Disproofs of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth

No argument then.

Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

No argument then.

Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.

Is that why you do it?

The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.

My former home town and very nice it was too. Still no argument from you though.

Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars.

Only the ones who demonstrably lie, which seems fair enough to me.
 

Since I am almost your last adversary…

"Adversary"? Hardly…

…on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.

The description is because you’re caught out lying so much, not because you’re the “last adversary” as you put it.

Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, you're avoiding the point and secondly, I didn't say either of those things. What I do say is that you don't seem to get what an argument entails, even though you (sometimes) seem to be attempting them, so what you actually come up with is fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being your latest favoutite), assertions, avoidance (as in this case), or total incoherence.

No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.
I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.

But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and aleprechaunism.
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My former home town

I hear it’s come on a lot since then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.

Then stop telling us that atheism doesn’t “disprove God” as if that was a critique of atheism.

I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.

Why wouldn’t you be? Either you accept nothing without good reason or you accept everything without good reason. Anything in between would be arbitrary.   

But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.

Several reasons:

1. It’s irrelevant.

2. People are “a-all these things” until and unless there’s good reason not to be.

3. There are good reasons to accept some of them, and there aren’t good reasons to accept others of them.

4. Given your form here, it’s very likely that you’re using your own private redefinitions of these terms in any case. Why would anyone want to join you in that?

5. It’s irrelevant (did I mention that already?).
   

I hear it’s come on a lot since then.

I hear the opposite. Not even a blue plaque either...

[Stranger]

No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.
I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.

You keep saying that, but other things you say are inconsistent with it. You could change your silly signature for a start...

But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and aleprechaunism.
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.

I am a- all those philosophical positions, as I keep saying. All you are doing is pretending that saying that empirical evidence is one way of distinguishing the probably true from guessing, makes you philosophically an empiricist, physicalist, materialist, or whatever.

I know of two ways of doing the job of distinguishing the probably true from guessing: empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. I make no claim that there can't be other ways or that the physical world is all that exists, but people who make claims that cannot be supported by some methodology that can distinguish the probably true from guessing have to both show that the methodology works (if it isn't one of the aforementioned well established ones), that it supports their claims, and cannot be used to support absurd or contradictory claims.

I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

Then stop telling us that atheism doesn’t “disprove God” as if that was a critique of atheism.

Why wouldn’t you be? Either you accept nothing without good reason or you accept everything without good reason. Anything in between would be arbitrary.   

Several reasons:

1. It’s irrelevant.

2. People are “a-all these things” until and unless there’s good reason not to be.

3. There are good reasons to accept some of them, and there aren’t good reasons to accept others of them.

4. Given your form here, it’s very likely that you’re using your own private redefinitions of these terms in any case. Why would anyone want to join you in that?

5. It’s irrelevant (did I mention that already?).
   
I hear the opposite. Not even a blue plaque either...

It would be a brown plaque in your case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep saying that, but other things you say are inconsistent with it. You could change your silly signature for a start...

I am a- all those philosophical positions, as I keep saying. All you are doing is pretending that saying that empirical evidence is one way of distinguishing the probably true from guessing, makes you philosophically an empiricist, physicalist, materialist, or whatever.

I know of two ways of doing the job of distinguishing the probably true from guessing: empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. I make no claim that there can't be other ways or that the physical world is all that exists, but people who make claims that cannot be supported by some methodology that can distinguish the probably true from guessing have to both show that the methodology works (if it isn't one of the aforementioned well established ones), that it supports their claims,

I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism and that is not supported by any methodology. To which you can add Cakeandeatitism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism…

It wasn’t, but in any case if not empiricism to make sense of the world what would you propose instead?

… and that is not supported by any methodology.

Of course it is. Try taking arsenic instead of aspirin for your headache and compare the results.
 

To which you can add Cakeandeatitism.

Another straw man.

It would be a brown plaque in your case.

So having dismantled your last set of howlers this is all you can manage for a reply?

Were you beaten as an aid to potty training or something? You seem to be scatologically obsessed – unhealthily so.

Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

[Stranger]

I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism...

Which just goes to show (once again) that you don't understand the terms you are using. I make no philosophical claim that "...all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses." (empiricism).

...and that is not supported by any methodology.

Using empirical evidence to discover things about the physical world is a methodology (not a philosophical position). It's also a methodology you test the validity of every time you use technology (a product of using that methodology) to post ignorant drivel over the internet.

Oh, and once again you avoided the actual point of having to come up with some methodology that works if you aren't going to use one of the two that are so far established.

[SteveH]

Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.

Yes - it occurred to me later that he might be a wind-up merchant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

It wasn’t, but in any case if not empiricism to make sense of the world what would you propose instead?

Nobody is suggesting replacing methodological empiricism. That is the type of straw man you stinkingly, putridly and Essexly accuse others of.

However what turns your statement into philosophical empiricism is the sanctimonious suggestion that it is only empiricism that makes sense of the world thus trying to establish empiricism as a status quo and default whereas you have argued that it is not the default position. A-empiricism being the default.

Empiricism like atheism as far as you are concerned remains a “true for you” position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which just goes to show (once again) that you don't understand the terms you are using. I make no philosophical claim that "...all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses." (empiricism).

Using empirical evidence to discover things about the physical world is a methodology (not a philosophical position). It's also a methodology you test the validity of every time you use technology (a product of using that methodology) to post ignorant drivel over the internet.

Oh, and once again you avoided the actual point of having to come up with some methodology that works if you aren't going to use one of the two that are so far established.

Good account of methodological empiricism.

Nobody is arguing for the replacement of that.
However when arguing that a methodology is needed some people find it impossible to separate the methodological from the empiricism. There are other consequences of this.

Your argument at present comes across as until something has a methodology it cannot be. However one can envisage an early naturalist looking for a new species who gets his arm ripped off by one.
The naturalist’s methodology failed to conjure the creature, the creature itself was not versed in methodology and yet there they both are, Methodology confounded by ontology.

methodological moral realism to me sounds most promising to satisfy those for whom method is evidence and somewhere along the line examination into one’s own morally realistic standing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - it occurred to me later that he might be a wind-up merchant.

You said that like it was a bad thing.

[Roses]

Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of Essexheaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.

The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.

Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars. Since I am almost your last adversary on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.

I wonder if Satan has a special prize for people like you who make a joke of Christianity?

[Roses]

You said that like it was a bad thing.

So you admit to being a WUM, if so for once you are being honest.

[SteveH]

Reverend Hillside...

MR Hillside! "Reverend" followed by surname alone is WRONG, no matter how common it has become in this barbarous age, and the "Reverend" is not required! Get it right! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

MR Hillside! "Reverend" followed by surname alone is WRONG, no matter how common it has become in this barbarous age, and the "Reverend" is not required! Get it right! 

Wot? Even for ministers of hard arsed atheism?

[SteveH]

Wot? Even for ministers of hard arsed atheism?

Even for ministers of lard-arsed aleprechaunism.

[Stranger]

Your argument at present comes across as until something has a methodology it cannot be.

Nope, as I said in #654 "I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them."

methodological moral realism to me sounds most promising to satisfy those for whom method is evidence and somewhere along the line examination into one’s own morally realistic standing.

First you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "moral realism" and find an objective way of dealing with it. If you can manage that, you could solve all the world's moral dilemmas in one fell swoop, so the very best of luck with that...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, as I said in #654 "I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them."

First you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "moral realism" and find an objective way of dealing with it. If you can manage that, you could solve all the world's moral dilemmas in one fell swoop, so the very best of luck with that...

I think on those rare occasions when we face an actual moral dilemma and we have to choose between self interest we have found moral realism or it has found us.
The time to worry about not meeting moral dilemma is when you have either blunted your conscience or are dodging it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Nobody is suggesting replacing methodological empiricism.

And no-one said that you were. Your problem though remains that, if you think methodological empiricism can’t investigate you claims about a supposed non-material, then you need to find some other method that can – which is when you always run away.

That is the type of straw man you stinkingly, putridly and Essexly accuse others of.

No, the only straw man here is the one you just attempted. Stop lying.

However what turns your statement into philosophical empiricism is the sanctimonious suggestion that it is only empiricism that makes sense of the world thus trying to establish empiricism as a status quo and default whereas you have argued that it is not the default position. A-empiricism being the default.

More gibberish. What’s odd about this is that you’ve had your misunderstanding/lying about empiricism shown to you before now repeatedly and at some length, then you fail to engage with the arguments that undo you, then a bit later you return with exactly the same misunderstanding/lying about empiricism. What’s the point in schooling you when you behave this way?

Yet again…

…philosophical materialism (which is presumably what you mean by "philosophical empiricism") does not make the claim that all that exists must ultimately be physical. It may be that all that exists is ultimately physical, but that’s not a claim that philosophical materialism makes. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – which does posit that all that exists is ultimately physical. This seems to me to be unknowable however, and is not a position anyone I know of takes.

Still with me? Good. What philosophical materialism actually says is that, so far at least, materialism is the only position that can be shown reliably and predictably to derive from first principles explanatory models that are coherent and logically robust. Methodological materialism on the other hand is the practical application of philosophical materialism to produce real world outcomes that are generally accepted as “true” - like medicines and parachutes. It’s a bottom up approach, not one that makes larger statements about ultimate reality.

Your repeated lie is to pretend that philosophical materialism is actually physicalism, and then to complain irrelevantly that physicalism is unknowable even though no-one here argues for it.

Your repeated cheat on the other hand is conveniently to ignore the problem that your claims of the non-material have absolutely no method of any kind to distinguish them from just guessing about stuff. Even if you weren’t lying about materialism and managed to reduce it to just guessing too, all that would give you would be two positions of just guessing.         

Empiricism like atheism as far as you are concerned remains a “true for you” position.

And for people who value rationality above irrationality, who take medicines, who fly on aeroplanes, who have MRI scans, who take the stairs other than jump out of the window, who...

So now your repetition of your previous fuckwittery has been shown to you, what’s your plan? For the first time ever to try to address the problem honestly and openly, or to ignore it/lie about it/throw insult at it as is your standard MO while you beat a hasty retreat, ready to try exactly the same fuckwittery further down the line?

Hmmm…I wonder….

[Stranger]

I think on those rare occasions when we face an actual moral dilemma and we have to choose between self interest we have found moral realism or it has found us.
The time to worry about not meeting moral dilemma is when you have either blunted your conscience or are dodging it.

No, moral dilemmas are not always about self-interest at all. Quite apart from the obvious differences over things like abortion, homosexuality, the age of consent or of criminal responsibility, euthanasia, and so on, there are complex situations, for example, is it ethical to kill one person in order to save five others. Depending on how you frame the question and exactly how personal you make the act of "killing" the one person, you tend to get very different answers. See, for example: Trolley problem.

Compare:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

        Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
        Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"

To:

"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

Things can get even more complicated when we talk about the most moral way to organise a society, crime, punishment/rehabilitation, attitude towards drugs, and so on. If we think of the idea of maximising some idea of human "well being" (and what's the objective reason why that should be 'moral' - and should it include non-human animals as well?) and we could objectively define that, then how do you aggregate it across society. If you take a simple average, it might lead to the maximum average would mean a small proportion of society being enslaved, for example.

And, to the extent that there is agreement on any of these complex issues, you'd then have to show that it was not simply due to the fact that humans are social animals and the commonality can't be put down to biological and cultural evolution.

Unless you have an objective methodology that can lead us to moral answers, even if there is some sort of "moral realism", there might as well not be because we can't access it in an objective way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, moral dilemmas are not always about self-interest at all. Quite apart from the obvious differences over things like abortion, homosexuality, the age of consent or of criminal responsibility, euthanasia, and so on, there are complex situations, for example, is it ethical to kill one person in order to save five others. Depending on how you frame the question and exactly how personal you make the act of "killing" the one person, you tend to get very different answers. See, for example: Trolley problem.

Compare:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

        Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
        Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"

To:

"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

Things can get even more complicated when we talk about the most moral way to organise a society, crime, punishment/rehabilitation, attitude towards drugs, and so on. If we think of the idea of maximising some idea of human "well being" (and what's the objective reason why that should be 'moral' - and should it include non-human animals as well?) and we could objectively define that, then how do you aggregate it across society. If you take a simple average, it might lead to the maximum average would mean a small proportion of society being enslaved, for example.

And, to the extent that there is agreement on any of these complex issues, you'd then have to show that it was not simply due to the fact that humans are social animals and the commonality can't be put down to biological and cultural evolution.

Unless you have an objective methodology that can lead us to moral answers, even if there is some sort of "moral realism", there might as well not be because we can't access it in an objective way.

I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.

I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by  a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that pigeon!

I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.

I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by  a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.

Evasive gibberish. If you seriously think there's objective morality:

1. Demonstrate it

2. Explain how we'd identify it

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that pigeon!

Evasive gibberish. If you seriously think there's objective morality:

1. Demonstrate it

2. Explain how we'd identify it

I think its meaningless until one is personally engaged and finds ones  own moral pulse. Short of that one merely spectators as a moral neutral. I dont think examining the morality of others counts as the detection of moral realism.