Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


No, it says that what you call “markers” is logically false reasoning for reasons you understand already because you’d identify them as fallacious too if I tried the same arguments to justify the claim “leprechauns”.
   

Well first of, Hillside, they would cease to be Leprechauns........ so that looks like a non starter to me.

[Stranger]

When Tegmark...

No actual answer then....     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No actual answer then....     

Tegmark and his physicalised mathematics. I like it.
A mathematical reality creates a physical level 4 multiverse.

[Stranger]

Tegmark and his physicalised mathematics. I like it.
A mathematical reality creates a physical level 4 multiverse.

Which wasn't the point. I didn't ask you if you liked it, I pointed out that people who propose ideas (such as Penrose and Tegmark), go about attempting to justify them, rather than pretending it's up to other people to show they are wrong or to show that there are no good reasons to believe them.

That's because they have a basic grasp of the burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which wasn't the point. I didn't ask you if you liked it, I pointed out that people who propose ideas (such as Penrose and Tegmark), go about attempting to justify them, rather than pretending it's up to other people to show they are wrong or to show that there are no good reasons to believe them.

That's because they have a basic grasp of the burden of proof.

I do both. I give explanation and recognise my burden although not the burden. If you dont accept those you need to say why not complain that I'm not justifying and you dont have to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which wasn't the point. I didn't ask you if you liked it, I pointed out that people who propose ideas (such as Penrose and Tegmark), go about attempting to justify them,

Yeh, I do as far as I can

Rather than pretending it's up to other people to show they are wrong or to show that there are no good reasons to believe them.

But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?

[Gordon]

But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?

Try and think of it this way, Vlad.

Let us just say for the sake of discussion that your belief in 'God' is on the basis of accepting, say, the ontological argument. Let us further say that someone comes along (let's call him Kant) and points out that the ontological argument is flawed and should be rejected.

So, while they have shown the argument that you used to justify your belief in 'God' fails, they have not attempted to show that there is no 'God' - in other words the object of your religious faith, 'God', may well exist even if the the argument you've used to justify you faith fails.

Some atheists, like me, simply take the view that all arguments for 'God' fail, or are simply incoherent, and in the absence of any other more convincing arguments I proceed on the basis that 'God' isn't a serious proposition: a bit like fairies, but that does not require me to then offer an argument to show there is no 'God' since I'm not making that claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try and think of it this way, Vlad.

Let us just say for the sake of discussion that your belief in 'God' is on the basis of accepting, say, the ontological argument. Let us further say that someone comes along (let's call him Kant) and points out that the ontological argument is flawed and should be rejected.

So, while they have shown the argument that you used to justify your belief in 'God' fails, they have not attempted to show that there is no 'God' - in other words the object of your religious faith, 'God', may well exist even if the the argument you've used to justify you faith fails.

Some atheists, like me, simply take the view that all arguments for 'God' fail, or are simply incoherent, and in the absence of any other more convincing arguments I proceed on the basis that 'God' isn't a serious proposition: a bit like fairies, but that does not require me to then offer an argument to show there is no 'God' since I'm not making that claim.

You are free to take that view. However it seems that 'failure' is dependent merely on there being alternatives. It is my view that we have to look at the alternatives and i'm afraid, atheism since I think Russell has thrown up all sorts of claims of incoherence that have not been properly analysed.......or stood scrutiny over time. An obvious example being The Courtier's reply.

I don't think there is actually anyone on here with deep philosophical understanding. Bluehillside is very good but I feel his skills lie in defending indefensible positions and thinking on his feet rather than to look at stuff dispassionately. Too much time playing the man I fear.......Put it this way there have been other forums where you can be surer of better scrutiny on all sides. Here, alas there is now, only one.

[Gordon]

You are free to take that view. However it seems that 'failure' is dependent merely on there being alternatives.

No it isn't: failure, in the sense I used it in the post you are replying to, is when an argument is showed to be flawed, usually by being fallacious. 
 

It is my view that we have to look at the alternatives and i'm afraid, atheism since I think Russell has thrown up all sorts of claims of incoherence that have not been properly analysed.......or stood scrutiny over time. An obvious example being The Courtier's reply.

Really? Then lets have your critique of Russell and Myers and you can explain where they have gone wrong.

I don't think there is actually anyone on here with deep philosophical understanding. Bluehillside is very good but I feel his skills lie in defending indefensible positions and thinking on his feet rather than to look at stuff dispassionately. Too much time playing the man I fear.......Put it this way there have been other forums where you can be surer of better scrutiny on all sides. Here, alas there is now, only one.

I think Messrs Dunning and Kruger would like a word with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't: failure, in the sense I used it in the post you are replying to, is when an argument is showed to be flawed, usually by being fallacious. 
 
Really? Then lets have your critique of Russell and Myers and you can explain where they have gone wrong.

I think Messrs Dunning and Kruger would like a word with you.

Since you brought them up......They would have a field day on this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try and think of it this way, Vlad.

Let us just say for the sake of discussion that your belief in 'God' is on the basis of accepting, say, the ontological argument. Let us further say that someone comes along (let's call him Kant) and points out that the ontological argument is flawed and should be rejected.

So, while they have shown the argument that you used to justify your belief in 'God' fails

They haven't shown it................. where is their demonstration. I cannot find it in your post.
I'm not a big ontological argument fan although as Russell himself said it is easy for the modern mind to think it fallacious but harder to track down where the actual fallacy is.
Do you think you might fit into that description Gordon?
Question though is where do we get our idea for perfection from and could obvious God dodging be because of God's holiness.(My own experience is yes, it could)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well first of, Hillside, they would cease to be Leprechauns........ so that looks like a non starter to me.

Utter lying, pig ignorant, flat stupid, contemptible wrongness. I’ve explained this to you over and over again, so why do you keep trolling about it?

Yet again: THE CHARACTERISTICS YOU ATTACH TO “GOD”, TO LEPRECHAUNS, OR TO ANYTHING ELSE HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE ARGUMENTS YOU TRY TO JUSTIFY THE BELIEF ARE FALSE.

Is this clear to you now? A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy – whether you use it to justify the belief in a kind god or in a musical leprechaun makes no difference – it’s still a flat wrong argument.

How many times are you going to try this fuckwittery? The argument doesn’t care about the characteristics of its outcome – regardless of whether it leads to “god”, to leprechauns, to unicorns, to the Loch Ness monster, or to anything else makes absolutely no difference to that. A wrong argument cannot magically become a sound argument just because you happen to like its outcome. 

Is there any chance at all you will now stop lying about this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yeh, I do as far as I can

The day irony died. To my best of my recollection, you have never, ever, ever, tried to justify anything you believe with an actual argument - either at all or that isn't obviously flat wrong.

Of all the countless lies you've told here, surely this must be the biggest of all.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter lying, pig ignorant, flat stupid, contemptible wrongness. I’ve explained this to you over and over again, so why do you keep trolling about it?

Yet again: THE CHARACTERISTICS YOU ATTACH TO “GOD”, TO LEPRECHAUNS, OR TO ANYTHING ELSE HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE ARGUMENTS YOU TRY TO JUSTIFY THE BELIEF ARE FALSE.

Is this clear to you now? A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy – whether you use it to justify the belief in a kind god or in a musical leprechaun makes no difference – it’s still a flat wrong argument.

How many times are you going to try this fuckwittery? The argument doesn’t care about the characteristics of its outcome – regardless of whether it leads to “god”, to leprechauns, to unicorns, to the Loch Ness monster, or to anything else makes absolutely no difference to that. A wrong argument cannot magically become a sound argument just because you happen to like its outcome. 

Is there any chance at all you will now stop lying about this?

Feel free to demonstrate the specific fallacious statement you have in mind.
What 'wrong argument' are we talking about? 

[Gordon]

They haven't shown it................. where is their demonstration. I cannot find it in your post.

Don't be silly: my post merely observed that arguments have been found to be fallacious and there are no end of examples of both fallacious arguments and the citing of fallacies being committed to be found in this wee forum - SfG is packed with them, so clearly you haven't been paying attention or you simply don't understand what constitutes fallacious arguments.

I'm not a big ontological argument fan although as Russell himself said it is easy for the modern mind to think it fallacious but harder to track down where the actual fallacy is.

So he did, but did recognise that it was indeed fallacious.

Do you think you might fit into that description Gordon?

Not for me to say because I've no idea what you mean.

Question though is where do we get our idea for perfection from and could obvious God dodging be because of God's holiness.(My own experience is yes, it could)

You'll need to untangle that mess: again I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I suspect you don't either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Feel free to demonstrate the specific fallacious statement you have in mind.
What 'wrong argument' are we talking about?

So then we go down the list of a fallacies and you reply, “yeah, but how many people actually try that argument then?” as a diversionary tactic. Sorry, not playing your stupid games: if you think there is a “god” then, finally after all these years, make an argument for it that you think isn’t a fallacy.

Then all we’d need to to test it would be to compare it against the codified list of logical fallacies. If your argument isn’t wrong, well and good; if it is though, then you will have to withdraw it and try something else.

What are you so afraid of?       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The day irony died. To my best of my recollection, you have never, ever, ever, tried to justify anything you believe with an actual argument - either at all or that isn't obviously flat wrong.

Of all the countless lies you've told here, surely this must be the biggest of all.

So let me get this straight.
When I say I tried to justify anything with an argument that is the biggest lie i've told because I have never, ever, ever tried to justify anything with an argument
AND when I did try to justify with  an argument I was obviously flat wrong?

When you talk contradictory Bollocks you don't do things by half do you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So then we go down the list of a fallacies and you reply, “yeah, but how many people actually try that argument then?” as a diversionary tactic. Sorry, not playing your stupid games: if you think there is a “god” then, finally after all these years, make an argument for it that you think isn’t a fallacy.

Then all we’d need to to test it would be to compare it against the codified list of logical fallacies. If your argument isn’t wrong, well and good; if it is though, then you will have to withdraw it and try something else.

What are you so afraid of?     

Just going down the list of fallacies is not enough. Anyone can do that. You have to point out where they occur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: my post merely observed that arguments have been found to be fallacious and there are no end of examples of both fallacious arguments and the citing of fallacies being committed to be found in this wee forum - SfG is packed with them, so clearly you haven't been paying attention or you simply don't understand what constitutes fallacious arguments.

So he did, but did recognise that it was indeed fallacious.

And where is it fallacious Gordon?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So let me get this straight.
When I say I tried to justify anything with an argument that is the biggest lie i've told because I have never, ever, ever tried to justify anything with an argument

When by "argument" we mean the actual meaning of the term, to the best of my recollection yes. For the most part you rely on assertion, interwoven occasionally with either ignoring what's said to you in rebuttal, misrepresenting it (your favourite that - the straw man), or just insulting the person whose makes the argument that falsifies you. There have been no arguments inasmuch as nothing you have tried has been logically sound.   
   

AND when I did try to justify with  an argument I was obviously flat wrong?

Yes. When on the rare occasion you've even tried an argument it's been modelled precisely as a fallacy. How then could you have not been flat wrong? 

When you talk contradictory Bollocks you don't do things by half do you?

There's no contradiction. Stop lying.

[Gordon]

And where is it fallacious Gordon?

Where is what fallacious? Find an argument, set it out here and then we can discuss whether or not it is fallacious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just going down the list of fallacies is not enough. Anyone can do that. You have to point out where they occur.

Time after time after time I have done. In reply though you have consistently just ignored the explanation, lied about it or thrown insult at it while you make your escape.

If you genuinely think you have an argument to justify your claim "god" that isn't logically false, then why not - finally - tell us what it is?

What are you so afraid of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

When by "argument" we mean the actual meaning of the term, to the best of my recollection yes. For the most part you rely on assertion, interwoven occasionally with either ignoring what's said to you in rebuttal, misrepresenting it (your favourite that - the straw man), or just insulting the person whose makes the argument that falsifies you. There have been no arguments inasmuch as nothing you have tried has been logically sound.   
   
Yes. When on the rare occasion you've even tried an argument it's been modelled precisely as a fallacy. How then could you have not been flat wrong? 

There's no contradiction. Stop lying.

Well' let the readership decide for themselves shall we? So, You've moved from ''Never ever EVER'' made an argument to ''rarely''. To be fair on you Hillside I'll retire before you blow a Gasket..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Time after time after time I have done. In reply though you have consistently just ignored the explanation, lied about it or thrown insult at it while you make your escape.

If you genuinely think you have an argument to justify your claim "god" that isn't logically false, then why not - finally - tell us what it is?

What are you so afraid of?

You are the one asserting there are fallacies........Justify.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well' let the readership decide for themselves shall we? So, You've moved from ''Never ever EVER'' made an argument to ''rarely''. I suppose that's some kind of progress.

Stop lying. By "never making an argument" you know perfectly well that I mean by the word "argument" the standard definition of that term - ie, a connected series of premises that justify a conclusion. That's the thing you've never done. What you have done though is to rely either just on unqualified assertions, or on statements that fail the basic requirements necessary for an an argument.

So now you've had your dishonest fun, how about that actual argument for "god" - ie, some connected premises that justify the assertion "god"?

Why are you so afraid of even trying to do that?