Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 13, 2020, 12:27:02 PM
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
Go easy on the 'pejorative' old chap: there are some wonderful fairy stories out there even if they aren't remotely believable. The trick is not to take them literally once you've recognised them as being fantasy.
-
Go easy on the 'pejorative' old chap: there are some wonderful fairy stories out there even if they aren't remotely believable. The trick is not to take them literally once you've recognised them as being fantasy.
How then do you suggest I take 'The God Delusion' if not literally?
-
How then do you suggest I take 'The God Delusion' if not literally?
I suggest you consult a librarian since you've clearly be looking in the wrong shelf.
-
I suggest you consult a librarian since you've clearly be looking in the wrong shelf.
It is frequently misplaced by Waterstones as 'popular science'.
-
It is frequently misplaced by Waterstones as 'popular science'.
Try looking in 'Theology', Vlad.
-
Try looking in 'Theology', Vlad.
Already got a copy Gordon. I was actually unsurprised by the atheism rather than his antiphysicistism.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
From the wikipedia entry on 'Fairy Tales':
A fairy tale, fairytale, wonder tale, magic tale, or Märchen is an instance of a folklore genre that takes the form of a short story. Such stories typically feature entities such as dwarfs, dragons, elves, fairies, giants, gnomes, goblins, griffins, mermaids, talking animals, trolls, unicorns, or witches, and usually magic or enchantments. In most cultures, there is no clear line separating myth from folk or fairy tale; all these together form the literature of preliterate societies.
It's a story (or collection of stories) featuring magic, magical creatures and supernatural forces. The fact that you accept it as some depiction of reality is what differentiates the Bible from Grimm's works, not anything in the base material.
O.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
I'm not sure that I've ever compared religion to fairy stories - but perhaps I can give some insight as to why some may well do.
Firstly because neither fairy stories nor religion are evidence-based. There is no evidence that the claims in the fairy stories nor religions are true.
Secondly, while not having a scrap of evidence to support their fundamental veracity, both fairy stories and religion work on the basis of allegory, providing a moral or meaning that is to be taken away from the story. So although not actually true they provide value in societies to cement cultural and societal norms.
I also agree that comparing religion to fairy stories is often a pejorative approach (whether that is reasonable or not I leave to others), however you could just as easily equate religions to myths or fables, which also are typically not based on factual truth but provide a message.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
This is a case of asking a question knowing full well (from your years of posting on this Forum) what the answers are going to be - in your view they will be "taking the piss" and in everyone elses the will be "stating facts and truth!"
In a written way you have just asked, in the real world, to have people kick you on the butt!
Further to the first point, I think you are asking the question knowing the answer and asking for opportunities to show off what you consider to be your intelligence, wit and humour.
-
This is a case of asking a question knowing full well (from your years of posting on this Forum) what the answers are going to be - in your view they will be "taking the piss" and in everyone elses the will be "stating facts and truth!"
In a written way you have just asked, in the real world, to have people kick you on the butt!
Further to the first point, I think you are asking the question knowing the answer and asking for opportunities to show off what you consider to be your intelligence, wit and humour.
Well you know and I know that it's not just the usual suspects who read this board or at least used to be. And there's a chance one's posts on this MB have been hawked by a certain laddie onto FFSTDT. I know mine have.
-
Well you know and I know that it's not just the usual suspects who read this board or at least used to be. And there's a chance one's posts on this MB have been hawked by a certain laddie onto FFSTDT. I know mine have.
What does FFGTTDT mean?
-
From the perspective of one who believes in God, I can understand completely the comparison. The thing is, I can't defend to anyone why I still have a strong faith in a loving God that I feel is part of every moment when my world was so shattered when I found out my parents had deliberately deceived me about Santa Clause. (What a terrible day that was.) Having said that, I have not been able to see the Bible as inerrant mainly because of my Santa Clause experience.
-
Because the dimmer ones like to pretend that all religion is as daft as the daftest shores of religion. They pretend we're all swivel-eyed fundies, though they know perfectly well that there are far more intelligent versions around.
-
Because the dimmer ones like to pretend that all religion is as daft as the daftest shores of religion. They pretend we're all swivel-eyed fundies, though they know perfectly well that there are far more intelligent versions around.
What is a far more intelligent reason to believe in a 'god'?
-
Because the dimmer ones like to pretend that all religion is as daft as the daftest shores of religion. They pretend we're all swivel-eyed fundies, though they know perfectly well that there are far more intelligent versions around.
Or, rather, because it's a continuum from 'serious' religion at one end to Santa at the other, and there isn't a clear line to delineate anywhere why one should be considered 'just' a story and the other should be considered some understanding of reality. If there are no obvious qualitative differences in the concepts (rather than people's responses to them) then why should there be an artificial distinction?
O.
-
Or, rather, because it's a continuum from 'serious' religion at one end to Santa at the other, and there isn't a clear line to delineate anywhere why one should be considered 'just' a story and the other should be considered some understanding of reality. If there are no obvious qualitative differences in the concepts (rather than people's responses to them) then why should there be an artificial distinction?
O.
I’m going to call you on this one.........demonstrate that continuum.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
They equate religion with fairy stories because the stories have magic and the supernatural in them and are generally accepted to be obviously not true. Fairy stories are also considered to be for children and we all "grow out of them".
As for the "pejorative way", I can't be sure of other people's motives, but my opinion is that it is a reaction against the undue reverence that many people give to religious ideas. In any other context, the story of Jesus' resurrection would be considered to be obviously mythical and we would categorise people that believed it to be nutters, but because it's part of Christian folklore, we treat it seriously. We even have a national holiday to commemorate it.
The same applies to things like "the Sky Fairy", "zombie on a stick" and so on.
-
They equate religion with fairy stories because the stories have magic and the supernatural in them and are generally accepted to be obviously not true. Fairy stories are also considered to be for children and we all "grow out of them".
As for the "pejorative way", I can't be sure of other people's motives, but my opinion is that it is a reaction against the undue reverence that many people give to religious ideas. In any other context, the story of Jesus' resurrection would be considered to be obviously mythical and we would categorise people that believed it to be nutters, but because it's part of Christian folklore, we treat it seriously. We even have a national holiday to commemorate it.
The same applies to things like "the Sky Fairy", "zombie on a stick" and so on.
After experiencing atheists on this board, I’m afraid I cannot accept any plea of having grown up.
-
After experiencing atheists on this board, I’m afraid I cannot accept any plea of having grown up.
Don't worry, nobody is accusing you of it.
-
They equate religion with fairy stories because the stories have magic and the supernatural in them and are generally accepted to be obviously not true. Fairy stories are also considered to be for children and we all "grow out of them".
As for the "pejorative way", I can't be sure of other people's motives, but my opinion is that it is a reaction against the undue reverence that many people give to religious ideas. In any other context, the story of Jesus' resurrection would be considered to be obviously mythical and we would categorise people that believed it to be nutters, but because it's part of Christian folklore, we treat it seriously. We even have a national holiday to commemorate it.
The same applies to things like "the Sky Fairy", "zombie on a stick" and so on.
Use of words sky fairy are deliberately used by atheists to make themselves feel superior despite the bollocks about wanting to educate theists.
I am well aware of the atheist humbug. OK to piss on theists but you tell an atheist that you think the sainted Douglas Adams was a **nt or educate them on the Larry Krauss experience and then see what happens.
-
Don't worry, nobody is accusing you of it.
What a mature response.
-
I’m going to call you on this one.........demonstrate that continuum.
I just gave my explanation of why - if you think it's wrong, show me where the qualitative 'line in the sand' is that differentiates morality tales of magical beings which people don't believe from the morality tales of magical beings which people do believe.
O.
-
After experiencing atheists on this board, I’m afraid I cannot accept any plea of having grown up.
I guess every once in a while we need to lower ourselves to the levels of infantalism you demonstrate in most of your posts Vlad.
There you go - there's a new '-ism' you can band around.
-
From the perspective of one who believes in God, I can understand completely the comparison. The thing is, I can't defend to anyone why I still have a strong faith in a loving God that I feel is part of every moment when my world was so shattered when I found out my parents had deliberately deceived me about Santa Clause. (What a terrible day that was.) Having said that, I have not been able to see the Bible as inerrant mainly because of my Santa Clause experience.
I guess my point is to determine to what extent your continuing belief in (I presume) a christian god is inherent and intrinsic or learned behaviour (like Santa) albeit enduring learned behaviour (unless Santa).
It would be helpful to know a little more about your upbringing if you are willing to share. Over the years, for our longstanding posters, we've learned a lot about each other, but as a newbie I don't think I know much about you.
I know you are based in the USA (Florida currently) - and I guess if you were brought up in the US then you would have been growing up in a society whether christianity was pretty omni-present and both accepted and acceptable. It would be interesting to know if you were brought up in a christian household and perhaps specifically brought up to be christian. I think these are the elements of learned behaviour that can be incredible enduring even if (as you put it) you can't explain or defend why.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
Fairy stories are tales which lack credibility, as do the tales relating to religion.
-
Fairy stories are tales which lack credibility..........
So I was right about “The God Delusion”.
-
So I was right about “The God Delusion”.
If you mean Biblical literalists are deluded, you are correct.
-
What a mature response.
Maybe if you made a mature comment you would get a mature response.
-
Fairy stories are tales which lack credibility, as do the tales relating to religion.
It seems silly to dismiss things with a "that's rubbish" approach. Fairy tales may not be credible in the true sense of the word but a one sentence dismissal of those, and of tales from religion is dismissing an incredible number of stories that tell us much about our past and our superstitions. See here for on overview of fairy tales:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale
-
Fairy stories are tales which lack credibility, as do the tales relating to religion.
...but which may have very profound allegorical and mythical meanings, as may the tales relating to religion.
-
...but which may have very profound allegorical and mythical meanings, as may the tales relating to religion.
That is a matter of opinion.
-
Vlad,
I am well aware of the atheist humbug. OK to piss on theists…
Who does that?
…but you tell an atheist that you think the sainted Douglas Adams was a **nt or educate them on the Larry Krauss experience and then see what happens.
“What happens” is that it’s explained to you that you’re indulging in ad hominem attacks that say nothing at all about their ideas. In turn you just ignore being found out, go quiet for a bit, then repeat the same fallacy.
‘twas ever thus.
-
...but which may have very profound allegorical and mythical meanings, as may the tales relating to religion.
Allegoric, yes - many fairy tales are either deliberately intended or subsequently amended/interpreted to have a moral or lesson to teach, or an insight to deliver. As to what might be meant by 'mythical' meaning that's fraught - sometimes 'mythic' is used to imply something that may have had real-world origins before it was distorted by subsequent retellings, reinventions and reimaginings.
I'm not sure anyone suggests that religious tales have no profound allegorical lessons - some might dispute which lessons remain valid and which are a product of their time - but the key point is that there's no reason from the stories themselves to presume that they should be treated as a different class of work from fairy tales.
O.
-
I'm not sure anyone suggests that religious tales have no profound allegorical lessons - some might dispute which lessons remain valid and which are a product of their time - but the key point is that there's no reason from the stories themselves to presume that they should be treated as a different class of work from fairy tales.
That is a matter of opinion.
I stand corrected... :-X
O.
-
Allegoric, yes - many fairy tales are either deliberately intended or subsequently amended/interpreted to have a moral or lesson to teach, or an insight to deliver. As to what might be meant by 'mythical' meaning that's fraught - sometimes 'mythic' is used to imply something that may have had real-world origins before it was distorted by subsequent retellings, reinventions and reimaginings.
I'm not sure anyone suggests that religious tales have no profound allegorical lessons - some might dispute which lessons remain valid and which are a product of their time - but the key point is that there's no reason from the stories themselves to presume that they should be treated as a different class of work from fairy tales.
O.
Indeed I mentioned the allegorical aspects of religious stories, upthread.
I think the issue here is that fairy stories, myths etc don't claim to be literally true, whereas people do claim religious stories to be literally true. That is why I (and I suspect many others) have no problem with tales of myth and folklore and enjoy and learn from them in terms of allegorical message and the insight they provide to ancient cultures and societies. Yet I do have a problem with religion specifically as they often claim as literal truth fantastic and incredulous events, without a scrap of evidence. Drop the claim to actual truth and accept the claims of religion to be myth and stories which may have useful insight and you'll gain far more acceptance.
The difference between myth and religion is that people typically no longer believe the former to be literally true (although they almost certainly did once). In due course, no doubt, people will talk about Christian myths in the same manner as we talk today of Greek mythology.
-
I think the issue here is that fairy stories, myths etc don't claim to be literally true, whereas people do claim religious stories to be literally true.
That is why I (and I suspect many others) have no problem with tales of myth and folklore and enjoy and learn from them in terms of allegorical message and the insight they provide to ancient cultures and societies. Yet I do have a problem with religion specifically as they often claim as literal truth fantastic and incredulous events, without a scrap of evidence. Drop the claim to actual truth and accept the claims of religion to be myth and stories which may have useful insight and you'll gain far more acceptance.
The difference between myth and religion is that people typically no longer believe the former to be literally true (although they almost certainly did once). In due course, no doubt, people will talk about Christian myths in the same manner as we talk today of Greek mythology.
I agree, generally, that's sort of what I was trying to aim at - that the difference isn't a facet of the stories themselves, but rather where they stand in the culture. Snow White is written as though it's 'real', just as much as the Bible is, it's about how it's interpreted as to whether they're real events or not.
O.
-
Snow White is written as though it's 'real', just as much as the Bible is
Sounds like an audacious claim. Any citations?
-
Sounds like an audacious claim. Any citations?
Read it. Does it say in the story that it's just a story, or does it operate in its own universe where it is reality? Just like the Bible does. Just like Lord of the Rings does. Just like Run Spot Run does.
O.
-
Read it. Does it say in the story that it's just a story, or does it operate in its own universe where it is reality? Just like the Bible does. Just like Lord of the Rings does. Just like Run Spot Run does.
O.
But doesn't authors intent come into it?
Besides with regard to the New Testament the Christian narrative is there in epistiolary, basically the society memos of the early church rather than obvious stories or novel form.
-
But doesn't authors intent come into it?
It might, if you could be sure that you knew it. With most fairy tales, and certainly with much of both Old and New Testaments, there's doubt about exactly who any original authors may have been, and whether they were merely documenting/amalgamating older oral works
Besides with regard to the New Testament the Christian narrative is there in epistiolary, basically the society memos of the early church rather than obvious stories or novel form.
Which come after the stories, and are reliant on the interpretation of those stories as to some extent real.
O.
-
It might, if you could be sure that you knew it. With most fairy tales, and certainly with much of both Old and New Testaments, there's doubt about exactly who any original authors may have been, and whether they were merely documenting/amalgamating older oral works
Which come after the stories, and are reliant on the interpretation of those stories as to some extent real.
O.
No the epistles come before the Gospels.
-
No the epistles come before the Gospels.
They were documented after the Epistles, but the STORY predates the Epistles.
O.
-
They were documented after the Epistles, but the STORY predates the Epistles.
O.
I don’t know what you mean.
You need also be reminded of the phenomena of the true story.
-
I don’t know what you mean.
I think it's fairly self evident, I can't see any better way to explain it.
You need also be reminded of the phenomena of the true story.
Do you mean the phenomena something needs to be a true story, or are you suggesting that the core story in the Gospels is a true story?
O.
-
I have noticed that some atheists equate religion with fairy stories.
I wonder if an atheist could explain why they use the term 'fairy story' in the perjorative and why they equate religion with fairy stories?
Much of the Bible is as credible as the Harry Potter books, which are a better read.
-
Much of the Bible is as credible as the Harry Potter books, which are a better read.
Agreed!
I sometimes wonder if "fairy stories" in this context should not be replaced with "fiction"!
The bible is, to my way of thinking, in no way a book to entertain children although the "hidden message" part of some "fairy stories" is applicable to the bible.
-
Agreed!
I sometimes wonder if "fairy stories" in this context should not be replaced with "fiction"!
The bible is, to my way of thinking, in no way a book to entertain children although the "hidden message" part of some "fairy stories" is applicable to the bible.
I will use the term 'fiction' in future.
-
I will use the term 'fiction' in future.
Thank you, Ma'am!
-
I will use the term 'fiction' in future.
If you are asserting the Bible is fiction could you also break the habit of as long as I've been on this message board, do the decent thing and justify that assertion.
That request also goes to Owlswing.
-
If you are asserting the Bible is fiction could you also break the habit of as long as I've been on this message board, do the decent thing and justify that assertion.
That request also goes to Owlswing.
And Owlswing tells, or has told, you to read what has been written on these boards more times than I care to count, that you skim read and make you own twisted mistranslations of, written by people whose inteligence is a monumental distance above yours, that you belittle because you don't understand and, when people try to explain the same things over and over again you just rephrase the same old rubbish over and over again!
I will tell you one thing of which you have absolutely ZERO KNOWLEDGE! Good manners.
I, of course, am not one of those i mention above, what I do know is when I am reading the ramblings of a mean-minded foul mouthed wind-up-merchant!
I do admit my ignorance on a lot of things written here, sometimes I request explanations, when it comes to the various -isms I usually pass, I am well aware that I am not as clever as I once was and I was never university level clever even at my best, but I never stooped to abusing those who were either cleverer or less clever than I was.
Farewell!
-
If you are asserting the Bible is fiction could you also break the habit of as long as I've been on this message board, do the decent thing and justify that assertion.
Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you? Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.
O.
-
Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you? Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.
O.
Your servant, Sir!
Thanks!
)O(
-
Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you? Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.
O.
Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.
Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction. Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.
-
Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.
Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction. Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.
Matthew 27:53. And you have misused the term Bowdlerisation.
-
Vlad,
Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction.
Been a while since you tried the Courtier’s reply fallacy. Presumably you have a detailed knowledge of every work of fiction ever written so as to be sure that they are all works of fiction?
-
Vlad,
Been a while since you tried the Courtier’s reply fallacy. Presumably you have a detailed knowledge of every work of fiction ever written so as to be sure that they are all works of fiction?
Courtiers reply aka the Myers shuffle designed to let people like Dawkins talk shite, get it wrong, straw man and argue from caricatures....a bit like thee sen, me Essex beauty.
-
Vlad,
Courtiers reply aka the Myers shuffle designed to let people like Dawkins talk shite, get it wrong, straw man and argue from caricatures....a bit like thee sen, me Essex beauty.
All of which is completely untrue of course, but scattergun lying enables you to make your escape from your latest car crash attempt at an argument. 'twas ever thus.
Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever, ever find it in yourself actually to post an honest answer here? Do trolls really never get a day off? Really though?
Must be exhausting for you.
-
Vlad,
All of which is completely untrue of course, but scattergun lying enables you to make your escape from your latest car crash attempt at an argument. 'twas ever thus.
Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever, ever find it in yourself actually to post an honest answer here? Do trolls really never get a day off? Really though?
Must be exhausting for you.
Courtier's reply fallacy. So fresh out of the arse of New Atheism it's still a bit warm.
-
Vlad,
Courtier's reply fallacy. So fresh out of the arse of New Atheism it's still a bit warm.
And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.
Classic Vlad.
-
Vlad,
And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.
Classic Vlad.
Sorry BHS, but you have been around long to know precisely the response you are going to get from that direction so why bother rsponding to it!
It is a total waste of time and effort to try to have an intelligent conversation.
-
Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.
How many instances of the living dead does a story require in order to no longer qualify as fiction?
Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction.
Which is odd, as you've not actually suggested that I was wrong about what I said the Bible contained...
Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.
I wouldn't look forward, I'd look back at what I've already said, it doesn't get any more complicated than that. You have a work that deals in magical beings, possession and ghosts/spirits/the living dead - if you can't see that's a reasonable case for it being considered, at best, a fictionalised account of possibly real events then you I'd like to ask you to help me find where Hogwarts really is.
O.
-
. . . help me find where Hogwarts really is.
O.
In all probability Hogwarts is in the same location as a civilian friend of one of my brothers was told that the R A F Base at Masirah, to which said brother had been posted for a 6 month detachment, was, a place he had told his mother was "200 miles up the Persian Gulf", he told his mate it was actually 200 miles up the arsehole of the World, the description due to the fact that there were only thwo things there apart from the runway and the accomodation huts, birds and birdshit!!
It seems to be a suitably remote place to hide a school for wizards!
-
Vlad,
And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.
Classic Vlad.
I'm just getting started with the Courtiers reply but for starters, No one seems to have spotted the irony of New Atheists saying they don't need to know any details of what they consider a fairy story...... by appealing to the details of a fairy story (The kings new clothes.). Ha Ha Ha! Another own goal!!! Myers shits, he scores!
-
Vlad,
And off he scuttles,
It's a sad day when atheists think their views so important as to come between a man and his cocoa!
-
Hi Owls,
Sorry BHS, but you have been around long to know precisely the response you are going to get from that direction so why bother rsponding to it!
It is a total waste of time and effort to try to have an intelligent conversation.
Or even an honest one. Yeah I know - makes you wonder how many chapters of my epic work "The Daily Adventures of the Wilbur, The Invisible Dragon In My Garage" it would be necessary to absorb before thinking, "hang on a mo...".
That's Vlad for you though - "the Bible's true because the Bible says it's true, and you really, really need to study the ways it says it's true for you to know it's true. Or something."
-
That's Vlad for you though - "the Bible's true because the Bible says it's true, and you really, really need to study the ways it says it's true for you to know it's true. Or something."
You need to study the bible to dismiss it all as a work of fiction.
Any way the Courtier's reply fallacy as created by Myers to defend Dawkins right to talk bollocks about details on.....well anything, on the grounds of it being a fairy tale is based on…..er….the details of a fairy tale.
How is Dawkins not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?
-
How is Dawkins not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?
Because evolution is an observed phenomenon, and the (neo-)Darwinian theory is the currently conventional, incredibly well-supported explanation for how it occurs - there is evidence that anyone can go and see and investigate and question.
You can't go and definitely examine any of the magic claims in the Bible - it's not 'observed phenomena', it's not well-evidenced, it's incredible claims with insufficient evidence.
It's like why you can dismiss flat-Earthers, but it's harder to question quantum mechanics.
O.
-
Vlad,
(Hushed voice) “And welcome back everybody to this year’s Fallacy Championships. It’s been a while now since Vladdo retired hurt to lick his wounds under his bridge after Alan “Any Faith Statement in Bold Must Be a Fact” Burns took the gold medal last time out, but the rumours coming out of Vlad's training camp are that he’s firing on all false reasoning cylinders this time so let’s see shall we…?”
You need to study the bible to dismiss it all as a work of fiction.
“Ooh, and he opens with a straw man – no-one says that all of the Bible is a work of fiction of course – not very imaginative, but a solid fallacy to open with nonetheless. Let’s see where he’ll go next shall we?”
Any way the Courtier's reply fallacy as created by Myers to defend Dawkins right to talk bollocks about details on.....well anything, on the grounds of it being a fairy tale is based on…..er….the details of a fairy tale.
“Oh my word, what’s happened here? He’s abandoned even the pretence of an argument and instead just attacked the motive of the person who devised the Courtier’s reply and thrown in an ad hom to boot! IT’S THE OLD ONE-TWO! DIVERT AND INSULT! We can really see his hard work at fallacy training camp paying off here folks! Let’s see shall we whether anyone notices that he’s done it to escape having to engage with the argument itself?
OK, we're in to the final round now – let’s see where he goes next…”
How is Dawkins…
“Ooh, he’s sticking with the diversionary tactic for now – Richard Dawkins is nothing to do with the Courtier’s reply argument of course. Maybe he’s softening us up for a big fallacy finish though?”
… not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?
“Oh my gosh, he’s done it! He’s only gone for the big knock out fallacy – THE FALSE EQUIVALENCE! My word, there’s pandemonium here! Will anyone notice that evolutionary theory relies on reason and argument and evidence so can be investigated, but the Bible miracle stories are just fantastical claims with no means of investigation no matter how many of them you read? There’s a stunned silence here – the judges are conferring – the results are in. NO-ONE’S NOTICED! HE’S DONE IT! HE’S ONLY REGAINED HIS FALLACY CROWN! HE’S BEING MOBBED NOW - I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS!
And there we have it - another Fallacy Championship knock out final over. OK folks, don’t forget to tune in next year. I can’t see old AB taking this BS lying down, so we could be in for an epic re-run I reckon...
This is Bob Rationalist, your friendly ringside commentator wishing you well and saying “over and out!”
-
BHS
The Competition post is too long to quote, but it will be interesting to see just how big a load of bullshit is going to be shovelled in an attempt to destroy it when no facts to do so are available!
Bring you umbrella!
-
Because evolution is an observed phenomenon, and the (neo-)Darwinian theory is the currently conventional, incredibly well-supported explanation for how it occurs - there is evidence that anyone can go and see and investigate and question.
You can't go and definitely examine any of the magic claims in the Bible - it's not 'observed phenomena', it's not well-evidenced, it's incredible claims with insufficient evidence.
It's like why you can dismiss flat-Earthers, but it's harder to question quantum mechanics.
O.
The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.
Which because it relies on appeal to the details of a fairy tale to justify not appealing to details of a fairy tail is self debunking.
Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead. Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.
Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.
-
Vlad,
The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.
Which because it relies on appeal to the details of a fairy tale to justify not appealing to details of a fairy tail is self debunking.
Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead. Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.
Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.
Utter gibberish.
-
Vlad,
Utter gibberish.
Courtiers reply is self debunking Hillside. Live with it.
-
Vlad,
Courtiers reply is self debunking Hillside. Live with it.
Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.
Live with it.
-
Vlad,
Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.
Live with it.
What then is at the heart of the fairy story of the Kings new clothes. It is the right to ridicule the idea of invisible finery and the logical impossibility of admiring it.
That is how new atheists conceptualize God and that is where the category blunder lies.
Theology is not asking us to appreciate something that should be empirically detected.
We should see Leprechauns.....we should see pet dragons.
Of course Myers is trying to preserve and justify ridicule.
Bluehillside has wasted years of his time here on a horses laugh fallacy.
-
Vlad,
Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.
Live with it.
Just out of interest Hillside which is more likely?
The existence of dragons......or you having one as a pet?
-
Vlad,
What then is at the heart of the fairy story of the Kings new clothes. It is the right to ridicule the idea of invisible finery and the logical impossibility of admiring it.
No, what’s at the heart of it is that a fantastical story does not become less fantastical if you embellish it.
That is how new atheists conceptualize God and that is where the category blunder lies.
It's got nothing to do with how atheists conceptualise anything, and there is no category error. If you think an implausible story becomes a plausible one by adding detail explain how.
Theology is not asking us to appreciate something that should be empirically detected.
Then by what other method do you propose its clams of fact be distinguished from just guessing? You know, the question you always run away from.
We should see Leprechauns.....we should see pet dragons.
Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?
Of course Myers is trying to preserve and justify ridicule.
No he isn’t – he’s just making a robust point in logic: again, that embellishing an implausible story doesn’t make it a plausible one. It’s not difficult.
Bluehillside has wasted years of his time here on a horses laugh fallacy.
And a big fat Vladdian lie to finish. What I’ve actually used if the reductio ad absurdum – something you’ve had explained several times, but you still lie about nonetheless. Why is that?
-
Vlad,
You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast .
I don't know......I can't be the only one interested in how disputes over how well the toast is done are arbitrated
-
Vlad,
Just out of interest Hillside which is more likely?
The existence of dragons......or you having one as a pet?
Just out of interest Vlad which is more likely?
Hell freezing over...or you attempting an honest reply?
-
Vlad,
No, what’s at the heart of it is that a fantastical story does not become less fantastical if you embellish it.
It's got nothing to do with how atheists conceptualise anything, and there is no category error. If you think an implausible story becomes a plausible one by adding detail explain how.
Then by what other method do you propose its clams of fact be distinguished from just guessing? You know, the question you always run away from.
Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?
No he isn’t – he’s just making a robust point in logic: again, that embellishing an implausible story doesn’t make it a plausible one.
His grasp of logic isn't that robust if he cannot distinguish between logical impossibility like invisible finery and God...how can you know it's fine? Which brings us to the second embellishment not found in theology, namely, the appreciation of a double logical impossibility. He has embellished the understanding of God.
Myers, in fact, if you are correct about his motives pointing out the dangers of embellishment, has debunked himself again!
By using embellishment to warn against the use of embellishment.
Of course....and here's the amusing part, he wouldn't have committed these errors and debunked himself again if had studied the theology in more detail.
Hillside,you are the gift that keeps on giving.
-
Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?
But invisible finery which we are invited to look at AND appreciate, invisible wee Irishmen dressed in green, invisible pink unicorns are not only beyond empirical investigation Hillside they are beyond logic and graze serenely in the pastures of LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
And that's why the Courtiers reply, Invisible pink unicorns etc are shit arguments and analogies.
Hillside?
Are you OK?
Take it easy old son,
take a seat, that's right....can I get you a drink of water or something,
-
The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.
No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.
Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is as much evidence for Gandalf's resurrection as there is Jesus'.
Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.
You're conflating blind faith in doctrine with the trust in a demonstrable history of evidentiary backing and peer reviewed investigation.
Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.
Since you fail to appreciate the nature of the Courtier's reply, here's a brief introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply)
O.
-
No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is as much evidence for Gandalf's resurrection as there is Jesus'.
You're conflating blind faith in doctrine with the trust in a demonstrable history of evidentiary backing and peer reviewed investigation.
Since you fail to appreciate the nature of the Courtier's reply, here's a brief introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply)
O.
First of all the courtier's reply is dependent on the fairy tale of the Kings new clothes.
Secondly. The point of the Courtiers reply is that one needs no expertise in the details of fairy tales to know they have no truth value.
Thirdly, therefore we are using the details of a fairy tale to demonstrate why we never need to know the details of a fairy tale.
These are incontrovertible.
If you bid me look at Wikipedia to see where I am mistaken I take it you mean this.
''The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.''
Who has said that Dawkins cannot make any criticism whatsoever? I haven't.
So, thanks to you Outrider we can now add ''straw man'' argument to it's failures.
Your claim is that there is no expertise or basis in this field anyway. What is your warrant for those beliefs or are they mere opinions?
There is certainly a lack of expertise on Myers part because he conflates empirical unfalsifiability with Logical impossibility rendering the 'courtiers reply fallacy' fallacious.
Calling it the Courtier's reply is therefore fallacious. All that is left is ridicule.
-
No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.
And ignorance of that field would help you with that exactly how?
-
And ignorance of that field would help you with that exactly how?
There isn't a field... Just like the Emperor has no clothes... are we getting there yet?
O.
-
There isn't a field... Just like the Emperor has no clothes... are we getting there yet?
O.
No field, No field?
What, the,n has this got to do with Courtier's reply which you, you with your great throbbing motorbike avatar, defined thus?
………...the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.
The Courtiers reply fallacy is dependent on the story of the emperor's new clothes. In it there is a boy justified at ridiculing a double logical impossibility. Theology does not contain a single logical impossibility.
The courtiers reply fallacy as coined by Myers is, fallacious.
-
No field, No field?
That's right, no field.
What, the,n has this got to do with Courtier's reply which you, you with your great throbbing motorbike avatar, defined thus?
The Courtiers reply fallacy is dependent on the story of the emperor's new clothes. In it there is a boy justified at ridiculing a double logical impossibility. Theology does not contain a single logical impossibility.
The courtier's reply, taken from the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, is that the boy who points out that the Emperor is naked obviously doesn't have the expertise in fine cloth to be making such a judgement - when the reality is that there is no cloth about which to have expertise.
Professor Dawkins is accused of not having sufficient expertise in the field of theology in order to be making judgements, but Theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy - there is no content to study, there is just opinion about rumour about allegations about myths.
The courtiers reply fallacy as coined by Myers is, fallacious.
The Courtier's reply, as coined by Myers, was valid in that instance - indeed, wherever people are told that some sort of expertise in the 'facts' of theology is required it continues to be valid, and it's not a fallacy. There are areas of history that deal with religious practice where the beliefs are relevant, there are areas of ethics where taking into account people's religious tenets might be relevant, but to suggest that the study of religious claims as fact is valid just doesn't stand up in the complete absence of any reliable methodology from centuries of trying.
O.
[/quote]
-
That's right, no field.
The courtier's reply, taken from the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, is that the boy who points out that the Emperor is naked.
The boy makes the positive assertion that the Emperor is naked in contradiction to the quadruply logical impossible claim that the invisible finery of the clothes are appreciable by empirical means. The boy is obviously right.
The field of invisible tailoring is therefore visibly a fake field.
Dawkins and Myers suggest that it's highly probable that God does not exist, they defend this by equating an appreciation of the said god with empirical sensation and God with a logical impossibility. Dawkins and Myers are not obviously right, in fact they are wrong to equate God and the appreciation of God with the kings new clothes.
Outrider declares that theology is a fake field even though Dawkins and Myers have demonstrated their lack of expertise in it.
-
Vlad,
First of all the courtier's reply is dependent on the fairy tale of the Kings new clothes.
Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it, it’s just another way of saying the same thing: ie that embellishing an implausible claim with irrelevant details doesn’t make it less implausible. Thus not knowing the jaunty angle of the Emperor’s (alleged) hat doesn’t make him less naked; not knowing what colour speedos Jesus was wearing doesn’t make it less likely that he didn't walk on water etc.
Secondly. The point of the Courtiers reply is that one needs no expertise in the details of fairy tales to know they have no truth value.
My god, are you saying you’ve finally got it! Well done! And by the same token, no expertise is needed in the details of theology to know that, say, feeding the 5,000 is still likely to be a myth.
Thirdly, therefore we are using the details of a fairy tale to demonstrate why we never need to know the details of a fairy tale.
Aw, and you were doing so well before you collapsed in a heap again. What “we” are actually saying is that no amount of extraneous details will make an implausible story plausible.
These are incontrovertible.
Your failure in reasoning you mean?
If you bid me look at Wikipedia to see where I am mistaken I take it you mean this.
''The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.''
I didn’t, but OK – yes, that what’s the fallacy entails. So what though?
Who has said that Dawkins cannot make any criticism whatsoever? I haven't.
Nope, no idea what you think that straw man does for you but ok…
So, thanks to you Outrider we can now add ''straw man'' argument to it's failures.
Er, no we can’t. The only straw man here was you dragging RD in for reasons known only to yourself when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the epistemic force of the Courtier’s reply fallacy.
Oh, and you’ve yet to identify one of its supposed “failures” by the way.
Your claim is that there is no expertise or basis in this field anyway. What is your warrant for those beliefs or are they mere opinions?
What field? Theology? No, the claim is that theology has no epistemic value at all when it comes to the Bible’s (or any other “holy” book’s) claims of factual miracles. Go on – pick a miracle, any miracle – now tell me what on earth theology has to tell anyone about why it’s more likely to be true than not. All theology can give us – does give us in fact – is the equivalent of the difference between “a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon” of the Courtier’s reply.
There is certainly a lack of expertise on Myers part because he conflates empirical unfalsifiability with Logical impossibility rendering the 'courtiers reply fallacy' fallacious.
More gibberish. He does no such thing. He merely uses his analogy to explain – correctly as it happens – that embellishing implausible stories with epistemically worthless details doesn’t make them less implausible. It’s not a difficult idea, even for you.
Calling it the Courtier's reply is therefore fallacious. All that is left is ridicule.
And the crash and burn to finish. Ah well.
-
Vlad,
Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it.
You seem to be saying that the charge of being a courtier like the one in the tale of the Emperors new clothes is not based on the courtier in the emperors new clothes...……
We can ignore the rest of your post.
-
Vlad,
Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it, it’s just another way of saying the same thing: ie that embellishing an implausible claim with irrelevant details doesn’t make it less implausible. Thus not knowing the jaunty angle of the Emperor’s (alleged) hat doesn’t make him less naked;
That may be but the equating of the declaration of nakedness to the declaration there is no God is unwarranted. What for instance is the evidence for the latter? Not nearly as compelling as the king's nakedness, if any. There is no demonstrable way of evidencing no god. And therefore you've just uncovered another reason why the courtiers reply fallacy is fallacious.
Further it is obvious that the courtier's reply is actually asking people to appreciate empirically something which is invisible and which is finery. That is at least doubly logically impossible.
Myers and in fact you yourself are fallaciously conflating the empirical unfalsifiable with the doubly logically impossible.
Here's another thing:
If Dawkins is the boy who declares nakedness positively then that makes Dawkins by analogy the chap who declares God non existent positively and those that support this being a fallacy declare it also.
Elsewhere of course they vehemently deny that they are.
I bet you wish you hadn't brought up Courtiers reply now.
-
Vlad,
You seem to be saying that the charge of being a courtier like the one in the tale of the Emperors new clothes is not based on the courtier in the emperors new clothes...……
Even for you that's a pretty major league misrepresentation. I said no such thing of course - I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible. Whether those irrelevant details come from the hat makers of Venice or from theology makes no difference to that.
We can ignore the rest of your post.
Yes, when you've had your arse handed to you in a sling again that's probably the safest option (though also a dishonest one). Who's "we" by the way?
-
Vlad,
Even for you that's a pretty major league misrepresentation. I said no such thing of course - I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible. Whether those irrelevant details come from the hat makers of Venice or from theology makes no difference to that.
Yes, when you've had your arse handed to you in a sling again that's probably the safest option (though also a dishonest one). Who's "we" by the way?
Myers conflates the empirical unfalsifiable with the logically impossible and the demonstrably non present.
That is fallacious Hillside.
-
Vlad,
I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible.
The implausible story is that God is logically impossible. The embellishment that theists appreciate the logical impossible.
We are also invited to believe that Dawkins is the little boy who spots the nakedness The non existence of God.....although when pressed 'The boy'' couldn't swear to it. Ha Ha.
-
Vlad,
That may be but the equating the declaration of nakedness to the declaration there is no God is unwarranted.
Probably would be if anyone ever said that, yes. As you know full well though, the “declaration” isn’t “there is no God” at all – rather it’s “there are no known valid reasons to think there is/are god/s”.
What for instance is the evidence for the latter.
What, your straw man version of the argument? There is none – and you’re in negative proof fallacy territory again.
There is none.
I know. Nor is there for leprechauns That’s why no-one I know of says it.
There is no demonstrable way of evidencing no god.
Again, yes that’s right – or leprechauns. That’s why it’s not something anyone I know of actually says it.
And therefore you've just uncovered another reason why the courtiers reply fallacy is fallacious.
Love the non sequitur of that “therefore”. The Courtier’s reply merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible. It’s simple enough to grasp even for you, and it has nothing at all to do with your weird straw man diversionary tactic about there being no evidence for the “there is no god”.
Further…
“Further”? Further? Your haven’t haven’t got your rhetorical big boy’s pants on yet. How can you have a further when there’s no prior? Oh well…
… it is obvious that the courtier's reply is actually asking people to appreciate empirically something which is invisible and which is finery. That is at least doubly logically impossible.
Er, no it isn’t. You really haven’t understood it at all have you. Not a freakin’ word of it.
Myers and in fact you yourself are fallaciously conflating the empirical unfalsifiable with the doubly logically impossible.
No, “Myers and I” are correctly saying that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details dos not make it plausible. The rest is all in your head.
Here's another thing:
You've done it again! HE’S DONE IT AGAIN! You can’t have an “another” when there was nothing before it but gibberish!
If Dawkins is the boy who declares nakedness positively then that makes Dawkins by analogy the chap who declares God non existent positively and those that support this being a fallacy declare it also.
Er no. Again, it’s got nothing to do with RD and the story is merely that that the boy believed his own eyes whereas the rest of the crowd were too embarrassed to look stupid (not something that seems to trouble you by the way) if they didn’t pretend to see all the finery the Courtier’s claimed to be there.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Elsewhere of course they vehemently deny that they are.
Yes, because they’re not however much you’d love the windmill you always tilt at to be a real one.
I bet you wish you hadn't brought up Courtiers reply now.
No, I’m fine with it. You should be wishing that though – you really, really should.
-
Vlad,
Myers conflates the empirical unfalsifiable with the logically impossible and the demonstrably non present.
That is fallacious Hillside.
Why do you keep lying about this? Write this down 100 times until it finally sinks in:
The Courtier's fallacy merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible.
Let me know if ever you get it.
-
Vlad,
Probably would be if anyone ever said that, yes.
And that is EXACTLY what you are saying if you are equating Dawkins with the Boy in the story of the emperors new clothes.
You can't have it both ways Hillside.
You either declare Myers Courtier's reply a crock. Or you are saying that Dawkins has declared positively that God does not exist.
-
Vlad,
Why do you keep lying about this? Write this down 100 times until it finally sinks in:
The Courtier's fallacy merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible.
Even if the latter is true having lifted Myers courtier's reply completely out of it's context.
What does it have to do with you and Myers conflating empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and demonstrable non presence?
-
Vlad,
And that is EXACTLY what you are saying if you are equating Dawkins with the Boy in the story of the emperors new clothes.
You’re the one who introduced RD here, not me remember? No idea why as he has nothing to do with the force of the argument (ie, the validity of the Courtier’s reply fallacy) but there you go.
You can't have it both ways Hillside.
I haven’t tried to.
You either declare Myers Courtier's reply a crock.
Why? It’s a sound argument so far as I can see.
Or you are saying that Dawkins has declared positively that God does not exist.
You used to do the false binary a lot, not so much now. How on earth you get to that statement (or indeed to RD at all) is anyone’s guess, but if it keeps you happy I guess…
Even if the latter is true…
It is.
…having lifted Myers courtier's reply completely out of it's context.
Where? You were the one arguing (OK, asserting then) that “shitty” knowledge of the Bible stories disqualified someone from commenting on their truthfulness or otherwise. The Courtier’s reply explains why this is false thinking.
What does it have to do with you and Myers conflating empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and demonstrable non presence?
Words. Yep, they’re definitely words. Now all you have to do is figure some way of putting them into a coherent sentence. Of course I’m assuming there’s a thought behind this alphabet soup of a sentence, though given your form here there may well not be of course.
Oh well.
-
Vlad,
You’re the one who introduced RD here, not me remember?
I'm talking about Myers coining of the fallacy and how the general idea that an implausible story is not made any more plausible by embellishment(AKA your interpretation of the courtiers reply) was employed by myers in the context of theism and theology.
The Courtiers reply enters the field of religious debate when Myers used it to defend Dawkins against a charge of ignorance of theological discussion and theism.
The trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies
As expected the flaws in the Myers Courtier's reply argument have been recycled in your use of it.
Apart from the bad analogies that render the Myers Courtiers reply as inadequate and fallacious the appeal to the virtue of not knowing the details of an alleged fairy story ( God) itself appeals to knowing the details of a fairy story and that is fallacious.
Lastly Myers and yourself confuse empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and compound this fallacious activity with suggesting that the courtier (although there isn't anyone actually proposing a logical impossibility) is bidding people not only to consider it but also appreciate it. That suggestion is also fallacious. And of course there is no boy because nobody is, according to you, saying that God does not exist.
-
Vlad,
I'm talking about Myers coining of the fallacy and how the general idea that an implausible story is not made any more plausible by embellishment(AKA your interpretation of the courtiers reply) was employed by myers in the context of theism and theology.
It's not just “my interpretation” but ok. What it actually employed though was a response to the same mistake you made (”your shitty knowledge” etc): someone accused RD of being insufficiently versed in the details of Biblical miracle stories to have valid view on their likely un/truthfulness. The point of the Courtier’s reply is that you can pile as much irrelevant detail as you like onto a daft story, but it’s still a daft story nonetheless.
The Courtiers reply enters the field of religious debate when Myers used it to defend Dawkins against a charge of ignorance of theological discussion and theism.
Yes, for the reason I just explained to you.
The trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies
For example?
As expected the flaws in the Myers Courtier's reply argument have been recycled in your use of it.
Then, finally, you should have no trouble telling us what these supposed flaws might be. Go for it…
Apart from the bad analogies that render the Myers Courtiers reply as inadequate…
Hang on – you just went from the unqualified assertion “the trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies” to “apart from the bad analogies”. I don’t suppose there’s any chance is there of you trying at least to demonstrate why in your opinion they are bad analogies?
…and fallacious the appeal to the virtue of not knowing the details of an alleged fairy story ( God) itself appeals to knowing the details of a fairy story and that is fallacious.
Again, if you want to clam there to be a fallacy within the Courtier’s reply then you need to try at least to unscramble your word salad into a comprehensible sentence. What are you even trying to say here? (Oh, and try not to forget this time that the CR merely says that adding irrelevant detail to an implausible idea does not thereby make it a plausible one. You do remember that right?)
Lastly…
“Lastly”? Any chance of a firstly or a secondly before you overreach to a lastly?
…Myers and yourself confuse empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and compound this fallacious activity with suggesting that the courtier (although there isn't anyone actually proposing a logical impossibility) is bidding people not only to consider it but also appreciate it.
You do know that repeating the same lies doesn’t make it less of a lie right, even when it’s phrased in incomprehensible terms? Yet again, the CR merely says that adding irrelevant detail to an implausible idea does not thereby make it a plausible one. Try to remember that before you fly off into gibberish next time.
That suggestion is also fallacious.
Then don’t make it, whatever it is. Certainly no-one else here has.
And of course there is no boy because nobody is, according to you, saying that God does not exist.
Well that’s new. You’ve taken incomprehensible word salad and then squared (or possibly cubed) it. I can only assume you have something in your head that you’re trying to express here only your inability to frame coherent sentences is stopping you, but I’m blowed if I know what it might be. Try wrapping a wet towel round your head, have a nice cup of tea and this time practice writing sentences that, if you were to be reading them, wouldn’t make you think there’s a dysfunctional eight-year-old with a poorly edited thesaurus on the other end of the line.