Author Topic: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!  (Read 1358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« on: April 05, 2012, 03:41:44 PM »
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2012/apr/05/column-new-atheists-do-not-understand-religion/#comments

Quote
When I used to envision a religious skeptic, the image was that of a surly, well-dressed academic with a pipe sticking out the side of his mouth. It wasn’t a particularly flattering picture, but at least it had gravitas.

Today, a much different image comes to mind — I imagine a smug adolescent arguing with Brother Jed on the South Oval, comparing Jesus to a spaghetti monster and masturbating to his own cleverness. This guy has about as much gravitas as a circus clown. He’s one of the New Atheists.

For those unfamiliar with the term, New Atheism refers to a surge of interest in religious skepticism in recent years. Credited with this resurgence are best-selling atheist books like “The End of Faith” by neuroscientist Sam Harris and “The God Delusion” by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins.

These books form the intellectual foundation of the movement, positing that belief in God is irrational and that religion is a danger to be eliminated. They have proved especially popular with people my age, which explains why their rhetoric has seeped into that of atheists on campus.

I’m a skeptic myself, so you might expect me to welcome this new willingness to question religion. But you’d be wrong. The New Atheists are breathtakingly ignorant of what religion is and the deep philosophical concepts that undergird it. Additionally, they’re incredibly arrogant.

Popular atheists like Dawkins and Harris claim with disarming confidence that there are no good reasons to think God exists or that religion is valid. However, they rarely engage with the most powerful modern arguments from the opposing side, and when they do, they fumble badly.

For example, take one of Dawkins’ objections to what’s known as the fine-tuning argument. The argument posits that God is the best explanation of the laws of physics, which are improbably “tuned” for life. Dawkins objects that God can’t be an explanation because it raises a further question: Who designed the Designer?

But this objection is hopeless for two reasons. First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity. Dawkins supposes that God must be complex, and thus requires an explanation. But this is controversial.

In addition to failing to address modern arguments, the New Atheists don’t seem to understand the purpose of religion, either. One of the major themes in the work of the late Christopher Hitchens is that religion was fashioned by a primitive, unscientific people for the purpose of explaining things beyond their ability to understand. The implication is that we’re ready to dispose of religion now that we have more reliable ways of understanding the world.

But this gets religion all wrong. It’s not an explanatory enterprise but a prescriptive one. Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is but to show us how to live.

All these misunderstandings might be forgiven if the atheists who spewed them weren’t so self-assured. Many times, I’ve suggested to skeptics on campus that maybe belief in God isn’t totally irrational. I’ve suggested they read material from philosophy of religion to better understand the topic.

But usually my recommendations are met with condescension. “Philosophy isn’t science,” they’ve told me. “So it doesn’t count.” Then they refer me to some embarrassingly bad skeptic resources, like “Zeitgeist: The Movie” (2007).

This self-satisfied attitude is inconsistent with the skepticism atheists are supposed to embody. They should be willing to look at the strongest arguments from both sides and keep an open mind. The fact they don’t is evident from their tendency to regard religion as obviously false.

This week, Brother Jed graces our campus. As usual, I expect some hot debate with students. As this takes place, I beg my fellow skeptics to keep this in mind: The question of God’s existence is a tough, complex issue over which rational people can disagree. Neither side has a monopoly on reason or science. And there’s no substitute for good manners.

Steven Zoeller

Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is?

Really?

Then how come do nearly every one of them start off with a creation myth?

And the whole existence of God isn't a tough complex issue. It is boiled down to "Is there proof?" The side that says "No, but we are going to believe anyway" has no monopoly on reason. The side that says "Yes" has no monopoly on science. The side that say "No, so we aren't going to believe till we see some" does have the monopoly on reason and science AS FAR AS THIS QUESTION.

 
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2012, 04:18:24 PM »
I think the author of this piece misunderstood something.  I think the biggest problem most "new" atheists have (bearing in mind this is my opinion) is the presumption of many believers that their god-of-choice is a real entity who really exists and really does things to benefit believers if they pray and believe hard enough.  The problem is, if this were at all correct, there would be some evidence to back it up.  If nothing else, there would be a statistically-significant variation in the lot of these believers, which could be discovered and analyzed.  Yet, time and time again, there's no evidence discovered of this.  Occam's razor still has to account for evidence.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2012, 04:58:30 PM »
Philosoohy asks a lot of questions that can't be answered. Waste of time, not science.

It may have been of some use to Greeks. When we did not gave a lot of tools for measuring.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2012, 05:52:25 PM »
Some of the student responses to him:
Quote
pbamma 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
I also don't think Atheists misunderstand religion as this study suggests.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest
I've met more than a few atheists that have gone through religious enlightened searches, which probably partially explains the data above.

Quote
MarsellusWallace 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
...
IMO, smugness is requiring individuals to smoke a pipe and to study Latin and religious philosophy before they can legitimately question their beliefs.

P.S. I find no self-satisfaction in promoting my growing insignificance in the universe, but rather the opposite.

Zoeller in the article:
Quote
Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity.
Zoeller in rebuttal further down the page:
Quote
Who said God was simple? Not me! I was merely pointing out a widely held doctrine in philosophy of religion...
I wouldn't call that plausible deniability because it is implausible.

Quote
bridgetmolly 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
There is no "new atheism". Ingersoll made the same arguments a hundred years ago. How on earth are you a skeptic if you don't investigate your own magical beliefs?

As for:
Quote
First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation.
Elementary principle?  No, Zoeller just made that up. 

There's the fallacy of the Argumentum ad Legem[1] -- laying down the law. It is especially used by inventing a law and bluffing the reader that they should have heard of it.
 1. I can read Latin. I made that one up. You won't find it in a book.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2012, 12:44:02 PM »
Quote from:  http://www.oudaily.com/news/2012/apr/05/column-new-atheists-do-not-understand-religion/#comments
=topic=22133.msg494169#msg494169 date=1333658504
When I used to envision a religious skeptic, the image was that of a surly, well-dressed academic with a pipe sticking out the side of his mouth. It wasn’t a particularly flattering picture, but at least it had gravitas.

Today, a much different image comes to mind — I imagine a smug adolescent arguing with Brother Jed on the South Oval, comparing Jesus to a spaghetti monster and masturbating to his own cleverness. This guy has about as much gravitas as a circus clown. He’s one of the New Atheists.
nice little attempt to misrepresent atheists.  Poor thing, he can’t imagine a 45 year old woman who is versed in geology, biology, history, archaeology and who has read the bible who as decided that there is no evidence for any gods or magic. 
Quote
I’m a skeptic myself, so you might expect me to welcome this new willingness to question religion. But you’d be wrong. The New Atheists are breathtakingly ignorant of what religion is and the deep philosophical concepts that undergird it. Additionally, they’re incredibly arrogant.
  Hmm, I’m skeptical about that considering the author’s ignorance about real new atheists.  I’m also amused by one more theist who claims this and then proceeds to claim that he has the real “most powerful modern arguments” for their god. 
Quote
For example, take one of Dawkins’ objections to what’s known as the fine-tuning argument. The argument posits that God is the best explanation of the laws of physics, which are improbably “tuned” for life. Dawkins objects that God can’t be an explanation because it raises a further question: Who designed the Designer?

But this objection is hopeless for two reasons. First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity. Dawkins supposes that God must be complex, and thus requires an explanation. But this is controversial.
But in science there is no special pleading.  Poor author.  And divine simplicity, golly one more argument between theists about their invisible friends. 
Quote
In addition to failing to address modern arguments, the New Atheists don’t seem to understand the purpose of religion, either. One of the major themes in the work of the late Christopher Hitchens is that religion was fashioned by a primitive, unscientific people for the purpose of explaining things beyond their ability to understand. The implication is that we’re ready to dispose of religion now that we have more reliable ways of understanding the world. But this gets religion all wrong. It’s not an explanatory enterprise but a prescriptive one. Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is but to show us how to live.
  Quite a liar for Christ, this one is.  Religion does exist to explain why the world is the way it is.  That’s all it does.  It claims to explain why there is evil, why there are animals, why there are plants, why the stars shine, etc.  It tries to claim that the world is bad and that one must worship the gods it claims as real ot make it better, or to gain some magical reward.  And for showing us how to live?  Well, which religion gets it right?  Heck, which sect of which religion gets it “right”?  Funny how theists can’t agree on that either.

Oh and the usual ignorance that atheists are often ex-theists and have read plenty of religious nonsense even the “philosophy of religion”.  Philosophy is little different from religion, it has the same baseless claims that come afoul of reality.  And like religion, it very occasionally might get something right.  But that does not mean it is a good way to understand the world.  I am skeptical, alas for the lies of this author, and his trying to claim that the only real skeptics who have “real open minds” are those who agree with him is the usual OneTrueWhatever argument. 

Religion is obviously false.  We have thousands of religons, billions of believers and not one of them can demonstrate his religion has any magical truth to it or that their god(s) exist.  Not Christianity, not Islam, not Hinduism, etc. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2012, 07:04:57 PM »
Philosoohy asks a lot of questions that can't be answered. Waste of time, not science.

It may have been of some use to Greeks. When we did not gave a lot of tools for measuring.

Do I really have to point out how truly stupid and embarrassing this statement is?

Being ignorant about a subject is one thing, but it's rarely a good idea to hang a big red arrow over your head that proclaims it to everyone.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:07:47 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2012, 07:24:44 PM »

Do I really have to point out how truly stupid and embarrassing this statement is?

Being ignorant about a subject is one thing, but it's rarely a good idea to hang a big red arrow over your head that proclaims it to everyone.
Yes please, tell me what philosophy can teach me. It is like buddhism to me. I do not understand the text or then I start reading and my mind wanders and I have no idea what I have read for pages.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2012, 07:30:14 PM »

Yes please, tell me what philosophy can teach me. It is like buddhism to me. I do not understand the text or then I start reading and my mind wanders and I have no idea what I have read for pages.

You still don't have the skill it takes to be smarmy.

Also your attempts at being smarmy do nothing to alter how stupid the comment was. Really this just adds to it.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:32:00 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12312
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2012, 07:32:11 PM »
Yes please, tell me what philosophy can teach me.

Ever heard of the "philosophy of science"?

How about "logic"?

Or maybe "ethics"?

 &)
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2012, 07:37:17 PM »
Yes please, tell me what philosophy can teach me.

Ever heard of the "philosophy of science"?

How about "logic"?

Or maybe "ethics"?

 &)

Don't forget rationalism.

Or skepticism.

Empiricism.

Capitolism, Democracy, Communism (actually any form of government or economic system).

Law.

Philosoohy asks a lot of questions that can't be answered.

Also as a sidenote, just because a question doesn't have a measurable answer doesn't mean we don't need to ask it.

Questions like "Is assissted suicide (or suicide in general) right and ethical?" may not have empirical answers but they do need to be addressed.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:48:03 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2012, 09:42:44 PM »
Why would someone other than I myself have any say in my suicide ?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12312
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2012, 09:43:49 PM »
Good question.  Unfortunately for you, the answer to that question is off-limits, unless you engage in philosophy of some sort.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2012, 09:50:47 PM »
Why would someone other than I myself have any say in my suicide ?

Possibly because it could be argued that if you want to kill yourself then you're not in a stable mental state where you can make such a decision properly.

Then there's the assissted suicide angle. What if someone helps another to commit suicide? Should they be considered a murderer since they knowingly killed someone?

There are many, many questions in the world that don't depend on science and measurements that need asking.

Good question.  Unfortunately for you, the answer to that question is off-limits, unless you engage in philosophy of some sort.

He has a point. My apologies for stepping beyond the boundaries that you seem to have set up around yourself where somehow the world outside of a science lab ceases to exist or have meaning. Feel free to ignore the above answers.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2012, 10:09:39 PM »
Yes please, tell me what philosophy can teach me.

I largely agree with you Tero.  I have seen dissertation by philosophy fans of progress in philosophy that Heidegger alleged the you can perceive being in its essence.  Or something like that.

You wisely mention the Greeks.  For them philosophy (as a generalization) was 2 questions:

    The Good, the Beautiful, and the True.  What are they?  And how do we obtain them?

And that is worth thinking about.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2012, 10:22:06 PM »

You wisely mention the Greeks.  For them philosophy (as a generalization) was 2 questions:

    The Good, the Beautiful, and the True.  What are they?  And how do we obtain them?

And that is worth thinking about.

Not quite. The main subjects of greek philosophy were to understand the fundamental principles and causes of the universe, the epistemological problem of reconciling the diversity and change of the natural universe, with the possibility of obtaining fixed and certain knowledge about it, and the nature of things that could be perceived through the senses.

I think you're focusing mainly on Socrates. Those things were big with him, but not the main focus of greek philosophy in general. Also big with Socrates was the formation of political systems and the patterns of argumentation and reasoning (also known as logic).
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 10:24:16 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2012, 10:36:08 PM »
I don't ever expect to get a CO suicide kit from a pharmacy, but the technology is available to committ suicide. But fine with me if it happens.

More disturbing is that someone other than my designated persons (a judge instead?) would get to decide my soundness.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12312
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2012, 11:47:30 PM »
Why is suicide fine with you?  Why do you find the idea of someone else judging your soundness to be disturbing?

Please refrain from any philosophically-relevant statements in you answer.  Good luck.  Ready...set...GO!
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2012, 12:23:49 AM »
I don't ever expect to get a CO suicide kit from a pharmacy, but the technology is available to committ suicide. But fine with me if it happens.

More disturbing is that someone other than my designated persons (a judge instead?) would get to decide my soundness.

Not a valid answer however.

Why is it fine with you? Should they be considered a murderer and charged as such? After all they did knowingly help kill someone, and who knows why they really helped. Or if they pushed the other person into it.

If you aren't mentally sound should you be given the choice on whether you want to kill yourself or not? Why? Isn't the simple fact that you want to kill yourself proof that you might not be mentally sound enough to be able to make that decision.

Here's the thing though, you can't just say "I don't ever expect to get a CO suicide kit from a pharmacy, but the technology is available to committ suicide. But fine with me if it happens." That's not an actual argument or reason for your position.

You have to provide an argument or a rational reason why or why not. And since, by your criteria, philosophy is useless you can't use that to make your argument. So as Azdgari said "Good Luck".

Also I notice that you haven't actually done a single thing to support your claim about philosophy being useless. You've just said it, and badly.

Philosoohy asks a lot of questions that can't be answered.

Aside from the obvious spelling error, this is patently wrong. Every question can be answered. Not with a hundred percent certainty, but every question can be answered as far as I am aware. This is similiar to when theists try to claim that science can't answer all the questions. Unless you have developed some form of omniscience that I am currently unaware of you can't honestly make such a claim.

Even if it couldn't answer questions, you don't show how this supports your overall claim.

Waste of time, not science.

"Waste of time" is an unsupported claim with no backing. Also this sentence carries with it the implication that anything that isn't science is inherently a waste of time in your view. I'm fairly certain you didn't actually mean that but felt I'd point it out that it's structured to be easily misinterpreted.

It may have been of some use to Greeks. When we did not gave a lot of tools for measuring.

Again, this is just a statement made out of ignorance and does nothing to make any actual point about the value of philosophy.

So I have to ask, did you actually have a valid point to support your position? Or is that a red arrow I see dangling over your name?
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2012, 07:20:34 AM »
Quote
If you aren't mentally sound should you be given the choice on whether you want to kill yourself or not? Why? Isn't the simple fact that you want to kill yourself proof that you might not be mentally sound enough to be able to make that decision.

Here's the thing though, you can't just say "I don't ever expect to get a CO suicide kit from a pharmacy, but the technology is available to committ suicide. But fine with me if it happens." That's not an actual argument or reason for your position.
I was merely stating that no assistance is needed. If you pull the trigger or point your eyes on the screen at a particular spot to trigger a device, it is a suicide. Non of this assisted or not assisted stuff. You decided.

If you are not mentally sound but are able to communicate and make a decision, the decision is yours. Only if you are in a coma will the designated person get to decide.

I claim human rights even for the mentally unbalanced.

My waste of time was an opinion, not an argument. I get to decide, my time.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM by Tero »

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2012, 07:57:06 AM »

I was merely stating that no assistance is needed. If you pull the trigger or point your eyes on the screen at a particular spot to trigger a device, it is a suicide. Non of this assisted or not assisted stuff. You decided.

If you are not mentally sound but are able to communicate and make a decision, the decision is yours. Only if you are in a coma will the designated person get to decide.

I claim human rights even for the mentally unbalanced.

My waste of time was an opinion, not an argument. I get to decide, my time.

You still have not formed a single argument for your opinion. Either the initial one about the value of philosophy, or the following ones.

Why should you get to decide? Why doesn't your wife, children, parents etc. have the right to decide. Especially if they think you are acting irrationally.

You see, Tero, you have to actually make an argument. Just saying "I get to decide" is not an argument. It's a statement, and unless you can produce an actual rational argument it's just as valid for you to say that as it is for a judge to say he can decide or anyone else. Or for that matter why can't the government lock you up for your own safety if they think you might harm yourself. The problem is that you have to justify your right to decide such things. Not just blindly say them and expect people to pay attention.

My waste of time was an opinion, not an argument. I get to decide, my time.

Yes, it was an opinion. An immensely stupid opinion that was stated childlishly. You were being asked to give a reason for the opinion that demonstrated some process involving intelligent thought.

If you can't justify it, that's fine since it's just an opinion. However the fact that you can't only serves to enhance my point about it's stupidity.

By your actions so far am I to assume that actually putting thought into the things you say and think tends to be beyond your capabilities? Small wonder you can't find any use for philosophy.

Edit: Actually I just looked at your posting history. That does actually seem to be the case.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:59:30 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2012, 08:03:42 AM »
It's a legal point. I get to have jurisdiction over me. I will always vote for human rights.

I have no use for philosophy as you say. It contains no information.

Offline Ice Monkey

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Fund schools. Tax pot.
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2012, 08:10:10 AM »


If you are not mentally sound but are able to communicate and make a decision...

Which is it?  Being able to indicate your wishes doesn't mean you're capable of making your own sound decision.


 
Quote
...the decision is yours. Only if you are in a coma will the designated person get to decide.

Yet, I may not be capable of making a sound decision any more than a person in a coma.   

Quote
I claim human rights even for the mentally unbalanced.

So do I.  Been actively fighting for them for decades.
Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -- Charlie Chaplin

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2012, 08:22:15 AM »
It's a legal point.

Depends on where you are and when you are. Until the late 90s some states still considered it a crime. Some still consider it a "common law" crime.

By the way, you do realize that law is a part of philosophy right? Every law we have is philosophical in nature. That's why it's called Philosophy of Law.

I get to have jurisdiction over me.

All of the laws that say this are philosophical in nature. You have to justify why it is without using philosophy. Otherwise your entire point fails.

I will always vote for human rights.

Rights are a philosophical concept. If you have no use for philosophy then you can't honestly say human rights have any use either.

How do you think humans decided on the right to life? Or the right to freedom of speech? Seriously, Tero, you can't be this ignorant.


I have no use for philosophy as you say.

Apparently you do.

It contains no information.

An unsupported statement that is once again made in utter ignorance.

So there is no more work to be done on human rights? So the law is exactly as it should be now and forever? So logic and the scientific method are perfect and should never be thought about any longer?

I also note that, yet again, you have failed to list a single intelligent reason for any opinion you've voiced. Just blanket ignorance.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 08:23:50 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2012, 10:07:00 AM »
Philosophy and logic is rarely considered when making a law. Most of our society runs on whatever voters and lawmakers decided. Often their opinion on one thing is not consistent with their other opinions. Yet we have all these laws and then try to decipher what society wanted in each case by signing a law.

You may call it philosophy if you like, not a a problem. I try not deal with these issues any more than I have to. Lawyers do not make much sense to me other than patent law, which I do have to deal with.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12312
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2012, 10:19:50 AM »
Philosophy and logic is rarely considered when making a law.

Oh sure, ethics, representational systems, rights, and the logic of priorities have nothing to do with lawmaking... &)

Most of our society runs on whatever voters and lawmakers decided.

Interesting.  What goes into those decisions?  Are they random?  Magical?  And why is it that voters and lawmakers get to decide law in the way that they do?  Different philosophies favor different systems, there.  Including (y)ours.

Often their opinion on one thing is not consistent with their other opinions.

You aren't allowed to say that.  What you've just written is an assessment of others' logic, which requires logic in order to make.  Logic is off-limits to you, per your dismissal of philosophy.  Try again.

Yet we have all these laws and then try to decipher what society wanted in each case by signing a law.

This is incoherent.  Which, is at least, consistent with your stated position(s).

You may call it philosophy if you like, not a a problem.

It started out as a philosophical topic and never ceased to be one.  Shoulders of giants, and all that.  There's a lot you're taking for granted in terms of founding the concepts of logic, of law, of representation, of rights, etc.  That's irresponsible.

I try not deal with these issues any more than I have to.

Thinking is hard.

Lawyers do not make much sense to me other than patent law, which I do have to deal with.

They don't seem to be alone in that.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2012, 10:33:12 AM »
Philosophy and logic is rarely considered when making a law.

Not in evidence.

Most of our society runs on whatever voters and lawmakers decided. Often their opinion on one thing is not consistent with their other opinions. Yet we have all these laws and then try to decipher what society wanted in each case by signing a law.

And how do you think they decide these things? They discuss the matter and consider whether it's right or wrong or what should be done. They don't just pull an idea out of the ether and run with it. They actually think and consider their opinions and say why they want this law passed. No one gets a law passed just by saying "I think two guys having sex is icky".

You may call it philosophy if you like, not a a problem.

It's not "if I like." That's what it is. What I like doesn't factor into it. As I said, that's why it's called Philosophy of Law.

I try not deal with these issues any more than I have to.

I thought you had a thing for human rights? As I pointed out, that's entirely philosophical.

Also just because you don't want to deal with it does not make it non-existent, or without value. And as pointed out, you deal with it all the time. You're just too ignorant of the subject to actually comprehend that.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2012, 11:29:34 AM »
Philosophy as it remains today may include all those things you two mention. However, when a group is making a decision, I take a shortcut and use my experience with fellow men and decipher how they came to their decision. I do not really need to analyze it in terms of ethics, etc. as stated by great thinkers of old.

I may be using what you call philosophy, but since I never paid much attention to it, I simply use the shortcut and life experience to jump to my own conclusions. Mainly because I do not see that anyone really cares how I got to it. I am just an annoying person to anyone who disagrees and also mostly boring to anyone already understands my point of view.  Semantics.

I can debate mostly material things.


Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2012, 03:00:24 PM »
I've forgotten, I have a Ph. D. So I must be using philosophy after all. You guys were right. It's all philosophy.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12312
  • Darwins +276/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2012, 03:18:25 PM »
Philosophy as it remains today may include all those things you two mention. However, when a group is making a decision, I take a shortcut and use my experience with fellow men and decipher how they came to their decision. I do not really need to analyze it in terms of ethics, etc. as stated by great thinkers of old.

Shoulders of giants, as I said.  Other people used philosophy so that you don't have to.  That doesn't mean that their philosophical groundwork is useless, despite your protests to the contrary.

I may be using what you call philosophy, but since I never paid much attention to it, I simply use the shortcut and life experience to jump to my own conclusions. Mainly because I do not see that anyone really cares how I got to it. I am just an annoying person to anyone who disagrees and also mostly boring to anyone already understands my point of view.  Semantics.

Based on what you've said so far in this thread, your point of view has no content to understand.  It is vacant.

I can debate mostly material things.

Material?  What's that?  Remember, you can't refer to metaphysics to explain what you mean, unless you're willing to engage in philosophy.  And if you can't state what you mean, then you don't know what you're talking about.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.