Dear Atheists. It's over.

[Iwannaplato]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:
We have the fallacy of generalization - yes, he cleverly lists a couple of options for 'what's really happening' to show how pernicious this can be.
Ad hominim fallacies
A cognitive distortion - he's implicitly claiming to be a mind reader
The appeal to novelty fallacy - if you have done philosophy and arrive at new beliefs, these will be better. Whereas humans talk themselves into all sorts of shit.
And then the cumulative dialogue failure: not a bit of substance about what the guy wrote.

Some may think PK is not aware of what a philosophical discussion is, but I know better. He's showing us how one can go astray.

He's a sin eater.

I must commend you for being able to read his posts at all.
I just can't get past my distate for the crippled decapentasyllabic metre he insists upon writing in.
I've never read beyond 4 lines of his withersome drivel.

Fighting the urge to rework that into a set of haiku

wait, that's a meter. I have to go look. My God, there is a kind of iambic in there.

You just gave me two words: withersome and decapentasyllabic. I thought the first was a coined by you combination of withering and bothersome, but there it is online. And the second I thought you just made up on the spot - I mean, shit, I've taught poetry and not seen that word.

[Walker]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:

You're wrong. He's simply patronizing, which only requires thinking like a hack teacher.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:
We have the fallacy of generalization - yes, he cleverly lists a couple of options for 'what's really happening' to show how pernicious this can be.
Ad hominim fallacies
A cognitive distortion - he's implicitly claiming to be a mind reader
The appeal to novelty fallacy - if you have done philosophy and arrive at new beliefs, these will be better. Whereas humans talk themselves into all sorts of shit.
And then the cumulative dialogue failure: not a bit of substance about what the guy wrote.

Some may think PK is not aware of what a philosophical discussion is, but I know better. He's showing us how one can go astray.

He's a sin eater.

I must commend you for being able to read his posts at all.
I just can't get past my distate for the crippled decapentasyllabic metre he insists upon writing in.
I've never read beyond 4 lines of his withersome drivel.

Fighting the urge to rework that into a set of haiku

wait, that's a meter. I have to go look. My God, there is a kind of iambic in there.

You just gave me two words: withersome and decapentasyllabic. I thought the first was a coined by you combination of withering and bothersome, but there it is online. And the second I thought you just made up on the spot - I mean, shit, I've taught poetry and not seen that word.

Not gonna lie, I had to use finger counting and then Google to arrive at the word decapentasyllabic which was a new one to me too. I kinda like it though I wish I knew a better use for it than Peter Fucking Kropotkin.

And I did intend withersome as a portmanteau of withered and tiresome, with no idea that it was in use as a synonym for weakness, but I'm more alarmed to discover that it also exists as some poor guy's surname. Feels bad man.

[commonsense]

but be aware of the fact that your beliefs are simply
beliefs that are your family, state, society, and the church...
not your beliefs, but beliefs you were educated/indoctrinated with...
Kropotkin

…you seem stuck on belief as the primary source of information that when analyzed to determine truth, may very well correlate with the indoctrination/rote learning. Or, it may not.

Yes, indoctrination may or may not correlate with truth.

I wonder whether the first iteration of the indoctrination was arbitrary or was based on JTB. Is there any way to know?

[Iwannaplato]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:

You're wrong. He's simply patronizing, which only requires thinking like a hack teacher.

Walker, you're not a perceptive reader. Try reading my post again and you'll find I am being critical of PK. It's almost distasteful to point out what is obvious (to intelligent readers). I think you are falling for the team fallacy. Iwanna isn't on my team with DS so he must be saying something I don't like here.

Ideas. You and DS, you see your ideas.

[Walker]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:

You're wrong. He's simply patronizing, which only requires thinking like a hack teacher.

Walker, you're not a perceptive reader. Try reading my post again and you'll find I am being critical of PK. It's almost distasteful to point out what is obvious (to intelligent readers). I think you are falling for the team fallacy. Iwanna isn't on my team with DS so he must be saying something I don't like here.

Ideas. You and DS, you see your ideas.

No, I think you're giving him too much credit. He's simply patronizing, with some ostensible fluff thrown in for cover. Like you.

[Iwannaplato]

You're wrong. He's simply patronizing, which only requires thinking like a hack teacher.

Walker, you're not a perceptive reader. Try reading my post again and you'll find I am being critical of PK. It's almost distasteful to point out what is obvious (to intelligent readers). I think you are falling for the team fallacy. Iwanna isn't on my team with DS so he must be saying something I don't like here.

Ideas. You and DS, you see your ideas.

No, I think you're giving him too much credit. He's simply patronizing, with some ostensible fluff thrown in for cover. Like you.

Duh, Walker, I was making fun of him. I gave him 0 credit.

[Agent Smith]

The OP does have a point; if all his premises are true, the conclusion follows. One only needs to pick up from where s/he (conveniently) stops. Atheists, It is over!

[Iwannaplato]

The OP does have a point; if all his premises are true, the conclusion follows. One only needs to pick up from where s/he (conveniently) stops. Atheists, It is over!

Yes, if we look at his arguments as all premises, that is..assertions.....which I think they qualify as...a list of assertions. If all these assertions are true, then even that latter ones are true.

[commonsense]

A:
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind

---------------------------------------------------------------
B:
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

All of the above are false claims.

For one example, if the mind we’re all-powerful, then it would be possible for the mind to bend spoons, levitate objects and be able to read the contents of other minds, wouldn’t it?

[Agent Smith]

The OP does have a point; if all his premises are true, the conclusion follows. One only needs to pick up from where s/he (conveniently) stops. Atheists, It is over!

Yes, if we look at his arguments as all premises, that is..assertions.....which I think they qualify as...a list of assertions. If all these assertions are true, then even that latter ones are true.

Si, si señor, si!

[Iwannaplato]

A:
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind

---------------------------------------------------------------
B:
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

All of the above are false claims.

For one example, if the mind we’re all-powerful, then it would be possible for the mind to bend spoons, levitate objects and be able to read the contents of other minds, wouldn’t it?

Well if all experience in the mind, then when you bend spoons with your 'hands' that's in your mind and your are bending spoons.
But I challenged him like this...

How do you experience your all powerfulness? What is that claim grounded on? Can you (oh, Jesus, I will sound like Roydop) stop thinking for half an hour?

Can you control your dreams perfectly every time?

Can you stop thinking about sex, in any way, for a year?

You never experience forgetting something?

Did the parts of your childhood that you can't remember, never happen?

Can you feel about your bathroom sink exactly what you feel about your best friend, say for half an hour?

[Sculptor]

Phew!!

At last - god is finally dead and there is now no longer any reason to be an atheist.

[Sculptor]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world

This has to be false. If you want the world to be the object of perception rather than a self created fantasy.

5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world

Only if you want to live in a fantasy.

6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful

Obviously not.

9. The mind is God
10. God exists

Can't find a single problem. I think it is perfect!

Here's a problem. If it is perfect then why are you asking us on the Forum?
If you think the entire world is in your head and that B5-7 is true then you ought not be surprised by how people respond. IN fact you should already know how people respond - so once again, why are you posting?

(Edit):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even better! Proves existence outside the mind is impossible:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

1. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
2. I know language so it is in my mind
3. Words in language can only reference things I know
4. Words in language can only reference things my mind[4]
5. "Truth" is a word in language
6. "Truth" can only reference things in the mind
7. All truths only reference things in the mind
8. Reality corresponds to all truths
9. Reality only references things in the mind
10. Reality is in the mind
11. The mind is greater than reality
12. The mind is All-Knowing of reality
13. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
14. Reality is the mind's creation
15. The mind is All-Powerful
16. The mind is God[5][8][9]
17. God exists

QED: God is a fantasy of your own imagination.

[commonsense]

'What' is 'over'?

It’s ironic that Magnolia tries to say that the debate over the existence of God is completed, in a thread that demonstrates that it hasn’t.