Strident Atheists' Pre-Election Poll

Post Reply New Topic

In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.

That is just false. You are incompetent in delivering a knock out blow to apologists. I can.

Evidence: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt143014.html

And now I feel old.


Could just be that it's Monday.

I disagree. The enemy we fight fights with rhetoric first and as its primary source of power and control. While the rationalism should be protected, the rhetoric needs to be finely tuned and turned louder at appropriate times while softer when necessary.

Talking dirty to me wont get you my vote. And your rationalism needs a prophylactic.

HA HA HA HA HA! I am glad someone got the joke.

Actually you don't. I said "get in the way of". Secondly, that statement that you are protesting on grounds of the value of rhetoric is actually a very very rhetorically loaded statement, in fact, often statements attacking rhetoric are laced with rhetoric, and really just done on behalf of promoting a virtue.

Yes, a debate against 91, a man who is defiant to even logic itself, is really good evidence of my lack of talent. Seriously, he's disputed textbook logic, taking multiple pages where multiple posters pointed out that his claims disagreed with standard textbooks on the matter. The fact that I can take the time to deal with the endless waves of inanity show that I deserve a medal for patience.

Even further, in that thread, there is no real sign of you showing much ability to deal a knock-out blow. Maybe you disagree, but seriously, I have seen no sign that you have the great counter-apologetics skills you think you do.

A tactic that one must be familiar with and proficient in.

Every apologist is defiant to logic and evidence to some extend. It is naive to think that one can convince an apologist simply by stating logic. The way to silence an apologist is to convince him he cannot hope to stay in the game by producing more nonsense. It is evident that the same 91 quits debating with me much sooner than with you.

I would have to actually agree with his criticisms of your method. Your focus on rigor is unrealistic for the average conception, as while it may be true that everything can be stated in analytic terms, it is not true that in order for a position to be valid, it has to be stated in analytic terms. Even further, a lot of these arguments HAVE BEEN, just that 91 wasn't going to cut and paste an entire analytic argument. Secondly, a lot of your criticisms do go back go an infinite regress.

Even further, 91 himself recognized that I, unlike you, was acting from a standpoint of familiarity with the issue.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf144289-0-150.html

Note, let's be fair to myself, I think that his position is intellectually unjustified. I even provided a logical disproof of his notion of God using very basic premises.(this is where he began to question logic itself) However, I do agree with him that I clearly know what's going on in the underlying philosophical issues, and that your criticisms are often rather stupid. (Note: I did defend YOUR lack of rigor in a criticism of the cosmological argument if I remember correctly, pointing out that Craig has practically done the same thing in presentation that you were being criticized for, making the criticism overly pedantic.... BUT the degree to which your method DOES seem overly pedantic, or even similar to presuppositionalism in terms of focus on everything starting perfectly analytic isn't something I can get behind)

(It is true though, that 91 doesn't address issues as much as he ought. For instance Waltur was still asking for his perfect pizza, which the ontological argument ought to give us.)

Maybe. but most apologist arguments I know are just attempts to mislead with sloppy definitions. This is especially a problem with traditional books and formal debates because the opponent cannot ask for clarifications in real time. IF the apologist is capable of clearly defining all terms, then we have a clear and fixed target to attack. For example, in the ontological argument, it is impossible to see if being maximally great is logically consistent unless one can define how greatness is measured and compared.



I admit your greater knowledge of the literature, but so is 91. He knows your objections before you write, and he knows what to respond. The progress of these exchanges is almost predictable. In your quote, he has the bundle to provide a well defined proof, and he fails. His comment is nothing more than a rant that I don't play by the book.


I think I missed that part.



In what way? Because my criticism does not appear in standard textbooks?


OK I must thank you for that.

The problem is that this kind of definition isn't how most things work in practice ANYWAY. Especially given that a lot of these worldview issues can get massive. I don't think most apologetic arguments are just efforts to mislead though, they are real arguments that have questionable validity. 91 was actually trying to cite peer-reviewed philosophy. He might not have understood it(beyond my ability to comment on) but it isn't as if this is all a sham here.

Some ontological arguments DO define these terms better. Plantinga's modal effort is more defined. Anselm's imagination argument assumes that there is an ordered scale of greatness that we can all intuitively refer back to, but that doesn't make it NECESSARILY invalid.


Well, I try to be fair if I can. Waltur's great pizza is a well-known and completely powerful objection to ontological arguments. ALL OF THEM fail that standard. Also, it is entirely true that the last steps of how the cosmological argument makes sense are generally not emphasized and that the argument gets REALLY REALLY weak at that point. (Timeless mind? Seriously???)

A vague 'argument' is just gibberish. It is not even possible to say if it is sound or not. One trick of apologetic is to equivocate terms so while each proposition look reasonable, the whole argument fails when all terms are analyzed and compared. I explained how Plantinga's modal effort fails in another thread.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3520048.html#3520048

The problem is that you attacked the much logically sounder elements of Plantinga's argument, y'know, the parts that are less disputed. Plantinga is clearly vulnerable to Gaunillo's island objections, but efforts to attack the modal framework do not seem to be as clear as failures.

I see here that Fnord has been unbanned. If nominations are still being accepted, he should be considered.