Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Blimey, Captain Jack has only been back onshore for five minutes and he’s already spoiling for a fight.
PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy, as you well know Captain.

Inevitably given your history, the Courtier's Reply says no such thing.

Then of course there was this.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/

Then of course there was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-tqYFI4e_8

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Inevitably given your history, the Courtier's Reply says no such thing.

Then of course there was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-tqYFI4e_8

I think we have to look at PZ Myers use of the term Courtiers reply in Regards to Dawkin’s slapdown of his theological critics, the famous “Leprochology “ comment about not having to know about leprochologyto dismiss it. Horses laugh fallacy aside you probably cannot dismiss theology more vehemently as that. Also, Hillside we all know the tale of the Courtier and subsequent attempts to reframe Myer’s argument and turdpolish it into something a bit more reasonable don’t fit the courtier’s story.

As I say Dawkins managed to get to the “Lep” part of Leprochology and then the whole thing was dismissible as “Horse’s Laugh fallacy”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we have to look at PZ Myers use of the term Courtiers reply in Regards to Dawkin’s slapdown of his theological critics, the famous “Leprochology “ comment about not having to know about leprochologyto dismiss it. Horses laugh fallacy aside you probably cannot dismiss theology more vehemently as that. Also, Hillside we all know the tale of the Courtier and subsequent attempts to reframe Myer’s argument and turdpolish it into something a bit more reasonable don’t fit the courtier’s story.

As I say Dawkins managed to get to the “Lep” part of Leprochology and then the whole thing was dismissible as “Horse’s Laugh fallacy”.

Did you have anything to say about your screw up/deliberate misrepresentation regarding what the Courtier's Reply actually says? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Did you have anything to say about your screw up/deliberate misrepresentation regarding what the Courtier's Reply actually says?

I’ve said all I want to about PZ Myers and his connection with it.

Do I want to hear your 2025 version of it after it’s been road tested, refined, rebooted, rejigged, refitted by Atheist HQ?

You know you want to tell me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’ve said all I want to about PZ Myers and his connection with it.

Do I want to hear your 2025 version of it after it’s been road tested, refined, rebooted, rejigged, refitted by Atheist HQ?

You know you want to tell me.

So you want to leave your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the Courtier's Reply as it is then?

Why in that case are you here, other than for trolling purposes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you want to leave your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the Courtier's Reply as it is then?

Why in that case are you here, other than for trolling purposes?

I think you are supposed to say “I think you are wrong and here’s why”, Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you are supposed to say “I think you are wrong and here’s why”, Hillside.

You said (Reply 471) “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

The Courtier’s Reply doesn’t suggest that at all. It’s your claim though, so it’s your burden of proof to demonstrate that it does and not mine to show that it doesn't.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

And here we are fans, Madison square Gardens, two old ( very old ) Pugilists once again toe to toe, old Blue wearing, well nice pair of six inch ( each to their own ) and old Vlad wearing a lovely see through ( put it away put it away ) what do you think John, will any of these two tired old pugilists bring anything new, well I don't know Jack there has been flashes of brilliance from both contestants just checking the Marquis of Canterbury rules about turdpolishing ( we threw out the queensbury rules ages ago ) but yes this should be the battle of the century ( feels like a bloody century ) whether we see anything new remains to be seen, ding ding round Googleplex🥳

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Dear Thread,

And here we are fans, Madison square Gardens, two old ( very old ) Pugilists once again toe to toe, old Blue wearing, well nice pair of six inch ( each to their own ) and old Vlad wearing a lovely see through ( put it away put it away ) what do you think John, will any of these two tired old pugilists bring anything new, well I don't know Jack there has been flashes of brilliance from both contestants just checking the Marquis of Canterbury rules about turdpolishing ( we threw out the queensbury rules ages ago ) but yes this should be the battle of the century ( feels like a bloody century ) whether we see anything new remains to be seen, ding ding round Googleplex🥳

Sadly it's not a contest though because before the opening ding ding Vlad consistently belts himself in the face and is counted out before I've even put my mouthguard in.

Oh well. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You said (Reply 471) “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

The Courtier’s Reply doesn’t suggest that at all. It’s your claim though, so it’s your burden of proof to demonstrate that it does and not mine to show that it doesn't.

I think we need to look at it in the context of Dawkins statement.
In any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.

Dawkins view of Theology is well known and his put down of Alex O’Connors theological combined degree and his censure of Alex for wasting his time is a classic.

If you refuse to correct me on this matter, something usually done by saying what is wrong with it or by giving what you take to be the correct definition, I shall consider the matter closed.

You ought to know though that Wikipedia only gives the Courtiers reply the status of an alleged fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we need to look at it in the context of Dawkins statement.

No we don’t. In Reply 471 you said “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

That’s not true, and no amount of attempted post facto “contextualising” makes it true. As we both know that you either misunderstood or misrepresented what the CR actually says, it’s your job to correct your statement.   

In any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.

Dawkins view of Theology is well known and his put down of Alex O’Connors theological combined degree and his censure of Alex for wasting his time is a classic.

Irrelevant.

If you refuse to correct me on this matter, something usually done by saying what is wrong with it or by giving what you take to be the correct definition, I shall consider the matter closed.

You ought to know though that Wikipedia only gives the Courtiers reply the status of an alleged fallacy.

Did you know that the Bible says you can’t get to heaven unless you murder at least one ten-year-old? Happy reading trying to prove me wrong about that.

Can you see now why shifting the burden of proof is a bad argument?

[ProfessorDavey]

n any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.

This was on another thread - where you have failed to respond to my points.

Now I've not read the PZ Myers piece - typically seems only you who is obsessed with Dawkins, Myers etc.

However, I don't see your argument. That you can oppose something without knowing its intricacies doesn't mean that as soon as you do know the intricacies that you will accept it.

So if there is no evidence to support the existence of god or gods, nothing further is required not to believe in them. No amount of describing precise attributes of a claimed god, nor whether that god has a beard, nor wants you to rest on Sundays etc etc will change that. They are all completely irrelevant until or unless the first base is passed - i.e. evidence of existence. So you can reject christianity without knowing the details in the bible on the basis that there is no evidence that god even exists so the rest is moot. Reading all the details in the bible won't change that one iota if there is still no evidence that god exists in the first place.

Would knowing that leprechauns always keep their gold coins in their left pocket and dance anticlockwise make the existence of leprechauns more credible. Hmm, nope - so it is rather irrelevant whether you know these claimed but unevidenced details.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Would knowing that leprechauns always keep their gold coins in their left pocket...

"left" pocket? Die heretic!

 

[Stranger]

In any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.

Difficult to unravel this garbled mess of a sentence, but I'm all in favour of people getting to know the bible because it's generally believers who have a distorted view of it. If you read it with a genuine desire to see what it says (instead of to confirm what you already 'know'), you see that it's an incoherent, self-contradictory mess with no clear message at all.

Reading the bible was one of the first reasons I ended up rejecting the absurdity of the Christianity my family were into.

[Gonnagle]

Difficult to unravel this garbled mess of a sentence, but I'm all in favour of people getting to know the bible because it's generally believers who have a distorted view of it. If you read it with a genuine desire to see what it says (instead of to confirm what you already 'know'), you see that it's an incoherent, self-contradictory mess with no clear message at all.

Reading the bible was one of the first reasons I ended up rejecting the absurdity of the Christianity my family were into.

Dear Stranger,

Well for me I give this round to old Vlad, for me ( me ) this Christianity stuff is not rocket science, I care not a jot if you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarians or Atheist, Jesus Christ that guy in the Bible simply states

In the King James Version of the Bible, the second greatest commandment, as stated in Matthew 22:39, is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Context:
Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, and he responds by stating the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
The Second Commandment:
Jesus then states that the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:39:
The verse in the King James Version reads: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Significance:
Jesus emphasizes that these two commandments are the foundation of all the law and the prophets.

Is like unto it

You don't have to agree with the first, and I honestly think that God give a flying hallelujah whether you follow the first or not, Cherry picking, you bet yer sweet ass I am Cherry picking.

Ding ding, round sorry lost count✝️

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Stranger,

Well for me I give this round to old Vlad, for me ( me ) this Christianity stuff is not rocket science, I care not a jot if you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarians or Atheist, Jesus Christ that guy in the Bible simply states

In the King James Version of the Bible, the second greatest commandment, as stated in Matthew 22:39, is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Context:
Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, and he responds by stating the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
The Second Commandment:
Jesus then states that the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:39:
The verse in the King James Version reads: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Significance:
Jesus emphasizes that these two commandments are the foundation of all the law and the prophets.

Is like unto it

You don't have to agree with the first, and I honestly think that God give a flying hallelujah whether you follow the first or not, Cherry picking, you bet yer sweet ass I am Cherry picking.

Ding ding, round sorry lost count✝️

Gonnagle.

Well firstly we have no idea whether Jesus said this or not.

All we know is that people writing decades later claim that he did. Oh, no, even that isn't correct as we don't have any extant text that is close to the time when the gospels were supposed to have been written.

So actually all we know is that texts from probably 3rdC or 4thC claim that Jesus said this. Although we don't know whether those claims were in the original versions of the gospels (from about 200 years earlier), nor whether those claims (in the originals of the gospels which we don't have) were accurate in claiming that Jesus said this.

So we aren't first hand, or second hand, we are probably about 6th or 7th hand when we actually have the claimed quote in our hands.

Oh and even if he did say this it would hardly be new as it is both just reiteration of much earlier Jewish theology and also pretty well identical to the 'golden rule' which has been around for millennia and requires no god to justify, merely empathy and an understanding of evolution.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

And your point is, actually I think you made my point, normal service will be resumed shortly, no it won't Gonnagle, why do you do it, well sometimes its fun, just sometimes.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

And your point is, actually I think you made my point, normal service will be resumed shortly, no it won't Gonnagle, why do you do it, well sometimes its fun, just sometimes.

Gonnagle.

No idea what point you are trying to make.

My point is that the golden rule seems to be pretty well universal (articulated of course in different wording) across human cultures and societies for as far back as we have records and as widely geographically as humans have inhabited. And it exists in cultures that see it in both a religious and a non religious context. Almost as if there is some kind of evolutionary imperative in people in human societies having empathy with each other and acting in a cooperative and reciprocal manner with each other.

Almost as if human's evolutionary advantage comes from societal cooperation based on mutual reciprocity and empathy.

Note too that in most ancient contexts the golden rule was only really applied to others in their 'tribe' - all bets were off in terms of how you treated the other 'tribe' down the road, or in the next valley, not of your class/religion etc. Again completely explainably in evolutionary terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This was on another thread - where you have failed to respond to my points.

Now I've not read the PZ Myers piece - typically seems only you who is obsessed with Dawkins, Myers etc.

However, I don't see your argument. That you can oppose something without knowing its intricacies doesn't mean that as soon as you do know the intricacies that you will accept it.

So if there is no evidence to support the existence of god or gods, nothing further is required not to believe in them. No amount of describing precise attributes of a claimed god, nor whether that god has a beard, nor wants you to rest on Sundays etc etc will change that. They are all completely irrelevant until or unless the first base is passed - i.e. evidence of existence. So you can reject christianity without knowing the details in the bible on the basis that there is no evidence that god even exists so the rest is moot. Reading all the details in the bible won't change that one iota if there is still no evidence that god exists in the first place.

Would knowing that leprechauns always keep their gold coins in their left pocket and dance anticlockwise make the existence of leprechauns more credible. Hmm, nope - so it is rather irrelevant whether you know these claimed but unevidenced details.

For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Firstly Dawkins is saying there is no evidence for God or God so he might as well be talking about Leprochology, or as he fails to tell us, philosophical physicalism, or reductionism etc or as he would like to “anything philosophical”. But then he cannot get a horses laugh out of that.
He has a limited tolerance for philosophical and has many have pointed out he isn’t very good at it.
And so he represents scientism. Where only “science” can say what is real and philosophical argument gets no look in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Firstly Dawkins is saying there is no evidence for God or God so he might as well be talking about Leprochology, or as he fails to tell us, philosophical physicalism, or reductionism etc or as he would like to “anything philosophical”. But then he cannot get a horses laugh out of that.
He has a limited tolerance for philosophical and has many have pointed out he isn’t very good at it.
And so he represents scientism. Where only “science” can say what is real and philosophical argument gets no look in.

None of which is true, but in any case do you intend to keep running away from your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the CR?

Let me help you with it. Here's the CR in full:

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

Put up or shut up. 
   

[ProfessorDavey]

For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.

Given that I've never read anything by either Dawkins (except The Blind Watchmaker) or Myers, I have no idea why you are considering that I am defending them or otherwise. I (and I image plenty of other posters here) are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves. It is you, not us, that seem obsessed with the views of the likes of Dawkins and Myers.

I've no idea whether the view I expressed in reply 486 are similar or dissimilar to the views of Dawkins or Myers as I've never read their views. These are my views as I'm perfectly able to think for myself - and they are provided as a rebuttal to your non-sense that reading the bible will necessarily make people believe it. 

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Well for me I give this round to old Vlad, for me ( me ) this Christianity stuff is not rocket science, I care not a jot if you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarians or Atheist, Jesus Christ that guy in the Bible simply states

In the King James Version of the Bible, the second greatest commandment, as stated in Matthew 22:39, is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Context:
Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, and he responds by stating the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
The Second Commandment:
Jesus then states that the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:39:
The verse in the King James Version reads: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Significance:
Jesus emphasizes that these two commandments are the foundation of all the law and the prophets.

Is like unto it

You don't have to agree with the first, and I honestly think that God give a flying hallelujah whether you follow the first or not, Cherry picking, you bet yer sweet ass I am Cherry picking.

Ding ding, round sorry lost count✝️

Gonnagle.

Which is basically the golden rule, which pre-dates the incoherent and contradictory bible. And of course, there is plenty in the bible that contradicts that rule too. No idea at all what you think Vlad has said that makes any sense. If people read the bible with an open mind, sure they'll find the nice bits, but they'll also find all the contradictions and the nasty bits about a psychopathic, jealous, vindictive, capricious, petty, vengeful, and patently unjust God who approves of stuff like slavery and genocide.

It's a great advert for atheism.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

None of which is true, but in any case do you intend to keep running away from your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the CR?

Let me help you with it. Here's the CR in full:

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

Put up or shut up. 
 

Dawkins completely and famously misunderstood Aquinas as saying that absolutely everything has a cause, which is not what Aquinas was saying at all.
If dDawkins can be pinned down to a philosophy, and many people in his circles don’t it would be Smolin’s darwinianian cosmology which itself shows no attempt to eliminate an infinite recession of causes.

Let’s not forget either that Dawkins and Myers don’t like physicists that much either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

None of which is true, but in any case do you intend to keep running away from your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the CR?

Let me help you with it. Here's the CR in full:

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”

Put up or shut up. 
 

Myers wasted that time and effort giving a shit analogy.

[Stranger]

For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Firstly Dawkins is saying there is no evidence for God or God so he might as well be talking about Leprochology, or as he fails to tell us, philosophical physicalism, or reductionism etc or as he would like to “anything philosophical”. But then he cannot get a horses laugh out of that.
He has a limited tolerance for philosophical and has many have pointed out he isn’t very good at it.
And so he represents scientism. Where only “science” can say what is real and philosophical argument gets no look in.

While I don't rate Dawkins much as a spokesperson for atheism, most of this is just your usual garbage. A train wreck of misunderstanding, absurdity, and a lot of jargon that you don't seem to understand.