Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_MrStakhanovite]

In deduction the conclusion necessarily follows. If one writes "might" in the conclusion ..it means it doesn not necessarily follow.

They are called demonstrative inductions and since they act identical to deductions in that the conclusion is a neccesary consequence of the premise. They go by names like deductions from phenomena and eliminative inductions.

He did not write a formal deductive argument despite your claim that he did.

Show me where I said that his argument was a formal deductive argument. Better yet, prove the validity of Dawkins argument. Show me any person who proves the validity of the argument. I'd be impressed if you could find someone even attempting to show it.

This is a p. good post in my opinion. I like how I point out the existence of demonstrative inductions.

In any case Marg, you are telling me that Dawkin's argument doesn't need to follow any rules of inference. I tried to point out that his argument can be construed in various ways ( Bayesian, abductive, eliminative induction), but in each case, the argument fails, because none of the premises strongly support his conclusion.

You disagree with this, so I asked you to show me any rules of inference that show Dawkin’s argument to be valid (validity is easy to come by, by the way) and you simply refuse to say so. You just gain say that I’m wrong, but that is about it.

You can settle this entire thing by offering a defense of Dawkin’s argument by giving me some proper rules of inference, so I can evaluate his argument.


But you won’t, because you are Marg, and understanding things isn’t your forté’

[_marg]

Stak

At this point I would like to find out if Tarski would be agreeable to reviewing a few posts ..one at a time first and not even this week necessarily because I have lots to do up until Sunday for a deadline. So let's wait for his response. And please allow me to present the argument first, because I've given you free reign up to now...you've posted a barrage of insults, and this thread is what you've given to back up your insults. Tarski only happened to take a bit of an interest..I didn't seek him out. If he hadn't taken an interest, no one on this board would have. No one on this board in the anti Mormon camp other than Tarski, has the guts to go against group that pretty much dominates the board. Let me please discuss a little with Tarski first if he's willing and then if you have objections to what I present or argue ..fine ..state them.

I know from experience that simply talking with you, you aren't going to be intellectually honest. You've decided that when you have no respect..it's perfectly acceptable to treat that person with insults as opposed to addressing the content of their posts.

[_Morley]

Stak

At this point I would like to find out if Tarski would be agreeable to reviewing a few posts ..one at a time first and not even this week necessarily because I have lots to do up until Sunday for a deadline. So let's wait for his response. And please allow me to present the argument first, because I've given you free reign up to now...you've posted a barrage of insults, and this thread is what you've given to back up your insults. Tarski only happened to take a bit of an interest..I didn't seek him out. If he hadn't taken an interest, no one on this board would have. No one on this board in the anti Mormon camp other than Tarski, has the guts to go against group that pretty much dominates the board. Let me please discuss a little with Tarski first if he's willing and then if you have objections to what I present or argue ..fine ..state them.

I know from experience that simply talking with you, you aren't going to be intellectually honest. You've decided that when you have no respect..it's perfectly acceptable to treat that person with insults as opposed to addressing the content of their posts.

My emphasis.

Don't confuse a profound lack of expertise with a deficit of either interest or courage. I'm sure that many are reading with fascination. We may be even trying to learn a little.

[_Tarski]

Tarski please consider this as well.

I didn't bring up this thread. After Stak attacked me unprovoked in his own thread ( wasn't even in the thread) ..twice by the way, not once ..once wasn't good enough for him..I asked for him to back up his accusations ..which was that I have an extensive history of entering threads and making comments without comprehending the discussion and that I don't know what I'm talking. Only after Blixa apparently talked to him in private did he agree to offer an example. This is the thread he gave to illustrate. I left myself vulnerable allowing him to pick whatever thread he could find to back up his accusations.

So there really should be no problem in you giving your honest opinion...because I have done nothing to stack the deck in my favor. It shouldn't be a matter of you being concerned that you might upset him. Stak has initiated this, it wasn't me and therefore should be able to accept your honest assessment. You've even said he's one of your favorite posters, so again I'm leaving myself vulnerable to an evaluation by someone not biased in my favor.

Maybe I will read the whole exchange in greater detail sometime later. Maybe I will even read Dawkins' book finally and think about it for a while and then re-read this thread.
I don't know why my opinion matters so much.

Stak is definitely bringing up some good issues and is trying to hold Dawkins to some kind of standard. Your responses have not been stupid and in a few cases I could imagine myself trying to defend Dawkins in a similar way (here I am making some guesses about the book when I imagine this). Stak made one or two missteps-for example in bringing up mathematical induction but perhaps he is ultimately correct in looking to see if Dawkins' method of argumentation can be analyzed more formally (or even if it even has enough such structure to have rational force).

I don't actually know your "extensive" posting history so how can I comment on this except to say that it so far appears that this thread doesn't make Stak's claim about you very well. Remember, I still haven't read the whole thread carefully or Dawkins' book. Indeed, stopped reading some of it because it was actually painfully boring. I'm just not in the mood for the topic I guess.

I don't expect either you or him or myself to always know what we are talking about. Everyone has some misunderstanding and this is surely apparent in this discussion -for everyone. There is also plenty of arrogance on all sides--or at least overblown self confidence--myself included. But when is this not the case? LOL
Funny thing is, I think I would have had more arrogance and self confidence on these topics when I was much younger and had less experience. I have learned a lot of hard lessons about there always being yet one more level of understand, one more counter argument and one more set of things to question.

I will also frankly admit that didn't like Stak's teasing or insulting comments about you. Because of my largely positive opinion of Stak, I felt a bit of disappointment but I just pushed that feeling aside and told myself that there must be more going on than I am privy to. I am assuming or at least betting that Stak isn't going to hold this admission against me or make any of this a condition of friendship or friendliness. If I am wrong about that then I will really be surprised.

I feel like I am learning a few things by all this but I am not sure what yet. I think I am learning something about myself mostly--something largely social in nature---maybe about my vulnerability to group-think and my unconscious desire to maintain good will.

by the way, you are actually right to suppose that I would naturally have a prejudice to side with Stak.

[_Some Schmo]

When you deal with a concept or idea like God, and you are a public intellectual like Dawkins, it's probably best that you take on the most eloquent and strongest cases for God.

I don't know why I never noticed this before, but I have to say...

The quoted statement is only true if Dawkins’ motivation was mostly to appeal to the crowd that actually buys "the most eloquent and strongest cases for God" (assuming he doesn't deal with them... I'm not so convinced, partly because I'm not sure one case for god is appreciably better than another; the ones I've heard all sound weak to me. I acknowledge my own bias here). If his motivation, however, was to reach the greatest audience possible and sell a lot of books, I think it was probably best for him to take on the most common/popular ideas of god.

Now, if you don't think he does a good job of that in the book (and I don't know if you do or not), well... you and people who agree with you are obviously entitled to your opinions, and thousands of his other readers are entitled to theirs. I think if a lot of people are convinced to any degree (as opposed to the few of you hardcore philosophical types), the book can be considered a success based on its author's goals, whether you like it or not (it meets your personal criteria for what the book should do... or not).

[_marg]

I feel like I am learning a few things by all this but I am not sure what yet. I think I am learning something about myself mostly--something largely social in nature---maybe about my vulnerability to group-think and my unconscious desire to maintain good will.

by the way, you are actually right to suppose that I would naturally have a prejudice to side with Stak.

I don't think it would take you very long to digest Dawkins' book as you pretty much likely think like him, know the arguments and really lots of it can be skipped because of that.

This whole issue isn't particularly important. This situation with Stak has evolved. I had no interest in Stak's DCP thread, I don't even have an interest in Stak's posts rarely read any, I don't even know what he's been posting over the last 6 months or so. But when he brought me into his thread to malign which I noticed skimming through the thread and he's stating how he wants DCP to be honest, apologize, have integrity..I decided to press him. If he wants that of others he should exhibit those traits himself.

If you'll notice through out this thread, I don't attack Stak personally and yet time and again that's his response in lieu of addressing my argument. And then in this thread, we get a few people who support Stak in doing this who offer nothing to the discussion and their only purpose is to attack in support of him.

So yes besides the actual argument regarding Dawkins there are other factors to think about.

So I take it then it would be okay if I pull out one post to examine..along with the list Stak used from Dawkins book and begin to address some of this to get your perspective? This week I'm busy so I'm not going to do much if any posting on this.

[_Some Schmo]

And then in this thread, we get a few people who support Stak in doing this who offer nothing to the discussion and their only purpose is to attack in support of him.

I'm wondering who you're thinking of here. I just looked back on the last couple pages of this thread and I didn't see anyone attacking you (except Stak, of course) since the thread was resurrected by Tarski. Maybe it was pre-resurrection posts you're thinking of? I'm just curious.

Anyway marg, I think Tarski is right and you two are talking past each other. I agree with the sentiment that Stak is measuring the book against a philosophical standard Dawkins wasn't likely going for (or gives a crap about, for that matter), and I have little doubt that for Stak, it doesn't meet that standard. I can respect his opinion on that, whether that justifies his overall assessment of the book or not.

I just can't see the upside of trying to convince Stak otherwise (which is why I let it go last year). So I suppose the other thing I'm curious about is why you're bothering to try, especially in light of your history with Stak.

[_marg]

Schmo I don't think you are following much if at all...if you think I'm trying to discuss with Stak or convince him of anything, you are way off the mark. Do you see me discussing with him? So I think I'll stick with Tarski's perspective. If I thought you had a better appreciation I'd answer your questions.

I watched a talk by James Randi last night and he talked about people's natural tendency to assume without evidence and they can be deliberately fooled by someone setting out to fool them without their appreciation. We tend to have faith based beliefs without appreciating it as opposed to evidence based..I think that's also Tarski's interest in this to evaluate his own thinking skills.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo I don't think you are following much if at all...if you think I'm trying to discuss with Stak or convince him of anything, you are way off the mark. Do you see me discussing with him? So I think I'll stick with Tarski's perspective. If I thought you had a better appreciation I'd answer your questions.

Well, admittedly, I haven't probed the details of your exchange as much as I could (as others have pointed out, it's not exactly gripping stuff), but I think I've seen enough of it to understand what's going on. You certainly have written a lot of stuff for someone who isn't discussing anything.

So, you'll only answer questions from someone who (in your estimation) has a better appreciation of the situation? Oooooooohhh, kay.

I suppose I'm a little surprised you'd decide to answer my post by saying you aren't going to answer my post. Why do I get the feeling I've pissed you off and have no idea how? Is it just that I haven't joined you and taken up your crusade against Stak?

Basically, wtf are you on about?

[_marg]

Schmo sorry.....not interested in explaining.