Trouble at mill

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You’ve had your big bag of utter bollocks wide open today haven’t you. Just to detonate them quickly:

You’ve had this falsified many times already so why bother repeating the mistake? You can’t “dodge” something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place. If you think otherwise, why are you a leprechaun-dodger?

One can be intellectual and a theist certainly. There have been some fine and nuanced minds in the clergy for example, albeit that they hold beliefs that simultaneously are sound and daft. 

One of your favourite fallacies that one: reification. You might think there was an “encounter with god” but you have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that.

He made the same mistake you make of just assuming his premise? You surprise me.

Utter bollocks in a top hat. The only “philosophy” needed to be an atheist is the conclusion that logic and reason are probably better guides to truths than illogic and unreason.

But not a good one. Most mainstream philosophy at least has long since left philosophical theism in its wake.   

Utter bollocks in a top hat with a feather in it. There’s no “clingng for dear life” – just an open door to someone finally making an argument that isn't hopeless for his god being other people’s god too.

More reification. What “discovery”? What you meant to say there was “personal belief” or similar.

Wasn’t he supposed to be brighter than that?

Except of course you’ve yet to identify anyone who is a “goddodger”. Good luck with it though.

A dog’s breakfast of incoherence and half-formed thoughts there. None of these things though are “existential bulwarks” – that ultimately “nothing about me or what I do matters” for example is just rational deduction. What colossal solipsism it must take to think otherwise!

It’s “evidence” only of someone having a personal experience. The moment though he overreaches into thinking the narrative he’s come up with to explain it (“god” etc) is therefore true for other people too is when he runs out of gas. The consequence of that would be that there’d be no way to dismiss anyone’s narrative about any experience – leprechauns included. I that really where you want to be?

Because they’re evidence of the subjective but not of the objective, obviously. Oh, and you have no idea what Buddhism entails either. 

Because sometimes that “judgment” comes from greater knowledge and experience than one’s own – in a psychiatrist/patient relationship for example..

See above. It’s not difficult.

Some people have more empathy for others than other people. Some people are sociopaths and have none. So what?

Paternalistic nonsense vis "you've got you're work cut out for you'
I never worked for you and I never will.
You are just one huge argumentum ad populum
I noted that your attempt to justify taking on others judgment on you was an argument from authority.

Not one of your better attempts.

[Maeght]

Paternalistic nonsense vis "you've got you're work cut out for you'
I never worked for you and I never will.

Blue doesn't suggest that you work for him!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Paternalistic nonsense vis "you've got you're work cut out for you'
I never worked for you and I never will.
You are just one huge argumentum ad populum
I noted that your attempt to justify taking on others judgment on you was an argument from authority.

Not one of your better attempts.

1. Just out of interest, why do you always avoid the arguments that undo you?

2. I meant (of course) what I actually said - that you have your work cut out FOR YOU. There was no suggestion that you should do it for me or for anyone else. If you want your various theistic assertions to be taken seriously though, the job is all yours finally to make an argument for them that isn't hopeless. 

3. You clearly have no idea what an ad pop is given that I used (fairly simple) logic to dismantle your efforts point-by-point. That you've just run away again doesn't change that.

4. You have got "argument from authority" completely wrong. That's not what I did, and it's not what that means.

5. You have no idea whether or not it's a "better effort" as you've just run away again. Actually it is though because it's left you up the proverbial creek without a paddle on all the daftnesses you've attempted today.

Apart from all that though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

1. Just out of interest, why do you always avoid the arguments that undo you?

2. I meant (of course) what I actually said - that you have your work cut out FOR YOU. There was no suggestion that you should do it for me or for anyone else. If you want your various theistic assertions to be taken seriously though, the job is all yours finally to make an argument for them that isn't hopeless. 

3. You clearly have no idea what an ad pop is given that I used (fairly simple) logic to dismantle your efforts point-by-point. That you've just run away again doesn't change that.

4. You have got "argument from authority" completely wrong. That's not what I did, and it's not what that means.

5. You have no idea whether or not it's a "better effort" as you've just run away again. Actually it is though because it's left you up the proverbial creek without a paddle on all the daftnesses you've attempted today.

Apart from all that though...

If you are saying as you are that we should be judged by our elders and betters the that is argument from authority and paternalistic junk.
I don't think you can help yourself can you?

[Maeght]

If you are saying as you are that we should be judged by our elders and betters the that is argument from authority and paternalistic junk.
I don't think you can help yourself can you?

No it isn't, even if that is what has been said, which I don't think anyone has.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't, even if that is what has been said, which I don't think anyone has.

Me:Why should the judgment of other people about yourself be superior to your own?
Why, following on from that, should the judgment of a number of people about you be superior?


Hillside: Because sometimes that “judgment” comes from greater knowledge and experience than one’s own – in a psychiatrist/patient relationship for example.


You will note Hillside has immediately run up the white flag by putting the word Judgment in inverted comma's why does he feel the need to do that?. He is trying to punk us in the direction he wants to go which is to bring psychiatrists into it.

More argument from authority, changing the subject by deviation.

He is trying to manipulate language and unfortunately here was caught bang to rights.

His seems like a feudal atheism.

[Maeght]

For it to be an argument from authority there has to be an argument that the authority is used to support What is the argument here?

[Gordon]

Me:Why should the judgment of other people about yourself be superior to your own?
Why, following on from that, should the judgment of a number of people about you be superior?

Tell me, Vlad: when you visit the dentist do you accept their advice on what treatment is required, or that no treatment is required - or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tell me, Vlad: when you visit the dentist do you accept their advice on what treatment is required, or that no treatment is required - or not?

A dentist judges me on the colour of my teeth and the colour of my money, Gordon and should not be involved in judgmentalexistential statements.

See?........... Hillside has even punked you into indulging in the deviation fallacy

[Maeght]

Taking notice of someone when they are talking about something on which they are qualified is fair enough.  Taking their opinion without thought or questioning is unwise.  Taking the opinion of someone who is an expert in one field as having authority when they are talking about another field is very unwise! Using the latter scenario in a debate as support for a conclusion is an argument from authority fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Taking notice of someone when they are talking about something on which they are qualified is fair enough.  Taking their opinion without thought or questioning is unwise.  Taking the opinion of someone who is an expert in one field as having authority when they are talking about another field is very unwise! Using the latter scenario in a debate as support for a conclusion is an argument from authority fallacy.

Another person following a deviation snuck in by Hillside.

[Maeght]

Another person following a deviation snuck in by Hillside.

Nope.

[Gordon]

A dentist judges me on the colour of my teeth and the colour of my money, Gordon and should not be involved in judgmentalexistential statements.

See?........... Hillside has even punked you into indulging in the deviation fallacy

What an odd choice of words: no wonder your thinking is so mixed up (I'll not ask about the 'deviation fallacy' if you don't mind).

Your dentist doesn't 'judge you' but, instead, offers a qualified opinion based on specialist knowledge and experience regarding dental matters - I'm assuming here, for the sake of argument, that 'you' are more than your teeth and mouth. You seem to conflate this role with 'superiority', which also means that (unless you are a plumber of course) the next plumber you engage to sort out your leaky tap would be 'superior', and also the mechanic (unless you are a mechanic) - and so on.

You seem awfully inclined to over-egg every pudding (to the extent of creating puddings as you go along).

[Enki]

Few of us can as Burn's said "see our selves as others see us".
What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences as evidence?

I accept that any person having 'certain personal experiences' might well see them as some sort of personal evidence for, for instance, the existence of their particular God.

Why should I accept someone else's personal experiences as evidence also? I have no reason to do so, otherwise, logically, I should have to accept everyone's personal experiences in the same way, including my own. It seems to me that in that way confusion lies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I accept that any person having 'certain personal experiences' might well see them as some sort of personal evidence for, for instance, the existence of their particular God.

Why should I accept someone else's personal experiences as evidence also? I have no reason to do so, otherwise, logically, I should have to accept everyone's personal experiences in the same way, including my own. It seems to me that in that way confusion lies.

I don't think I made myself clear.
What I should have said is.

What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences and not others as evidence? Since all experience is personal.

[Aruntraveller]

What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences and not others as evidence?

And right back at you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And right back at you.

What are you talking about?

[Aruntraveller]

What are you talking about?

You dismiss other peoples personal experiences all the time by saying they are god dodging when they aren't. A clear case of your own personal warrant of dismissal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You dismiss other peoples personal experiences all the time by saying they are god dodging when they aren't. A clear case of your own personal warrant of dismissal.

I talk about Goddodging because I have seen examples on this board and have witnessed lines of the very goddodging arguments I have indulged in myself in times past.

The usual suspects on this forum dismiss all experience of the divine full stop, so please don't lecture me.
Why accept personal empirical experience and deny/reject/suspect experience that does not fit into that classical kind of empirical experience? What is your warrant for that?

[Enki]

I don't think I made myself clear.
What I should have said is.

What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences and not others as evidence? Since all experience is personal.

Quite simple really.

Person A might have a personal experience  of visiting India. Person B might not. However person B has the potential for visiting India at any time. Hence this seems to be a sound reason to say that India exists because it can be verified.

However, as you very clearly know, I was not talking about just any personal experiences, but certain special ones in relation to the idea of god. Indeed I made that quite clear when I said:

I have had experiences which have been imbued with the feeling that no god exists. However, as I have explained before, I discount any such personal experiences as evidence in the same way that I discount the personal experiences of others.

Such experiences cannot be used as evidence(except, as I have said, for the person who has had such experiences if they so desire) because there is no means of verification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite simple really.

Person A might have a personal experience  of visiting India. Person B might not. However person B has the potential for visiting India at any time. Hence this seems to be a sound reason to say that India exists because it can be verified.

However, as you very clearly know, I was not talking about just any personal experiences, but certain special ones in relation to the idea of god. Indeed I made that quite clear when I said:
Such experiences cannot be used as evidence(except, as I have said, for the person who has had such experiences if they so desire) because there is no means of verification.

Only empirical facts can be verified as such but we are talking about experience experience or qualia cannot be verified that is why we can only talk about intersubjective agreement.

But again what warrant do we have for accepting empirical personal experiences and rejecting non empirical personal experience?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.

Sorry I misunderstood you. Many apologies.

[Aruntraveller]

Why accept personal empirical experience and deny/reject/suspect experience that does not fit into that classical kind of empirical experience? What is your warrant for that?

As I don't. I can't answer that. And I haven't got a warrant.

But I do note that you are still a fully paid up member of the card carrying club.

PS If you think my two sentences are a lecture, you may want to redefine lecture, or at least look the word up, and then apply the criteria to your increasingly wearying posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

If you are saying as you are that we should be judged by our elders and betters...

Why are you lying again? I've said no such thing.

...the that is argument from authority and paternalistic junk.

I suppose it would be if anyone said it.

I don't think you can help yourself can you?

The only person here who can't help himself is you in respect of your unrelenting dishonesty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Me:Why should the judgment of other people about yourself be superior to your own?
Why, following on from that, should the judgment of a number of people about you be superior?


Hillside: Because sometimes that “judgment” comes from greater knowledge and experience than one’s own – in a psychiatrist/patient relationship for example.


You will note Hillside has immediately run up the white flag by putting the word Judgment in inverted comma's why does he feel the need to do that?. He is trying to punk us in the direction he wants to go which is to bring psychiatrists into it.

More argument from authority, changing the subject by deviation.

He is trying to manipulate language and unfortunately here was caught bang to rights.

His seems like a feudal atheism.

When you make a wrong turn you just keep on going don't you. Just to correct you yet again, here's RationalWiki on the difference between a fallacious and a non-fallacious argument from authority:

"An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

A non-fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed, experts on the issue in question, their opinion provides strong inductive support for the conclusion: It makes the conclusion likely to be true, not necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues.

Correct uses of argument from authority involve deferred justification: Insofar as your claim accords with what experts on the issue believes, then your claim is also supported by the evidence the experts are relying on, even if you may not yourself be aware of what that evidence in fact is.

In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to and treat as authoritative people who lack relevant qualifications or whose qualification is in an irrelevant field or a field that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. For example, saying "There is no God, because Stephen Hawking said so and is a knowledgeable physicist" is a fallacious appeal to authority as Hawking's qualifications in physics do not automatically make him an authority on whether God exists. However, accusations of a false appeal to authority, or dismissing an argument because of someone's lack of relevant qualifications or expertise, runs the risk of encountering the pitfall of the Courtier's Reply. This is the counterfallacy to a misapplied appeal to authority: that the lack of an official and relevant qualification doesn't automatically undercut the argument."

(https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Doubtless you'll keep on getting this wrong nonetheless, but at least you can't claim that you've not had it explained to you. You're welcome.