Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[Gingerbeardman]

I can't keep hinging my argument against metaphysics on something else further down the line, else it's also gonna be an endless regression of arguments each dependent on some additional fact you assert the argument requires being tethered to. Nothing I say about language or civilisation is going to render my inverted nonsense argument against metaphysics moot.

Yes, but not replacing metaphysics with an alternative, which is the default atheist position, is retarded. You inititally asked in not so many words why theists look down upon atheists. Nothing about the mootness of metaphysics is going to render my point here about the dumbness of atheists moot.

Even if it's true that metaphysics and religious enquiry has laid the foundation for civilisation, the atheist still believes all that enquiry to be so much Santa Clause & fiction.

Then he must give up civilisation, or build an alternative, or should stfu and remain quiet like a good little hypocrite.

There's no rule which stipulates that which is foundation needs to be true. In ancient times I might've held the belief that your pox arose from demonic possession and it's best to keep clear of you red ass for fear that your demon jumps down my throat. That belief, though false, still serves a useful purpose in putting some distance between myself and your itchy body. I have a false belief that serves beneficial utility.

Right, which would be the position metaphysics finds itself in. You remove that piece of the puzzle, the whole schema comes crashing down around you. It might be nonsense, but it is useful nonsense.

But the atheist could still point at that belief as being false without rendering civilisation or language or truth or anything else about our world moot.

Sure, if you believe that everybody inside a civilisation can hold that civilisation together while acting in bad faith.

Personally, I think anyone who believes this is deluding themselves.

Life is too complex and full of nuance for everything we care about to be so fragile & dependent on what has come before; the universe and our societies are too complex and adaptive to be like a helpless baby that goes out with the metaphysical bath water.

And yet evolution is so conservative that most of our brain regions still have homologous counterparts to the brains found in amphibians, even though our species diverged over 200 million years ago. When you throw out the foundations you have to start from square 1.

Now notice that I have not said that metaphysics is the only answer. I have only criticised you for criticising metaphysics without offering an alternative.

 

[saor]

Now notice that I have not said that metaphysics is the only answer. I have only criticised you for criticising metaphysics without offering an alternative.

And I'm gonna reject the criticism because nowhere else in life is such an absurd request made. If you have a criticism of evolution or capitalism or marxism and have a coherent argument against it, I'm not also going to demand that you offer an alternative in order for your argument to be valid. Because then I can just perpetually roadblack anything you say by pointing out that you don't have an alternative.

There's also the fact that we obviously have fundamentally different views on metaphysics. You're expecting me to replace metaphysics, but you're doing so from your position of regarding metaphysics as being the essential Jenga block that cannot be removed unless equivalently replaced.

 

[STS]

Language is a form of communication - its a medium that is used to convey meaning.
There is nothing more to language than that.

What is, is.
Whether or not you understand anything/nothing has nothing to do with what is.
Just because you don't fully/comprehensively/completely understand gravity does not mean that it (gravity) is not.
Gravity quite simply is.
What you think is has nothing to do with what is.

We try to make sense of things - we try to understand/grasp what is.
The reality be that we are only partially (minutely) able to understand/grasp/comprehend reality (what is).

The funny part is that if you substitute the word gravity for evolution, you get the same argument we have been making to you all these months. Imagine someone denying gravity

 

[Gingerbeardman]

And I'm gonna reject the criticism because nowhere else in life is such an absurd request made. If you have a criticism of evolution or capitalism or marxism and have a coherent argument against it, I'm not also going to demand that you offer an alternative in order for your argument to be valid. Because then I can just perpetually roadblack anything you say by pointing out that you don't have an alternative.

If you say capitalism or marxism is kak, but you don't offer an alternative, why the hell should your criticism be taken seriously if it means abandoning economics alltogether or if your replacement is just capitalism or marxism with a different name on the door?

That's the position you are in, and it applies everywhere in life, and I can see no reason why atheists should be exempt from this.

As for the example of evolution, I consider that to be comparing apples and oranges because so far as I can tell none of our social institutions are grounded in the concept of evolution, which is to say that I can't see what practical difference it makes whether or not you believe in evolution.

There's also the fact that we obviously have fundamentally different views on metaphysics. You're expecting me to replace metaphysics, but you're doing so from your position of regarding metaphysics as being the essential Jenga block that cannot be removed unless equivalently replaced.

You either have faith in the power of words or you don't. The traditional basis for the power of words insofar as it can grasp reality is metaphysics. There's no way around the fact that science and philosophy and all of the various fruits of Western civilisation grew out of this tradition, and are thus ultimately dependent upon it for their claim to be able to address reality. Despite me pointing this brute fact out to you time and time again, you've done nothing to call this observation into question.

You need a system of words for a civilisation; for better or worse, our system is encapsulated in what is called metaphysics, because that's where we get our concepts such as identity and causality and necessity from. How is this observation wrong?

 

[saor]

If you say capitalism or marxism is kak, but you don't offer an alternative, why the hell should your criticism be taken seriously if it means abandoning economics alltogether or if your replacement is just capitalism or marxism with a different name on the door?

That's the position you are in, and it applies everywhere in life, and I can see no reason why atheists should be exempt from this.

Then we live in different realities. If you seriously believe that a criticism of something also requires an alternative in order for the criticism to be valid then I don't know what to say. In my work life we regularly criticise each others ideas without demanding that those being critical also offer alternatives. A criticism is an argument against the facts at hand. I've never known a criticism to also require a valid alternative to that which is being criticised in order for the criticism to be valid.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Then we live in different realities. If you seriously believe that a criticism of something also requires an alternative in order for the criticism to be valid then I don't know what to say.

Capitalism has flaws. That doesn't mean we throw it away. You're the one who says metaphysics is nonsense because it has flaws, while ignoring the degree to which it holds up. I did not foist this move upon you. If you don't like the consequences of taking the move, then I suggest you try a different one, but otherwise I have no qualms about taking your move and playing it against your position.

In my work life we regularly criticise each others ideas without demanding that those being critical also offer alternatives. A criticism is an argument against the facts at hand. I've never known a criticism to also require a valid alternative to that which is being criticised in order for the criticism to be valid.

Ok, so paint the picture for me. You're at work and one of your work colleagues says "You know, capitalism is nonsense", and from there the conversation proceeds how?

 

[saor]

Ok, so paint the picture for me. You're at work and one of your work colleagues says "You know, capitalism is nonsense", and from there the conversation proceeds how?

Them: "Capitalism is nonsense because facts x y z".
Me: Yeah, I agree / disagree with your points.

Though we would obviously debate points x y z, the validity of their criticism doesn't also depend on them providing an alternative to Capitalism. An idea can surely be criticized and proven wrong without an alternative being provided. Else it would look like this:

Them: "Capitalism is nonsense because facts x y z".
Me: Ja but you've provided no alternative so your criticism is invalid.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Them: "Capitalism is nonsense because facts x y z".
Me: Yeah, I agree / disagree with your points.

Though we would obviously debate points x y z, the validity of their criticism doesn't also depend on them providing an alternative to Capitalism. An idea can surely be criticized and proven wrong without an alternative being provided. Else it would look like this:

Them: "Capitalism is nonsense because facts x y z".
Me: Ja but you've provided no alternative so your criticism is invalid.

But I haven't claimed that your criticism is without merit. However, you're the one endorsing the atheist position, which to plug it into the scenario would probably be tantamount to acapitalism, as in the rejection of all capitalistic tenets.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but so far the only specific criticism that you have made of metaphysics is that it can be prone to error (post #846). But if criticising capitalism doesn't mean throwing capitalism away, then your criticism of metaphysics can be valid and yet still not warrant throwing metaphysics away, like you've tried to claim. We can't just do away with metaphysics like it won't have knock-on effects, similarly we can't just do away with capitalism and expect the economy to still be functional afterwards if an alternative isn't provided.