Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

No, they have not gen. Troll is blocked.

Still no answer then?

---

I don't see it like that w. This to me has nothing to do with belief. It's just a simple point of logic that I shared. I thought it quite neat. I've tried to expand upon it several times, and have come to the conclusion that 3 people at least are simply trolling me here, and indeed, my block list has gained new members. People seem to be treating this as if it's some massive affront to their beliefs and have quarantined it in the "must not think about at any cost bucket". I've had enough. Like I've said, I have no investment in the idea. If anyone is interested, please go check out the original. Thomas Aquinas. The Summa. Thank you.

The poor Christian persecution complex.

You are being asked to justify your beliefs - which is to be expected in an atheist - nay, a philosophy forum. And the fact that so many people find your "neat conclusion" ridiculous shows that it isn't a neat conclusion.

---

"that which can be dismissed without reason, can also be claimed without one."

That would just lead to an unending cycle of claiming and dismissing.

Interesting. What follows should be some bickering over who holds 'the burden'. But, from your perspective, why should you justify your positive assertion to those who put so little effort into their casual negation. Kind of an object lesson to us. Okay, fair enough.

The point you are missing - and the one I made clear - is that I am ready and able to justify the negation. But I'll do so only after Frodo justifies his positive assertion which was made first. Making the argument about the negation and not the assertion itself is a sloppy diversionary tactic by Frodo to avoid the burden.

[Whateverist]

Interesting. What follows should be some bickering over who holds 'the burden'. But, from your perspective, why should you justify your positive assertion to those who put so little effort into their casual negation. Kind of an object lesson to us. Okay, fair enough.

The point you are missing - and the one I made clear - is that I am ready and able to justify the negation. But I'll do so only after Frodo justifies his positive assertion which was made first. Making the argument about the negation and not the assertion itself is a sloppy diversionary tactic by Frodo to avoid the burden.

It seems we have reached the part with the bickering. I didn't miss your point. I dis-missed it. Did you likewise dismiss my point that whether or not we are engaged in a debate can itself be the question? And yes I can very well raise that question in a philosophy thread. Such questions are true philosophy whereas engaging along settled rules is indicative of having moved on to other subjects.

It doesn't look like Fr0d0 intends to justify himself to you as he has blocked you. Hopefully this won't lead to a bout of shitting all over the board, knocking over the pieces and claiming victory.

[genkaus]

It seems we have reached the part with the bickering. I didn't miss your point. I dis-missed it. Did you likewise dismiss my point that whether or not we are engaged in a debate can itself be the question? And yes I can very well raise that question in a philosophy thread. Such questions are true philosophy whereas engaging along settled rules is indicative of having moved on to other subjects.

True Philosophy? Really?

I don't see much point in coming here, simply spouting opinions and then saying "I don't have to justify any of that". I come here to refine my views and my debating skills.

It doesn't look like Fr0d0 intends to justify himself to you as he has blocked you. Hopefully this won't lead to a bout of shitting all over the board, knocking over the pieces and claiming victory.

Nope. I'll continue countering any and all ridiculous points he makes because that is what I'm interested in. His knowing that is irrelevant.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Darn it! I was so wrapped up in my own responses that I totally missed that Gen and Frodo were debating about Aquinas!

[Whateverist]

It seems we have reached the part with the bickering. I didn't miss your point. I dis-missed it. Did you likewise dismiss my point that whether or not we are engaged in a debate can itself be the question? And yes I can very well raise that question in a philosophy thread. Such questions are true philosophy whereas engaging along settled rules is indicative of having moved on to other subjects.

True Philosophy? Really?

Definitely. "Debate" is half way down the hall on its way to becoming "rhetoric". Of course, in any undergraduate philosophy department there will be many courses where the philosophy of the past is picked over and studied to learn the way of it. But when you're ready to actually do some philosophy, you'll be wrestling with what points are most pertinent and how they all relate. What gets published will be the schema that best organizes the issues and identifies the criteria essential to answering the question.

I don't see much point in coming here, simply spouting opinions and then saying "I don't have to justify any of that". I come here to refine my views and my debating skills.

And neither do I. I'm just arguing that debate as such is not philosophy. And though making reasoned arguments belongs in philosophy, the scope of the question is what determines whether you're engaged in fresh philosophy or merely picking over the bones of dead and settled questions which have probably become the domain of some other field of study.

[genkaus]

Definitely. "Debate" is half way down the hall on its way to becoming "rhetoric". Of course, in any undergraduate philosophy department there will be many courses where the philosophy of the past is picked over and studied to learn the way of it. But when you're ready to actually do some philosophy, you'll be wrestling with what points are most pertinent and how they all relate. What gets published will be the schema that best organizes the issues and identifies the criteria essential to answering the question.

I don't "do philosophy" in response to points made by someone else. But as you point put here, both picking apart pre-existing arguments and making your own come under the study of philosophy.

And neither do I. I'm just arguing that debate as such is not philosophy. And though making reasoned arguments belongs in philosophy, the scope of the question is what determines whether you're engaged in fresh philosophy or merely picking over the bones of dead and settled questions.

Debate on its own - no. But when you are debating philosophical positions by making reasoned arguments....

As for the bones of dead and settled questions - which one are you talking about here?

[Whateverist]

As for the bones of dead and settled questions - which one are you talking about here?

Just theism and theology. I misspoke though. I meant that the question of whether any god exists is the domain of theology, not philosophy .. at least not of the fresh variety. But I take your point. If a theist comes to a philosophy thread to discuss theology, one might reasonably expect they are there to discuss its foundations. Then, if only assertions devoid of justification are offered, you can reasonably complain about passing that off in a philosophy thread. (Objection withdrawn.)

[fr0d0]

Philosophically, I've attempted to explain Aquinas' statement. To me it was plainly obvious without the need for explanation. I would think that's the nature of philosophical propositions. They're made and are presented for critique. You are free to go check up on the source, which is widely available online in many formats, and then come back here and raise your points of contention of you so wish. I don't own those claims, I merely repeat them. What I'm getting here is admonishment for not making someone else's claims understandable to those who start from a position of objection, of having a biased starting point which would naturally prevent themselves from understanding it anyway. The source is there, and with three objections to every point dealt with. Rather than bleat on repeatedly here, just go and work it out for yourself just like everyone else has to. I can't think for you.

[genkaus]

As for the bones of dead and settled questions - which one are you talking about here?

Just theism and theology. I misspoke though. I meant that the question of whether any god exists is the domain of theology, not philosophy .. at least not of the fresh variety. But I take your point. If a theist comes to a philosophy thread to discuss theology, one might reasonably expect they are there to discuss its foundations. Then, if only assertions devoid of justification are offered, you can reasonably complain about passing that off in a philosophy thread. (Objection withdrawn.)

We are in agreement on this.

But I think there has been some miscommunication somewhere. The assertion Frodo made wasn't specific to theism. The assertion was "morals derived from the assumption of a just and fair reality are preferable". This statement is not exclusive to theistic position. For example, the atheistic belief in Karma also assumes a just reality.

[Whateverist]

Worst production values for a video clip on youtube ever. But it makes my point. Why should I read and think about what that guy Aquinas has to say? Why can't you just put the article in a bed pan and hold it where I can hit it?

http://youtu.be/wJUQXkgHM48