What is it with atheists and fairy stories?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.

Live with it.

Just out of interest Hillside which is more likely?
The existence of dragons......or you having one as a pet?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What then is at the heart of the fairy story of the Kings new clothes. It is the right to ridicule the idea of invisible finery and the logical impossibility of admiring it.

No, what’s at the heart of it is that a fantastical story does not become less fantastical if you embellish it. 

That is how new atheists conceptualize God and that is where the category blunder lies.

It's got nothing to do with how atheists conceptualise anything, and there is no category error. If you think an implausible story becomes a plausible one by adding detail explain how. 

Theology is not asking us to appreciate something that should be empirically detected.

Then by what other method do you propose its clams of fact be distinguished from just guessing? You know, the question you always run away from.

We should see Leprechauns.....we should see pet dragons.

Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?

Of course Myers is trying to preserve and justify ridicule.

No he isn’t – he’s just making a robust point in logic: again, that embellishing an implausible story doesn’t make it a plausible one. It’s not difficult.

Bluehillside has wasted years of his time here on a horses laugh fallacy.

   

And a big fat Vladdian lie to finish. What I’ve actually used if the reductio ad absurdum – something you’ve had explained several times, but you still lie about nonetheless. Why is that?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast .

I don't know......I can't be the only one interested in how disputes over how well the toast is done are arbitrated

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just out of interest Hillside which is more likely?
The existence of dragons......or you having one as a pet?

Just out of interest Vlad which is more likely?
Hell freezing over...or you attempting an honest reply?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, what’s at the heart of it is that a fantastical story does not become less fantastical if you embellish it. 

It's got nothing to do with how atheists conceptualise anything, and there is no category error. If you think an implausible story becomes a plausible one by adding detail explain how. 

Then by what other method do you propose its clams of fact be distinguished from just guessing? You know, the question you always run away from.

Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?

No he isn’t – he’s just making a robust point in logic: again, that embellishing an implausible story doesn’t make it a plausible one. 

His grasp of logic isn't that robust if he cannot distinguish between logical impossibility like invisible finery and God...how can you know it's fine? Which brings us to the second embellishment not found in theology, namely, the appreciation of a double logical impossibility. He has embellished the understanding of God.

Myers, in fact, if you are correct about his motives pointing out the dangers of embellishment, has debunked himself again!

By using embellishment to warn against the use of embellishment.

Of course....and here's the amusing part, he wouldn't have committed these errors and debunked himself again if had studied the theology in more detail.

Hillside,you are the gift that keeps on giving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not if I place these stories beyond investigation they shouldn’t. Why can’t you just “appreciate” them even though they’re not “empirically detected”?

   

But invisible finery which we are invited to look at AND appreciate, invisible wee Irishmen dressed in green, invisible pink unicorns are not only beyond empirical investigation Hillside they are beyond logic and graze serenely in the pastures of LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

And that's why the Courtiers reply, Invisible pink unicorns etc are shit arguments and analogies.


Hillside?

Are you OK?

Take it easy old son,

take a seat, that's right....can I get you a drink of water or something,

[Outrider]

The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.

No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.

Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  There is as much evidence for Gandalf's resurrection as there is Jesus'.

Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.

You're conflating blind faith in doctrine with the trust in a demonstrable history of evidentiary backing and peer reviewed investigation.

Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.

Since you fail to appreciate the nature of the Courtier's reply, here's a brief introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  There is as much evidence for Gandalf's resurrection as there is Jesus'.

You're conflating blind faith in doctrine with the trust in a demonstrable history of evidentiary backing and peer reviewed investigation.

Since you fail to appreciate the nature of the Courtier's reply, here's a brief introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

O.

First of all the courtier's reply is dependent on the fairy tale of the Kings new clothes.
Secondly. The point of the Courtiers reply is that one needs no expertise in the details of fairy tales to know they have no truth value.
Thirdly, therefore we are using the details of a fairy tale to demonstrate why we never need to know the details of a fairy tale.

These are incontrovertible.

If you bid me look at Wikipedia to see where I am mistaken I take it you mean this.


''The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.''

Who has said that Dawkins cannot make any criticism whatsoever? I haven't.

So, thanks to you Outrider we can now add ''straw man'' argument to it's failures.

Your claim is that there is no expertise or basis in this field anyway. What is your warrant for those beliefs or are they mere opinions?

There is certainly a lack of expertise on Myers part because he conflates empirical unfalsifiability with Logical impossibility rendering the 'courtiers reply fallacy' fallacious.

Calling it the Courtier's reply is therefore fallacious. All that is left is ridicule.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's not, because the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.

And ignorance of that field would help you with that exactly how?

[Outrider]

And ignorance of that field would help you with that exactly how?

There isn't a field... Just like the Emperor has no clothes... are we getting there yet?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There isn't a field... Just like the Emperor has no clothes... are we getting there yet?

O.

No field, No field?

What, the,n has this got to do with Courtier's reply which you, you with your great throbbing motorbike avatar, defined thus?

………...the Courtier's reply is dependent upon there being a basis for considering that there is any expertise to be had in a field.

The Courtiers reply fallacy is dependent on the story of the emperor's new clothes. In it there is a boy justified at ridiculing a double logical impossibility. Theology does not contain a single logical impossibility.

The courtiers reply fallacy as coined by Myers is, fallacious.

[Outrider]

No field, No field?

That's right, no field.

What, the,n has this got to do with Courtier's reply which you, you with your great throbbing motorbike avatar, defined thus?

The Courtiers reply fallacy is dependent on the story of the emperor's new clothes. In it there is a boy justified at ridiculing a double logical impossibility. Theology does not contain a single logical impossibility.

The courtier's reply, taken from the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, is that the boy who points out that the Emperor is naked obviously doesn't have the expertise in fine cloth to be making such a judgement - when the reality is that there is no cloth about which to have expertise.

Professor Dawkins is accused of not having sufficient expertise in the field of theology in order to be making judgements, but Theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy - there is no content to study, there is just opinion about rumour about allegations about myths.

The courtiers reply fallacy as coined by Myers is, fallacious.

The Courtier's reply, as coined by Myers, was valid in that instance - indeed, wherever people are told that some sort of expertise in the 'facts' of theology is required it continues to be valid, and it's not a fallacy.  There are areas of history that deal with religious practice where the beliefs are relevant, there are areas of ethics where taking into account people's religious tenets might be relevant, but to suggest that the study of religious claims as fact is valid just doesn't stand up in the complete absence of any reliable methodology from centuries of trying.

O.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's right, no field.

The courtier's reply, taken from the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, is that the boy who points out that the Emperor is naked.

The boy makes the positive assertion that the Emperor is naked in contradiction to the quadruply logical impossible claim that the invisible finery of the clothes are appreciable by empirical means. The boy is obviously right.

The field of invisible tailoring is therefore visibly a fake field.

Dawkins and Myers suggest that it's highly probable that God does not exist, they defend this by equating an appreciation of the said god with empirical sensation and God with a logical impossibility. Dawkins and Myers are not obviously right, in fact they are wrong to equate God and the appreciation of God with the kings new clothes.

Outrider declares that theology is a fake field even though Dawkins and Myers have demonstrated their lack of expertise in it.


 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all the courtier's reply is dependent on the fairy tale of the Kings new clothes.

Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it, it’s just another way of saying the same thing: ie that embellishing an implausible claim with irrelevant details doesn’t make it less implausible. Thus not knowing the jaunty angle of the Emperor’s (alleged) hat doesn’t make him less naked; not knowing what colour speedos Jesus was wearing doesn’t make it less likely that he didn't walk on water etc. 

Secondly. The point of the Courtiers reply is that one needs no expertise in the details of fairy tales to know they have no truth value.

My god, are you saying you’ve finally got it! Well done! And by the same token, no expertise is needed in the details of theology to know that, say, feeding the 5,000 is still likely to be a myth. 
 

Thirdly, therefore we are using the details of a fairy tale to demonstrate why we never need to know the details of a fairy tale.

Aw, and you were doing so well before you collapsed in a heap again. What “we” are actually saying is that no amount of extraneous details will make an implausible story plausible.   

These are incontrovertible.

Your failure in reasoning you mean?

If you bid me look at Wikipedia to see where I am mistaken I take it you mean this.


''The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.''

I didn’t, but OK – yes, that what’s the fallacy entails. So what though?

Who has said that Dawkins cannot make any criticism whatsoever? I haven't.

Nope, no idea what you think that straw man does for you but ok…

So, thanks to you Outrider we can now add ''straw man'' argument to it's failures.

Er, no we can’t. The only straw man here was you dragging RD in for reasons known only to yourself when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the epistemic force of the Courtier’s reply fallacy.

Oh, and you’ve yet to identify one of its supposed “failures” by the way.

Your claim is that there is no expertise or basis in this field anyway. What is your warrant for those beliefs or are they mere opinions?

What field? Theology? No, the claim is that theology has no epistemic value at all when it comes to the Bible’s (or any other “holy” book’s) claims of factual miracles. Go on – pick a miracle, any miracle – now tell me what on earth theology has to tell anyone about why it’s more likely to be true than not. All theology can give us – does give us in fact – is the equivalent of the difference between “a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon” of the Courtier’s reply.   

There is certainly a lack of expertise on Myers part because he conflates empirical unfalsifiability with Logical impossibility rendering the 'courtiers reply fallacy' fallacious.

More gibberish. He does no such thing. He merely uses his analogy to explain – correctly as it happens – that embellishing implausible stories with epistemically worthless details doesn’t make them less implausible. It’s not a difficult idea, even for you.

Calling it the Courtier's reply is therefore fallacious. All that is left is ridicule.

And the crash and burn to finish. Ah well. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it.

You seem to be saying that the charge of being a courtier like the one in the tale of the Emperors new clothes is not based on the courtier in the emperors new clothes...……

We can ignore the rest of your post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Close, but wrong. It’s not “dependent on” it, it’s just another way of saying the same thing: ie that embellishing an implausible claim with irrelevant details doesn’t make it less implausible. Thus not knowing the jaunty angle of the Emperor’s (alleged) hat doesn’t make him less naked; 

That may be but the equating of the declaration of nakedness to the declaration there is no God is unwarranted. What for instance is the evidence for the latter? Not nearly as compelling as the king's nakedness, if any. There is no demonstrable way of evidencing no god. And therefore you've just uncovered another reason why the courtiers reply fallacy is fallacious.

Further it is obvious that the courtier's reply is actually asking people to appreciate empirically something which is invisible and which is finery. That is at least doubly logically impossible.
Myers and in fact you yourself are fallaciously conflating the empirical unfalsifiable with the doubly logically impossible.

Here's another thing:

If Dawkins is the boy who declares nakedness positively then that makes Dawkins by analogy the chap who declares God non existent positively and those that support this being a fallacy declare it also.
Elsewhere of course they vehemently deny that they are.

I bet you wish you hadn't brought up Courtiers reply now.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to be saying that the charge of being a courtier like the one in the tale of the Emperors new clothes is not based on the courtier in the emperors new clothes...……

Even for you that's a pretty major league misrepresentation. I said no such thing of course - I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible. Whether those irrelevant details come from the hat makers of Venice or from theology makes no difference to that. 

We can ignore the rest of your post.

 

Yes, when you've had your arse handed to you in a sling again that's probably the safest option (though also a dishonest one). Who's "we" by the way?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Even for you that's a pretty major league misrepresentation. I said no such thing of course - I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible. Whether those irrelevant details come from the hat makers of Venice or from theology makes no difference to that. 
 

Yes, when you've had your arse handed to you in a sling again that's probably the safest option (though also a dishonest one). Who's "we" by the way?

Myers conflates the empirical unfalsifiable with the logically impossible and the demonstrably non present.

That is fallacious Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 I merely told you that there's more than one way to say the same thing. And that "thing" was and is that embellishing implausible stories with irrelevant details doesn't make them plausible.

The implausible story is that God is logically impossible. The embellishment that theists appreciate the logical impossible.

We are also invited to believe that Dawkins is the little boy who spots the nakedness The non existence of God.....although when pressed 'The boy'' couldn't swear to it. Ha Ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That may be but the equating the declaration of nakedness to the declaration there is no God is unwarranted.

Probably would be if anyone ever said that, yes. As you know full well though, the “declaration” isn’t “there is no God” at all – rather it’s “there are no known valid reasons to think there is/are god/s”.

What for instance is the evidence for the latter.

What, your straw man version of the argument? There is none – and you’re in negative proof fallacy territory again.

There is none.

I know. Nor is there for leprechauns That’s why no-one I know of says it.

There is no demonstrable way of evidencing no god.

Again, yes that’s right – or leprechauns. That’s why it’s not something anyone I know of actually says it.

And therefore you've just uncovered another reason why the courtiers reply fallacy is fallacious.

Love the non sequitur of that “therefore”. The Courtier’s reply merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible. It’s simple enough to grasp even for you, and it has nothing at all to do with your weird straw man diversionary tactic about there being no evidence for the “there is no god”. 

Further…

“Further”? Further? Your haven’t haven’t got your rhetorical big boy’s pants on yet. How can you have a further when there’s no prior? Oh well…

… it is obvious that the courtier's reply is actually asking people to appreciate empirically something which is invisible and which is finery. That is at least doubly logically impossible.

Er, no it isn’t. You really haven’t understood it at all have you. Not a freakin’ word of it.

Myers and in fact you yourself are fallaciously conflating the empirical unfalsifiable with the doubly logically impossible.

No, “Myers and I” are correctly saying that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details dos not make it plausible. The rest is all in your head.

Here's another thing:

You've done it again! HE’S DONE IT AGAIN! You can’t have an “another” when there was nothing before it but gibberish!

If Dawkins is the boy who declares nakedness positively then that makes Dawkins by analogy the chap who declares God non existent positively and those that support this being a fallacy declare it also.

Er no. Again, it’s got nothing to do with RD and the story is merely that that the boy believed his own eyes whereas the rest of the crowd were too embarrassed to look stupid (not something that seems to trouble you by the way) if they didn’t pretend to see all the finery the Courtier’s claimed to be there.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Elsewhere of course they vehemently deny that they are.

Yes, because they’re not however much you’d love the windmill you always tilt at to be a real one.

I bet you wish you hadn't brought up Courtiers reply now.

No, I’m fine with it. You should be wishing that though – you really, really should.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Myers conflates the empirical unfalsifiable with the logically impossible and the demonstrably non present.

That is fallacious Hillside.

Why do you keep lying about this? Write this down 100 times until it finally sinks in:

The Courtier's fallacy merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible.

Let me know if ever you get it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Probably would be if anyone ever said that, yes.

And that is EXACTLY what you are saying if you are equating Dawkins with the Boy in the story of the emperors new clothes.

You can't have it both ways Hillside.
You either declare Myers Courtier's reply a crock. Or you are saying that Dawkins has declared positively that God does not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why do you keep lying about this? Write this down 100 times until it finally sinks in:

The Courtier's fallacy merely says that embellishing an implausible story with irrelevant details does not make it plausible.

Even if the latter is true having lifted Myers courtier's reply completely out of it's context.

What does it have to do with you and Myers conflating empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and demonstrable non presence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that is EXACTLY what you are saying if you are equating Dawkins with the Boy in the story of the emperors new clothes.

You’re the one who introduced RD here, not me remember? No idea why as he has nothing to do with the force of the argument (ie, the validity of the Courtier’s reply fallacy) but there you go.

You can't have it both ways Hillside.

I haven’t tried to.

You either declare Myers Courtier's reply a crock.

Why? It’s a sound argument so far as I can see.
 

Or you are saying that Dawkins has declared positively that God does not exist.

You used to do the false binary a lot, not so much now. How on earth you get to that statement (or indeed to RD at all) is anyone’s guess, but if it keeps you happy I guess…

Even if the latter is true…

It is.

…having lifted Myers courtier's reply completely out of it's context.

Where? You were the one arguing (OK, asserting then) that “shitty” knowledge of the Bible stories disqualified someone from commenting on their truthfulness or otherwise. The Courtier’s reply explains why this is false thinking.

What does it have to do with you and Myers conflating empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and demonstrable non presence?

Words. Yep, they’re definitely words. Now all you have to do is figure some way of putting them into a coherent sentence. Of course I’m assuming there’s a thought behind this alphabet soup of a sentence, though given your form here there may well not be of course.

Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re the one who introduced RD here, not me remember?

I'm talking about Myers coining of the fallacy and how the general idea that an implausible story is not made any more plausible by embellishment(AKA your interpretation of the courtiers reply) was employed by myers in the context of theism and theology.

The Courtiers reply enters the field of religious debate when Myers used it to defend Dawkins against a charge of ignorance of theological discussion and theism.

The trouble is it contained extremely bad analogies

As expected the flaws in the Myers Courtier's reply argument have been recycled in your use of it.

Apart from the bad analogies that render the Myers Courtiers reply as inadequate and fallacious the appeal to the virtue of not knowing the details of an alleged fairy story ( God) itself appeals to knowing the details of a fairy story and that is fallacious.

Lastly Myers and yourself confuse empirical unfalsifiability with logical impossibility and compound this fallacious activity with suggesting that the courtier (although there isn't anyone actually proposing a logical impossibility) is bidding people not only to consider it but also appreciate it. That suggestion is also fallacious. And of course there is no boy because nobody is, according to you, saying that God does not exist.