Watch for Updates

.

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise on this website:

.

http://kehvrlb.com/atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise

.

Related FaceBook page thread where Westley v. Baty exchange took place:

.

https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE/posts/843781549140118

.

Dr. Dziubla v. Baty Debate

.

http://kehvrlb.com/dziubla-v-baty-atheism-imagination

.

.

.

.

Brian Westley’s opening post dated May 22, 2018

.

I don’t accept your major premise, and your main fallacy is that you attempt to get your main premise accepted by arguing that the logic is sound, that the minor premise and conclusion are true, and that the major premise can be derived from the minor premise and conclusion being true statements. This does not mean the major premise is true.

,

X->Y
X
∴ Y
–the above is fine, just modus ponens.

,

Given that X is a minor premise, and that Y is a conclusion, and that the logic was valid, the major premise can be re-derived as:
X->Y
This is true for any truth values of X and Y except for X being true and Y is false.

,

However, this does NOT show that X->Y is a true premise if X and Y are both true. This is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

,

It’s easy to show the problem using true Xs and Ys, such as:
X = The third letter of the alphabet is ‘C’
Y = 11 is prime
X and Y are true, and if you are told that X was the minor premise and Y the conclusion of a logically valid modus ponens, you can derive the major premise as:
If the third letter of the alphabet is ‘C’, then 11 is prime.
This is not a major premise I would accept as true, even though X and Y are true, and I’ve re-derived a valid form of argument.

.

Balance of Exchange Dated May 24, 2018

.

Robert Baty

.

Thanks for your comments. I decided to set up this stand-alone thread in order to respond to your comments.

.

Link to your comments:

.

https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE/posts/842810539237219

.

You, Brian, began with:

.

– “I don’t accept your major premise, and your
– main fallacy is that you attempt to get your
– main premise accepted by arguing that the
– logic is sound, that the minor premise and
– conclusion are true, and that the major premise
– can be derived from the minor premise and
– conclusion being true statements.

– This does not mean the major premise is true.”

.

You should have worked through the Exercise step by reasonable step instead of jumping in and demonstrating you don’t understand the Argument or the Exercise.

.

You are way off base with such things, Brian.

.

I don’t accept the major premise either.

.

It’s not my premise.

.

It’s the “bold atheists'” premise; expicit or implicit.

.

I am only pointing it out.

.

“Bold atheists” implicitly or explicitly accept it.

.

I don’t.

.

The logic is “valid”.

.

“Soundness” is another matter.

.

The major premise can, in fact, be derived from the minor premise and conclusion, but that does not say anything about whether or not the premises or conclusion are true.

.

You actually seem to agree with me as to the 6 questions, but you did not, before commenting, give your simple “yes” or “no” to each of the questions.

.

Maybe, if you wish to proceed in this discussion, you should first simply give your 6 “yes or no” responses to each of the questions.

.

We can then discuss them, if there is further interest; preferably one at a time.

.

Brian Westley

.

“I am only pointing it out.”
.
No, you are trying to derive the major premise AND saying atheists hold it as true by doing so.
.
I don’t know of ANY atheist asserting your major premise. Do you have any?

.

Brian Westley

.

“You actually seem to agree with me as to the 6 questions”
.
No, I disagree with your question 6. I don’t know of ANY atheist “who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?”
.
Do you know of any? And I will only accept “explicit”, not “implicit”.

.

Robert Baty

.
Well, “bold atheists”, like L. Aron Nelson-Ra, the tattooist, who fancies himself a bold atheist, implicitly believes the major premise is true.
.
They don’t like to explicitly admit to the implications of their “bold” claims, but that argument is their argument.
.
When presented in simple, logical form, they can’t stand it.
.
They have railed against it for a long, long time, in various venues (i.e., The Democratic Underground).
.
They can’t handle the truth.
.
My Exercise and Argument are what I claim for them and do what I claim they do, though many fail to appreciate it or take the time to understand them.

.

Robert Baty

.

I also welcome any “bold atheist” to come out, come clean, and explicitly reject the major premise and, as a result, reject “bold atheism”.
.
Most of them these days are not so “bold”, and there is good reason for that, and my Exercise and Argument, when properly understood, helps to emphasize that point.
.
“Bold atheists” don’t like it.
I do.
.
Atheists don’t believe there be a God.
I do.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Well, “bold atheists”, like L. Aron Nelson-Ra, the tattooist, who fancies himself a bold atheist, implicitly believes the major premise is true.”
.
No, I wrote that I would only accept EXPLICIT belief of the major premise.
.
Do you have any EXPLICIT examples?

.

Brian Westley

.

“I also welcome any “bold atheist” to come out, come clean, and explicitly reject the major premise and, as a result, reject “bold atheism”.”
.
Your “bold atheism” is your own term which, as far as I can tell, has no members.
.
I have explicitly rejected your major premise as faulty reasoning.

.

Robert Baty

,

Start your own page if you want to be that way. It’s not about you.
.
Atheists don’t like making explicit statements that reveal what they really “believe”, which is one of the benefits of properly understanding and using my Exercise and Argument.
.
I also noticed, Brian, that you edited an earlier comment and added, in part:
.
– “You are trying to derive the major
– premise AND saying atheists hold
– it as true by doing so.”
.
The major premise is most assuredly and properly “derived” from such explicit claims as are common to “bold atheists” and not so bold atheists who think no one is watching.
.
Atheists do hold the major premise to be true, explicitly or implicitly.
.
As I said before, I more than welcome atheists who deny the truth of the major premise and concede the “bold atheist” claims about the existence of God and where the notion of God even came from.
.
It’s a win, win for me and Exercise and Argument, when properly understood.

Atheists don’t like it.
I do.

.

Robert Baty

.
Maybe you never heard of Antony G. N. Flew.
.
The “bold atheist” position is the one he talked about and explained in his debate with Thomas B. Warren, which is referenced elsewhere on this page.
.
Maybe you should look that up and listen to Flew’s opening remarks in that debate where he talks of his “bold atheist” position.
.
It seems like you just may not be prepared for a serious discussion of my Exercise and Argument.

.

Robert Baty

.
You have utterly failed to show any faulty reasoning in my Argument or Exercise.
.
That you reject the major premise as not true is no big deal.
.
As I said before, I don’t think it is true either.
.
Again, maybe you should begin and the beginning and work your way through the Exercise one reasonable step at a time.
.
You don’t seem to “get it” quite yet.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Atheists don’t like making explicit statements that reveal what they really “believe””
.
Atheists do that all the time — what you’re trying to do is ascribe a statement to them that they did NOT make.
.
That’s why I will only accept an explicit statement by an atheist accepting your major premise. You don’t seem to have any.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Atheists do hold the major premise to be true, explicitly or implicitly.”
.
No, they don’t. Find one that does so explicitly. I won’t accept your interpretation of any “implicit” acceptance.

.

Brian Westley

.

“The “bold atheist” position is the one he talked about and explained in his debate with Thomas B. Warren, which is referenced elsewhere on this page.”
.
Got a link? “elsewhere” on a facebook page is a needle in a haystack. Facebook is absolutely terrible at organization.

.

Brian Westley

.

“It seems like you just may not be prepared for a serious discussion of my Exercise and Argument.”
.
Look, if you’re just going to throw out insults, we can quit now.

.

Brian Westley

.

“You have utterly failed to show any faulty reasoning in my Argument or Exercise.”
.
Do you agree that you cannot show your major premise is true by merely showing that the minor premise and conclusion are true and re-deriving the major premise?

.

Brian Westley

.

“As I said before, I don’t think it is true either.”
,
And I don’t know any atheist who thinks it’s true, either. I keep asking you for any atheist that explicitly accepts it as true, but you haven’t come up with any.

.

Robert Baty

.

You came in here, like so many before you, demonstrating you didn’t understand the Exercise or Argument and whining about the major premise. Maybe you should consider starting over and we can take it one reasonable step at a time, just as presented in my Exercise.
.
Maybe you don’t even understand the relevance of “implications”, though I doubt that is your problem; you just don’t like the simple facts that my Exercise and Argument are what I claim for them and do what I claim they do.
.
You might start at this time-marked link to find Flew making his introductory remarks, though his “bold atheist” characterization is found about the 3:50 mark as indicated in the screen shot.

.

https://youtu.be/hbWVpky7t9Y?t=2m20s

.

.

Robert Baty

.

For the record, Brian Westley, I just need your 6 one-word responses to each question.
.
If you can’t bring yourself to answer “yes”, your default answer is “no”.
.
Question #1:
.
Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: (Yes or No)
.
Question #2
.
Do you think that you can take the minor premise and conclusion of a logically valid “modus ponens” form argument and construct the major premise therefrom?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: (Yes or No)
.
Question #3
.
Do you think that the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the Minor Premise and Conclusion of the argument?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: (Yes or No)
.
Question #4
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Conclusion of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: (Yes or No)
.
Question #5
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Minor Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: (Yes or No)
.
Question #6
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westly: (Yes or No)

.

Brian Westley

.

He is not using “bold atheist” to assert your major premise. He’s using the same phrase, but he doesn’t appear to mean anything like your use of “bold atheist”.

.

Brian Westley

.

1-5 yes. (with the caveat that 4 is not necessarily arrived at through your given modus ponens)
6 no.

.

Brian Westley

.

I’ve answered your questions; you haven’t answered mine yet:
.
Do you agree that you cannot show your major premise is true by merely showing that the minor premise and conclusion are true and re-deriving the major premise?

.

Robert Baty

.

“Do you, Robert Baty, agree that you
cannot show your major premise is true
by merely showing that the minor premise
and conclusion are true and re-deriving
the major premise?”
.
Yes!
.
I don’t even propose that it is true.
I believe it is not true; false if you like.
It’s the position, implicit or explicit, of bold atheists and the positions they take.
.
They don’t like having to face it in such simple form.
You seem to be the latest example of that, Brian.
.
And it seems to me you still don’t get the “bold atheist” position that I refer to, which Flew referenced, and which is behind my Exercise and Argument.

.

Brian Westley

.

“It’s the position, implicit or explicit, of bold atheists and the positions they take.”
.
As I keep saying, I don’t know of any such atheists.
If Aron-Ra explicitly says he rejects your major premise, will you take that to mean he doesn’t implicitly believe it?
.
“They don’t like having to face it in such simple form.
You seem to be the latest example of that, Brian.”
.
And there you go with insults. Again.
I’ve REPEATEDLY told you I don’t accept your major premise, which means I do not fit your definition of “bold atheist”.
.
“And it seems to me you still don’t get the “bold atheist” position that I refer to, which Flew referenced, and which is behind my Exercise and Argument.”
.
Wrong — Flew does not mean “bold atheist” the way you mean it. You are only using the same label.

.

Robert Baty

.

I will accept your claim that you are NOT a “bold atheist”.
.
You reject the major premise.
I reject the major premise.
.
“Bold atheists” who dare to proclaim they know there is no God and that the whole notion came from imagination are stuck with the implications of their claims, which is the Argument used in my Exercise.
.
Flew implied it.
Nelson-Ra implied it.
Others commonly imply it.
.
Present it to them, and they typically do as you have done and look for a way around it.
.
I get it.
.
They can’t handle it!
.
They don’t want to give up their “beliefs”, and they can’t handle the Argument I present which really does reflect the implications of their “bold” claims.
.
You know it’s not “sound”.
I know it’s not “sound”.
But it really is their argument, implicitly if not explicitly.
.
Thanks for contributing to this important, public issue and vindicating the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument.

.

Robert Baty

.

Let me try putting it another simple way that you might find acceptable, though quite irritable to the atheist position.
.
That is, if atheists refuse to accept the Argument I have presented to them as reflective of the implications of their “bold claims”, and refuse to establish the truth of its premises (which cannot be done in my opinion), then atheism fails to be established and they won’t find any better argument in their portfolio of arguments.
.
I think that is why you and so many like you have tried so hard to find some problem with it.
.
Ain’t no problem with it.
.
The problem is with the “bold atheist” claims.

.

Brian Westley

.

“That is, if atheists refuse to accept the Argument I have presented to them as reflective of the implications of their “bold claims”, and refuse to establish the truth of its premises (which cannot be done in my opinion), then atheism fails to be established and they won’t find any better argument in their portfolio of arguments.”
.
I disagree. Your faulty argument is not the only way to argue for atheism.
.
“I think that is why you and so many like you have tried so hard to find some problem with it.”
.
I have. No atheist that I know of agrees with your major premise, yet you seem to think all (or nearly all) do. And even if some do, that’s just an example of an atheist making a faulty implication.
.
“The problem is with the “bold atheist” claims.”
.
Are you saying that all “bold atheists” agree with your major premise?

.

Robert Baty

.

Well, let’s try it this way:
.
I am saying, in part, that the “bold atheist” claims imply my Argument and when such “bold atheists” are faced with such implication of their claims, even they recognize their argument fails, not for lack of logical validity, but for lack of soundness (i.e., they cannot establish to truth of the major and minor premises and are loath to admit they merely believe them to be true).
.
So they, like you have, tend to just whine instead of admit to the facts of the matter.
.
Of course, my Argument is not the only way to argue for atheism, but when you realize that if it cannot be established then the others fail along with it, it makes it a lot easier to understand what is at play here.
.
Of course, atheists don’t want to use my Argument because it makes clear, on a fundamental level, that “bold atheists” believe it to be sound but can only believe the premises true; something atheists tend to boast about not doing…..believing something.
.
As for “not-so-bold atheists”, they are not so bold and simply don’t believe there be any God.
.
I get it.
.
They don’t like that.

.

Brian Westley

.

Well, since you’ve decided to keep insulting me instead of debating I’ll just leave.

.

Robert Baty

.

I spotted you building towards that lame exit strategy from the time you first got here and started whining about being thin-skinned.
.
Thanks again, Brian, for taking part and providing an important chapter to this continuing, important, public story.

.

Brian Westley

.

Fuck off, moron. You’re just using it as your own excuse to keep your faulty view of atheists alive.

.

Updates May 26, 2018

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian Westley, you are simply being pedantic because you’re scared to believe that a fellow atheist may indeed believe in that premise.
.
Let’s say the doctor told you,

.

“I know that vaccines will not cause autism.

Let me inject you for your health.”

.

According to Brian, this is just an “implicit” statement and must first be converted into a formal, logical statement before it can be rendered as “explicit.”

.

The premise is,

.

“If man was able to learn more about chemistry

and medical science in history, then man did

invent safe vaccines that are in use today for the

public’s health.”
.
If the chef said,

.

“I own this restaurant.

I know there are no flies in the soup.

It’s safe to eat.”

.

According to Brian, this assurance from the kitchen is not enough because it’s only “implicit.” The chef must write down “explicitly” his premise in a formal, logical manner.

.

The premise is,

.

“If man was able to find ingredients for dinner,

then man did cook dinner to stop his hunger.”

.

Brian, stop being a ridiculous nerd.

If other atheists are acting like this, then it doesn’t bode well for them.
.
Firstly, Brian said something like,

.

“I don’t know any atheist that could possibly

believe that premise in any way, shape, or form.

How ridiculous that you even bring this up.

This is easily debunked in a debate.”

.

Secondly, Brian then switched into something like,

.

“Oh, you were able to find some examples of

atheists making an absolute claim. I’m embarrassed.

Well, now, the tables have turned! Ha ha!

You must now provide only explicit statements from

now on, or else I won’t even participate! I’ve won the debate!”

.

If you can’t see how childish this is, then you may need to go to college and get an education.

.

Brian Westley

.

Bob Smith, no, I don’t care if another atheist who doesn’t know logic makes faulty implications.
.
“According to Brian, this is just an ‘implicit’

statement and must first be converted into

a formal, logical statement before it can be

rendered as ‘explicit’.”
.
You don’t appear to understand what I’ve been saying at all.
.
If someone comes to a conclusion, say X, and another statement A, that does not imply that this conclusion was made by assuming that A implies X.
.
“Firstly, Brian said something like, ‘I don’t know

any atheist that could possibly believe that

premise in any way, shape, or form. How

ridiculous that you even bring this up. This is

easily debunked in a debate’.”
.
Again, you don’t appear to understand what I’ve said.
.
“Secondly, Brian then switched into something

like, ‘Oh, you were able to find some examples

of atheists making an absolute claim. I’m

embarrassed’.”
.
I’m not embarrassed by other people making logically faulty statements.

Again, you fail to grasp what I’ve been saying.
.
“If you can’t see how childish this is, then you

may need to go to college and get an education.”
.
And now all you do is sling insults.

Sorry, that’s not logical at all.

.

Robert Baty

.

Bob Smith
Brian Westley
.
X = ’twas imagination
A = ’twas power in imagination to do it.
.
Bold Atheists = ’twasn’t reason or revelation.
.
Implied if not Explicit:
.
– IF (A) man was able to originate
– the idea/concept of God through
– the power of imagination,

– THEN (B) man did originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
That’s all they got and without that they got nothin’.
.
That’s why they don’t like to face up to it.
.
Thanks again Brian Westley for demonstrating the vindication of the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument.

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian said,

.

“I don’t know of ANY atheist asserting your major premise.

Do you have any?”

.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination/
.
“Humans alone practice religion because they’re

the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That’s the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch

of the London School of Economics…. ‘What the

transcendental social requires is the ability to live

very largely in the imagination,’ Bloch writes…

‘Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable

part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and

this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation

that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of

modern human society.’ ‘Once you have these additions

of the imagination, maybe theories of God are inevitable,’

he says.”
.
Do you affirm or deny that Chris Firth of University College London and Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics believe in the premise,

.

“If humans are the only animals that evolved the

necessary brain architecture for imagination which

is critical for religious purposes, then humans indeed

have imagined all these religions in history.”?

.

Brian Westley

.

Bob Smith, I don’t consider your synopsis to accurately reflect what he has said.

.

May 31, 2018 Exchange

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian Westley wrote,

.

“I don’t consider your synopsis to

accurately reflect what he has said.”
.
Maurice Bloch is an anthropologist who wrote a paper for a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2008.
.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1499/2055
.
“It is what distinguishes the human social

from that of other closely related animals,

such as chimpanzees. It is a unique characteristic

and an essential part of human sociality, which,

as often suggested, is the fundamental difference

between humans and other anthropoids.”
.
1. Do you believe that Bloch believes that humans evolved a “unique” ability for imagination?
.
“Once we realize this omnipresence of the imaginary

in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain

concerning religion.”
.
2. Do you believe that Bloch believes that religion is nothing more than “imaginary”?
.
“The tool for this fundamental operation is the

capacity for imagination. It is while searching for

neurological evidence for the development of this

capacity and of its social implications that we, in

passing, will account for religious-like phenomena.”
.
3. Do you believe that Bloch believes that the “tool” of imagination is used for religion?
.
“Such imagination practice seems essential for

normal human development. Nothing like that

occurs in other species. Clearly, this capacity

is necessary for engaging in the transcendental

social as defined above, inevitably including the

religious like.”
.
4. Do you believe that Bloch believes that imagination is “clearly” and “necessary” for religion and that this occurs “inevitably”? The word “inevitably” is an explicit term used in logic.
.
“Again, in a parallel argument, also taking empirical

data on ontological development as its starting point,

Hannes Rakoczy connects the imagination and the

transcendental social even more explicitly… It does

not however, like Harris, touch on the topic of religion,

but according to my argument, this is inevitably

subsumed under this type of discussion of the social.”
.
5. Do you believe that Bloch believes religion is “inevitably subsumed” under the discussion of human imagination?
.
“What needs to be explained is the nature of human

sociability, and then religion simply appears as an

aspect of this that cannot stand alone.”
.
6. Do you believe that Bloch believes the explicit statement that religion “cannot stand alone” outside of human imagination?
.
“Concentrating on that equally unique human capacity,

imagination seems the most fruitful approach in that

enterprise and, in passing, we will also account for

religion since it is nothing special.”
.
7. Do you believe that Bloch believes that humans have a “unique” ability among animals for imagination and that over time this logically accounted for religion which is “nothing special”?

.

Brian Westley

.

I don’t consider your synopsis to accurately reflect what he has said.

Your own faulty reasoning, “debate” style, and insults are suspiciously similar to Robert Baty’s.

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian Westley, I have posted no insults in my last 2 posts. I apologize if you’ve felt offended from my 1st post in this thread. I agree with you that ad hominem attacks will get us nowhere.
.
Now that your demand for an “explicit” statement has been fulfilled, we can continue the discussion without insults.
.
If you believe that Baty’s major premise example is just a small part of atheism and is not needed at all for atheists, then please show your detailed explanations for atheism that are logically sound.

.

Brian Westley

.

Bob Smith:

.

“Now that your demand for an ‘explicit’

statement has been fulfilled”
.
No, it hasn’t. You don’t appear to understand my objection.
.
“If you believe that Baty’s major premise

example is just a small part of atheism and

is not needed at all for atheists”
.
I don’t know of ANY atheists who subscribe to his major premise — Baty tries to get to it by pointing atheists who believe the minor premise and the conclusion, but that doesn’t mean his major premise is accepted. It’s quite possible to believe the minor premise is true and the conclusion is true while not subscribing to the major premise.
.
“then please show your detailed explanations

for atheism that are logically sound.”
.
I don’t consider any argument for the existence of gods to be convincing.

.

Robert Baty

.

It seems to me, Brian, that you are simply further vindicating the claims I make for my Argument and Exercise even while trying to deny that atheists, at least some, when faced with the implications of their “bold” claims, realize they have lost the argument.
.
You may not know any atheists that explicitly accept the major premise, but, I propose, you know some that implicitly accept it.
.
I welcome as many atheists as wish to come around, on the record, and reject the major premise as you can find.
.
Bring them on.
We got your opinion.
I need as many more as I can get.
It proves up, vindicates, the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument and atheism.
.
Without that Argument, atheism cannot be sustained apart from simply a “belief” in claims that go beyond the reach of the evidence, and they so don’t like to admit believing anything beyond the reach of the evidence.
.
And, as a reminder, here are our answers to the Exercise questions:
.
Brian Westley/Robert Baty Exercise Answers
.
Question #1:
.
Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #2
.
Do you think that you can take the minor premise and conclusion of a logically valid “modus ponens” form argument and construct the major premise therefrom?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #3
.
Do you think that the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the Minor Premise and Conclusion of the argument?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #4
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Conclusion of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #5
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Minor Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #6
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westly: No

.

Brian Westley

.

“It seems to me, Brian, that you are simply

further vindicating the claims I make for my

Argument and Exercise even while trying to

deny that atheists, at least some, when faced

with the implications of their ‘bold’ claims,

realize they have lost the argument.”
.
Nope. You’re using invalid logic.

.

Robert Baty

.

Saying it don’t make it so.
.
Proposition
.
Robert Baty’s Atheism 101 Exercise and Argument

are a reflection of the use of invalid logic.
.
– Brian Westley: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
Feel free, Brian, to submit your first affirmative presentation in support of your position.
.
I will either accept it or offer a rebuttal.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Saying it don’t make it so.”
.
Exactly why your argument fails. You are trying to assert that your major premise is held as true if someone only agrees with the minor premise and the conclusion. I’ve shown that to be faulty reasoning with my third-letter-C and 11-is-prime example.
.
“Feel free, Brian, to submit your first affirmative

presentation in support of your position.”
.
I have. Your reasoning is faulty.

.

Robert Baty

.

Nope, Brian, you are just ipse dixiting your way through this discussion.
.
I could just as easily say I have already refuted your claim to have demonstrated the alleged “invalid reasoning” used in my Exercise and Argument.
.
Your comments above do nothing to establish your position on the proposition:
.
Robert Baty’s Atheism 101 Exercise
and Argument are a reflection of the
use of invalid logic.
.
– Brian Westley: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
You have already agreed that the reasoning is valid in that the major premise is, in fact, properly imputed/implied where the conclusion and minor premise is “given”.
.
In fact, as I have stated repeatedly, which is, in fact, a truism, atheists, “bold atheists” do, implicitly or explicitly, accept the major premise as true. They, implicitly or explicitly, “believe” it to be true even though when faced with it they, like you, admit they cannot demonstrate the truth of it.
.
They believe it; explicitly or implicitly.
I don’t.
.
They believe the minor premise; explicitly.
I don’t.
.
They believe the conclusion; explicitly.
I don’t.
.
From the beginning, Brian, you have rejected what I have actually been saying about “implicit and/or explicit”, and I get that. You can’t stand my Exercise and Argument and the claims I make for them; which you can’t come close to successfully challenging.

.

Brian Westley

.

Nope, your logic is wrong.

.

You can’t validly derive your major premise just from the minor premise and conclusion accepted as true.
.
“From the beginning, Brian, you have rejected

what I have actually been saying about ‘implicit

and/or explicit’, and I get that.”
.
Because your assertion is based on faulty logic.

.

That’s why you can’t find people like AronRa explicitly accepting your major premise, and why you use invalid logic to try and assert they are accepting it “implicitly”.

.

Robert Baty

.

You again demonstrate you don’t understand the matter.
.
I have never claimed that the major premise, quite properly derived from the minor premise and conclusion, as you have previously agreed, is derived as true.
.
I don’t think it’s true.
I just claim it is logically derived from the minor premise and conclusion and is explicitly or implicitly accepted as true by “bold atheists”.
.
Lesser sorts, of course, just are not so “bold” and just don’t believe there be any god or God.
.
L. Aron Nelson-Ra implicitly believes it to be true according to his “bold atheist” claims which are explicit.
.
Give him a call and see if he will deny it.
He doesn’t talk to me.
.
I would be glad to have him on the record deny that the major premise is true.
.
If he did, then he would, explicitly or implicitly, reduce his rank from a “bold atheist” to a “not-so-bold atheist”; maybe even just an agnostic like Flew seemed to do.

.

Brian Westley

.

“I have never claimed that the major premise,

quite properly derived from the minor premise

and conclusion, as you have previously agreed,

is derived as true.”
.
You do that every time you try to say atheists “implicitly” accept your major premise just because they hold that the minor premise and conclusion are true.

.

Robert Baty

.

Whether or not it is true is separate from the derivation, logically, from the minor premise and conclusion.
.
We’ve already been through that and we agree per our answers in the Exercise. You can change your answers if you want.
.
Once we get to the logically valid Argument, which we have agreed upon, then to determine its soundness we consider the truth of the premises.
.
I don’t believe the premises are true, but L. Aron Nelson-Ra and other “bold atheists” do, by implication; the implication logically, validly, soundly derived from their “bold atheist” claims.
.
When faced with the simple, logically valid analysis and presentation, even the “bold atheist”, and “not-so-bold” like you, Brian, can see that the “bold atheist” position cannot be sustained and so the effort is made to deny the logic.
.
My Exercise & Argument and the claims I make for them are ever the more vindicated and established.
.
If the atheists can’t prove up the premises, and they can’t, their “bold atheist” claims are readily exposed and faulty; not my Argument, not my Exercise, not the claims I make for them.
.
They believe the premises to be true, implicitly or explicitly.
That’s as close as they can come to their “bold” claims.
.
I don’t believe their premises are true.
I don’t believe their “bold” claims.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Whether or not it is true is separate from the

derivation, logically, from the minor premise

and conclusion.”
.
But that does NOT mean that someone who holds the minor premise and conclusion to be true holds the major premise to also be true. My “C” and 11 comparison shows that — I believe the minor premise and conclusion, but the major premise derived is a false implication.
.
“I don’t believe the premises are true”
.
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE THEM OR NOT — YOU CANNOT VALIDLY CLAIM THAT ATHEISTS SUBSCRIBE TO THE MAJOR PREMISE. THIS IS ONLY ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT ATHEISTS MUST BELIEVE THE MAJOR PREMISE IS TRUE IF THEY BELIEVE THE MINOR PREMISE AND CONCLUSION.
.
I assume you believe that “C” is the third letter of the alphabet and that 11 is prime. But this does NOT permit me to assume you think that “If C is the third letter of the alphabet, then 11 is prime” is a true implication.

.

Robert Baty

.

Your “C-prime” analogy fails, and I am not going to chase that rabbit back into its hole at this time.
.
I win either way.
.
You can either get L. Aron Nelson-Ra to explicitly affirm his belief the major premise is true, or you can get him to explicitly deny that he believes it is true. I would be glad to discuss his explicit claim as to his position on that; either with him or you if you can document it.
.
I win either way.
.
In fact, through the process of logically valid reasoning, I can claim that Nelson-Ra’s “bold atheist” claims do lead, logically, to the claim that the major premise is true; implicitly or explicitly.
.
Alternatively, they are welcome to explicitly reject the major premise and, by implication, their “bold atheist” claims.
.
As I stated earlier, you, Brian, seem all hung up on the meaning of implication and don’t want to face up to it.
.
I get that, and I thank you for your demonstrations in this most important discussion of public matters.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Your “C-prime” analogy fails”

No, it shows that your reasoning is faulty.

.

Robert Baty

.

No, it’s your reasoning that is faulty, and I noticed that you ignored the substance of my claims………again.

However, if you insist, I will try to review, again, your alleged analogy and point out where it fails.

Be quiet now and give me time to address your specific blundering with that alleged analogy.

.

Brian Westley

.

Sorry, it’s your reasoning that is faulty. That’s why you keep trying to fob off your “implicit” conclusion, and why you keep dishing out insults — because your logic won’t stand up.

.

Robert Baty

.

You are not the victim here, Brian.
Do quit whining about being “insulted”.
You are wrong, demonstrably wrong and can’t stand it.
You wouldn’t even shut up long enough to let me respond.
.
Brian Westley’s “C-Prime” Argument
.
Major Premise
.
– IF C is the third letter of the alphabet,
– THEN 11 is a prime number.
.
Minor Premise
.
– C is the third letter of the alphabet
.
Conclusion
.
– 11 is a prime number
.
Robert Baty’s Atheism 101 Argument
.
MAJOR PREMISE:
.
– IF man was able to originate
– the idea/concept of God through
– the power of imagination,
– THEN man did originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
MINOR PREMISE:
.
– Man was able to originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
CONCLUSION:
.
– Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.
.
One of the fallacies that seem to apply here might be properly called:
.
“The Fallacy of Carrying an Analogy Too Far”.
.
That’s your problem, Brian Westley.
.
Both arguments may be logically, validly derived, enthymemically, if the conclusions and minor premises are a given.
.
Both arguments are in logically valid, modus ponens form.
.
If the premises are true, then the argument will be sound and the argument will support the truth of the conclusion.
.
Where your analogy breaks down, Brian, is you have failed to establish that there are any “Bold C-Primers” who believe that the minor premise must be true in order for the conclusion of your argument to be true.
.
“Bold Atheists” believe the conclusion of my Argument is true and they believe the minor premise of my Argument is true and must be true in order for the conclusion to be true; and that there is no alternative.
.
If you find a “Bold C-Primer” who believes your minor premise is true and must be true in order for the conclusion to be true, then the analogy could be taken to a higher level, but I don’t think you can cite any “Bold C-Primers” who make such claims.
.
Even if you did find them, that would not mean there is anything logically invalid about my reasoning.
.
It would simply show further the validity of my reasoning and the implications of the “Bold” claims under consideration.
.
Like I said, Brian, I win either way.
.
Simple as that; I think.

.

June 1 – 2, 2018 Exchange

.

Brian Westley

.

“Where your analogy breaks down, Brian, is you have

failed to establish that there are any “Bold C-Primers”

who believe that the minor premise must be true in order

for the conclusion of your argument to be true.”
.
You keep missing my point.
.
One last time:
.
Person P says:
1) if A, then B
2) A
conclusion) B
.
Person P then asks Person Q:
Do you believe A? Q: yes
Do you believe B? Q: yes
Then you must believe that if A, then B, right? Q: no
.
Because even if Q believes both A and B, the statement “if A, then B” is asserting more than just A and B being true. It’s also asserting a relationship between them.
.
But you are trying to assert that Q “implicitly” believes “if A, then B”, which is wrong. There is no such implication.
.
Q might or might not believe that “if A, then B” is correct — but you can’t conclude that just from their beliefs about A and B.
.
For that matter, why not construct “if B, then A”? If both statements are true, that doesn’t establish which one was the conclusion for the missing modus ponens.
.
Do you agree that Q can correctly and logically consistently hold that “if A, then B” is wrong, even if Q believes A is true, and B is true?

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian Westley wrote,

.

“I assume you believe that ‘C’ is the third letter of the

alphabet and that 11 is prime. But this does NOT permit

me to assume you think that ‘If C is the third letter of the

alphabet, then 11 is prime’ is a true implication.”
.
Isn’t this a strawman fallacy? You’re pushing an example that’s easily proven as wrong. In this case you are comparing mathematics and written language together. You cannot say that A = both atheism and mathematics in order to prove that atheism is logical. You cannot declare the definitions of the variables in an arbitrary manner outside the scope of Baty’s example and then say that atheists are still correct.
.
It also sounds like a false equivalency fallacy. Baty is using an example that involves atheist belief within time and space in a logical order that deals with the origin of religion. This involves neurology and history, not mathematics and a written language.
.
Bloch’s explicit statements regarding the word “inevitably” also deal with time and space in a logical manner that links both the minor premise and conclusion together.
.
Keep in mind that Baty’s major premise does not state “If only A, then B alone is possible.” Bloch may have C, D, and E reasons for atheism, but these reasons are outside the scope of his field of expertise in anthropology. It’s entirely possible for an atheist believe A and B as a major premise, while still holding C, D, and E as additional reasons. I’m assuming that you believe that Bloch fails the restrictive “If only A, then B alone” premise, but that does not exist in Baty’s premise.

.

Brian Westley

.

Bob Smith:

.

“Isn’t this a strawman fallacy?”
.
That appears to be the faulty reasoning that Baty is using. He goes from a person agreeing with the minor premise and conclusion, and claims that this means they “implicitly” agree with his reconstructed major premise.
.
“You’re pushing an example that’s

easily proven as wrong.”
.
That’s my point — the actual minor premise and conclusion can be true, while the re-derived major premise can be false. I used that as an example of the same reasoning to show it can lead to a ridiculous end.
.
“Keep in mind that Baty’s major premise does

not state ‘If only A, then B alone is possible’.”
.
I’m not saying that at all — but he DOES appear to say that, simply by agreeing that B is true and A is true, that you can assume the person also “implicitly” agrees that “if A, then B” is also true. You can’t.

.

Robert Baty

.

Brian, Brian, Brian Westley
.
I got your point to begin with, and you continue to press your fallacious analogy and false reasoning and just plain stubbornness, but it may also be true that you really, really, really, just don’t get it.
.
You wrote, in part:
.
– “You are trying to assert that (L. Aron Nelson-Ra)
– ‘implicitly’ believes ‘if A, then B’, which is wrong.
– There is no such implication.”
.
I am asserting that and I am not wrong, for reasons, unrebutted, previously stated.
.
Nelson-Ra, in making his “bold atheist” claims, has no choice but to imply “if A, then B”, which is a much different logical situation from your lame attempted analogy with “C-Prime”; for reasons I explained that seemed to have been above your comprehension despite their simplicity.
.
Brian, you also wrote, in part:
.
– “For that matter, why not construct ‘if B, then A’?
– If both statements are true, that doesn’t establish
– which one was the conclusion for the missing
– modus ponens.”
.
Silly boy! You again just demonstrated that you are the one not competent to seriously engage in a discussion of this sort.
.
The “bold atheist” claim is:
.
– Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.
.
That’s B.
That’s the issue.
That’s the conclusion of the “bold atheist”.
That’s the conclusion in my Argument.
.
Such a conclusion implies the minor premise, A, that man had such abilities.
.
The “bold atheist” (i.e., L. Aron Nelson-Ra), by implication, believes the major premise to be true, because he has no alternative, he allows for no alternative and without the major premise being true atheism, the “bold atheism” under consideration fails as being only an “I don’t think there be any God”.
.
Your “C-Prime” silliness doesn’t come close to impeaching the logic of my Argument and the claims I make for it and my Exercise.
.
My challenge, Brian, remains open for you to meet. Bring on L. Aron Nelson-Ra and let him explicitly state his position as to whether he believes the major premise is true.
.
As I explained before, I will win either way.

.

Brian Westley

.

“I am asserting that and I am not wrong”
.
No, you really are wrong, because my C and 11 example uses precisely the same reasoning and reaches a ridiculous assertion.
.
Oh, and you didn’t answer this:

.
Do you agree that Q can correctly and logically

consistently hold that “if A, then B” is wrong, even

if Q believes A is true, and B is true?
.
It’s also interesting that “Bob Smith” and you post replies at almost the same time, responding to a comment I made hours earlier.

.

Robert Baty

.

No, I really am NOT wrong, Brian!
.
Your “C-Prime” argument is logically valid and that’s as far as any analogy goes for reasons I have explained, but if you insist on further vindicating the claims I make for my Argument and Exercise, I will try to indulge your fantasies and rebut your continued claims in your lame attempt to impeach my Argument and Exercise and the claims I make for them.
.
Brian Westley’s “C-Prime” Argument:
.
Major Premise
.
– IF C is the third letter of the alphabet,
– THEN 11 is a prime number.
.
Minor Premise
.
– C is the third letter of the alphabet
.
Conclusion
.
– 11 is a prime number
.
Your analogy fails, despite the logical validity of your Argument, Brian, because, as far as I can tell, no reasonable and informed person claims that your minor premise is essential to establishing the truth of your conclusion.
.
I also notice you have passed by other substantive matters I have presented to you. Don’t think your evasions are not being noticed and made part of this important record.
.
Now, consider my Argument:
.
MAJOR PREMISE:
.
– IF man was able to originate
– the idea/concept of God through
– the power of imagination,
– THEN man did originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
MINOR PREMISE:
.
– Man was able to originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
CONCLUSION:
.
– Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.
.
The minor premise is essential to establishing the truth of the conclusion, the conclusion being the point at issue and being one of the fundamental claims made by “bold atheists”.
.
Pay attention, Brian, this time around, and try not to pop off again until you understand your blundering and are ready to admit to it.
.
It’s not rocket science; it’s critical thinking 101.
.
My minor premise and conclusion are not, like in your failed analogy, simply 2 allegedly true statements, they are 2 allegedly true statements that tie together as a result of the claim made by “bold atheists”.
.
However bold they may be, as you have helped me demonstrate again, Brian, their boldness fails them when they face my Argument because they recognize, when being honest and reasonable, the implications of their claim and that they can only believe the major premise of my Argument to be true.

.

Brian Westley

.

“Your analogy fails, despite the logical validity of

your Argument, Brian, because, as far as I can tell,

no reasonable and informed person claims that your

minor premise is essential to establishing the truth

of your conclusion.”
.
That.
Doesn’t.
Matter.
.
Your logic is invalid, but you can’t understand that.

.

Robert Baty

.

You have already agreed, via the Exercise, that the logic is valid.
.
If you want to change your answers to one or more of the questions, Brian, just let me know which question(s) and I will be glad to change your answer.
.
Otherwise, you have utterly failed to address my rebuttal to your lame claim using your failed “C-Prime” argument.
.
You quote me, and then say it doesn’t matter.
.
It is what matters in understanding the Argument, the Exercise, and the claims I make for them; claims you have utterly failed to impeach.
.
You have shown that your side has nothing to offer but “continual dripping” in the face of the truth and logic you have turned against; just as the old professor said, you are the example of how it can be that one doesn’t turn against logic until logic turns against him.
.
You’ve turned against logic, Brian, because logic has shown up your side as a failure (i.e., the “bold atheist” position has been outed and you just can’t stand it and admit to it).
.
1. “Bold atheists” explicitly affirm the conclusion of my Argument.
.
2. “Bold atheists” explicitly and/or implicitly affirm the minor premise of my Argument.
.
3. It’s logically valid to infer the major premise of my Argument based on the minor premise and conclusion.
.
It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3.
.
4. Atheists, bold and not-so-bold, agree that they cannot establish the truth of the major premise.
.
5. The Argument fails.
.
6. Atheists can believe that the concept of God originated through the power of imagination in man, absent reason and/or revelation, but they cannot establish that such is the case.
.
7. “Bold atheists” don’t like to admit that a “belief” about the origin of the concept of God is all they got.
.
8. My Argument and Exercise, clearly demonstrates, as Brian Westley has helped me again illustrate, that such is the case.

.

Brian Westley

.

“You have already agreed,

via the Exercise,

that the logic is valid.”
.
Not when you try to say that A and B means that A->B
.
But you can’t understand that.

.

Bob Smith

.

Brian Westley , correct me if I’m wrong.
.
1. You believe that a lot of atheists believe that the human species in the past evolved an advanced cerebral cortex with the ability for imagination and religion.
.
2. You believe that a lot of atheists believe that primitive humans imagined religious ideas for the purpose of consoling each other after the death of a loved one.
.
3. Let’s say there’s a young atheist child that is 12 years old. He is learning about evolution for the first time. He starts to ponder about the past.
.
He thinks,
.
“If the first humans developed the abilities for language
and imagination, then they would naturally form religious
groups to explain away lightning, thunder, and earthquakes
because they didn’t have access to modern technology
like scientists do.”
.
You believe that there are 0% or near 0% of atheists who believe this or have ever believed this?
.
Why do you accept the minor premise and conclusion as being both true individually, but then deny the link between them?

.

Robert Baty

.

Brian Westley

.

You need to be specific, explicit, if you want to change your answers.
.
Like, which question(s), specifically, do you want to change as to your answers.
.
My position remains the same.
.
Given the conclusion and minor premise of a modus ponens argument, the major premise is easily inferred.
.
B = conclusion
A = minor premise
.
From A & B it is most assuredly and logically concluded that the major premise of “If A, then B” follows.
.
See, for example:
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme
.
In the case of the claims made by “Bold Atheists” like L. Aron Nelson-Ra, the minor premise must be true for the conclusion to be true and the “Bold Atheist” allows for no other alternative to the conclusion, so it really does reasonably follow that the “Bold Atheist”, implicitly if not explicitly, believes without proof that the major premise is true.
.
I’m still waiting for Brian to bring Nelson-Ra, or any “Bold Atheist” around to either admit he believes the major premise is true and/or that he recognizes that he’s not such a “Bold Atheist” after all and recognizes that the major premise cannot be shown to be true and that he can’t even prove up the minor premise.
.
I win either way.
.
“Bold Atheists” cannot prevail against the logically valid analysis of their “Bold Claims”.
.
If they can’t establish the soundness of the Argument I present in my Exercise for consideration, they can’t establish their standing as a “Bold Atheist”.
.
They got nothin’.
.
They just don’t believe there be any God.
.
I get it.

.

Brian Westley

.

Bob Smith:

.

“You believe that there are 0% or near 0% of atheists

who believe this or have ever believed this?”
.
I’m pointing out that you cannot make that conclusion.

.

Brian Westley

.

Robert Baty:

.

“You need to be specific, explicit,

if you want to change your answers.”
.
I’m not changing my answers.

Your logic is faulty.

.

And again, you and “Bob smith” both answer 4 hours after my post, yet within a few minutes of each other (and your answer appears to have taken just as long as it would take to type in after “Bob’s” reply).
.
“Given the conclusion and minor premise of a

modus ponens argument, the major premise

is easily inferred.”
.
And does not logically follow as a true statement,

even if the minor premise and conclusion are true.

.

Robert Baty

.

Brian Westley 
.
You passed the Question & Answer portion of the Exercise but you have utterly failed the Analysis portion.
.
Your answers will remain as originally submitted as to the Question & Answer portion.
.
I am not claiming that the major premise is true, and I have made that clear from the beginning.
.
The major premise, as well as the minor premise and conclusion, are problems for the “Bold Atheist” who affirms the minor premise and conclusion; explicitly or implicityly.
.
Let me try again:
.
Some atheists try to be bold and affirm the conclusion.
.
For the conclusion to be true, the minor premise has to be true.
.
That, logically leads to the major premise which the “Bold Atheist” must believe, explicitly or implicitly in order to maintain his “boldness”.
.
When faced with that very logically valid analysis, the boldest of atheists will recognize their problem and either run off or admit the implications of their “bold” claims cannot be established beyond the level of their subjective and necessary “belief”.
.
My Exercise and Argument puts the best of “them” to flight.
.
If you don’t think so, just try producing one and we’ll find out how they hold up to an examination of their position on my Exercise and Argument.

.

Robert Baty

.

I like this observation of one of heroes of the Atheist movement. It came up in the course of my debate with Dr. Dziubla of the University of Kentucky; an exercise which led to the creation of the current version of my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise which updates, in my opinion, one of the matters taken up in the Campbell-Owen Debate of 1829.
.
Seems to me that Campbell’s position in that debate is just as good now, or better, than it was then.
.
The quote:
.
– “(Daniel Dennett’s) point is NOT that
– science knows how religion evolved
– naturally, but that it has several
– ideas, and that all them are more
– plausible than the existence of a
– supernatural entity.”
.
Lesser lights like you and L. Aron Nelson-Ra can do no better.
.
The implication being, the “Bold Atheist” position cannot be sustained beyond their subjective level of “belief”. Since they seem to loathe admitting to believing such things, it really is kinda funny to show them up on so simple a fundamental matter.
.
As you have demonstrated, y’all go down hard and fighting, but you go down, and I thank you, again, for vindicating the claims I make for my Argument and Exercise.

.

Brian Westley

.

“As you have demonstrated, y’all go down hard

and fighting, but you go down, and I thank you,

again, for vindicating the claims I make for my

Argument and Exercise.”
.
So you’re just going to declare victory by lying.

.

Robert Baty

.

And, Brian, you again evade offering anything of substance in this exchange that might in any way impeach my claims for my Argument and Exercise.
.
I’ve rebutted every effort you have made and shown why your claims are lame.
.
I declare victory based on an objective review of the record.
.
You are welcome to disagree.
It’s not about you.
I didn’t expect to convince you.
.
I did expect you to perform as others before you and vindicate my claims, and you did not disappoint.
.
Thanks, again, for your demonstrations.

.

Brian Westley

.

Atheism 101 – Critical Thinking Exercise:

.

“You passed the Question & Answer portion of

the Exercise but you have utterly failed the Analysis

portion.”
.
No, I’ve shown that your reasoning is faulty.
.
“I am not claiming that the major premise is true,

and I have made that clear from the beginning.”
.
I’m NOT CLAIMING THAT.
.
“The major premise, as well as the minor premise

and conclusion, are problems for the ‘Bold Atheist’

who affirms the minor premise and conclusion;

explicitly or implicityly.”
.
No, they aren’t. Holding the statement of the minor premise and the statement of the conclusion as true does not mean they hold the major premise to be true.

.

Brian Westley

.

“And, Brian, you again evade offering anything

of substance in this exchange that might in any

way impeach my claims for my Argument and Exercise.”
.
I’ve explained too many times already how your reasoning is faulty.

.

Robert Baty

.

Brian Westley, you write:
.
– “No, they aren’t. Holding the statement
– of the minor premise and the statement
– of the conclusion as true does not mean
– they hold the major premise to be true.”
.
and
.
– “I’ve explained too many times already
– how your reasoning is faulty.”
.
Your continual repetitions are not going to make your claims true.
.
You seem not to understand “implication”, and you refuse to bring in any of your big guns, a bonafide wannabe “Bold Atheist” who explicitly affirms the minor premise and conclusion of the Argument and is not afraid to face the implications of his claims as represented by the major premise.
.
You have demonstrated “many times already” how your reasoning is faulty. I’ve explained it many times and you have, indeed, refused to deal specifically with the substance of my rebuttals to your lame claims.

.

Brian Westley

.

Atheism 101 – Critical Thinking Exercise:

.

“Your continual repetitions are not going

to make your claims true.”

.

Luke 4:23

.

Robert Baty

.

Brian Westley
.
John 14:64
.
Let me suggest this to you.
.
I think we have pretty much exhausted the substantive issues between us on the matter and have reached a reasonable conclusion to our discussion.

.

So, unless there is some explicit, substantive point in dispute that you can spell out clearly for further consideration, I think “it’s a wrap” and again thank you for your time and interest.

.

(skip for now)

June 3, 2018 Exchange

.

(skip for now)

.

Robert Baty

.

By way of yet another summary, the graphic below is, in essence, our starting point; presenting us with the conclusion which is the foundation of the “Bold Atheist” position.
.
In substance, the only way to reach the proposed conclusion claimed by the “Bold Atheist” is by way of the Argument I have presented, which is:
.
MAJOR PREMISE:
.
– IF (A) man was able to originate
– the idea/concept of God through
– the power of imagination,

– THEN (B) man did originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.

.

MINOR PREMISE:
.
– (A) Man was able to originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
CONCLUSION:
.
– (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.
.
Brian Westley via his answers to the Exercise has agreed that that Argument is logically valid and has offered nothing but lame excuses/claims as to why it cannot be imputed to the “Bold Atheist” that makes the claim noted, and why he refuses to offer any substantive, alternative, logically valid argument which, if its premises be true, would support the truth of the conclusion claimed by “Bold Atheists”.
.
Brian Westley has utterly failed to impeach the claims I make for my Argument and Exercise. I propose there is no one else he knows or can find that can do any better.
.
My Argument and My Exercise are, quite simply, what I claim for them and do what I claim they do.
.
No “Bold Atheist” can maintain his “boldness” in face of sound, logical reasoning.
.
He/She may believe that conclusion, but that’s as close as they can get to it; believing it, and how they hate to have to recognize that matter of fact.
.
Brian Westley has proved that for us, and we owe Brian our gratitude for being willing to do so.
.
https://www.facebook.com/beautyofatheism/photos/a.254762771287706.54651.254747274622589/836978663066111/?type=3&theater

.

.

Robert Baty

.

As it was in 1829, so it is in 2018.

(See graphic below.)
.
We have the conclusion claimed by the “Bold Atheist”.
We have at least one minor premise.
We have an implied major premise.
.
And that simple, 3-line, modus ponens Argument (see below) is the best the “Bold Atheists” have to support their conclusion.
.
And when presented in such logically valid form, even the atheists, bold or not-so-bold see that the best they can do is to believe their conclusion because that is all they have; they cannot establish it to be anything more than a belief.
.
And that is good to know, because without that conclusion being established as a matter of fact, the atheists have nothing but their imagination to support their conclusion.
.
It’s good to know.
.
As this Exercise has shown again, with thanks to Brian Westley, you don’t have to know all that much to to understand this simple, fundamental matter and knowing this much can save one a lot of grief when bantering with atheists about atheism.
.
ATHEISM 101 CRITICAL THINKING EXERCISE ARGUMENT
.
MAJOR PREMISE:
.
– IF (A) man was able to originate
– the idea/concept of God through
– the power of imagination,

– THEN (B) man did originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
MINOR PREMISE:
.
– (A) Man was able to originate the
– idea/concept of God through the
– power of imagination.
.
CONCLUSION:
.
– (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.
.
That’s the “Bold Atheist” logic illustrated. The “Bold Atheist” cannot establish the truth of either the major premise or minor premise and, therefore, is at a loss to do anything more than believe his conclusion.
.
If there were a better argument, I am confident that Brian Westley would have provided it. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that he does not have one and knows not where to find one.

.

(skip for now)

.

June 5, 2018 Exchange

.

(skip for now)

.

Robert Baty

.

Much thanks TODAY, Bob Smith & Brian Westley, to the “Bold Atheist” and hypocrite L. Aron Nelson-Ra who again provides further vindication for my claims for my Exercise and Argument.
.
Lots of other good stuff in today’s performance from the tattooist.

.

Time-marked link to video below and statement quoted:

.

https://youtu.be/p1PdswhKtXA?t=4m

.

Brian Westley

.

You’re still dishonestly trying to ascribe your false implication to AronRa.

.

Robert Baty

.

Liar!

.

New Thread

.

Robert Baty

.

Do atheists, bold or not-so-bold, have a logically valid argument that will support the conclusion that:

.

– Man did originate the idea/concept
– of God through the power of imagination.

.

Link to related thread in this group:

.

https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE/posts/843781549140118

.

Robert Baty writes:

.

I asked Brian Westley, repeatedly, and he
refused to even claim that he had one or
knew anyone who did have one.

.

Brian Wesley wrote, in part:

.

– “The conclusion can be arrived
– at any number of ways.”

.

Chris Tweedy wrote, in part:

.

– “You’re asking Brian to support the unsupportable.”

.

Robert Baty responded, in part, with:

.

– “Chris Tweedy seems to have admitted that
– Brian Wesley has no idea what even one of
– those ‘ways’ is.”

.

Brian Westley wrote, in part:

.

– “Chris Tweedy hasn’t claimed to
– have read my mind.”

.

and

.

– “It’s nonsense to claim that Chris has ‘admitted’
– to something concerning *my* thoughts.”

.

Robert Baty responded with:

.

– “That’s not what I did.”

.

Brian Westley reponded:

.

– “Yes you did.”

.

Robert Baty responded:

.

– “No, I did not.”

.

Brian Westley responded:

.

– “Yes, you did.”

.

Robert Baty responded:

.

– “No, Brian Westley, I did not.”

.

.

The L. Aron Nelson-Ra Page Thread

.

Link to Thread

https://www.facebook.com/aron.ra.9/posts/10156274136076897

.

Robert Baty

.

Aron
.
I have been getting some flack from a couple of atheists that seem to think I have somehow misrepresented you (Brian Westley & Chris Tweety).
.
Without getting in to all the details, maybe you can at least affirm that you agree or disagree with the following claims:
.
1. The origin of the concept of God is the result of natural processes (imagination).
.
2. Ancient man had the ability to originate the concept of God through natural processes (imagination).
.
I don’t happen to agree with either of those claims.
.
I thought to post this message because of your most recent broadcast, and I created a screenshot to use on my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking page and in my discussion with Brian and Chris.
.
Screenshot below.

.

L. Aron Nelson-Ra

.

My name isn’t L. Aron Nelson anymore.

.

I legally changed it to Aron Ra.

.

Pascal Laguionie

.

Also, those claims are accurate.

.

Independently from one another, cultures have created deities and semi-deities to stand in lieu for knowledge on how the world works, and its inhabitants came to be.

.

If you have multiple cultures independently come up with similar concepts of faith, you can safely assume that it is a natural process for a flawed intellect to fill gaps with fantasy.

.

(I will continue to wait and see if Aron chooses to respond further. – RLBaty)

.

.

.

 



Brian Westley/Robert Baty Exercise Answers

.

Question #1:
.
Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #2
.
Do you think that you can take the minor premise and conclusion of a logically valid “modus ponens” form argument and construct the major premise therefrom?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #3
.
Do you think that the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the Minor Premise and Conclusion of the argument?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #4
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Conclusion of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #5
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Minor Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westley: Yes
.
Question #6
.
Do you think that there are atheists who implicitly and/or explicitly believe the Major Premise of the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument to be true?
.
– Robert Baty: Yes
– Brian Westly: No

.




Comments

Westley v. Baty on Atheism! — 1 Comment

Leave a Reply