Don't Need Philosophy To Defeat Absurdity

[RationalOkie]

I guess I was pretty naive when I stumbled upon the ExC site. I'm still surprised at how much Philosophy is used to defend or defeat the Christian cult. I never really noticed it before. I think most of the people that respond to these posts are really into Philosophy.

 

I don't need Philosophy to defeat the Christian cult. We spend hours and hours talking about Cosmological Arguments, Occam's Razor, Reductionism and much more. Why? Here's the deal. There's a group of people that believe in talking donkeys, talking snakes, people living to be 900 years old, a man lived in a whale for 3 days, a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, the entire earth was completely flooded within the last 5,000 years and every living animal, insect and reptile was on one single boat while the earth is completely wiped clean, a man was raised from the dead, a man walked on water (but only his closest friends saw this...how convenient), dead bodies started popping out of the ground after a Jew named Yeshua was crucified, (just one man out of thousands crucified by the Romans), and not a single impartial source can confirm these ridiculous stories.

 

Why in the hell do you need Philosophy to defeat such absurd claims? In fact why do we need to haggle with Apologists over misinterpretations or mistranslations? Isn’t the absurdity of these claims enough? I suggest that it is. Reminding them of what they 'claim' to believe is enough, in itself, to bring down the delusion. You can argue Philosophy until the cows come home but it won’t make two squirts of piss difference. In my own experience when I remind fundies of these ridiculous claims and why they are not only absurd but insulting to my intelligence the conversation ends very quickly. I’ve literally turned a good friend into a real questioner after about an hour of dialogue about these ‘Amaaaazing’ miracles. If I had tried the Philosophical approach we would still be talking.

[Ouroboros]

Logic is Philosophy.

 

If you're using logic or reason in your argument, you are using Philosophy. Philosophy is also about thinking about things on an abstract level, just like you do in your post.

 

So I'm not sure what is your view of philosophy, since you just used a philosophical approach in your post to argue against philosophy.

[RationalOkie]

Logic is Philosophy.

 

If you're using logic or reason in your argument, you are using Philosophy. Philosophy is also about thinking about things on an abstract level, just like you do in your post.

 

So I'm not sure what is your view of philosophy, since you just used a philosophical approach in your post to argue against philosophy.

 

So, which 'philosophical approach' did I use? To me I'm just using common sense not some named 'philosophical approach'. Common sense is not Philosophy, at least I don't think it is.

[RationalOkie]

If you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and I respond, "That's absurd!" What philosophical approach did I use?

[Vigile]

How do you know it's absurd?

[RationalOkie]

How do you know it's absurd?

 

Through my own observations on planet Earth.

[Vigile]

And those observations drive you to logical conclusions. Right?

[RationalOkie]

And those observations drive you to logical conclusions. Right?

 

Most of the time

[RationalOkie]

I'll admit that I could be wrong here but the definition is {1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, Oxford Dictionary}.

 

Han said, "Logic is Philosophy". I don't see that definition anywhere. Every definition that I've read said that Philosophy is either the "STUDY" of or the "THEORY" of. Start a sentence with "In my opinion" or "It's my belief" and that's Philosophy. Start a sentence with "It's a fact" or "I can prove", assuming that it IS a fact and you CAN prove it, then that is Science.

 

Again, I may have this all wrong here but that's how my brain sees Philosophy. I'm NOT saying that Philosophy can't change the world...obviously, it has. I'm saying the fastest way to 'Out-Logic' a fundy is post#1 of this thread.

[florduh]

I get what you're saying, Okie. Fancy, formal arguments are unnecessary against absurd and outrageous claims. Their basic positions and their "proofs" are unworthy of serious rebuttal.

[RationalOkie]

I get what you're saying, Okie. Fancy, formal arguments are unnecessary against absurd and outrageous claims. Their basic positions and their "proofs" are unworthy of serious rebuttal.

 

Basically...ya, that's the ticket. Hopping on the 'First Cause' arguement with LNC is the definition of futile. Why do it when you can just point out what I did in post #1? That IS what I'm trying to say, nothing else.

[Vigile]

At my university Logic was taught in the philosophy department. It's a component.

 

I get what you are saying as well. Sometimes you don't need to over complicate the issue. You do, however, need at least a foundation in logic to arrive at a valid conclusion on this and most issues. Common sense works if common sense is grounded in valid observations. Common sense can get you in a lot of trouble if it's not. People used to believe that thunder was god's anger. That was common sense but the observation wasn't valid.

[NotBlinded]

I get what you're saying, Okie. Fancy, formal arguments are unnecessary against absurd and outrageous claims. Their basic positions and their "proofs" are unworthy of serious rebuttal.

 

Basically...ya, that's the ticket. Hopping on the 'First Cause' arguement with LNC is the definition of futile. Why do it when you can just point out what I did in post #1? That IS what I'm trying to say, nothing else.

It's a hell-of-alot more fun to use their own metaphysical argument and show them how it can be used for anything. It proves nothing.

 

Besides, look at your definition from oxford again: 1 {the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, Oxford Dictionary}.

 

What else is there besides knowledge, reality and existence?

 

We can claim what they believe is absurd forever and get nowhere. It wasn't too long ago to think it absurd that people thought the earth was round (and Vigile's examples).

 

I see what you're saying, but philosophy plays a huge role in everything, including science and if they can convince people that their argument is sound, it becomes dangerous if it isn't fought with another sound argument.

[Ouroboros]

So, which 'philosophical approach' did I use? To me I'm just using common sense not some named 'philosophical approach'. Common sense is not Philosophy, at least I don't think it is.

The word "philosophy" can be translated to "love for wisdom." It's about how to reason, argue, and think about things in the world. When you discuss and give a reasonable argument for your viewpoint, it is "philosophizing." Philosophy is the "math" for common sense.

 

By saying that you are not using philosophy, it's basically saying that you rather use irrationality for your arguments.

 

Discussion is rhetoric. Especially formal rhetoric is under philosophy. By arguing and making reasons, you are using inference (philosophical term), deduction (philosophical term), induction (philosophical term), and you're also trying to avoid logical fallacies (a philosophical concept under the subcategory "logic"), and so on.

[Ouroboros]

If you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and I respond, "That's absurd!" What philosophical approach did I use?

Reason. That's philosophy.

 

Philosophy is to reason and argue your viewpoint.

 

However, in this particular example your reasoning is poorly supported. Just to use the phrase "that's absurd" is to only support with a personal opinion. But it is still rhetoric.

[Ouroboros]

And those observations drive you to logical conclusions. Right?

 

Most of the time

Then take a class in Logic at your nearest College. It's under the department of Philosophy. Oh shit! It can't be. So I guess you have to use irrational logic to reach your conclusions about reality. In other words, you are more likely to reach the conclusion that the FSM exists with pure faith and no reason. With reason, however, you will reach the conclusion FSM does not exist, but then unfortunately you used logic and reason. And then, bummer, you put yourself in the camp of philosophy again.

[Ouroboros]

I'll admit that I could be wrong here but the definition is {1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, Oxford Dictionary}.

 

Han said, "Logic is Philosophy". I don't see that definition anywhere. Every definition that I've read said that Philosophy is either the "STUDY" of or the "THEORY" of. Start a sentence with "In my opinion" or "It's my belief" and that's Philosophy. Start a sentence with "It's a fact" or "I can prove", assuming that it IS a fact and you CAN prove it, then that is Science.

 

Again, I may have this all wrong here but that's how my brain sees Philosophy. I'm NOT saying that Philosophy can't change the world...obviously, it has. I'm saying the fastest way to 'Out-Logic' a fundy is post#1 of this thread.

First of all "study" is done through reasoning and logic, therefore logic has been--always--a very strictly integrated part of philosophy.

 

At many Universities you can take courses in Scientific Philosophy, it's about the philosophy basics of what science is. Science grew out from philosophical thinking about the world. To dismiss philosophy is to dismiss the cables in the car.

 

From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)

Logic, from the Greek λογική (logiké)[1] is the art and science of reasoning.[2] More specifically, it is defined by the Penguin Encyclopedia to be "The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning".[3] As a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. It became part of the classical trivium, a fundamental part of a classical education, and is now an integral part of disciplines such as mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

 

Also look at the wikipage and what terrible word is placed in the yellow box to the right, that's right, it's "Philosophy."

 

Logic was born in Philosophy.

Logic is developed under Philosophy.

The Philosophy department at College teaches Logic.

Logic is NOT taught in Math, Science, Language, or mechanical engineering. It's under PHILOSOPHY.

 

The problem I see you're doing is that you're making a hasty generalization about what "philosophy" is. Because some arguments in Philosophy are displeasing to you, therefore all Philosophy is rotten.

 

And a second thought is, what right do you have to tell people they are doing something wrong by doing something they like?

 

If I hate shrimp, do I have the right to tell you, or anyone else, that you cannot eat shrimp? No one is allowed to discuss philosophy, because you don't like it. End of story. Your opinion and feeling about something should set the stage for everyone else. How is that right?

[Ouroboros]

Basically...ya, that's the ticket. Hopping on the 'First Cause' arguement with LNC is the definition of futile. Why do it when you can just point out what I did in post #1? That IS what I'm trying to say, nothing else.

Of course it is futile, because a person like LNC has blocked his own mind to see what is wrong with his reasoning.

 

But here is my question to you, if you hate reading or follow philosophical arguments, like the Kalaam, then why are you reading it and then criticize people for doing it?

[RationalOkie]

But here is my question to you, if you hate reading or follow philosophical arguments, like the Kalaam, then why are you reading it and then criticize people for doing it?

 

For the record, I have a B.S. In Computer Science at Oklahoma State University. I did take Philosophy and many other courses that I promptly ignored. As for your question I'm being critical of arguing with LNC over stupid stuff when we can just kick his ass in a nano-second with what I put in post #1. How long have these threads with him been going? Foooooooooorever. That's my point.

[RationalOkie]

 

It's a hell-of-alot more fun to use their own metaphysical argument and show them how it can be used for anything. It proves nothing.

 

Besides, look at your definition from oxford again: 1 {the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, Oxford Dictionary}.

 

What else is there besides knowledge, reality and existence?

 

We can claim what they believe is absurd forever and get nowhere. It wasn't too long ago to think it absurd that people thought the earth was round (and Vigile's examples).

 

I see what you're saying, but philosophy plays a huge role in everything, including science and if they can convince people that their argument is sound, it becomes dangerous if it isn't fought with another sound argument.

 

My way's just faster

[RationalOkie]

I'll admit that I could be wrong here but the definition is {1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, Oxford Dictionary}.

 

Han said, "Logic is Philosophy". I don't see that definition anywhere. Every definition that I've read said that Philosophy is either the "STUDY" of or the "THEORY" of. Start a sentence with "In my opinion" or "It's my belief" and that's Philosophy. Start a sentence with "It's a fact" or "I can prove", assuming that it IS a fact and you CAN prove it, then that is Science.

 

Again, I may have this all wrong here but that's how my brain sees Philosophy. I'm NOT saying that Philosophy can't change the world...obviously, it has. I'm saying the fastest way to 'Out-Logic' a fundy is post#1 of this thread.

First of all "study" is done through reasoning and logic, therefore logic has been--always--a very strictly integrated part of philosophy.

 

At many Universities you can take courses in Scientific Philosophy, it's about the philosophy basics of what science is. Science grew out from philosophical thinking about the world. To dismiss philosophy is to dismiss the cables in the car.

 

From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)

Logic, from the Greek λογική (logiké)[1] is the art and science of reasoning.[2] More specifically, it is defined by the Penguin Encyclopedia to be "The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning".[3] As a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. It became part of the classical trivium, a fundamental part of a classical education, and is now an integral part of disciplines such as mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

 

Also look at the wikipage and what terrible word is placed in the yellow box to the right, that's right, it's "Philosophy."

 

Logic was born in Philosophy.

Logic is developed under Philosophy.

The Philosophy department at College teaches Logic.

Logic is NOT taught in Math, Science, Language, or mechanical engineering. It's under PHILOSOPHY.

 

The problem I see you're doing is that you're making a hasty generalization about what "philosophy" is. Because some arguments in Philosophy are displeasing to you, therefore all Philosophy is rotten.

 

And a second thought is, what right do you have to tell people they are doing something wrong by doing something they like?

 

If I hate shrimp, do I have the right to tell you, or anyone else, that you cannot eat shrimp? No one is allowed to discuss philosophy, because you don't like it. End of story. Your opinion and feeling about something should set the stage for everyone else. How is that right?

 

By the way, At Oklahoma State University I took a course from the College of Business on 'Critical Thinking'. It was strictly a logic course. I think the Math majors at OSU take something similar as well. Logic does NOT just belong to Philosophy Dept, I assure you that is not true.

 

Secondly, you are getting waaaaaaaaaaay to bent out of shape over this topic are you a Philosophy graduate or something? I never said you guy's had to stop Philosophizing, I was just telling you that I think it's a waste of time with a lot of fundies. I think that's what they want.

[Ouroboros]

For the record, I have a B.S. In Computer Science at Oklahoma State University. I did take Philosophy and many other courses that I promptly ignored. As for your question I'm being critical of arguing with LNC over stupid stuff when we can just kick his ass in a nano-second with what I put in post #1. How long have these threads with him been going? Foooooooooorever. That's my point.

Well, then I cannot understand your hasty generalization of Philosophy.

 

Read again the history about logic, where it came from, and who developed it. Then also study how logic influenced computer science, and especially Boolean algebra.

 

Also look into from where the ideas to our Constitution came from, and what kind of profession the people had to influenced the ideas of free speech, liberty to pursue happiness, etc.

 

And regarding the Kalaam thread, I wanted to kill those threads with LNC a very long time ago. I wanted even to kick him out. But to please several newer members who specifically asked for the discussion to continue, I let them stay and even gave (my second or third roundabout) discussion with him, just to prove a point to these members that LNC can't break out of his blindness. So the purpose was not to please you and your intense hate for Philosophy, but to please other members who specifically asked for it to continue.

 

Free speech is about letting other people speak what they consider important. We can't limit it just because you don't like it.

[RationalOkie]

For the record, I have a B.S. In Computer Science at Oklahoma State University. I did take Philosophy and many other courses that I promptly ignored. As for your question I'm being critical of arguing with LNC over stupid stuff when we can just kick his ass in a nano-second with what I put in post #1. How long have these threads with him been going? Foooooooooorever. That's my point.

Well, then I can't understand your hasty generalization of Philosophy.

 

I wanted to kill those threads with LNC a very long time ago. I wanted even to kick him out. But to please several newer members who specifically asked for the discussion to continue, I let them stay and even gave (my second or third roundabout) discussion with him, just to prove a point to these members that LNC can't break out of his blindness. So the purpose was not to please you and your intense hate for Philosophy, but to please other members who specifically asked for it to continue.

 

Free speech is about letting other people speak what they consider important. We can't limit it just because you don't like it.

 

Dude...C'mon, who pee'd in your Wheaties today? Why would an Atheist like me be against 'Free Speech'. All I did was argue a different position and you've gone completely ape over it.

[NotBlinded]

 

By the way, At Oklahoma State University I took a course...

 

OSU? OMG!

 

 

J/K

 

 

[Ouroboros]

By the way, At Oklahoma State University I took a course from the College of Business on 'Critical Thinking'. It was strictly a logic course. I think the Math majors at OSU take something similar as well. Logic does NOT just belong to Philosophy Dept, I assure you that is not true.

Okay, fair enough.

 

But logic, critical thinking, formal rhetoric, etc, all grew out from philosophy. Just look it up. I agree, it's possible that they teach it under other disciplines as well, but it's foremost taught in philosophy.

 

Secondly, you are getting waaaaaaaaaaay to bent out of shape over this topic are you a Philosophy graduate or something?

I usually don't like it when people generalize too much, regardless which area it is. "All Christians are idiot and mass-murderers," is just as bad as "all atheists are immoral." And I sometimes take on the duty on correct such over-statements.

 

I never said you guy's had to stop Philosophizing, I was just telling you that I think it's a waste of time with a lot of fundies. I think that's what they want.

Most of them don't, because they don't have enough to do it. LNC is an exception. He does have years of school behind him, and the only reason why I debated with him the last couple of months was because I was asked to. And my purpose was to show how irrational he really is, even when he's using logic. He only use logic so far, but jump through hoops to avoid the pitfalls in his own arguments by stacking the strength of each argument. For instance, he believe Jesus existed, died, and was resurrected, because the huge number of 75% of the scholars believe so. But he's doubtful about certain parts of Evolution, because only 99% of scientists believe in it. And so on. It's important, not for the purpose of convincing him, but to show other ex-Christians who just started their journey, how the apologists reason. Not everyone is at the stage where you are.