Then according to that formulation, I'm not referring to ontological beliefs, but to beliefs about ontology, which there is no indication that either ...
Aye, and there's the rub! With QM, the interaction between the observed and the observer are at least practically, and perhaps intrinsically, inextric...
That's my point. Neither spoke specifically about ontology vs. epistemology to my knowledge. Anything else would be psychologizing. Just as you can't ...
Sorry Bitter Crank, but this is one of the most intellectually lazy sentences I've read in some time. Lint is a great mystery. Stuff is a great myster...
No, there is a distinction between emotive arguments and intellectual arguments. I am not saying that it is immoral to worship an immoral god, I am sa...
So do you believe in and worship a dickish god? Or do you reject all traditional claims about god exempting it's existence? Or is there a third option...
Appeals to fairness are usually emotive. Try giving a candy to one 5 year old, but not to his twin brother, and I promise you, you will hear a very em...
This is exactly my point. I personally believe that I have a moral responsibility to conduct my discussion in a manner that is consistent with good lo...
It depends on what you mean. The notion of objectivity is a useful fiction, where we imagine that there is such a thing as a point of view that doesn'...
Well, I think you're making a leap to imagine that we can say anything about the philosophical leanings of Einstein or Darwin in terms of an ontologic...
I don't think I'm proposing a strict line. I'm just pointing out the apparent lack of any philosophical voice making positive propositions in this are...
That's not how I'm using the term. I am using it to describe an argument who's primary appeal is emotional, regardless of the origins of the argument....
I guess sort of. I think what I am saying, to misappropriate Kant, is do "deontologize" science, and then take a step further, and quote Wittgenstien,...
People do change their minds. Arguments do persuade people. Why not this one on this subject? Added on edit: I don't imagine that my argument will cou...
But on questions of consciousness, the most influential voices are Searle, Dennett and other philosophers. On quantum mechanics, it seems to be Niels ...
Care to elaborate on that? Clearly I think it's possible, which is why I made the argument. What specifically would make it impossible? Are you sugges...
Why would I try to argue atheism to atheists? The argument is directed at theists, and more specifically, as darthbarracuda rightly points to, at the ...
You're welcome to your opinions on those guys, but I don't see what it has to do with my thread. I never mentioned Harris, Dawkins, nor any specific i...
All my atheism is, in practice, is a critical analytical response to the commonly held and culturally prevalent espousal of gods. If there's someone t...
He was clearly a kind man, and that is one of the highest compliments that I know to pay. He made a difference to me, and I feel sorrow for those who ...
It does actually argue against the the most commonly espoused modern notions of god, which ascribe god as benevolent. I agree that it doesn't address ...
The question presupposes objective morality. I see morality as inter-subjective and negotiated. Given that, the answer is that I can't see anything wr...
I'm not quite sure at how you would justify the generalization about "most atheists" (I'm unaware of any studies indicating this), but I'll assume you...
Comments