Advice to icontinent fallacy accusers

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.

Wrong again. How is it clear that he isn't using the NPF when he says things like, "you can't disprove it either"? That he says he isn't using it and that he's not actually at least attempting it are not the same thing.

And, as Wiggs explained, terms like "argument from incredulity", "NPF" etc are merely a convenient shorthand way of identifying flaws in arguments. If someone says in reply, "why is a...fallacy" then it can be explained to him at greater length.   

[SteveH]

Muddled thinking - we might reason (correctly) that our brains are made of atoms, we might (falsely) reason that our brains are made of atom-free space gunk. It isn't the reasoning that is instrumental in concluding that our brains are made of atoms - it is the objective evidence.

And how do we evaluate the objective evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Wrong again. How is it clear that he isn't using the NPF when he says things like, "you can't disprove it either"? That he says he isn't using it and that he's not actually at least attempting it are not the same thing.

And, as Wiggs explained, terms like "argument from incredulity", "NPF" etc are merely a convenient shorthand way of identifying flaws in arguments. If someone says in reply, "why is a...fallacy" then it can be explained to him at greater length.

I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?

Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".

[Shaker]

Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?

Round these here parts fallacies don't exactly need to be hunted; like dodos, they're just there, wandering around.

[Gordon]

I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.

Then you need to try opening your eyes next time.

Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?

By whom and where?

Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".

No need, since the common or garden ones get such a regular work-out here (such as your army of straw men).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you need to try opening your eyes next time.

By whom and where?

Amnesia, Gordon?

[Gordon]

Amnesia, Gordon?

Nope - whom and where?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Distractionist,

I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?

Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".

So (yet again), what point did you think you were making when you said, "...but you can't disprove it either"?

Why so coy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Distractionist,

So (yet again), what point did you think you were making when you said, "...but you can't disprove it either"?

Why so coy?

Hillside I thought we had agreed that ''you can't disprove it either ' is not the full NPF and therefore not an NPF at all and also that 'knocking on the door of an NPF is mere speculative punt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Fantasist,

Hillside I thought we had agreed that ''you can't disprove it either ' is not the full NPF and therefore not an NPF at all and also that 'knocking on the door of an NPF is mere speculative punt.

When did we agree that? "You can't disprove it either" is not "the full NPF" only because you left off the "therefore..." to follow. That is, it's not the full NPF in the sense that a car with the wheels missing isn't a full car. Your "therefore" here is a non sequitur (proper meaning, not your misuse of the term).

Of course, if you did have an argument to show that it wasn't an attempted NPF all you'd have to do would be finally to answer the question I keep asking you and you keep ignoring: what did you think meant by it?

Look, I'll even put it capitals and a bigger font now so you can't pretend not to have seen it:

WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID, "BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER"?


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Fantasist,

When did we agree that? "You can't disprove it either" is not "the full NPF" only because you left off the "therefore..." to follow. That is, it's not the full NPF in the sense that a car with the wheels missing isn't a full car. Your "therefore" here is a non sequitur (proper meaning, not your misuse of the term).

Of course, if you did have an argument to show that it wasn't an attempted NPF all you'd have to do would be finally to answer the question I keep asking you and you keep ignoring: what did you think meant by it?

Look, I'll even put it capitals and a bigger font now so you can't pretend not to have seen it:

WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID, "BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER"?


 

It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there. Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?
That is a fallacy.

What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.

What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?

As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.

[Enki]

It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there. Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?
That is a fallacy.

What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.

What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?

As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.

In my case it's simply a total absence of commitment.

[Sebastian Toe]

.....act as though God does not exist.

Do people do that?
How do they manage to live?
It must be really difficult.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there.

Yes, and if I was asserting “true for you too” leprechauns”, you challenged me on the claim, and I replied, “You can’t disprove them either though” presumably you’d infer that I was trying to make a point of some kind wouldn’t you?

I merely ask what point you thought you were making if not for an incomplete NPF. If your answer is, “I refuse to answer that” then just say so instead of indulging in all the diversionary stuff.
 

Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?

That is a fallacy.

So is a straw man Why bother with the lie?

What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.

What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?

The “warrant” as you put it is that neither you nor anyone else so far as atheists are aware have managed a cogent reason to think there are gods, and it requires no more “commitment” to live accordingly than you require a commitment to live on the assumption that there are no leprechauns.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
 

As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.

Stop lying. The bit missing – and still missing – is the explanation for what you intended when you wrote, “but you can’t disprove it either”.  If you want to keep it a secret that’s up to you, but you must expect to be judged accordingly.