Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Regarding reductionist materialist dinosaurs.

They are reductionist in reducing consciousness to a form of souped up intelligence. Human beings to automata i.e. your homoncularisation of the human condition or merely hairless apes and everything to a mere mechanism but what makes you supremely reductionist is your response to the true meaning of emergence....and that makes them nostalgia jockeys redolent of an intellectual cretaceous period.

What is being reduced? Do me a favour!

Case closed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You cited something that has no citations and on the strength of that declare me guilty of a fallacy.

BING! Fallacy 7: The irrelevant conclusion fallacy. The relevant fact is that I cited something – ie, I didn’t “make it up” as you wrongly asserted. The quality or otherwise of the citation is for this purpose irrelevant (though see below): the fact is, I didn’t "make it up" as you wrongly asserted.

QED 

There is no such thing as a judgmental language fallacy since nothing is being or attempted to be established by a judgmental tone.

BING! Fallacy 8: The non sequitur (an old favourite of yours). First, of course there is the judgmental language fallacy. Here are some more citations for it, some of which in turn cite references of their own:

https://logfall.wordpress.com/judgmental-language/

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/143/Prejudicial-Language

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pl.htm

Second, whether anyone believes that you weren’t attempting something with pejorative language does not invalidate the existence of the judgmental language fallacy as a rhetorical device. That’s you non sequitur fallacy.

In your desperation for a handy fallacy you obviously went to a dodgy source.

BING! Fallacy 5 redux: The judgmental language fallacy. There was no “desperation”, the fact of the citation at all proved that I didn’t just make it up, and in any case a citation that says it could be “improved” does not mean that it’s wrong.

Your really are all over the floor here aren’t you.

Your confusion between atheist and antitheist…

I have no such confusion. To the contrary, either it’s you who is confused or it’s you who is attempting the judgmental language fallacy. There is no third option.

… is suspect too as you are suggesting there cannot be such a thing as an antitheist.

BLING! Fallacy 2 redux: The straw man. Your problem here I think isn’t so much that you’re a pathological liar, but rather that you’re a really bad pathological liar. If you think pathological lying is the way to go though, then I suggest you at least try to make it a bit harder for your lies to be found out. I suggested no such thing of course.

That is patent nonsense.

Yes it would be if anyone had said any such thing.

Antitheists do what they do and there is nothing fallacious about declaring what it is they do or are.

BING! Fallacy 7: The irrelevant conclusion fallacy redux. That’s right, there’d be nothing fallacious about calling and anti-theist an anti-theist if he was expressing anti-theistic views. What you actually do though is routinely to label “atheist” as “antitheist”, “atheism” as “antitheism” etc. That’s the fallacious bit – you think the use of such language somehow invalidates the argument for atheism. When someone says, "I think your argument for “God” is wrong” you have no idea whether or not that person is pro theist or anti-theist. For all you know, he might really want there to be a god only so far at least he’s found no reason to think there is one.     

Incidentally, your fondness for trash talk in place of argument may explain your fondness for Feser who indulges a lot in the same tactic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Regarding reductionist materialist dinosaurs.

BING! Fallacy 5 redux: The judgmental language fallacy. You really can’t help yourself can you.

They are reductionist in reducing consciousness to a form of souped up intelligence. Human beings to automata i.e. your homoncularisation of the human condition or merely hairless apes and everything to a mere mechanism but what makes you supremely reductionist is your response to the true meaning of emergence....and that makes them nostalgia jockeys redolent of an intellectual cretaceous period.

BING! Fallacy 4: The red herring fallacy redux (with some Fallacy 5 trash talk thrown in for good measure). Something can only be “reductionist” if you can demonstrate that it’s reduced from something else. You can assert “God” all you like – what you can't do though is to claim the response to be reductionist for failing to take your assertion seriously, any more that I can call you a reductionist for failing to take my claim “leprechauns” seriously.

What is being reduced?

Your un-argued (or fallaciously argued) and un-evidenced assertions.

Do me a favour!

I have done by explaining the barrage of logical fallacies you've attempted here. That you lack the wit to realise it is a different matter though.

Case closed.

Yes, and six feet under too...

...but with you in it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

BING! Fallacy 7: The irrelevant conclusion fallacy. The relevant fact is that I cited something – ie, I didn’t “make it up” as you wrongly asserted. The quality or otherwise of the citation is for this purpose irrelevant (though see below): the fact is, I didn’t "make it up" as you wrongly asserted.

QED 

BING! Fallacy 8: The non sequitur (an old favourite of yours). First, of course there is the judgmental language fallacy. Here are some more citations for it, some of which in turn cite references of their own:

https://logfall.wordpress.com/judgmental-language/

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/143/Prejudicial-Language

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pl.htm

Second, whether anyone believes that you weren’t attempting something with pejorative language does not invalidate the existence of the judgmental language fallacy as a rhetorical device. That’s you non sequitur fallacy.

BING! Fallacy 5 redux: The judgmental language fallacy. There was no “desperation”, the fact of the citation at all proved that I didn’t just make it up, and in any case a citation that says it could be “improved” does not mean that it’s wrong.

Your really are all over the floor here aren’t you.

I have no such confusion. To the contrary, either it’s you who is confused or it’s you who is attempting the judgmental language fallacy. There is no third option.

BLING! Fallacy 2 redux: The straw man. Your problem here I think isn’t so much that you’re a pathological liar, but rather that you’re a really bad pathological liar. If you think pathological lying is the way to go though, then I suggest you at least try to make it a bit harder for your lies to be found out. I suggested no such thing of course.

Yes it would be if anyone had said any such thing.

BING! Fallacy 7: The irrelevant conclusion fallacy redux. That’s right, there’d be nothing fallacious about calling and anti-theist an anti-theist if he was expressing anti-theistic views. What you actually do though is routinely to label “atheist” as “antitheist”, “atheism” as “antitheism” etc. That’s the fallacious bit – you think the use of such language somehow invalidates the argument for atheism. When someone says, "I think your argument for “God” is wrong” you have no idea whether or not that person is pro theist or anti-theist. For all you know, he might really want there to be a god only so far at least he’s found no reason to think there is one.     

Incidentally, your fondness for trash talk in place of argument may explain your fondness for Feser who indulges a lot in the same tactic.

Oh dear apparently judgmental language was under the list of red herrings. Couldn't see it but I did find your fallacy of choice Argument from ridicule....how are the leprechauns these days?
fnar fnar snork.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

BING! Fallacy 5 redux: The judgmental language fallacy.

No you are a reductionist and a materialist and you have an archaic understanding of emergence because of adherence to a redundant authority...i.e. reductionism. Nothing fallacious about that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear apparently judgmental language was under the list of red herrings. Couldn't see it…

BING! Fallacy 8: The argument from ignorance. That you couldn’t see it does not mean that it wasn’t there. 

…but I did find your fallacy of choice Argument from ridicule....how are the leprechauns these days?.

BING! Fallacy 9: Actually I’m not sure what you’d even call this one. The “False fallacy fallacy” maybe?

The appeal to ridicule is described as follows:

“Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worth consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitiveaspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Still with me? Good. Now look again, here:

“Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy…”
So for a reference to leprechauns to be an appeal to ridicule you’d need a “nuanced argument” or similar for “god”, which I then compared to a “laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke”.

That’s not what happens though is it, and nor has it ever happened. What I actually do is to take the same arguments that you attempt (the NPF for example) and show what happens when that same argument exactly produces different outcomes. There’s no question of “comedic timing, wordplay” etc. I just use the identical (but fallacious) arguments that you attempt.   

fnar fnar snork

Why do you do this to yourself? Seriously, why over and over get smashed out of the park only to revel in your ignorance, mistakes and mendacity? Masochism? A bad case of the Dunning-Krugers?

What?

[Shaker]

A bad case of the Dunning-Krugers?

I'm sure my granddad had the operation for that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you are a reductionist and a materialist and you have an archaic understanding of emergence because of adherence to a redundant authority...i.e. reductionism. Nothing fallacious about that.

BING! Fallacy (where are we now? You’ve attempted such a blizzard of fallacies that I’ve lost count. Let’s call it Fallacy 9 then): Circular reasoning.

So I’m a “reductionist” because I “adhere to” reductionism eh?

Doesn’t work does it.

Take a deep breath and try again. To be reduced, there has to be something reduced from. And that’s your problem – you have no argument to demonstrate what that “something” is. If you want to accuse me of reductionism nonetheless, then you have no defence from the same accusation because you’ve reduced from whatever’s popped into my head too.

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

I'm sure my granddad had the operation for that.

Yeah, Vlad's so far gone that the ointment wouldn't touch his either...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've attempted such a tsunami of fallacies today that I'm losing count. I think I'll list them as an aide memoire for you and AB so I can just say "Fallacy number 6" etc in the same tone as the Post Office queue announcer every time you revisit them so as to save time. Might be helpful if old Rubber Spatula of Destiny or whatever his name was ever comes back too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've attempted such a tsunami of fallacies today that I'm losing count.

Well there was typing a letter fallacy, typing another letter fallacy, having the audacity to disagree fallacy, the Myers shuffle, judgmental language and numerous other pretend fantasy fallacies.
If you are losing count then invent them at a slower rate........and that's before using proper fallacies inappropriately.

[Alan Burns]

As there seems to be an unnecessary obsession with the word "fallacy", can we just adhere to logical arguments?

For example, I believe that all the substantial exchanges I have had with Torridon have not mentioned the word "fallacy"

[Gordon]

As there seems to be an unnecessary obsession with the word "fallacy", can we just adhere to logical arguments?

Give it a try then Alan: it will be a new experience for you.

Meanwhile, given your fondness for fallacies, we're necessarily obliged to point these out to you in the hope that one day you'll see where you're going wrong: I may be overly optimistic on this point.

[BeRational]

As there seems to be an unnecessary obsession with the word "fallacy", can we just adhere to logical arguments?

For example, I believe that all the substantial exchanges I have had with Torridon have not mentioned the word "fallacy"

I think that is what everyone wants, you to make logical arguments.

But, to be logical, your argument must NOT contain a logical fallacy.
If it does, then it collapses as a logical argument,  and you have to note that, and change the argument.

You must NOT just repeat the same illogical argument.

Do you understand this principle?

[Shaker]

As there seems to be an unnecessary obsession with the word "fallacy",

No, there is no obsession, unnecessary or otherwise; there is only people telling you that you make a bad pseudo-argument when you do so.

What is unnecessary about people calling you out on poor reasoning abilities?

Does "unnecessary" simply mean "Waaaagh ... I'm wrong and I don't like it when people point it out"? It looks very much like it.

can we just adhere to logical arguments?

You've never done it before; why would you start now?

[Alan Burns]

I think that is what everyone wants, you to make logical arguments.

But, to be logical, your argument must NOT contain a logical fallacy.
If it does, then it collapses as a logical argument,  and you have to note that, and change the argument.

You must NOT just repeat the same illogical argument.

Do you understand this principle?

The posts I make are logical indicators to the truth of God's existence and to our own spiritual nature.  I will continue to be a witness to this truth.

[Ricky Spanish]

It's not "truth" it is nothing more than a belief......

[Gordon]

The posts I make are logical indicators to the truth of God's existence and to our own spiritual nature.  I will continue to be a witness to this truth.

Nice mix of fallacies on a Sunday morning, Alan - non sequitur, personal incredulity, reification and begging the question: hard to see why you're so confident in your judgment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well there was typing a letter fallacy, typing another letter fallacy, having the audacity to disagree fallacy, the Myers shuffle, judgmental language and numerous other pretend fantasy fallacies.
If you are losing count then invent them at a slower rate........and that's before using proper fallacies inappropriately.

You and AB are cut from the same cloth. You post fallacy after fallacy after fallacy and then invent a few more they haven't even thought of names for yet, then have the front to dismiss the problem out of hand.

This just just getting weird now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The posts I make are logical indicators to the truth of God's existence and to our own spiritual nature.  I will continue to be a witness to this truth.

What makes you think that illogical (or “fallacious”) arguments are “indicators” to anything, let alone to your personal superstitions? All we know from your posts is that you believe there to be “God”, “spirit” etc. To make those beliefs the truth rather than a truth though, you’d have to find some arguments that aren’t wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You and AB are cut from the same cloth. You post fallacy after fallacy after fallacy and then invent a few more they haven't even thought of names for yet, then have the front to dismiss the problem out of hand.

This just just getting weird now.

I refer you to my statement about the invention of fallacies, the improper use of fallacy claims, and then the use of the ''someone else has dealt with this'' and ''The rebuttal was posted in the past'' fallacies.
Now it seems you can be as hypocritical as you like and accuse people who pull you up on this as tu quoque and dismiss any criticism of you at all as the ''judgmental language'' fallacy.

All of which amounts to ''invincible ignorance'' on your part.

[Shaker]

I refer you to my statement about the invention of fallacies, the improper use of fallacy claims, and then the use of the ''someone else has dealt with this'' and ''The rebuttal was posted in the past'' fallacies.

A bit like this you mean?

I have already answered the accusation of fallacy several times on this thread.

[BeRational]

The posts I make are logical indicators to the truth of God's existence and to our own spiritual nature.  I will continue to be a witness to this truth.

No you are wrong, just wrong.

They are nothing more than stories you tell yourself about your beliefs.

There is no other truth other than you believe in your God.

[Enki]

The posts I make are logical indicators to the truth of God's existence and to our own spiritual nature.  I will continue to be a witness to this truth.

Your posts consist mainly of assertions about your personal beliefs with no attempt at logic at all. Hence it comes as no surprise that you use the word logic completely inappropriately. To state that God's existence is a 'truth' is simply a personal belief, and the fact that you state that you will 'continue to be a witness to this truth' is no more than yet another assertion about your personal beliefs. You obviously feel that by saying this, it somehow supports your case. It doesn't. All it does, perhaps, is give you some sort of comfort that you think you are right.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the conversion of opinion into 'truth' is one of the anomalies in AB's presentation.   But in fact, doesn't this lie at the heart of many theistic presentations?   I am hesitating to use the word 'argument'. 

My local shaman has various opinions about sacred animals, quite interesting, but I've never heard her state that these are truths, objective, or impersonal, or true for all.   

As to why some theists do this - I suppose it goes back a long way, and involves a kind of attempt to give a logical basis for their beliefs, which usually fails miserably.   So why do it?