about scientism. A lot of his followers gave him an apotheosis as a result.
 
Crescentinus said:
My point exactly.
Last I checked, he didn’t even touch it. For him, it’s all about scientism.
Click to expand...
He criticized Thomas Aquinas, and yet he hasn’t read the whole summa theologica except for an internet summary of the five ways.

You are correct. The fault lies in this bizarre “scientism” (sciences illegitimate brother). A circular dogma based on an arbitrary epistemological distinction.
 
ReapReason said:
He criticized Thomas Aquinas, and yet he hasn’t read the whole summa theologica except for an internet summary of the five ways.

You are correct. The fault lies in this bizarre “scientism” (sciences illegitimate brother). A circular dogma based on an arbitrary epistemological distinction.
Click to expand...
Scientism is a philosophical position, and a really weak one at that.
 
ReapReason said:
And yet it appears to have a very powerful hold over people that are otherwise quite inteligent.(
Click to expand...
I’ve never actually encountered some one that sees scientific methods as having universal applicability. Though I have run into people that claim to have met some. Some of these people have come to the initial conclusion that I am such a person. It took quite a bit of conversation to get the pictures of my views closer to accurate. Just based on my own personal experience I speculate (but don’t know) that some that might be labeled as trying to apply science to all domains may be found to not actually do so. In a comfortable non-confrontational conversation they may be more open to expressing her views on the present limits of the scientific capabilities of humans.
 
ReapReason said:
And yet it appears to have a very powerful hold over people that are otherwise quite inteligent.

Why is this happenning!!!😦
Click to expand...
I think it’s because of the fact that philosophy had not been taught in schools anymore except in college. Another factor is how the media tends to promotes the Dawkins school of scientism. Lastly, his followers are some of the most vocal in the atheist community.
 
Crescentinus said:
I think it’s because of the fact that philosophy had not been taught in schools anymore…
Click to expand...
Anymore? I suppose things may be different where you live.

Not that this represents the past state of things across the nation in which I live, but among those that i just quickly asked (from ages 30 to 60-something) philosophy wasnt part of their high school courses. Depemdimg on the degree it was an elective or a requirement in college. Compulsory education in the USA stared about 1950 (about the time at which the oldest of these people was born). Ithis and other information gives me the impression philosiphy had not previously been part of the core ciriculum for highschool here.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
ReapReason wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
No. It’s always better to point out the truth…
Click to expand...
…that you are not a good philosopher.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This from somebody who keeps starting threads about “Esse-Monism”, which he can’t even explain himself. 🤷
 
empther said:
ReapReason wrote:

This from somebody who keeps starting threads about “Esse-Monism”, which he can’t even explain himself. 🤷
Click to expand...
You can’t explain something to somebody that doesn’t want to understand. Your too paranoid that what i say might take you away from God.
 
Took only six minutes for ReapReason to reply.
Nothing else to do but stay glued to your computer?

Nobody on this forum, not even the atheists, has understood what Esse-Monism is.
It isn’t anything but a bunch of words thrown together randomly like QueegQueeg throwing his fortune-telling chicken bones on the ship deck in Moby Dick… That’s why you can’t explain it.
 
empther said:
Nobody on this forum, not even the atheists, has understood what Esse-Monism is.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t have anything to do except count the minutes it takes for me to reply. But at least you can count.

I think this is more about what you would like to be true. Everybody on this forum might find it hard to understand the level of math required for lets say quantum physics. But that does not say anything about the legitimacy of the argument. It just means that most people don’t understand it, and it really would not matter if nobody understands it. Truth is Truth.

I just happen to be right. Its just a shame that you don’t understand when your wrong.
 
Pretty lame, Reap. Won’t convince anybody.

I’ll check in in a few days. Got things to do.

Take up painting. 😃
 
empther said:
Pretty lame, Reap. Won’t convince anybody.

I’ll check in in a few days. Got things to do.

Take up painting. 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t have to convince anybody. I am right and you are wrong. End of story.
 
ReapReason wrote:
I don’t have to convince anybody. I am right and you are wrong. End of story.
Click to expand...
Gives new meaning to the term “philosopher”. :eek: :whacky:
:bigyikes: :juggle: :curtsey:

Alert the dictionary publishers. :manvspc: 😃
 
empther said:
ReapReason wrote:

Gives new meaning to the term “philosopher”. :eek: :whacky:
:bigyikes: :juggle: :curtsey:

Alert the dictionary publishers. :manvspc: 😃
Click to expand...
The goal of the philosopher first and foremost is truth for the love of truth. I don’t have to convince anybody of the truth in order for my arguments to be true or to be of true value. The truthfulness of any metaphysical argument does not require subjective consensus in order to be true. So long as i am learning the truth, at least i can grow.

That you are not capable of grasping the truth, really has no relevance. I pity those who don’t understand basic concepts.
 
That you are not capable of grasping the truth, really has no relevance. I pity those who don’t understand basic concepts.
Click to expand...
You’re the only person in a world of seven billion people who grasps the “truth” about
Esse-Monism. ( whatever that is! 🤷 )

I congratulate you, sir. The world waits for your book. 😃

“The world waits to hear you” — British Prime Minister to “Empress” Theresa
“I am told four billion people are watching this” — British Prime Minister to Theresa on live television.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top