Strident Atheists' Pre-Election Poll

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Fnord does exist! topic

Fnord is back? (Maybe his account? )

But where are 91, Sand, Waltur, among others too numerous to mention? Have not seen them for some time.

Is there a list of candidates for Most Strident Atheist? I might have meissed a few pages i was reviewing.

can i nominate myself. I am a deviant Atheist ahaha.

Evidence, please?

It's true, I saw a post by him yesterday though I can't recall what thread it was in.

I know, Cynic linked to the post. I just miss Fnord's catchphrase.

I wasn't aware Fnord had been banned, actually.

Fnord was never banned, you just couldn't see him.



now to explain the joke since most people haven't read the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord

"In these novels, the interjection "fnord" is given hypnotic power over the unenlightened. Under the Illuminati program, children in grade school are taught to be unable to consciously see the word "fnord". For the rest of their lives, every appearance of the word subconsciously generates a feeling of uneasiness and confusion, and prevents rational consideration of the subject. This results in a perpetual low-grade state of fear in the populace. The government acts on the premise that a fearful populace keeps them in power."

Really? His banning was one of the greatest sins of the old moderation regime, especially since it reportedly came about after a PM argument with one of the mods. Sort of ironic that you didn't know, since he just disappeared and no one was allowed to talk about him because of that positively Orwellian rule.

Apparently there were complaints that he was too aggressive in questioning the assumptions of the faithful...

Actually I'm kind of surprised it took him this long to get back, I mean it only took me a few months.

Yeah, but I don't think that never qualified as a reason for banning, did it?

I thought that the reason may have been for problems with the Haven forum, as there were complains of he being aggresive towards posters from the Haven forum, but I really can't say for certain

Anyway, I'm glad he is back, now he can join the strident atheists.

Well, right, it's often hard to know if someone got banned or if they left the site of their own accord, precisely because of that silly rule.

Thanks for your endorsement.