Page 7 of 8 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Come June 10, would you vote for a leftwing secularist above a radical right-libertarian to be WP's Most Strident Atheist given that radical right-libertarian policies lead to low levels of atheism?
I would vote for the leftwing secularist! 55%  55%  [ 18 ]
No, I would vote for the religion helping, self-hating atheist right-libertarian. 15%  15%  [ 5 ]
None of the above 30%  30%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 33

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

29 Mar 2011, 11:58 am

01001011 wrote:
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.
91 wrote:
I would be cautious on commenting on the way that AG takes on the debate, he has shown a large degree of familiarity with the subject matter. He does not make the mistake of assuming that the other side's contentions are unfounded, he just concludes that they are wrong.

The arguments I am putting forward have been subject to the peer-review process attacking the underlying definitions is a risky proposition since you are assuming they cannot be justified.
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.)



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 999

30 Mar 2011, 8:02 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
01001011 wrote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Even further, 91 himself recognized that I, unlike you, was acting from a standpoint of familiarity with the issue.
91 wrote:
I would be cautious on commenting on the way that AG takes on the debate, he has shown a large degree of familiarity with the subject matter. He does not make the mistake of assuming that the other side's contentions are unfounded, he just concludes that they are wrong.

The arguments I am putting forward have been subject to the peer-review process attacking the underlying definitions is a risky proposition since you are assuming they cannot be justified.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf144289-0-150.html


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.

Quote:
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)

I think I missed that part.

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
(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.)

OK I must thank you for that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

30 Mar 2011, 12:00 pm

01001011 wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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. [/quote[
I agree that his efforts are failures

Quote:
I think I missed that part.

It was another thread on God and the Best of All Possible worlds a bit later. I provided a deductive argument, and all the theists gave were relatively unpersuasive criticisms, about how this MIGHT BE the best of all possible worlds. I can't find it because I lack time right now, but I know that some other posters likely know about it. Ruveyn actually mentioned to 91 that his claims defied textbook logic. Orwell spent a lot of time trying to get 91 to actually understand what was basic logic.

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

Well, some of them ARE standard. I mean, the issue on spontaneous generation in physics was cited by Stenger against Craig. However, definitional issues are often a questionable direction to go if things are being developed in analytic philosphy. An ideal argument in analytical philosophy can be expressed in symbolic logic, and some iteration of all of 91's arguments have been expressed in highly mathematical terms, I am certain.

Quote:
OK I must thank you for that.

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???)



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 999

04 Apr 2011, 9:59 am

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



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

04 Apr 2011, 11:29 am

01001011 wrote:
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.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

19 Apr 2011, 8:49 am

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


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

19 Apr 2011, 9:13 am

NobelCynic wrote:
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? :twisted: )

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.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


loftyD
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

19 Apr 2011, 10:20 am

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



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

19 Apr 2011, 3:15 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
Fnord has been unbanned.

Evidence, please?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

19 Apr 2011, 3:19 pm

Orwell wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
Fnord has been unbanned.

Evidence, please?


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


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

19 Apr 2011, 3:28 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
Fnord has been unbanned.

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

19 Apr 2011, 3:32 pm

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



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."


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

19 Apr 2011, 3:50 pm

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


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. :lol:

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.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

19 Apr 2011, 3:59 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Apparently there were complaints that he was too aggressive in questioning the assumptions of the faithful...

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.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

21 Apr 2011, 11:22 am

Dox47 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
I wasn't aware Fnord had been banned, actually.


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. :lol:

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH