The tolerant atheist

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You're asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of your concept from the aspect of truth while regarding it as true.

Naw, he aint askin that. Not that I can see. He's just seeking a working definition that can be agreed upon.

Quote:

The word "accept," as I used it, means "to regard as true."...You're wanting us to engage in circular reasoning, e.g. your concept is true, so it's true.

Anybody who is unable to entertain and discuss a hypothetical proposition without ALSO regarding it as true probably does not belong in this type of thread.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue says:

Quote:

@Susmariosep,

The confusion is on your part seeing as how your vocabulary is severely limited.

The word "accept," as I used it, means "to regard as true."

You're asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of your concept from the aspect of truth while regarding it as true.

You're wanting us to engage in circular reasoning, e.g. your concept is true, so it's true.

For you 'accept' means to take for true, but I am telling you that accept can also mean physically taking it without necessarily assuming that it is true, like you take a word from the dictionary, and know the meaning of the word, but you don't necessarily take it as true.

Well, InfraBlue, at this point you are into dodging already, because I am telling you that accept can mean physically receiving something, but not receiving it as to take it for granted that the something described in the word really exists.

Will you now present your concept of God, so that we can proceed further, instead of dwelling on the nuances of the verb accept.

You can start a new thread on the various meanings of the verb accept, and I will be there to exchange thoughts with you there.

Okay, dear readers here, do you notice that InfrBlue is already into dodging, by insisting that for everyone accept means to receive something as whatever he wants it to mean.

Let us wait for InfraBlue to resume the exchange, now that I have told him that for myself in the present context, accept means to take something in a physical or literal sense, but not necessarily to take it as true.

For the present exercise, of course, the exchange here is that from the word accept as a literal meaning of taking into one's mind as a vocabulary entry, the debate is for me to prove that there exists in reality an entity corresponding to the meaning of the words put together, namely: a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Do you InfraBlue deny that reason can bring us to know from the concept to the object, that is God and He exists n reality outside of words and outside our minds?

Your present tack is now to insist that I am already presuming then proving, and that is not fair, whatever you mean by fair.

I tell you that the concept is like a treasure map, it is a proposal to look for the object represented in our mind with the concept.

What is your dodging gimmick, now to go into a useless spat on whether something is already presumed to exist and then I will prove it to exist, etc., etc., etc., and it is not fair, etc., etc., etc.?

Okay, please don't waste time and labor on your part in this useless spat, you just go forth and prove whatever you call a presumption that the presumption must yield to fact, and then you show that in fact there is no God corresponding to the concept, creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Dear readers, let us sit back and wait for InfraBlue to prove that my 'presumption' must yield to fact, and see the fact that he will present to us, that no God creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.

I am now again ascertained with InfraBlue that atheists like him are always into all manners and means of dodging the issue, even with petty nitpicking on whether accept should mean to take for true or to take only as a dictionary entry, etc., etc., etc.

That is why when intelligent folks read atheists' writings against God, they really get so fed up with all kinds what we might call petty non-consequential details, at the end of which only they feel that they have proven God does not exist.

Anyway, InfraBlue, will you now go into disproving what you say is my presumption with the concept God, to prove that God does not exist, but I thank you that in your very weird use of language, you just the same have come to the acquaintance of the concept of God, as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Now, the whole world is waiting for you to prove that the 'presumption' from me is not supported by facts, present the fact or facts then.

For humor's sake...
This is just a funny fable of InfraBlue in Europe as a tourist. He reads a sign in a store saying, US$ accepted. InfraBlue then buys a souvenir article and pays with US$, but the shopowner brings out his scanner to detect whether InfraBlue's dollars are genuine or counterfeit. At this point InfraBlue gets all worked up, ranting against the shopowner, that the shopowner should know better, that when his sign says that US$ accepted, it means that the dollars he hands over are genuine dollars. So, the shopowner just hands back to InfraBlue his US$ dollar bills, telling him, "No need to cause trouble here, just go away."

1 Reply

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading
Part of the series on
Logic and rhetoric

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.
...
Examples

In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion.[1] (One response to this argument, beyond pointing out the fallacy, would be to point out that nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature. One modern philosopher who has applied this argument is Carl Sagan, though he wasn't the first to do so.)

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Special pleadin aint no fallacy. It's just what it is, a special pleadin, that's all. Don't make it wrong. If God aint subject to *special* rules, wouldn't NOBODY never be, eh?

That's not logical, though.

1 Reply

Quote:

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.
This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. ...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

For you 'accept' means to take for true, but I am telling you that accept can also mean physically taking it without necessarily assuming that it is true, like you take a word from the dictionary, and know the meaning of the word, but you don't necessarily take it as true.

No, Susmariosep. It doesn't work that way. You cannot dictate the meaning of the words that I am using. I get to decide how I am using the words that I write, not you.

If you need help understanding the definition of any of the words that I use, I'd be happy to clarify them for you.

The rest of your rant is a strawman based on this presumption of yours.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM won't see this, but the rest of y'all can. Notice that he leaves out, from this very article, ALL the parts I quoted showing why this is not a per se fallacy (see below). Instead he put the words "fallacy and fallacious" IN BOLD several times. I have seen this repeatedly from FBM. Don't ever take his excerpts at face value. Always read them for yourself if you want a true picture.

Notwithstanding the fact that this article uses the word "fallacy," that is a total misnomer to begin with. The so-called "fallacy" is supposedly only a "fallacy" IF it makes an argument "without providing adequate justification."

That's merely a bad argument, NOT a "logical fallacy." To make it simpler, I'll just repost my prior post here so you can scroll up and easily what FMB DIDN'T say. This is from the very article he cites (VERY SELECTIVELY).

Quote:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption... According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them... For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them.

http://able2know.org/topic/301727-11#post-6075797

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
You're asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of your concept from the aspect of truth while regarding it as true.

Naw, he aint askin that. Not that I can see. He's just seeking a working definition that can be agreed upon.

Then he should have said as much.

One thing is establishing a working definition of a concept. Another thing is asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of a concept from the aspect of truth. What is there to examine from the aspect of truth when a concept's truth is taken as a given? Are there invalid truths?

layman wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The word "accept," as I used it, means "to regard as true."...You're wanting us to engage in circular reasoning, e.g. your concept is true, so it's true.

Anybody who is unable to entertain and discuss a hypothetical proposition without ALSO regarding it as true probably does not belong in this type of thread.

One thing is entertaining a hypothetical proposition another thing is entertaining the validity or lack thereof of a hypothetical proposition taken to be true.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I now see that FBM had previously posted this, which helps his case (as far as selective quotation goes):

Quote:

In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion.

This goes way back to Aristotle. One standard reason given is that an "infinite regress" is impossible and that a "prime mover" must be of a different quality than the very thing being created (to also answer Sagan).

If EVERYTHING had to have a cause, then the regression of causes would be infinite, and could never "start." The must be a first cause (prime mover).

And, the argument goes, matter can't "create itself." Something immaterial would have to do that.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

You keep insisting on discussing the concept of 'a creative agent called God' who presumably (for you) has an anthropomorphic form of 'caring' for 'its creation'.
As an atheist with an interest in scientific developments, I, like many others, don't need 'a creative agent' to account for the formation of what I understand as the world, and I consider claims for 'the concern' of such a hypothetical agent to be ludicrous. Indeed my only involvement with using a 'God concept' is in my dealings with believers who rely on it for their modus vivendi. Some believers are well -meaning or innocuous, and some are a bloody nuisance.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I consider claims for 'the concern' of such a hypothetical agent to be ludicrous.

That's OK, Fresky. Now you're even. Everyone on this board considers your monistic solipsism to be ludicrous too. Much more ludicrous than contemplating the possible existence of some pre-existing intelligence in the universe.

1 Reply

I'm wondering if anyone would accept my concept of the tooth fairy...

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

One thing is establishing a working definition of a concept. Another thing is asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of a concept from the aspect of truth. What is there to examine from the aspect of truth when a concept's truth is taken as a given?...One thing is entertaining a hypothetical proposition another thing is entertaining the validity or lack thereof of a hypothetical proposition taken to be true.

Exactly. DON'T take it as true. No one forces you to do that except yourself, eh? Just consider the concept, provisionally. You can entertain the "possibility" that something could be true without deciding that it is.

If you're on a jury, you have to be open to the possibility that the defendant "could" be either guilty or innocent. You don't have to assume one or the other in order to hear the facts and arguments presented, do you?

He has a point. You start to sound like a juror who refuses to even CONSIDER the fact that a defendant could be innocent because, by God, he's BLACK, and you already know he did it. It would insult you and your beliefs to even "pretend" otherwise.

1 Reply

@layman,

Good label that ...'monistic solipsist' ! . I suggest you keep repeating it to yourself....it saves the effort of thinking even if it does requires a good set of teeth. Heh! Maybe you can do a rap incorporating it to reinforce your own sterotype....on the other hand ,maybe you should leave the poetry as well as the thinking to me. Cool

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I'm wondering if anyone would accept my concept of the tooth fairy

I might, Ollie. Tell me about her. Is she HOT!? I know SOMEBODY takes them teeth.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

FBM says:

Quote:

[...]

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case... [etc.]

Examples [ Only one example is given, though. ]

In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. ...

[...]

You see, FBM, forgive me, but have you checked out whether there is really a general rule in the Thomistic cosmological argument which says: "everything requires a cause"?

Go and look up your atheist masters, and then also look up from independent sources "everything requires a cause," in particular on exposition of the Thomistic cosmological argument.

I will come back later and see what you discovered.

In highschool, did you not learn to always look for the source of a line which everyone seemingly everyone takes as it is presented to be correctly presented and repeated allegedly everywhere and by everyone, who is anyone with any intelligent and longstanding grasp of the issues of the day, in particular on specifically Thomistic cosmological argument?

Check and double-check your data, did you not learn that from your teacher in research writing, already in highschool?

I will come back to you later, go and do your critical research in the internet, that will save you a lot of pedal work in the aisles of school and public libraries.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

No, thanks. I don't have a taste for red herring. Why does the universe and everything in it have to be created but not your particular god?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Maybe you can do a rap incorporating it to reinforce your own sterotype

How's this, Fresky?:

If I see some perv comin who's a monistic solipsist....
I don't waste no damn time gittin my brass knuckles on my fist.

If somebody say: "Leave the poor boy be, he aint hurtin no one...
Won't change nuthin, he'll still be eatin curb before I'm ever done.

When I'm just mindin my own damn business and hear some one say "Rorty"..
Ya can bet your last nickel I'm goin upside his sorry head with my 40.

I could go on forver, eh? And I just might. Just keep addin verses, ya know? I'm gunna have a hit that EVERYONE loves, before it's all said and done. ****, I'll make me MILLIONS, I tellya!

1 Reply

To everyone, let us first work to concur on the rules of correct and valid procedures in the exchange of viable thoughts.

1. Both camps, pro and contra, must work together to come to the mutually agreed on concept of the thing in dispute, so that people in the exchange will not be talking past each other's head, that is insane.

2. There are things that people must know before they can go to other things; it is like in college, you cannot just choose any course you want, there are for any course, prerequisite courses that a student must have already gone through successfully: otherwise he will not learn anything in the new course, wasting thereby his time and his money and his labor, and the schools that allow him to skip pre-requisite courses are into just making money, even though they turn out graduates who cannot think anything at all critically.

The posts of atheists are many of them if not all of them founded on lack of skills in the fundamentals of correct i.e. critical thinking.

Okay, do you atheists concur with me that unless we first come to agree on a concept, then it is crazy to work to prove or disprove the existence of the thing corresponding to the concept -- crazy with those who do not agree to this idea, but not for the rest of sane and critically thinking folks who agree to this idea.

Other rules of correct and critical and constructive and productive thinking and writing will be proposed for us all to work to agree on, as we proceed in our exchange.

Ah, here is another one, exert your best to think intelligently and communicate respectfully among ourselves, there is a very big thread at the start of the forum on this mandate about posting intelligently and respectfully.

I will no longer relate with people who are conspicuously into flagrant stubbornness of mind instead of being receptive to critical thinking and logical presentation of ideas.

So far, no one has among atheists here come forth to present their concepts of God, even though they deny God's existence; in such a case with them, we cannot know what God they are denying to exist -- perhaps the god which is to them a flying spaghetti monster and to Bertrand Russell in teapot orbiting in some circle of outer space.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

It doesn't matter to me how you conceive details about your god except that you define it to be the creator of the universe and everything created, but refuse to consider the basic logic behind the question of why your god escapes the need to be created. You can ignore this little bugbear, but burying your head in the sand won't make it go away.

0 Replies

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know