Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Peter King]

1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Duning-Kruger Syndrome.

I assume you mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

And I can just as easily replace "internet skepticism" with "religious people" and it would be equally accurate, if not more accurate because a lot of religious people live under the assumption that they are better than all non-religious people, know everything better than non-religious people and on top of that feel their little corner of the religious cornucopia is far superior to all other religious groups.

I would in fact state that the Dunning-Kruger effect might have been the ultimate description of "religiousness and the folly of those practicing it".

 

[pinqy]

Let's take them one at a time

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries,*Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent.[50]*Gaunilo's criticism does not explicitly demonstrate a flaw in Anselm's argument; rather, it argues that if Anselm's argument is sound, so are many other arguments of the same*logical form, which cannot be accepted.[51]*He offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted. He argued that many*theists*would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work.[52]

Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with*necessary existence. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Furthermore, a contingent object, such as an island, could always be improved and thus could never reach a state of perfection. For that reason, Anselm dismissed any argument that did not relate to a being with necessary existence.[50]

Other parodies have been presented, including the devil*corollary, the no devil corollary and the extreme no devil corollary. The devil corollary proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm's logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists. The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist. The extreme no devil corollary advances on this, proposing that a worse being would be that which does not exist in the understanding, so such a being exists neither in reality nor in the understanding.*Timothy Chambers*argued that the devil corollary is more powerful than Gaunilo's challenge because it withstands the challenges that may defeat Gaunilo's parody. He also claimed that the no devil corollary is a strong challenge, as it "underwrites" the no devil corollary, which "threatens Anselm's argument at its very foundations".[53]

And even if we accept the Ontological Argument as sound, i can certainly conceive of a greater being than the Christian God. The concept of Brahman in Hinduism certainly qualifies in my mind.

 

[Angel]

I assume you mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

And I can just as easily replace "internet skepticism" with "religious people" and it would be equally accurate, if not more accurate because a lot of religious people live under the assumption that they are better than all non-religious people, know everything better than non-religious people and on top of that feel their little corner of the religious cornucopia is far superior to all other religious groups.

I would in fact state that the Dunning-Kruger effect might have been the ultimate description of "religiousness and the folly of those practicing it".

Your hate is showing, citizen. Take a few deep breaths and enjoy the secular paradise you have frequently boasted of in these pages. What is the word for hypocrisy in idyllic Northern Europe?

 

[Angel]

And even if we accept the Ontological Argument as sound, i can certainly conceive of a greater being than the Christian God. The concept of Brahman in Hinduism certainly qualifies in my mind.

Those are two different religious conceptions of one and the same mystery.
See here:
The God Question

 

[Peter King]

Your hate is showing, citizen. Take a few deep breaths and enjoy the secular paradise you have frequently boasted of in these pages. What is the word for hypocrisy in idyllic Northern Europe?

I don't hate. You seem to infer things you imagine about me. And yes, I am happy in my secular country where the rights of the religious and the rights of non-religious are respected and equal.

What the word is for hypocrisy in the idyllic Northern Europe? Angels, that would be the word.

 

[Angel]

I don't hate. You seem to infer things you imagine about me. And yes, I am happy in my secular country where the rights of the religious and the rights of non-religious are respected and equal.

What the word is for hypocrisy in the idyllic Northern Europe? Angels, that would be the word.

Sure. Someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk.
Self-awareness appears to be at a premium in idyllic Northern Europe.

 

[Peter King]

Sure. Someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk.
Self-awareness appears to be at a premium in idyllic Northern Europe.

Sure, I am engaging in a hostile rant about religious folks, utter nonsense/incorrect claims as usual.

We are very self-aware, but we do not suffer fools gladly, just like most people in the world. And I you have not made a clever put-down, you just posted a made up definition and want everybody to placate you by discussing it as if it was a valid definition, luckily your definition is nonsense.

 

[Angel]

Sure, I am engaging in a hostile rant about religious folks, utter nonsense/incorrect claims as usual.

We are very self-aware, but we do not suffer fools gladly, just like most people in the world. And I you have not made a clever put-down, you just posted a made up definition and want everybody to placate you by discussing it as if it was a valid definition, luckily your definition is nonsense.

As already pointed out, "Someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk," and then double-down and deny it. Typical Internet Skepticism type of scoundrelism.

 

[Peter King]

As already pointed out, "Someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk," and then double-down and deny it. Typical Internet Skepticism type of scoundrelism.

:lamo Hilarious and of course totally untrue, but hey, keep peddling your nonsense. The only one who you embarrass with your fake comments is you.

 

[Angel]

As already pointed out, "Someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk," and then double-down and deny it. Typical Internet Skepticism type of scoundrelism.

:lamo Hilarious and of course totally untrue, but hey, keep peddling your nonsense. The only one who you embarrass with your fake comments is you.

Hilarious yes, but true. A statement is true if it corresponds to something that exists.

Someone posted this clever bit about Internet Skepticism:

1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Duning-Kruger Syndrome.

And you went on a tear with this:

...And I can just as easily replace "internet skepticism" with "religious people" and it would be equally accurate, if not more accurate because a lot of religious people live under the assumption that they are better than all non-religious people, know everything better than non-religious people and on top of that feel their little corner of the religious cornucopia is far superior to all other religious groups.

I would in fact state that the Dunning-Kruger effect might have been the ultimate description of "religiousness and the folly of those practicing it".

My statement that ""someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk" is true by the definition of truth.
Your denial is false.

 

[vegas giants]

:lamo Hilarious and of course totally untrue, but hey, keep peddling your nonsense. The only one who you embarrass with your fake comments is you.

He has conceded the argument

 

[vegas giants]

:lamo Hilarious and of course totally untrue, but hey, keep peddling your nonsense. The only one who you embarrass with your fake comments is you.

He has conceded the argument

 

[pinqy]

Those are two different religious conceptions of one and the same mystery.
See here:
The God Question

That thread relied mostly on the Cosmological Argument, which does not require any specific concept of what the Prime Mover is. So, yes, the Nature of a proposed god is irrelevant for that argument.

But the Ontological Argument inherently requires a conception of “that which no greater can be conceived.”
One flaw in that is that it is limited to what we can conceive. For example, to the ancient Norse, the greatest being they conceived was Odin the All-Father, so to a Norse theologian, the Ontological argument would conclude that Odin existed.

But other cultures conceived of beings greater than Odin, who created the Nine Realms, but not the universe and who himself was born from Ymr, and who could be killed. Can we agree that the Ontological argument, then, does not support the existence of Odin )or for similar reasons, Zeus)?

Likewise, to my mind, I can conceive of a greater being than the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, God(s) as described in the Tanakh, New Testament, and/or Koran.

Now I cannot conceive of a greater being than Brahman, but that doesn’t mean no one else can or could. Therefore, “of which no greater than can be conceived” becomes subjective to the individual/culture/time, and is not a reliable standard.

 

[Peter King]

Hilarious yes, but true. A statement is true if it corresponds to something that exists.

Someone posted this clever bit about Internet Skepticism:

And you went on a tear with this:


My statement that ""someone posts a clever put-down of Internet Skepticism and you launch into a hostile rant about religious folk" is true by the definition of truth.
Your denial is false.

My comment was not a "hostile rant", that is a total fabrication but hey ho, it is what it is. Especially for someone who makes up his own reality (like the non-existence of atheists and other nonsensical claims).

 

[Angel]

My comment was not a "hostile rant", that is a total fabrication but hey ho, it is what it is. Especially for someone who makes up his own reality (like the non-existence of atheists and other nonsensical claims).

"A total fabrication," you say? I reproduced your post above -- only a dyed-in-the-wool Internet Skeptic would deny what's right before everyone's eyes.
Your comment was not a hostile rant, you say? Let's ask the target of your rant whether it was hostile -- let's ask religious folk what they think of your post.
Internet Atheism is the pits, man.

 

[Peter King]

"A total fabrication," you say? I reproduced your post above -- only a dyed-in-the-wool Internet Skeptic would deny what's right before everyone's eyes.
Your comment was not a hostile rant, you say? Let's ask the target of your rant whether it was hostile -- let's ask religious folk what they think of your post.
Internet Atheism is the pits, man.

A total fabrication, that is absolutely right. Nothing in that post was "hostile rant". It was a mere observation about the way a lot of religious people actually do think they are superior to non religious people. That is not a hostile rant, that is a statement of personal experience as an atheist. You know, the thing you ridiculously claim does not exist for a ridiculous reason.

And this is nothing to do with internet atheism, this has to do with your inaccurate statement that it was a hostile rant. Because if you think that was a hostile rant you clearly have never been in the presence of a hostile rant.

 

[roguenuke]

Another one of your pathetic threads where you will refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said.

This really isn't that complicated. The person making a positive claim about something has the burden to prove it. If I tell you there's invisible punk unicorns on Saturn, it would be on me to prove it, not on you for not believing me. What you demand is that the other person proves there is no invisible pink unicorns on Saturn then declare "checkmate unicorn skeptics!" when they can't.

You're making the claim of god's existence, therefore it is on you to prove it. Until then, I don't believe you, in the exact same way you don't believe in unicorns on Saturn. Maybe there are, but until it's proven I'm going to dismiss it.

Ok so I'm picturing unicorns dressed in punk now on Saturn.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

And there's no evidence for your initial singularity.

Nor of any god, one or multiple. In fact, an unfathomable amount of gods could jalust as easily exist and decide our fate after this life as one or none.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

Nor of any god, one or multiple. In fact, an unfathomable amount of gods could jalust as easily exist and decide our fate after this life as one or none.

Oh but there's a universe of proof for the existence of God all right. You just have to open your mind, Madame.
As for the rest of your post, you are talking about the 1001 world religions and getting confused. I'm not talking about religion. I'm trying to do philosophy.

 

[Angel]

A total fabrication, that is absolutely right. Nothing in that post was "hostile rant". It was a mere observation about the way a lot of religious people actually do think they are superior to non religious people. That is not a hostile rant, that is a statement of personal experience as an atheist. You know, the thing you ridiculously claim does not exist for a ridiculous reason.

And this is nothing to do with internet atheism, this has to do with your inaccurate statement that it was a hostile rant. Because if you think that was a hostile rant you clearly have never been in the presence of a hostile rant.

Your own words ftom the earlier post in question give the lie to your words of denial in the present post. Own your words. Know thyself.

...And I can just as easily replace "internet skepticism" with "religious people" and it would be equally accurate, if not more accurate because a lot of religious people live under the assumption that they are better than all non-religious people, know everything better than non-religious people and on top of that feel their little corner of the religious cornucopia is far superior to all other religious groups.

I would in fact state that the Dunning-Kruger effect might have been the ultimate description of "religiousness and the folly of those practicing it".

 

[Angel]

That thread relied mostly on the Cosmological Argument, which does not require any specific concept of what the Prime Mover is. So, yes, the Nature of a proposed god is irrelevant for that argument.

But the Ontological Argument inherently requires a conception of “that which no greater can be conceived.”
One flaw in that is that it is limited to what we can conceive. For example, to the ancient Norse, the greatest being they conceived was Odin the All-Father, so to a Norse theologian, the Ontological argument would conclude that Odin existed.

But other cultures conceived of beings greater than Odin, who created the Nine Realms, but not the universe and who himself was born from Ymr, and who could be killed. Can we agree that the Ontological argument, then, does not support the existence of Odin )or for similar reasons, Zeus)?

Likewise, to my mind, I can conceive of a greater being than the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, God(s) as described in the Tanakh, New Testament, and/or Koran.

Now I cannot conceive of a greater being than Brahman, but that doesn’t mean no one else can or could. Therefore, “of which no greater than can be conceived” becomes subjective to the individual/culture/time, and is not a reliable standard.

I think you're right about the pitfall of the ontological argument, though I would express the problem differently, to wit: As long as the ontological argument relies on one of the 1001 religious stories about the nature of God, it will invite refutation. On the other hand, unlike you, I think the ontological argument is still possible if one avoids defining God by what this or that religion tells us about the nature of God. That's what I'm trying to do with the ontological argument.

In truth I much prefer the cosmological argument, and I am attempting to use the conclusion of that argument as the definition of God in my ontological argument.

 

[roguenuke]

Oh but there's a universe of proof for the existence of God all right. You just have to open your mind, Madame.
As for the rest of your post, you are talking about the 1001 world religions and getting confused. I'm not talking about religion. I'm trying to do philosophy.

No there isnt. Your evidence is subjective.

There is just as much evidence for multiple gods as one, the same as for none.

And no, you are the one confused. I'm not talking religions, I'm only talking number of gods. You keep referring to "god" in the singular. That is meaningful. You are talking monotheism, whether you admit it or not. If a single powerful entity of any kind can be said to have evidence of existing, so to can multiple of that same entity type.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Peter King]

Your own words ftom the earlier post in question give the lie to your words of denial in the present post. Own your words. Know thyself.

I know myself, but what I posted was not a rant, or hostile, it at best was critical towards people who think they are superior to atheists.

 

[pinqy]

I think you're right about the pitfall of the ontological argument, though I would express the problem differently, to wit: As long as the ontological argument relies on one of the 1001 religious stories about the nature of God, it will invite refutation. On the other hand, unlike you, I think the ontological argument is still possible if one avoids defining God by what this or that religion tells us about the nature of God. That's what I'm trying to do with the ontological argument.

I didn’t say you have to posit an existing god concept, but you do have to have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived. A generalized Prime Mover clearly fails.

In truth I much prefer the cosmological argument, and I am attempting to use the conclusion of that argument as the definition of God in my ontological argument.

The strength of the cosmological argument is that it doesn’t need a particular god concept. But ironically, that’s also its weakness. The only conclusion the cosmological argument can make is that “something” started everything else. As soon as one tries to answer the question of what that something is, that’s in addition to, and not part of, the CA.

My issue is that there is no meaningful difference between “something started the universe but I don’t know what it is or how it did it” and “I don’t know how the universe started.”

 

[Omega Man]

Oh but there's a universe of proof for the existence of God all right.

No there isn't. Try defining what God is first, then look for the evidence. But don't go placing the "proof" cart directly in front of the evidence horse; and then proclaim "Aha, look!"


OM