“Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.
The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.”
NO! Nonononono!
There are models! There is data! Satellites! Tree rings! Even graphs! The issue is settled! Deniers are anti-science Luddites! There cannot possibly be any unknown natural variations! Computers don’t lie! We must spend trillions, NOW! Most importantly, we need trillions for more research!
61 comments:
Climate scientists are of course always looking for unknown natural variations.
Michael Mann, for example, has published research into a natural 40-year climate cycle.
There hasn't been a warming slowdown. The extra heat is in the sea.
In the Humanist eschatology there is a creation story: evolution, a sacrament: abortion, and an end of times story: anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure who their messianic figure is, but Dawkins is definitely an apostle.
Warmist:
Evidence for that? And why did that present a deviation in the warming process?
>Evidence for that?
A study was just published in Nature on this very topic. See Guemas 2013.
> And why did that present a deviation in the warming process?
The "climate" is not just "air." It involves the ocean and the land as well. "Atmosphere" represents only a small percentage of the climate. Since they know that more energy is coming into the top of the atmosphere than is leaving it (as measured by satellites), then that energy has to be going somewhere. If it isn't showing up in the lower atmosphere, then the oceans are a good bet.
Murphy (2009) looked at how much more heat was going into the oceans than the atmosphere, and found that indeed, the oceans are heating up. So even if we see a "pause" in atmospheric heating, that represents only a small fraction of the total climate.
Nuccitelli 2012 found similar results.
The question remains, why did atmospheric heating stop? What changed?
It's noisy. But noise on the level of climate (which is defined as weather averaged over AT LEAST 30 years) can be multiple years or even decades, and so to us small humans can seem like major changes even though it's just the noise.
Random non-theist,
If you have something to say, then say it. For example you could prove the things required of Atheism in the challenges in the right hand column. You could justify your morality. You could prove that there is no deity, empirically. Or deductively. You would be the first, so you would be famous.
But pure crankiness is just deleted. There is no content in that.
ohhhh, did I hurt your feeling little man? You don't like to be called out on your bullshit? You need to censor comments to make sure you are not exposed? Fine, if that makes you feel powerful in this micro-sphere that is you blog, enjoy the ego trip.
I'll leave this up as an example of Random non-theist's intellectual contribution. But there will be only reasoned, civil responses posted in the future.
By the way if you want something which is not ==pure crankiness==
I don't consider myself an atheist. I used the moniker non-theist because I find the idea of gods to be laughable at worse and unprovable at best, which is not a good reason to believe. But I also think that ==there is no god== is unprovable and not logical and I prefer to not call myself an atheist for that reason. Atheists complain that this makes me an atheist anyway and in a way they are right. But I prefer to use the term non-theist or agnostic. I ended up on your blog while googling for reasons to be an atheist, reasons to conclude that there is no god, and I now see that this is not what you are concerned with. At least the recent post I spent some time on are not. You seem to categorize everything which is ==the others== as ==atheists== and bash it. Illogical irrational immature ego-centric paranoiac backward intolerant. And that's just your recent posts.
Since when do blog comments have to be ==intellectual contribution== ?
Since when do they have to be ==intellectual contribution== on your blog my dear Stan?
Let me offer that hypothesis: if it's someone you agree with, anything goes. If it's someone you disagree with, oh oh, it has to respect your standards of ==intellectual contribution==.
Proof? Look at Rikalonius's in this thread. RIGHT HERE. That comment was utter rubbish but you let it through because???
And it's not even related to theism!!!
==creation story: evolution==
No it's a scientific theory
==a sacrament: abortion==
No it's a health/medicine/personal/biological issue
==end of times story: anthropogenic global warming==
No it's a scientific theory
And you can find THEISTS and ATHEISTS and AGNOSTICS and ANYBODY ELSE who would disagree with Rikalonius's statements.
Random Non-Theist,
Make a reasonable, calm, SPECIFIC point, or don't make any at all. Your Gish-Gallop blabbing is pointless. See, as a role model, my response above to Stan's post on global warming.
Martin, I enjoyed reading your reasonable comment regarding climate change, but I was not here to make a point on 1 specific issue. You are such a good role model though. How can I reward such good behavior?
My initial comment here, now deleted by our dear host, contained the ==actual== point I wanted to make: this blog is not about Atheism.
==Proof?==
Here's the title of each post for the first 2 pages:
Stephen Hawking: Still At It == Physics (there could have been something interesting here...)==
Atheists Bully Another Small Foe Into Submission ==Atheists doing something bad==
Choice: In Marriage Too ==Gay marriage==
Reuters Headline: “Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown” ==Climate change==
Gosnell and the Frayed Narrative ==Abortion==
Fred On... ==Guns==
Challenge To Atheists, ==ATHEISM!! OMG THERE IS 1! ==
Other Views On Communal Children ==Abortion==
A Guest Discusses "Love Sausage" and Similar Atheist Works == Some work done by Atheists==
Having Seen Tyrants... ==Criticism of communism/extreme left==
Atheist Vitriol (The Left celebrates the death of Rick Warren's son. ==Atheists doing something bad==
...Abortion, abortion, abortion, and that's it for the 2nd page...
We should all thank Stan.
Thankfully he has run the numbers himself so we know AGW is false.
Thankfully he understands M-Theory better than any theoretical physicist, so we know that's false.
Thankfully he understands that the public endorsement of a specific religion doesn't violate the First Amendment.
Thankfully he recognizes that the legalization of gay marriage will inevitably lead to the official endorsement of child molestation.
Thankfully he can point to the disgusting actions of an illegal abortionist as a prime example of how abortion TRULY works in America.
And if any of this sounds absurd to you, it is likely due to your scietistic materialistic narcissistic world view which rejects logic based upon the First Principles.
Thanks Stan. You are truly a beacon of intellect and rationality.
I suggest both of you stop, right now. You are both just spewing out emotional ejaculations.
Instead, pick something, and make a calm, rational point. If you have no point (which neither of you have right now), then why speak at all?
Stan has several challenges to atheism on the side bar. Why don't you go and try to answer them? Or, if you don't think they get atheism "right", then re-formulate them so they are better.
Strive for DH7 argumentation instead.
Martin,
Thanks for that link. Of course that would work for those who actually want to reach a logical conclusion. But that requires a mind which is open to the humility of admitting error and admitting to the superiority of logical process over ideological rigidity.
Atheists fall into the latter category; if they did not, they would be agnostics rather than Atheists. Atheists are rigidly ideological because they emotionally value the freedom of the intellectual anarchy in the Atheist VOID over submission to disciplined process. They rigidly embrace their faith, for which they cannot provide any proof.
Not long ago someone here put me onto Arthur Schopenhauer’s concept of eristic dialectic in rhetoric, which is outside of and not related to logic. Eristic dialectic is, in terms of his essay, “The Art of Being Right”. In other words, no matter what your position is, it must be made to win. Rightness then is full of tactic and absent logical process. Schopenhauer termed the overall effect, “controversial dialectic”, where the win is all important, and logic has no value.
So when godless uses the term “absurd”, he doesn’t mean logically absurd because he doesn’t submit to logical disciplines or conclusions outside his ideology. What he means is that these concepts must be declared absurd under his ideology. So he presents in argumentum ad personum, which as Schopenhauer said is the final, non-logical tactic, as well as angering your opponent (note 1), and argumentum ad hominem (ridicule). Godless is not here to present logical deductive arguments, he is here to belittle the opposition without having to provide any case, either rational or empirical, for his ideology.
Because this is merely childish, irrational rhetoric with attack overtones, godless has been banned in the past. It is a waste of time to deal with the rigidly ideological who have no intention of stepping outside the ideology or of presenting rational arguments for the ideology in a manner which exposes their position to disciplined examination. Ridicule is the only tactic they have, and they seem to think that it is an effective rhetorical tool, as opposed to deduction.
Note 1: Schopenhauer: ”This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practicing some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.”
Random non-theist:
Your objections are without (much) merit. The sidebar is loaded with over half a decade of discussion of Atheism. The issues you derided have Atheist overtones: Hawking is an aaggressive Atheist; abortion (progeny-killing eugenics) is overwhelmingly endorsed by Atheist/Leftist organizations; the Atheo-left is perpetually involved in the march toward elitist control of the Other (totalitarianism), and object strenuously to examination of their own ideology; Atheists and Leftists always dismiss the 20th century AtheoLeftist governmental experiments which killed hundreds of millions of both Atheists and non-Atheists, including genocides: Communism: it's Atheist.
Now if you want to refute any of these things, using rational, disciplined procedures, then do so.
That includes addressing the issues contained in the challenges in the right hand column.
If you have rational objections to the issues, then make a disciplined case; otherwise you will be seen as just another whiner who doesn't like something but has no constructive criticism.
BTW, it actually is my blog. If you don't like it, then vote with your feet, and leave.
I think my point was pretty clear.
Stan is an ideologue and his posts reflect that.
I have in the past attempted to argue rationally and in good humour. I presented arguments for atheism, I argued that homosexuality does not lead to acceptance of pedophilia and I'm sure there were others as well.
It's an absolutely useless endeavor.
Martin, why don't you try explaining to Stan how evolution is real, or AGW is the most reasonably hypothesis?
And then tell me again with a straight face that Stan argue's from reason or an honest search for truth.
godless,
Your arguments are all the same: ungrounded assertions which result in name calling rather than accepting any criticism which is actually grounded.
Present one argument based on deduction, which is not either fallacious or based on premises you cannot and will not support with the evidence / logic which are the flagship claims of Athiesm. I.e., produce an incontrovertable, incorrigible argument grounded in unarguable axioms which demonstrates that no creating entity can possibly exist.
Contrarily produce empirical data, falsifiable, but not falsified, replicated, peer reviewed with open data to support your Atheism. I.e. produce material evidence that there is no creating entity.
Surely you remember those challenges to you, which you ignored, and ranted and raved instead... which is why you were banned as a waste of time.
And a reminder, don't waste our time with whining about how you "don't have to prove anything" in order to reject all theist concepts. If you have no arguments in favor of your worldview, then you hold a worldview without a basis: a religion, a faith held without either evidence or logic.
We're waiting.
This response should be enough to demonstrate that Stan has no interest in rational argumentation.
incorrigible argument grounded in unarguable axioms which demonstrates that no creating entity can possibly exist.
produce material evidence that there is no creating entity.
Is not the claim of atheism. You've been at this long enough. You know what the truth is and you choose to bury it in a strawman argument.
This has been pointed out to you ad nausea and is once again evidence of your rejection of reason.
Regardless, I will once again point out a basic argument for the rejection of theism.
1) Theism is a supernatural claim.
2) The supernatural has not been demonstrated to exist.
3) Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the claim of theism is false.
In before physicalism scientism materialism voidism no moral values atheism is the claim totalitarianism leftism lourdes.. missing anything from your inevitable gish gallop? .. probably..
Mentioning evolution, there is a post over at Vox's place asking questions of an evolutionista. The first question regarded a statement made about creationists, which is not pertinent, so I will copy just the 2 - 5 questions.
"2.There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world. Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?
3.How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
4.What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
5.Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
6.Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?"
Those are Vox's questions. My questions, and a lengthy conversation are in the Challenges in the right hand column.
godless:
”Is not the claim of atheism. You've been at this long enough. You know what the truth is and you choose to bury it in a strawman argument.
This has been pointed out to you ad nausea and is once again evidence of your rejection of reason.”
So we find ourselves back to you denying what Atheism actually is. This won’t take all that long then.
”Regardless, I will once again point out a basic argument for the rejection of theism.
1) Theism is a supernatural claim.
2) The supernatural has not been demonstrated to exist.
3) Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the claim of theism is false.”
This is not in any deductive format which would allow analysis.
IF [Theism is a supernatural claim], THEN [Theism is false]
Theism is a supernatural claim,
Therefore Theism is false.
Modus Ponens doesn’t work, because there is no relation to the reason or “because” statement.
First Ponens:
P1 IF [the supernatural has not been proven to exist], THEN [ it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn’t exist].
P2 The supernatural has not been proven to exist;
C 1 Therefore: it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist.
Second Ponens:
P3 IF [it is reasonable to assume that the supernatural does not exist], THEN [ Theism is false].
P4 It is reasonable to assume that the supernatural does not exist;
C2 Therefore, theism is false.
As has been pointed out to you countless times, the existence/non-existence of non-natural existence cannot be demonstrated using material testing techniques. So you must provide evidence supporting your P2 truth claim which shows that there is no evidence, including and especially non-material evidence. Because you assume something to be true does not make it true, you must demonstrate it’s truth.
Further, as I have pointed out before, lack of evidence for X does not prove !X; Reasonableness of !X is not a logical construct, it means whatever you wish it to mean, under your ideology and within your worldview: i.e. it is relativist, not deterministic. Being non-deterministic, it is outside the purview of logic, and becomes mere opinion.
I have demonstrated the use of logical argumentations to you, also countless times, and you still do not provide that. We have hashed this through before, and you come back complaining that you get no proper hearing here for your “logic”. That is just not true; you just refuse to accept actual logic.
” In before physicalism scientism materialism voidism no moral values atheism is the claim totalitarianism leftism lourdes.. missing anything from your inevitable gish gallop? .. probably..”
And again you resort to preemptive attacks which are designed to belittle and denigrate in advance; the recourse of a weak argument and defense.
What you claim as fundamental to Atheism is logically false. It might be your personal reason; there are many more sophisticated arguments regarding what Atheism entails that you deny. So where does that leave you?
Do you really not see the irony in criticizing me for preemptively pointing out your inevitable gish gallop .. and then you launch into "5 problems with evolution" gish gallop.
Those questions are pathetically easy to answer btw. I'm not going to bother because its a red herring. Try google. Try understanding what it is that you are rejecting. The real joke is that even if I answer these questions, would you actually change your mind? My money is on hell no. Maybe Martin will step up.
"So we find ourselves back to you denying what Atheism actually is."
Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is not a claim of knowledge.
Atheism is not a claim of proof.
Atheism is not a claim that no creating entity could possibly exist.
Atheism is not a claim of possession of material evidence of no creating deity.
"Because you assume something to be true does not make it true, you must demonstrate it’s truth."
Your logical critique fails, because it argues against a straw man.
You don't understand what atheism is. Or I rather suspect you do, however you are impotent to deal with the actual claim, and so merely attack straw men.
@godless: I find it interesting and a bit amusing that you are (a) back here despite the repeated failure of your stratagems - misdirection and insult. As if, in your absence, we've all forgotten your pecadillos.
And (b) that you should define your faith exclusively by the things it is not. It is telling that you should consider the negative claims to have the same validity as positive claims. It suggests your faith is parasitic - indeed, if theistic belief disappeared tomorrow (but especially Christianity) you would be left with Nothing.
What you don't seem to understand (or you do, and revel in it) is that you are already left with Nothing. It will devour you if you let it. That you should willingly give in to something that promises Nothing and daily encourages you to fresh and still fresher excesses of irrational behavior... is completely understandable to me.
But can you not at least admit you are courting your own doom? And stop beating our ears with the same tired illogic?
Of course that would work for those who actually want to reach a logical conclusion. But that requires a mind which is open to the humility of admitting error and admitting to the superiority of logical process over ideological rigidity.
Stan falls into the latter category; if he did not, he would be agnostic rather than Theist. Theists are rigidly ideological because they emotionally value the freedom of the intellectual anarchy in the Theist SUPERNATURAL world over submission to disciplined process. They rigidly embrace their faith, for which they cannot provide any proof.
Not long ago someone here put me onto Arthur Schopenhauer’s concept of eristic dialectic in rhetoric, which is outside of and not related to logic. Eristic dialectic is, in terms of his essay, “The Art of Being Right”. In other words, no matter what your position is, it must be made to win. Rightness then is full of tactic and absent logical process. Schopenhauer termed the overall effect, “controversial dialectic”, where the win is all important, and logic has no value.
So when Stan uses the term “absurd” and bans someone, he doesn’t mean logically absurd because he doesn’t submit to logical disciplines or conclusions outside his ideology. What he means is that these concepts must be declared absurd under his ideology. So he presents in argumentum ad personum, which as Schopenhauer said is the final, non-logical tactic, as well as angering your opponent (note 1), and argumentum ad hominem (ridicule). Stan is not here to present logical deductive arguments, he is here to belittle the opposition without having to provide any case, either rational or empirical, for his ideology.
Because this is merely childish, irrational rhetoric with attack overtones, few people come back to Stan's blog. It is a waste of time to deal with the rigidly ideological who have no intention of stepping outside the ideology or of presenting rational arguments for the ideology in a manner which exposes their position to disciplined examination. Ridicule is the only tactic they have, and they seem to think that it is an effective rhetorical tool, as opposed to deduction.
Note 1: Schopenhauer: ”This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practicing some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.”
-- What moniker will you ban this time?
Godless,
” Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims.”
Yes it is that, and more, which the cowardly will deny, but which is necessarily part of the Atheist package. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, without proof for their rejection, proof of the types which Atheists claim is necessary to convince themselves of theism: Physical evidence (Materialism), and/or Logical proof that there is no creating entity. This entails by logical necessity that there is no existence which has not been detected, no absolute Truth, no absolute morality, no absolute rules for logical deduction; in other words, an intellectual and moral VOID as the base existence for the Atheist. Starting from that VOID, the Atheist is self-enabled to create his very own Truth, his very own Morality, his very own logic, and his very own definition of whatever he wishes to obscure in the process of discussing his Atheism.
The Atheist ideology and worldview are developed out of the necessary intellectual and moral VOID which Atheists create for themselves. This means that communicating with Atheists requires maintaining definitional integrity despite their constant attempts to redefine words and concepts in order to try to attain respectability in spite of their inability to engender trustworthiness due to their inconstant logic and relativistic morality.
For the Atheist to claim that he does not reject God/gods, demonstrates the desire to hoodwink the unwary, and it indicates the immature notion of the logical inabilities of the Other. Atheists are totally transparent in their intellectual dishonesty when they attempt to redefine their ideology in order to avoid defending their unsupported and unsupportable rejections. A rejection without a reason is merely an emotional response without reasoning or evidence, which in turn is irrational. And that leads to irrationality in Atheist discourse, through the processes outlined above.
So godless, your rejection is rejected.
Without actual viable reasons for the rejection, in the form of disciplined reasoning and/or material evidence to support your ideology, you have nothing to discuss here. Your objections are just blather.
Anonymous,
I ban anonymous writers (trolls) who hide behind the skirts of anonymity. I generally do so on the second comment, in order to allow the commenter the time to choose an identity.
Your entirely Tu Quoque message is noted and rejected, since it makes no non-fallacious argument. Now if you have actual evidence to present in defense of Atheism rather than mere empty accusations, then do so.
Atheism is not a claim of proof or a claim of physical evidence of the non-existence.
If you would continually insist upon your definition, you could at least provide support that this is what atheists actually claim. I provided definitional support, where is yours?
A good argument should address what the opposition claims. Not straw men. Nor should a good argument attempt to drown the central point in irrelevancies or insults. DH7.
Calling me cowardly, intellectually and morally void, immature, etc is pure ad hominen/red herrings and a pathetically transparent attempt at inciting me to anger/derail the conversation.
You cannot address the actual claim, so you attack straw men. Again. So your rejection of my rejection is rejected.
@Anonymous.
I laughed. And just because you are throwing Stan's words back at him, doesn't make you wrong.
godless said...
"Atheism is not a claim of proof or a claim of physical evidence of the non-existence.
If you would continually insist upon your definition, you could at least provide support that this is what atheists actually claim. I provided definitional support, where is yours?"
I did not say that Atheists claim such a thing. What I said is that their position entails a VOID, which by logical necessity entails the other characteristics which they tend not to admit to, but which are completely visible to others.
I will say this: every Atheist claim which I have seen you and other Atheists make is obviously designed to avoid the necessity of deductive logic and/or empirical verification.
Your single claim of rejection has no value, either intellectually or empirically.
If you are angered by the illumination of the fact that you cannot and will not provide any evidence of any kind to support your rejectionism and denierism, it is not the fault of the illumination; you have never and will never provide the rational requirements that a rational worldview requires.
Atheism starts with an intellectual and moral VOID; your response is typical of you: that is an insult (hate speech accusation coming up soon?) You cannot answer it with anything other than anger at being exposed... or you would demonstrate the Atheist Principles For Rational And Moral Thought. Can't? Of course not: it is a VOID.
So your response is not relevant to the issue: that makes it intellectually juvenile and immature.
Want to change that? Then provide the deductive logic and/or empirical data which supports your rejection and rejectionism.
Won't do that? What do you expect a rational response to your obfuscation to be?
"@Anonymous.
I laughed. And just because you are throwing Stan's words back at him, doesn't make you wrong."
I laughed too. At Stan's response...
"I ban anonymous writers (trolls) who hide behind the skirts of anonymity."
-- Stan. You also ban people only because you disagree with them... You will claim that they reject logic once you find a point of disagreement that cannot be resolved. You could not possibly be wrong so you prefer to ban.
If you were really interested in honest conversation and what's true, you would never ban people who don't purposely troll, yet you do ban all kinds of people. You do prefer to have moderation ON most of the time. You are more interested in preaching and exposing the examples of vile atheists you run into.
"Your entirely Tu Quoque message is noted and rejected, since it makes no non-fallacious argument."
-- You do realize it was your own words? So you made an entire post that contained no non-fallacious argument...
"Now if you have actual evidence to present in defense of Atheism rather than mere empty accusations, then do so."
-- You missed the point of your own words:
Because this is merely childish, irrational rhetoric with attack overtones, few people come back to Stan's blog. It is a waste of time to deal with the rigidly ideological who have no intention of stepping outside the ideology...
-- Your blog has been around for years, yet you get very few unique commentators, which indicates very few visitors too. Now your pathology will make you think that it's because people are afraid of discussing; they cannot face that hurtful truth that you Stan posess; they cannot handle such intelligent argumentation, etc...
But we all know there is plenty of forums (in the large sense, not just actual online forums) where people of different opinions share ideas and discuss.
This blog is not one of these forums. It's an arena of entertainment where we can see a crazy individual take pleasure in controlling his tiny slice of the world wide web.
And let's not forget that it also comes from other theists. As godless mentioned above:
"Martin, why don't you try explaining to Stan how evolution is real, or AGW is the most reasonably hypothesis?
And then tell me again with a straight face that Stan argue's from reason or an honest search for truth."
So, when are you putting moderation back on Stan?
- Now, because you cannot argue evolution / climate change rationally?
- Or later, after trying to discuss with Martin and hitting a wall?
No Atheists even need to interact with you so you cannot blame that on their VOID...
"I will say this: every Atheist claim which I have seen you and other Atheists make is obviously designed to avoid the necessity of deductive logic and/or empirical verification."
You cannot logically deduce nor empirically verify the non-existence of an purely immaterial thing. Someone so versed in logic should be aware of this.
Your argument is a fallacious straw man.
Also, I am not angry, nor have I thrown a single insult nor have I deviated from my central point. Unlike yourself who has repeatedly thrown out red herrings and ad hominems.
You misrepresent atheism in order to denigrate it. Your motivation is not truth, but ideology.
Your refusal to accept what atheism actually consists of, as well as your flagrant use of fallacy merely reinforces my central thesis.
A. Naturalist said,
”-- Stan. You also ban people only because you disagree with them... You will claim that they reject logic once you find a point of disagreement that cannot be resolved. You could not possibly be wrong so you prefer to ban.
If you were really interested in honest conversation and what's true, you would never ban people who don't purposely troll, yet you do ban all kinds of people. You do prefer to have moderation ON most of the time. You are more interested in preaching and exposing the examples of vile atheists you run into.
I put moderation on when it is necessary to keep the banned from commenting. I have banned eight people in the past five years. Some were trolls, most were time wasters who refused to engage in logic and insisted on their own off-brand of thought as Truth. Moderation is off, and has been for quite some time. So your accusation, including the “only” part, is false. The problem for Atheists with logic is that logic is an absolute which determines the validity of their argument – or non-argument. Atheism and absolutes are mutually exclusive, except for certain new absolutes which the Atheists might declare.
” -- You do realize it was your own words? So you made an entire post that contained no non-fallacious argument...
Demonstrate the fallacy. You are merely complaining, and making a Tu Quoque to ridicule, which of course made godless laugh, since ridicule is his stock in trade.
”Now if you have actual evidence to present in defense of Atheism rather than mere empty accusations, then do so."
And you do not. Instead, your actual response:
”-- You missed the point of your own words:
Because this is merely childish, irrational rhetoric with attack overtones, few people come back to Stan's blog. It is a waste of time to deal with the rigidly ideological who have no intention of stepping outside the ideology...”
This is not a response which in any way falsifies, negates or refutes what I wrote. This is merely an attack without substance. Here is more of the same:
” -- Your blog has been around for years, yet you get very few unique commentators, which indicates very few visitors too. Now your pathology will make you think that it's because people are afraid of discussing; they cannot face that hurtful truth that you Stan posess; they cannot handle such intelligent argumentation, etc...
But we all know there is plenty of forums (in the large sense, not just actual online forums) where people of different opinions share ideas and discuss.
This blog is not one of these forums. It's an arena of entertainment where we can see a crazy individual take pleasure in controlling his tiny slice of the world wide web.”
Yes. This is indeed a narrow slice of the internet spectrum; it is intended to be and remain that way. The fact that Atheists don’t participate for long is because they cannot produce rational responses to the challenges given them: provide evidence for your rejections. Like you and godless, there is never an attempt to justify the rejection of theist claims with either deductive logic or with empirical data – despite requiring just that from theists. So there is nothing to talk about. Atheists make no case other than that they reject. Instead, they attack in order to attempt to belittle the case being made, since they cannot refute it.
(more below)
(from above)
Your Ad Personum attack on my sanity is noted; where is your rational case? If you cannot make a rational case, then your position must not be rational.
Now then, if you disagree, why not attack the concepts instead of attacking me? What you have demonstrated is that you have no answer for the concepts presented, other than to attack me personally. That is a logical failure. Hence it is a failure for your worldview.
Those who have been banned from this blog were, in general, banned for their refusal to accept and own their logical fallacies… persistently. How this applies to you is yet to be seen; however, your initial offerings are no more than personal attacks, not logical cases for Atheism. If you want to support your proclaimed desire for forum type discussion, then discuss concepts: support your Atheism.
Quoting godless is humorous; godless has been banned before for not owning his own Atheism and providing any reason for it other than “rejecting theism”, without cause. Refusal to own Atheism with reasons and persisting in constant re-definition of terminology in order to derail his intellectual responsibility results in no useful conversation, and wastes everyone’s time. That is godless’ modus operendi.
” So, when are you putting moderation back on Stan?
- Now, because you cannot argue evolution / climate change rationally?
- Or later, after trying to discuss with Martin and hitting a wall?”
Do you wish to discuss something? So far you are merely whining.
” No Atheists even need to interact with you so you cannot blame that on their VOID...”
Most Atheists do not even want to interact here, because they cannot produce a single rational argument in their defense. Atheists start with a VOID, and progress to self-endowed principles which they develop out of the VOID. Those principles have nothing to do with disciplined deductive principles. So they are at a loss, logically, yet they feel that their own personal thought process should dominate. The same goes for moral principles: they are free in the VOID to make up their own, and they do so. They are their own moral authority, dependent on nothing and no one, and therefore their morals are superior; this makes them moral elitists, which goes along with their intellectual elitism.
I think that most Atheists are silent about their Atheism. Most Atheists who show up here are the elitists, whose arguments consist of superior pronouncements concerning my character and that of the blog – but never a rational, reasoned defense of their worldview. Never.
Where is yours?
godless said,
"You cannot logically deduce nor empirically verify the non-existence of an purely immaterial thing. Someone so versed in logic should be aware of this.'
And that is exactly the point: you have no case by which to reject "an purely immaterial thing", using logic or empirical data. Yet that is what Atheists demand of theists. We have been through this dozens of times. Your position is non-coherent: self-refuting and thus irrational.
So why do you reject? In the past you have claimed "reasonability", but you made no case for what is reasonable, whether it is absolute, how it is measured, what the first principles of reasonability are, or why it is more than an untethered, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable opinion. This, iirc, is where your process has languished.
Further, demonstrate that there is a non-opinion case to be made for Atheism, something which has actual meat.
BTW, both of you claim fallacies without any indication of exactly what part of the text creates a fallacy. You are throwing out accusations without evidence. That is just false rhetoric.
Stan there are a literal infinite number of immaterial things (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=285 for starters) which are impossible to logically refute or provide material evidence of its non-existence.
It is not reasonable to accept such claims on the basis that we lack deductive proof or material evidence of their non-existence.
Atheists DO NOT expect theists to reject "a purely immaterial thing" using logic or empiricism. The idea that both positions are the same is a False Equivalence Fallacy.
There is nothing incoherent, self refuting or irrational about rejecting such claims.
Your ad hominem and red herrings fallacies were clearly outlined. BTW.
To indulge in your red herring, here is some meat:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
http://whynogod.wordpress.com/
Godless claims,
” Stan there are a literal infinite number of immaterial things (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=285 for starters) which are impossible to logically refute or provide material evidence of its non-existence.
It is not reasonable to accept such claims on the basis that we lack deductive proof or material evidence of their non-existence.”
If it has a deductive proof, then what? You have been given such, they exist in the challenges, you have not refuted them. You merely reject them. Demonstrate the fallacy in their deduction. That is what is required: deductive refutation of existing claims. Not merely the claim that there is none. Geez how many times have we been through this? You are here to waste time again, no?
”Atheists DO NOT expect theists to reject "a purely immaterial thing" using logic or empiricism. The idea that both positions are the same is a False Equivalence Fallacy.”
First I think you actually meant “prove” rather than “reject”, and I’ll proceed on that basis. The video here a while back showed a debate where the Atheist demanded that God hand him a cheeseburger, before he would believe. Meyers has claimed that he probably would not believe despite any physical evidence (he's that much a materialist). Dawkins, who disingenuously claims 7/8 disbelief, nonetheless holds Atheist positions on all subjects and is a strict materialist, as is Hawking, Krauss, Pigliucci, and was Sagan and Feynman, on and on. They would accept no evidence but material evidence.
Your definition is specific only to yourself, certainly not to mainline Atheists. They require exactly what they cannot deliver themselves: material evidence.
The claim that Atheism doesn’t reject based on lack of logical or empirical evidence is not credible in the face of all the Atheist philosophers and scientists who claim that it does reject on that basis.
So the equivalence is exact, and the necessary exemption you demand for Atheism is Special Pleading. And the claim that one is required (maybe not by you but by mainline, published Atheists) is self-refuting, non-coherent, and irrational.
Your claim that no such claim is made by Atheists is just not true.
”Your ad hominem and red herrings fallacies were clearly outlined. BTW.”
Again false; no such outline was made. Your only real claim was that the false equivalence was a Straw Man, which it is not: the equivalence is plain, simple and direct.
Perhaps you are insulted by the point being made that arguments without corresponding support or evidence are immature arguments, a claim which I stand by. I suspect that any logician would.
(more below)
(from above)
You misrepresent atheism in order to denigrate it. Your motivation is not truth, but ideology.”
The misrepresentation of Atheism is yours, done specifically to avoid the necessity of giving any rational case for your worldview. "Truth is revealed by evidence": any Atheist would make that claim, unless they are in the process of claiming that there is no truth. You have no evidence, and under the Atheist construct, if you have no evidence, you also have no truth. Again, you have no evidence; your position is therefore emotional rather than rational.
”Your refusal to accept what atheism actually consists of, as well as your flagrant use of fallacy merely reinforces my central thesis.”
I reject your unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable opinion of what the definition of Atheism entails, and your refusal to address the necessary consequences of Atheism on both thought processes and moral principles.
I reject your definition because myriad other Atheist claims are made which are outside your cloistered attempt to defend the Atheist religion with a truncated meaning, which is designed to eliminate any need to defend your worldview.
I reject your use of both accusation of fallacy where there is none (Straw Man accusation), and accusation of fallacy without reference (Red Herrings and Ad Hominems).
I reject your general thesis based on your inability to provide any evidence other than emotional need for your worldview.
BTW, your link is to a logical absurdity. First, Christians do not deny the existence of false gods. Second, to say that some X is false means that every and all X is false is a fallacy. Third, you have no idea what my ideology is, outside of aristotlian deductive principles based on incorrigible first principles. If you wish to denigrate those, I would understand your position fully. Fourth, Atheist philosophers have always rejected the idea of "common sense" as a source of any valid truth; it is in a category with "intuition" as flawed sources of information.
And finally, your concept of "reasonable" is the same as "intuition": without any valid basis for establishing what is, or truth.
I think I will address your other links in a full post later this week (if I get to it). The first one, at any rate is demonstrably absurd, logically.
Yes Stan. If you change what I said to mean the opposite of what I said, you are totally correct. Congradulations. Another straw man is blown over by your logic.
I swear it's like talking to a brick wall.
"time wasters who refused to engage in logic and insisted on their own off-brand of thought as Truth"
-- That's exactly what I was talking about. Banning these people proves that you wish to censor ideas and block discussions instead of encouraging them, simply because you get tired of interacting with certain individuals. Worst case, you could just say 'I think we have to agree to disagree on ABC, what about taking the approach of DEF...'
-- Good to know it was very few people though, my bad!
(...long-time reader; I guess I noticed the incidents more than the calm periods...)
"” -- You do realize it was your own words? So you made an entire post that contained no non-fallacious argument...
Demonstrate the fallacy. You are merely complaining, and ..."
-- oh my gosh... Stan it was you, you said it was a fallacy but you were talking about your own words that I copy/pasted. They were such a broad generalization, without any substance, that they could be turned right back at you with very little alteration... it's as if you still did not get that!?
"The fact that Atheists don’t participate for long is because they cannot produce rational responses to the challenges given them: provide evidence for your rejections."
-- and
"Most Atheists do not even want to interact here, because they cannot produce a single rational argument in their defense. "
-- oh my gosh again.... I knew you would 'thing' that but never though you would write it yourself after I wrote:
-- Your blog has been around for years, yet you get very few unique commentators, which indicates very few visitors too. Now your pathology will make you think that it's because people are afraid of discussing; they cannot face that hurtful truth that you Stan possess; they cannot handle such intelligent argumentation, etc...
"why not attack the concepts instead of attacking me?"
-- and
"Do you wish to discuss something? So far you are merely whining."
Why not attack concepts? Because that was not the goal of my posts here. You are right on that account. I am writing here today with 1 intention alone: to discuss how irrational you are, as an individual. I genuinely find it fascinating to read you because of that reason.
Most Theists are not as irrational as you are and I have no issues with the atheism-theism debate. I love to discuss this topic actually but experience tells me that this blog is not the place to do so. This blog is for shits and giggles. Therefore, my point was really just about you Stan. You are the crazy one who makes this blog fun. Sorry...
"Most Atheists who show up here are the elitists, whose arguments consist of superior pronouncements concerning my character and that of the blog"
Of course the narcissist will conclude that 'they' must be the ones with a superiority complex, not the guy who actually have a blog where he can share his precious thoughts to the world... How could the great Stan, 40-year old Atheist be wrong about anything regarding Atheism? How could he be wrong about anything at all actually? Stan understands logic, has grounding in absolutes, hence whatever he holds as beliefs must be true! Oh my gosh Stan, I wish I had your intelligence...
Finally, my apologies to the 2-3 people who may want to interact with Stan on the actual topic of Atheism. Stan usually puts moderation back ON after such comments.
godless,
Let me make it perfectly clear using the smallest words and most direct comparisons I can find.
a) Atheists do, in fact, demand empirical (scientific / material) proof for theist claims;
b) Atheists refuse to provide empirical (scientific / material) proof for their own claims.
If you choose to misinterpret this clinical condensation, so be it: that is how you work.
However, it is not possible to rationally claim that there is no Appeal To Special Pleading. Let me explain that incisively for you: You cannot demand a certain level or type of response from another, but claim that you need not provide that level of response; to do so is the fallacy of Special Pleading.
Once again we have been through this dozens of times; you are merely wasting my time and computer bandwidth.
”Demonstrate the fallacy. You are merely complaining, and ..."
-- oh my gosh... Stan it was you, you said it was a fallacy but you were talking about your own words that I copy/pasted. They were such a broad generalization, without any substance, that they could be turned right back at you with very little alteration... it's as if you still did not get that!?”
You have attempted a Tu Quoque with no direction to the actual fallacy which you claim I made; a Tu Quoque is not an argument; it is not an analogy; it is just a fallacy. Why is it a fallacy? Or is it just in your mind?
”"The fact that Atheists don’t participate for long is because they cannot produce rational responses to the challenges given them: provide evidence for your rejections."
-- and
"Most Atheists do not even want to interact here, because they cannot produce a single rational argument in their defense. "
-- oh my gosh again.... I knew you would 'thing' that but never though you would write it yourself after I wrote:
-- Your blog has been around for years, yet you get very few unique commentators, which indicates very few visitors too. Now your pathology will make you think that it's because people are afraid of discussing; they cannot face that hurtful truth that you Stan possess; they cannot handle such intelligent argumentation, etc...”
You actually think that because you anticipate the correct answer – it is obvious, and you are following suit – that I would not mention it? Just because you asserted it as ridicule? You actually think that your ridicule is important to me, or that it is a form of meaningful logical argument?
”"why not attack the concepts instead of attacking me?"
-- and
"Do you wish to discuss something? So far you are merely whining."
Why not attack concepts? Because that was not the goal of my posts here. You are right on that account. I am writing here today with 1 intention alone: to discuss how irrational you are, as an individual. I genuinely find it fascinating to read you because of that reason.
So without any logical or rational content, your mission is to label me as irrational; yes I get that. However, that is merely an attack position (Ad Hominem Abusive), and not a logical, non-fallacious analysis. You have given the reason for your lack of rational analysis; thanks. You are here to denigrate, and for that reason only.
(more below)
(from above)
”Most Theists are not as irrational as you are and I have no issues with the atheism-theism debate. I love to discuss this topic actually but experience tells me that this blog is not the place to do so. This blog is for shits and giggles. Therefore, my point was really just about you Stan. You are the crazy one who makes this blog fun. Sorry...
You are in no manner sorry. You have vented your spleen, and have produced exactly no actual facts. You have not attempted to defend your Atheism; you have attacked logical analysis and that in itself defines who you are and what you need and want.
Now. If you actually do think you are rational, then defend your Atheism using your logical capabilities, or your empirical knowledge: your choice. And if you cannot or will not, then why not just move along and play with those who automatically agree with your untethered opinions. Here is your chance to wax logical. Just do it.
”"Most Atheists who show up here are the elitists, whose arguments consist of superior pronouncements concerning my character and that of the blog"
Of course the narcissist will conclude that 'they' must be the ones with a superiority complex, not the guy who actually have a blog where he can share his precious thoughts to the world... How could the great Stan, 40-year old Atheist be wrong about anything regarding Atheism? How could he be wrong about anything at all actually? Stan understands logic, has grounding in absolutes, hence whatever he holds as beliefs must be true! Oh my gosh Stan, I wish I had your intelligence...”
And again, your ridicule is not an argument, and it is not even up to the standard of an assertion. And its arrogance proves the point. Ridicule is cheap; most of us master it in the 2nd grade and abandon it in favor of rational discussion when we grow up. Valid arguments have value. You have provided merely ridicule and personal attacks, which have no value whatsoever.
”Finally, my apologies to the 2-3 people who may want to interact with Stan on the actual topic of Atheism. Stan usually puts moderation back ON after such comments.”
Your attacks are comprised merely and purely of cheap shots, with no substance involved. If you wish any respect at all for your writing, then write logical support for your Atheism. That means deductive reasoning based on incontrovertible first principles, of course. So why not see if you can muster that up? I'm happy to discuss those concepts with you.
Otherwise, of course, you are just wasting time and blog bits.
Why would I do anything that you ask me to do?
I do in fact understand what you are saying Stan.
I'm quite certain no matter how tiny the words I use are, you will either intentionally or ignorantly misconstrue my meaning.
However, let us recap from what I believe is established common ground.
1) A you have defined, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. (Which actually means that atheism is NOT the claim, and places the burden of proof on the theist .. but ignore that.)
2) We have established it is incoherent to possibly prove the non-existence of something, logically or materially.
3) Atheism is not a claim of possession of proof nor material evidence of the non-existence of any deity ... such a claim would rightfully be considered absurd.
4) You demand for atheists to perform just this illogical, impossible task in order to justify their disbelief in an immaterial claim.
Are we agreed on these facts?
I should have clarified. Why should I do anything you ask me to do when the topics you bring up are red hearings? Why should I discuss with you at all when you showed over the years to be anything but opened to discussing with Atheists?
Of course that would work for those who actually want to reach a logical conclusion. But that requires a mind which is open to the humility of admitting error and admitting to the superiority of logical process over ideological rigidity. Years of blog posts support this.
You fall into the latter category and are rigidly ideological. You embrace your faith, for which you cannot provide any proof. You excel at “The Art of Being Right”. In other words, no matter what your position is, it must be made to win. Rightness then is full of tactic and absent logical process. The win is all important, and logic has no value.
You are not here to present logical deductive arguments, you are here to belittle the opposition without having to provide any case, either rational or empirical, for his ideology. That's why your blog is about Atheism, something you don't adhere to, instead of being a positive blog about what you actually care about.
Because this is merely childish, irrational rhetoric with attack overtones, you get very little readership. It is a waste of time to deal with the rigidly ideological who have no intention of stepping outside the ideology or of presenting rational arguments for the ideology in a manner which exposes their position to disciplined examination. Ridicule is the only tactic you have, and you seem to think that it is an effective rhetorical tool, as opposed to deduction. Posting about any topic goes, as long as it's used as an example of something ==bad== that an Atheist does, or agree with.
As for my own Atheism, did I ever mention that I was an Atheist? Of course not, because in Stan's world, an Atheist is someone who actively believe that there is no god, that the material is all there is, that requires material proof for the existence of a non-material entity, and so on... That is not ==my== atheism. Logically speaking, if Atheism = "Stan's Atheism", then no, I am not an Atheist.
Simply put, I am actually an Atheist because I grew up believing in a god that cannot possibly exist, just like I believed in Santa Clauss as a child. The god I believed in was childish, had crazy supernatural powers that do not make any sense, would listen to my prayers telepathically, and so on... This god is absurd, so of course I don't believe in it anymore. Since then, I heard several arguments for other gods, but none convinced me. None is better than the other. It's a DISBELIEF, not a worldview.
Godless says,
1) A you have defined, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. (Which actually means that atheism is NOT the claim, and places the burden of proof on the theist .. but ignore that.)
No, what I have done is to accept your incorrect definition for the purpose of demonstration. And it is still the burden of the claim of rejection to provide the cause for rejection.
2) We have established it is incoherent to possibly prove the non-existence of something, logically or materially.
Actually we have demonstrated that if there is a claim of rejection of non-material existence, we can demonstrate that to be logically and materially impossible. Non-existence can be proved for material things at material locations.
”3) Atheism is not a claim of possession of proof nor material evidence of the non-existence of any deity ... such a claim would rightfully be considered absurd.”
That is an equivocation: the claim: “There is no God” is presumptive of knowledge with absolute certainty. The actual uncompromised definition of Atheism asserts that there is no God. To claim that this is not Atheism requires a modification to the definition, and that modification is performed in the service of not providing any evidence for the actual rejection of the existence of a deity.
”4) You demand for atheists to perform just this illogical, impossible task in order to justify their disbelief in an immaterial claim.”
That is not a complete sentence. Since you get nasty if I presume what you mean, then I decline to address it. Rewrite it, and I’ll respond.
BTW, your persistent nastiness is leading to this conversations end.
Anonymous,
Choose a moniker, or I'll just delete your comments.
1) If you don't like the definition, don't accept it only to complain later. I am not ignoring that theism warrants an explanation for rejection.
"Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories."
Also if you don't agree with the definition, maybe you should reword your blog banner.
I have provided sources for my definition. You have not, outside of your paragraph where you note Dawkins agrees with my definition, but is lying. Class.
2) Yes, since we are discussing immaterial gods and our rejection of them, I thought that was obvious in context. Good catch.
3) My claim, as an atheist, is that I do not believe in a god. I believe the vast majority of atheists fall into this group. There are very few atheists who claim gnosticism. If the definition has changed, it is to better reflect the actual position.
4) You demand for atheists to prove the non-existence of the immaterial, logically or materially. A task we have agreed is logically incoherent/impossible.
And excuse me? Did I call you cowardly, intellectually and morally void or immature? Was it because I said "tiny words"? Wow you sure can dish it out but your feelings get bent at the slightest perceived insult.
You are practically begging for me to call you names so you have an excuse to ban me and avoid your intellectual obligation to defend your position.
Anonymous said,
"I should have clarified. Why should I do anything you ask me to do when the topics you bring up are red hearings? Why should I discuss with you at all when you showed over the years to be anything but opened to discussing with Atheists?"
You seem to want to discuss, but first you must hammer me into a form which will be comfortable for you. So you make these claims that you do not substantiate with other than Tu Quoques. If you find the positions to be false, you could outline why they are false, but you do not. So what you do provide is just an attack.
” You are not here to present logical deductive arguments, you are here to belittle the opposition without having to provide any case, either rational or empirical, for his ideology. That's why your blog is about Atheism, something you don't adhere to, instead of being a positive blog about what you actually care about.”
While that paragraph does not cohere, it appears that you think that this is a theist website: it is not. It is an analytical site devoted to Atheism. I adhered to Atheism for 40 years; I have analyzed it for a decade. I have rejected it based on its lack of logical content, and that lack of logical content is displayed here daily by the Atheists who comment, and the Atheist claims made by mainstream Atheists. You do not have any concept of what I care about. If I did not care about Atheism, its claims, its consequences and the rationality of its adherents, I would not have pursued it in the first place, and certainly not for this long.
You actually want me to confirm your own beliefs, don't you. That would be a comfortable discussion for you. I won't do that psychological massage for you; what I will do is analyze your position (and that of the greater Atheist community and its leaders) for its logical processing. You won't like that, I can tell that from your list of "issues". I have found consistently and persistently that Atheists don’t like for their position to be challenged, and they give all sorts of reasons why they need not defend their belief set. It appears that you are annoyed by being challenged with questions for which you have no answer. So your response is to attack the challenger, not the challenge. That is consistent with Atheist behaviors.
You persistently use the term "red hearings" which indicates to me that you very likely don't know what it means, that coupled with the lack of any indicators as to what actual text is an actual Red Herring Fallacy. What it appears to mean to you is that I don’t address the issues which Atheism presents in a fashion which is complimentary to its adherents, on the one hand, and that your particular personal claim for Atheism doesn’t match what you read here so what you read here must be false. Just because it doesn’t match your concept doesn’t actually matter; what matters is whether you can prove any of this to be absolutely false. You don’t even attempt to present a case that it is false.
You indicate that you have rejected a deity based on its “absurdity”, citing only your opinion, rather than any supporting logic.
You indicate that you need not answer any questions, so your presence here is just to hector me.
I see no need to deal with you any further, unless you present something which you want to discuss rationally, rather than in Ad Hominem Abusive mode.
Do you actually have something to discuss?
Might I suggest the observation that Atheism starts with an intellectual and moral VOID, which is subsequently filled with the Atheist’s own personal opinion on what constitutes intellectual and moral principles?
If you decline that, then suggest your own.
I should note: it is impossible for me to make a major claim the subject of concern, and for someone else to logically declare that claim to be a Red Herring. The actual main subject cannot be a Red Herring. What can be a Red Herring, though is the false claim of Red Herring, which is being made to deflect the main subject from its course.
Finally, there are open-ended questions in the post above, which any Atheist can answer; they are no more difficult than questions asked of theists to defend their theism.
Godless,
You have presented a fine case for why there is no potential common ground for any discussion with your personal type of Atheist. You deny any responsibility for your belief/lack of belief/inability for belief/rejection of theories/necessity for owning your belief or lack of belief.
So there is nothing in your position, firmly held, to discuss. The issue of "There is no deity, why?" is without meaning in your world, or so you would have us believe.
There being nothing to discuss, then there should be no discussion; since you have no reason for rejecting theist premises, there is no reason to ask you for them, for the hundredth time.
There being no possible discussion, since you have no actual reasons for what you reject, there is no reason to respond to your comments.
This leaves us exactly where you were before you were banned, earlier. You are just wasting my time. I decline to respond to further comments, and if you turn nasty again, you will be removed, as before.
As always, feel free to either prove your reasons for disbelief in a creating entity, or feel free to leave.
I can see why Stan has to ban some people here - they can't be reasoned with.
When someone keeps spamming out the same tired old arguments, and just ignores anything anyone says in response, its becomes obvious that such a person is either incapable of engaging in serious debate - or is just fooling around.
And the sensible thing to do in that case, is to cease to interact with him or her.
Since this is Stan's blog, "cease to interact" means banning them.
On the other hand, if you think that about Stan, then go away.
" I am not ignoring that theism warrants an explanation for rejection. "
"You deny any responsibility for your belief/lack of belief/inability for belief/rejection of theories/necessity for owning your belief or lack of belief."
I say "X", and Stan replies with "you refuse to say "X".
Yes, unfortunately I do not believe Stan can be reasoned with when he repeatedly assigns me a position I have explicitly rejected. I still hope to be proven wrong.
It is further clear that when Stan's fallacious position is in danger of being exposed, he resorts to flooding the argument with irrelevancies, makes false accusations, and just generally shuts down the conversation.
4) You demand for atheists to prove the non-existence of the immaterial, logically or materially. A task we have agreed is logically incoherent/impossible.
I re-wrote the sentence you said you would address. I see no possible way you cannot concede that your demand (and the focus of this entire blog) is fallacious. Hence you shutting down the conversation...
godless,
I cannot think other than that you are simply lying. The issue is not and never has been what you claim above. The issue is that (a) Atheists in general require "evidence" from theists, which evidence is either logic-based or empirical; and (b) they refuse to provide that same logic-based or empirical evidence for their own position; (c) they justify this by not ever owning the requirement to provide justification for their "rejection of Theist concepts", and (d) by claiming that the demand is logically incoherent (which it is, and it is the reason that the comparison is being made: Atheism is Special Pleading regarding evidence, which is a Fallacy).
Atheists reject without any rational cause: that's the point. They irrationally demand either the "logically incoherent" evidence from Theists, OR they refuse to answer the questions regarding why they reject Theist concepts. You, godless, fit the latter.
You are done here.
You have been told this over and over, times to many to recall, and yet you proceed to misrepresent it anyway.
You are done here.
Don't even bother responding, your comments above are sufficient evidence of your dissembly.
@Stan: I've run into this sort of dogged blindness in another venue. I produced a certain game accessory over a period of five years. It was 'reviewed' on a pertinent forum by a fellow who considered himself an arbiter for the game. He pointed out what he felt were flaws in the accessory.
We (the writers and editors) admitted some of the issues were mistakes, but patiently explained the rest through clarification and providing additional context.
Then the self-annointed arbiter proceeded to 'review' the same game accessory - again - in his game-related podcast. He made exactly the same complaints and condembations, stubbornly refusing to modify even one of his 'issues' based on what the creators of the accessory had told him.
These people were there, they made it and were in the best position to correct errors the 'arbiter' might have made in judgment.
It made absolutely no difference.
He continued to make the exact same accusations, even going so far as to slander the writers with supposed hearsay about 'misleading artists' and 'poaching artwork'. This despite the fact the entire work had been publicly tracked over five years on a blog.
We came to the conclusion that his 'review' was not a real review of the work in question, but simply an expression of his own personal attitude towards it. Which was negative and emotional in the extreme. We gave him up as an irritable fanboy.
I gave up on godless as a irredeemable egocentrist a while back. He only comes here to while away the hours making people dance. Glad to see you gave him the toss.
Steven,
Interesting experience, thanks...
Stan
Post a Comment