"What do you make of these rebuttals to your article?"
http://atheism-analyzed.blogsp...
http://atheism-analyzed.blogsp...
Darrah Densmore Bill • 17 days ago
"I don't speak for John, but I think the blogger you reference is a master obfuscator. But, ultimately, he's easily dismissed -- just another dishonest, pig-ignorant, wingnut buffoon whose labyrinthine diatribes are worthy only of ridicule."
The logic here is just impeccable, is it not? What a rational dissection of the articles in question. I count six Ad Homs and two conclusions: "easily dismissed", and "worthy only of ridicule".
Atheist logic such as this is just impossible to mock; no mockery could approach the intellectual foolishness of the actual comment itself. Thanks Darrah!
11 comments:
I used to love your rebuttals. I didn't read them properly but I was happy that there was answers to what I considered "atheist foolishness".
But that was before I took classes on philosophy for my theology qualifications.
Now I can understand how and why you are wrong but you have dug yourself so deep and gotten things so wrong for so long that you have no hope of getting on top of it.
After reading those two "rebuttals" I can see why no why people don't respond. People don't have time for what they perceive as the writings of crackpots. Crackpots who attempt to mimic rational thinking by writing lengthy scatter-shot diatribes filled with bizarre "logic" and their particular obsessions.
This may sound harsh but we are both grown-ups - I don't disagree with you on everything but if you want people to take you seriously then you have to learn philosophy and learn how to focus and stay on topic. Until you do that it sounds like a mentally ill man who has read but not understood a few books on logic.
Stan,
I saw that pathetic comment. It is childish in the extreme. You DO understand, I assume, that over at this particular little playground the comment you reproduce is considered a legitimate rebuttal? That's the standard!
While you and I do not share the same methodology, I very much appreciate your work in exposing the empty vessel that is atheism.
Danny
Francis,
Then why don't you *show* us where Stan went wrong? Or is this yet another example of an atheist 'talking the tal' while in reality they haven't the first clue how to think logically?
Bring the substance!
Francis "Frank",
I'm glad that you took philosophy. Presumably that included Logic 101. So using your new logic skills, you could surely have pointed out the failures that you detect, and the logic principles which support your assertions of failure.
But you did not do that. You made an assertion with no trace of support for it. There is no possible conversation to be had, because your accusations are oblique and without content.
Now if you wish to discuss specifics, including your accusation of "crackpot", then you will provide a logic rebuttal to some specific point in some specific article which you find to have failed your perception of a rational argument. That would produce a conversation. Until you do that, your accusation is merely an empty venting without any discernable merit.
So make a specific argument in order that it can be discussed. I'll wait right here.
Stan, I used to love your rebuttals. Then I studied basics of logic, syllogistic, propositional, first order, read Descartes, Aristotle, Kant, etc. etc.
Now I'm flat out impressed on how well you slice through to the core of the problem, dissect it, and demolish the illogical aspects, leaving what is, quite generally, mere naked assertions based on emotion.
As an autodidact, to me your use of logic comports to how the ancients viewed logic: a tool which allows us to examine, classify and evaluate reasoning as good or bad.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
Russell,
It's my pleasure, and thanks for the feedback,
Stan
Danny M,
I visited your blog, and indeed our methods are not precisely the same, but they are based on the same principle: truth exists, can be easily defined as a universal, and must be used if reality is valued.
I appreciate your approach to the Atheist claims against the bible verses, verses which they remove from context and cannot comprehend, even in context.
Thanks for your support - I hope you stick around.
Stan
Don't get upset, I'm not an atheist but I think my biggest problem with the logic used on this blog is that arguments often rely on the truth value of 'not prove false' being the the same as 'true'.
Stan,
Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, the blog is owned by Puritan Lad, and I contribute. Thanks for your kind words.
Yes, we both know that truth exists, and we both demonstrate the absurdity of the atheist/materialistic position - just in different ways. Coming from a Reformed and Presuppositional-Covenantal perspective, I hold that the atheist, given their own foundational assumptions about the world and the nature of reality, i.e., we are the product of blind and non-purposeful natural causes, has no rational account for immaterial, unchanging and universal laws such as laws of logic.
That the atheist is hell-bent on forcing THEIR worldview, THEIR truth claims about the nature of reality, THEIR moral preferences upon, and get this, 'immoral Christians' who reject the infantile attempts to redefine marriage, that this apparently indifferent and relativistic system produces such contradictory creatures tells us that the Apostle was on to something (Romans 1). Ours is very much a Biblical approach. But we still get to have fun picking apart the atheist's 'reasoning' while they attempt a logical argument, just not as much fun as you :)
Once again, Stan, your attention to detail and methodical approach is very much appreciated. Not to mention your patience!
Danny
Faith,
My intent must not be clear, then. It is the Atheist contention that they can be intellectually truthful and moral in their denial of theist claims without having to provide any argument or evidence to support their rejection. They feel free to claim falseness, without proof of falseness.
The Atheist claims, then are without reasons, reasoning, and content by which to be judged valid or true.
Therefore, using the Atheist theory of argumentation, Atheist claims can be dismissed due to lack of content.
The only truth claims which I make here are regarding the intellectual dishonesty and moral emptiness of Atheism.
So I cannot see a reason for your claim of attributing truth due to ignorance of facts.
I have provided a deductive case which is available for refutation, using disciplined deductive logic or empirical, experimental (etc) material data. Deductions which are adequately grounded and properly formed are difficult to deny, but it is not presented as a truth claim, it is presented as a demonstration of the emptiness of Atheistic knowledge and lack of intellectual integrity.
Faith,
I should have mentioned also: your charge is without specifics to which can refer for analysis. If you have actual articles or comments in mind, then share them. Otherwise there really is nothing of substance in your charge for us to discuss.
Post a Comment