...I'm holding a conversation with Cephus over at his place.
It's not much, because he refuses to address the theist arguments which are most basic to monotheism. So far it is classical Atheist denialism, with no trace of intellectual willingness to actually address issues using either logic or empirical techniques (both of which Atheists claim as their strong suit).
So if you are interested, tune in over there. If not, it's no great loss since he is refusing to answer the intellectual and material challenges given him in both deductive and material form.
9 comments:
So... you have the hook baited and the fish is circling the bait, but steadfastly refuses to actually bite down on the hook?
I have a theory. As well-documented as Evolution, mind you. I think these atheists KNOW that if they bite down hard and follow the hook where it leads, they will be led out of their delusional world.
They KNOW.
And so they will sometimes go pretty far, but never take that fatal last step that will reveal to themselves and the world just what a tissue of lies they are cradling at the center of their life.
If he won't face and accept the challenges, but instead ducks and dodges and weaves, throwing out all the usual crappola - well, I dunno.
I thought the Mormons had it tough, going out into the world in ties and shirts to visit folks door-to-door. You have a job that is a lot harder, Stan.
You have to wake these people up from an enchantment that flatters every single ego-boosting tendency they have.
Haha! Just went over and looked. Yikes. Deny, deny, deny, insult, insult, denydenydenydeny. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This guy knows he's on shaky ground. He says he's been here before. But his ability to do much beyond mock, insult and deny is in question. Did you notice how quickly he shifted to the royal 'We'?
Really, the whole site is like standing in a hall of mirrors. These guys... I mean, how do you fill a podcast and a blog with a viewpoint that, according to Cephus, does not have the burden of rebuttal? Is it even possible, logically, to hold a viewpoint and somehow NOT be required to prove it?
And brother! Did you see all the weasel words there? Yowza. My fave was "natural world", which in the mouth of Cephus means "whatever I decide it is, for the purposes of winning this 'discussion'". I love how a clown who professes to be a Materialist clams up when you ask him to prove that the Materialist philosophy exists - seeing as it has no actual material components.
They always seem to try dodging that one with obfuscation, insult or mockery. Or they start splitting hairs.
I actually told the guy that all the things he'd been saying about the 'stupid theists' out there could be equally applied to his own blog and podcast. And with equal authority.
Steven,
That's a very good way to state it:
" Is it even possible, logically, to hold a viewpoint and somehow NOT be required to prove it?"
It's exactly what they command the theist to do, and using materialism to boot. Yet they refuse the intellectual responsibility for themselves to prove materialism. Classical Special Pleading Fallacy.
And the continued refusal to accept that rational responsibility demonstrates that the entire worldview is emotional, not rational/logical.
Atheism is purely emotional rejectionism, which allows them to step into the Atheist Void where absolutes are rejected, emotionally and without any rational content. That leaves them with only their own thoughts. The Atheist worldview depends on that.
The carrot is allowing himself to believe in his own thoughts as TRUTH (having rejecting absolute truth), and the stick is the annoying moral principles which are escaped merely by rejecting them and making up his own. Both of those are emotional issues only, not rational conclusions regarding any theist propositions of basic monotheism.
Pssst. Hey guys. Scroll down and look for my name:
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2013/10/18/call-serious-religious-debaters/
Good job there Martin. Patience and persistence. Cephus has just the one actual argument: "You have to provide material proof, or I just deny it."
Rank denialism, based on a form of pyrrhonism, not rational argumentation.
Cephus has taken to not publishing all of my comments. Interesting.
He is completely stuck on the concept that a non-material entity must be demonstrated in his material space, or it does not exist. He even defends against the Category Error by making the same demand, which is a Category Error justifying not having a Category Error.
@Stan: Honestly, what did you expect? You saw the tenor of his blog - atheist hate blasting outward towards all religions.
And demanding material evidence for a non-material entity? That's like demanding to see a piece of the architect's body actually incorporated into the structure of a house he has designed and built - you know, as *proof* he actually had something to do with it, or even that he exists.
Because to folks like Cephus, it really is preferable that a house be assumed to have spontaneously built itself up from random particles. They don't like the alternative - which is they are not the ultimate arbiter of *anythin*.
I seem to recall this pattern over at PZ Meyer's place.
- first they try to blind you with brilliance: how smart they are, their credentials, choice of vocabulary, snooty attitude.
- then they try to baffle you with bullshit: red herrings, category errors, tu quoque and all the rest.
- then they attempt to shout you down or mock you into silence: insults, all caps, repeated insistence that they 'don't have time for such an obviously ridiculous argument', bringing in their fellows on the forum (or blog) to double and treble the attack on your character, your reason, etc.
- finally, they sieze the opportunity only a blog affords, and begin deleting your posts before they ever see the blog. It's their way of shutting you up, of having the permanent last word. Since your posts are deleted every time you put them up, no one on the blog ever knows you responded.
You're just another drive-by troll with no answers. And since they already want to believe that, it's a done deal.
Don't waste your time, Stan. The doors of Hell are locked from the inside.
You're probably right; but it has been interesting to see how he responds to a constant hammering at his obvious anti-rationalism - to which he responds with the exact same thing time and again.
I'll probably relent soon... or maybe I'll follow up when and where Martin leaves off. Why turn him loose?
@Stan: I guess it all boils down to why you went there in the first place.
- to take up his challenge? But you have seen for yourself that this 'challenge' is a strawman for him. Any serious debate is crushed with the delete key. He doesn't want actual challengers, he wants to claim that 'he could not find any competent theist defenders'. It's a sham. It always was.
- to show him the error of his ways? But he already has the bedrock fact of his life, that he wants what he wants and nothing, not even reason, is going to get in the way. His ego is gigantic; it's not that he can't follow your logic. It's that he *will not*. Doesn't fit his narrative.
- to use this guy as a prime example? He sucks. If I had his worldview, I would hang myself. I think most of the people who visit his site fall into two categories. They want to join his echo chamber and reinforce their own delusional worldview. Or they realize they're in Maniac Mansion and slowly back the hell out before the SOB latches on to *them*.
It's a good example of just how far you can go in the service of self-worship, I suppose. I hope never to see that place again.
Let this joker have his horrible 'freedom'.
Post a Comment