Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?

{tongue-in-cheek} no, because anything bluehillside says is correct and anyone who disagrees with what bluehillside says in incorrect.

Seriously though: This is the quintessential point being made, therefore I think it's better agree to disagree, move on, not least because I'm worried about SusanDoris' teeth! 

disagree (n) The action of being wrong because what is being claimed is different to what bluehillside says is correct.

[Nearly Sane]

What is the 'quintessential point being made'?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What is the 'quintessential point being made'?

That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.

I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.

Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.

[Nearly Sane]

That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.

I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.

Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.

you seem confused. I haven't seen anyone make that 'quintessential point'. Nor have I seen Susan Doris state you are smug becauybecauysr you are arguing from a wrong position. If you were to start a second lap, I would suggest that getting what people have said incorrect will be an issue before shifting the burden of proof.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I haven't seen anyone make that 'quintessential point'.

Not directly, but that is the implication. Some examples:

#247

They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right.

#244

Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.

#241

"blue has indeed posted various rebuttals to the arguments Sword has attempted only for Sword either to misrepresent or just to ignore those rebuttals and then to repeat his mistakes so, on balance, it's fair comment". 

misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.

but the best one for now, #228

I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, but as we both know that you'd just ignore the arguments that undo you and then repeat the same mistakes I've given up bothering.

So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.

Nor have I seen Susan Doris state you are smug becauybecauysr you are arguing from a wrong position.

Not explicitly, but implicitly by her #245 to bluehillside's #241, quoted above.

[Nearly Sane]

Not directly, but that is the implication. Some examples:

#247
#244
#241misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.

but the best one for now, #228
So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.
Not explicitly, but implicitly by her #245 to bluehillside's #241, quoted above.

No, that's simply people saying they disagree with you. Stop with the over dramatics.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.

You're confused. It's not that one person is right and the other is wrong, but rather that some arguments are right and others are wrong. Who makes them is irrelevant, and it's quite possible that the same poster will make some arguments that are wrong and others that are right.   

I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.

Yes, and there's no "allegedly" about it. When the arguments you attempt have been falsified but you misrepresent of just ignore the rebuttals and then repeat the same falsified arguments the rebuttals stand. Only if and when you manage to counter-argue against the rebuttals will you be on firmer ground.

Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.

What position of certainty? You post the equivalent of 2+2=5. I post to the effect that 2+2=4, and moreover I explain why. You go quiet for a bit, then reply with either a straw man (of the, "so you think the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard do you?" type, a technique known around here as "vladism") or you just repeat the original 2+2=5.

I don't though claim that 2+2=4 is "certain" - just that it's the logically more cogent answer. 

And it's because of your (and others') habitual vladism or indifference to the arguments that undo you that I've stopped bothering to post them. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, that's simply people saying they disagree with you.

So where does the charge of smugness arise from if they are merely disagreeing with me?

[Nearly Sane]

So where does the charge of smugness arise from if they are merely disagreeing with me?

'they' appears to be Susan. She finds your posts smug. That she disagrees with you as well does not mean you 'aren't allowed to disagree with bluehillside' or because they think you are wrong. As I have already covered in discussion with bluehillside', finding someone smug is irrelevant to whether you agree with them. The smuggest smuggers of smuggerism I know are usually people I agree with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.

Stop lying. If you want to disagree that's fine, but just repeating the mistakes you make isn't disagreement - it's obtuseness.

So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.

To the contrary, I want you to disagree with me. I'd love you to disagree with me. Really, if you'd finally actually respond to the arguments that undo you that'd be great because maybe we'd both learn something from it. What you actually do though is just to pretend the rebuttals aren't there and then plough on regardless by repeating the initial mistakes.

And that's dishonest. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You're confused. It's not that one person is right and the other is wrong, but rather that some arguments are right and others are wrong.

According to who?

It also depends on the worldview being used. 1+1=10 is wrong in base 10 but correct in base 2

You go quiet for a bit, then reply with either a straw man (of the, "so you think the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard do you?", a technique known around here as "vladism")

Right. Another poster who is not allowed to disagree with you, but because they have done so on numerous occasions, have a name given to their posting style? Maybe I'll go have a more detailed look at all their posts. I may learn something!

I don't though claim that 2+2=4 is "certain" - just that it's the logically more cogent answer.

According to your naturalistic worldview, the equivalent of say, base 10. Try another worldview, e.g. base 5 and 2+2=10.

The problem here is that you in particular seem unable to accept that e.g. religious believers have a different worldview and (perish the thought) may be just as (if not more!) valid as yours!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Stop lying. If you want to disagree that's fine, but just repeating the mistakes you make isn't disagreement - it's obtuseness.

Mistakes according to whom? You? You will never accept that your worldview is the problem, so no progress can ever be made.

Let me give you an example: If it is true that God created a human being, how will that human being prove that God created them? There may be lots of evidence, but even if they could go back in time and see God doing it, they could claim that e.g. it was a trick, a hallucination, etc. Would it be correct then to conclude that it is false that God created that human being?

You are in the position of doing the equivalent of asking for proof of something that has to be believed by faith, but for which there is supporting evidence. You refuse to accept this so put your faith in only that which you can see, can test, can prove, for which the evidence is empirical. Goodness only knows how many Christians would have told you this over the years, but you have reached a different conclusion which you believe is right.

[SusanDoris]

Having checked my post where the word 'smugness' was used, it did, as I thought, refer to the posts which have an air of smugness.

I would point out too that all posts are read in the same, good 'old Synthetic Dave   voice!!

[Nearly Sane]

Can I suggest before you go down the worldview rabbit hole, Sword, that you deal with the multifarious questions you have been asked about it that up till now you seem to have ignored?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Can I suggest before you go down the worldview rabbit hole, Sword, that you deal with the multifarious questions you have been asked about it that up till now you seem to have ignored?

It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

According to who?

Not "who", "what". Either the logic is cogent or it isn't. We can discuss the hermeneutics of how we interpret what we think we know if you like, but for this purpose when the logic for "2+2=4" is more cogent than that for "2+2=5" then the former is "right" and the latter is "wrong".

It also depends on the worldview being used. 1+1=10 is wrong in base 10 but correct in base 2

A good example of you just ignoring the rebuttal that undoes you. It's a wrong argument because it has nothing to do with your "worldview" at all. The context for either answer is the same - logic. You don't get different answers because you use the worldview of logic for one and the worldview of studying chicken feet or something for the other - they're the same context, and only reason you get different answers is because you change the opening conditions from one to the other (ie, which base you're using).

I've explained this to you several times already, but you've just ignored that and repeated your (mistaken) position.

Why?   

Right. Another poster who is not allowed to disagree with you, but because they have done so on numerous occasions, have a name given to their posting style? Maybe I'll go have a more detailed look at all their posts. I may learn something!

Yes you may - that habitually misrepresenting what your interlocutor says in order to attack your own straw man version of it is fundamentally dishonest. You do it a bit (though your preferred method is just to ignore the rebuttals), whereas Vlad does it consistently - hence the eponym.

Oh, and speaking of straw men - of course people are "allowed" to disagree with me. I actively want them to do it! What I don't want to engage with is dishonesty posing as disagreement.   

According to your naturalistic worldview, the equivalent of say, base 10. Try another worldview, e.g. base 5 and 2+2=10.

Wrong. Both are correct using the same approach (logic) but wth different starting conditions. It's a stupid argument for reason I've explained before and above, but that you've just ignored.   

The problem here is that you in particular seem unable to accept that e.g. religious believers have a different worldview and, perish the thought may be just as (if not more!) valid as yours!

No, the problem here is that "the religious" sometimes claim the conclusions their "worldview" delivers for them to be facts for the rest of us to without any of the foundational reasoning that delineates fact from conjecture. 

[SusanDoris]

From Sword:

You will never accept that your worldview is the problem, so no progress can ever be made.

Exactly the same could be said of you.

Let me give you an example: If it is true that God ....

That word IF is the stumbling block. if you expect an atheist like me to believe that, then first you have the problem of defining God and then providing reasons why you believe,  as I presume you do, that there is such a God and that it did indeed do any creating. How do you dismiss all the other scientifically based reasons and understandings about how things happen naturally, following what we now call the laws of physics? 

[Nearly Sane]

It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.

Mmm I still think you are struggling with any clear definition of worldview here, as previously you have linked it to atheism as being a worldview, and when asked about that have not, as far as I have seen answered it.

The point here is not about worldview but about a method. I understand the naturalist methodology and despite your assertion that induction, a naturalist methodology, somehow works for supernatural claims, I haven't seen anything more on that other than assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.

No, the problem isn't a "commitment" to naturalism to the exclusion of all other possibilities at all. That's just your straw man again. Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. Why should anyone take your faith claim "God" more or less seriously than someone else's faith claim "Thor"? 

Only when you can answer that will you see the real problem here.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

A good example of you just ignoring the rebuttal that undoes you. It's a wrong argument because it has nothing to do with your "worldview" at all.

 The context for either answer is the same - logic.

And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.

2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.

The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?

[Nearly Sane]

And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.

2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.

The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?

Binary/decimal are surely not worldviews? I can calculate using both, and have done. If they were worldviews that shouldn't work?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.

2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.

The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?

You really, really aren't getting this are you?

If you think that confidence in logical cogency is a "worldview", then fine - my "worldview" is that logically cogent arguments are probabilistically more likely to be correct than logically incoherent arguments because I can map both to the observable world and compare the results. Your mistake though is to equate applying different bases to a maths question with the same "worldview" - logic - as if that were in some way equivalent to equating a logic-based answer to a faith belief.

It's not - not by any stretch. And that's why it's a false analogy or, more properly, a category error.         

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Mmm I still think you are struggling with any clear definition of worldview here, as previously you have linked it to atheism as being a worldview, and when asked about that have not, as far as I have seen answered it.

I see the type of atheism that argues against religious belief (as opposed to being an absence of belief) as being a product of it, Nearly Sane.

I understand the naturalist methodology and despite your assertion that induction, a naturalist methodology, somehow works for supernatural claims, I haven't seen anything more on that other than assertion.

I did start a thread on it and tried to deal with the many questions there.

Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction

It was based on the 'Cold-case Christianity thread.

[Gordon]

And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.

2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.

The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?

So - if I acquire a calculator I also acquire a 'worldview', or indeed several depending on how I decide to approach the arithmetic?

Sounds like simplistic bollocks to me.

[Dicky Underpants]

NS,

Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.

Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...

Beware those nurses - they steal your trousers when you're asleep, you know!