Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Tell-Tale Atheism: Still Aping Paranoid Fundies


If I was still an atheist, I wouldn’t waste my time shadowing some haunted paranoia about religion, because the mere non-existence of God, if true, is sufficient to eliminate the entire enterprise. The very idea of there being the slightest need or “obligation” to engage in such implicit pandering, when atheism was supposed to be enough, is an insult to serious atheist thinkers who have no need for such tiresome hand-wringing.

Today’s atheists think some favorable comparison to Christianity or religion in general is going to somehow strengthen their case or show others that they are in some sense “better”, when this is merely an admission that they can’t quite handle the complete absence of any standard of good, obligation, ought, or should or any other standard for what is nothing more than a fundy-like lust to scold others. It's an admission that atheism is somehow not enough to keep them from moralistic whining, and only mirrors their religious counterparts.

Talk about playing into the same syndrome that was the original basis for rejecting an opposing view.

And now we’re going to have scientific commandments thumped at us by the “new” fundy atheists.

I’ve got some arbitrary news for such sunday schooler wannabees.

But the philosophically parasitic atheists' need to justify or falsify anything is the real  god getting a free ride here.

Sunday, August 07, 2011

Kai Nielsen's Elephant Sighting

"For 'God commanded it' to be a morally relevant reason for doing something, let alone a definitive moral reason for doing it, it must, at least, be the case that God is good. A believer, of course, believes this to be the case, but what grounds does he have for this belief? If he says that he knows this to be true because the record of the Bible, the state of the world or the behavior of Jesus displays God's goodness, the believer himself clearly displays by his very response that he has some logically prior criterion for moral belief that is not based on the fact that there is a deity."

--Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God, Buffalo NY: Prometheus, 1973, page 22.

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Calling Philosophy's Bluff

I'm constructing a database that will be graphically renderable in a similar way to that of the chart, in my fb profile, of the history of art and philosophy movements, but instead of movements, the graphical objects will be statements. Instead of historical connections, logical connectors (claimed inference relation labels) between them will be visible at a glance or click, similar to zooming in and out of online geographical maps, thus making lines of inference instantly traceable from any particular statement to any other in the same logical thread. Logically primitive statements will be labeled ap, as in my public databases already, to designate them as Assumed Premise, until and unless something arises that is claimed to infer them.

Consequently, I'm going to be looking for individuals who want to -own- areas I'm not interested in or dont' have the time to cover (including some aspects of the atheism-theism debate), and who will fill out the entire scope of argumentation on whatever issues they may be interested in. Such individuals do not have to be formally trained in philosophy, but must have a public history of logical analysis in philosophy and must be involved in an ongoing systematic program of reading and studying philosophical journals and books.  It could -possibly- lead to a paid position eventually (I'm working on this), but don't contact me about it unless you have the time and are already involved in these activities. The project will be open source, both in programming and content, which means you must already be motivated to collect comprehensive inventories of views, arguments, objections, refutations, and so on, for your chosen issues, aside from any additional benefit you might derive from participating in this project. Open to individuals of any persuasion who are interested in all the arguments for, and all the objections to, all views---and all analyzed to the nth degree. Heavy emphasis on background assumptions, self-reference, metatheoretic issues, and philosophy of logic.