In response to smikes "new species of Atheist" post I thought I'd throw up this.
Ray Comfort is what happens when you put a bible, a banana and the circumcised foreskins of lots of good God-fearin Christians into a vat of amniotic fluid and throw the switch.
Now I know we all like to create Christians fundamentalists in the lab, they are after all the simplest form of life. Not nearly as tricky as say a bacterium, but there are some hazards involved. There really is nothing quite as hilarious as giving your newly created fundie a bible and a copy of playboy at the same time and even just prodding a creationist with a stick can be fun. Still, there are dangers. A Christian fundamentalist is for eternity you know, not just for Christmas. Careless scientists flush unwanted fundamentalists down the toilet and before you know it they have built a ministry out of pure shit. This has been going on for some time now which might explain the rash of fundamentalists that have been climbing out of sewers to peddle crap. The result is that rational people are now having to out and hunt down these fundies. If you feel like doing you part, here are some guidelines to make your fundie hunt a safe and enjoyable experience.
- Fudies are impervious to reason or logic. You may need to deploy vapid sloganeering to slow them down and get their attention
- When throwing points at fundies, you may need to repeat yourself many times. Those thick forehead ridges can take quite a lot of work to get past.
- Fundies can be dangerous when cornered. They will lash out with arguments so weak, they may leave you temporarily speechless and in rare cases you may even black out momentarily.
- Fundies are not afraid to use blatant stupidity. In fact, they regularly display stupidity that goes way beyond the limits of common decency. This is as intellectually dirty as it gets. If you are not properly prepared they will rapidly drain you patience. Patience shortages are the principle cause of fundie hunt related injuries.
- Fundies will inevitable go to ground or ‘go to bible’ being the official fundie hunting term. They will launch slavos of biblical passages which, while harmless for the most part, can cause irritation around the brain area. This can offer some of the most fun elements of a fundie hunt though. Lobbing a well placed bible verse back at the fundie usually results in hilarious excuse making, squirming and meaning twisting on a scale rarely witnesses in other settings.
- Remember what you are dealing with. Fudies can make great pets but never forget that they are essentially feral in nature. If they had the power they would probably kill you and everyone like you. Lone fundies are a curiosity, but in large numbers they can erode the foundations of democracy and freedom. Be extra vigilant for signs of fundie activity in or around government buildings or places of education. If you work in an abortion clinic be extra careful. The ‘killer’ or ‘Leviticized' species of fundie have been know to nest near these types of facilities. A can of fundie repellant is usually sufficient to deal with most infestations but if the infestation appears to be national in nature, this may call for the application of large amounts of education. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by fundies. Critical thinking though has been found to be a very effective inoculant.
- Lastly, remember to have fun! Doing your pest control duty doesn’t have to be boring!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Very funny post. I'm not sure your use of the term 'Africanized' is a good choice. I know you're alluding to killer bees, but in the context of speaking about humans, this will provide ammunition to racism hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteThinking of the Rage virus from '28 Weeks Later', how about 'Leviticized' or 'Deuteronomic' instead?
felix said: "this will provide ammunition to racism hyperbole."
ReplyDeleteUm, you're not suggesting that racism is absolutely morally wrong are you?
Really, you folks make this waaaaaay too easy :-)
Cheers,
Sye
The Celtic Chimp said: "Fudies are impervious to reason or logic."
ReplyDeleteWhat standard of logic are fundies impervious too, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to fundies?
You see, when you appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic to criticize fundies, you must borrow the foundations of that standard from the Christian worldview.
No doubt, you would deny this, but let me ask, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
Felix,
ReplyDeleteI was indeed referring to killer bees and was going to give folk the benefit of the doubt (I had considered taking it out for the reason you mentioned but felt like that was pandering to ultra PC nonsense.) Depressingly though, you are probably right. Also, I really like the term 'Leviticized'. Nice one. :)
Oops, looks like a stray Ray-tard got loose.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSye,
ReplyDeleteAs a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language.
What are these "Laws of Logic" that you are referring to?
Hey guys--
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, we still have a troll infection. I told you guys we should just flush him and be done with it.
But, what we can do instead is something similar to The Panda's Thumb's Bathroom Wall, where trolls can be banished to talk to themselves.
Just one more option.
Sye sez:
ReplyDelete...let me ask, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
The "laws of logic" aren't floating around somewhere inscribed on stone tablets, Sye. They are merely creations of men, based upon our observations of the universe, and revised and refined over the ages, based upon their ability to generate consistent results and accurate predictions.
Claiming God is necessary for logic is an argument just as flawed as claiming God is necessary for the universe. It's just another dim-witted First Cause argument.
guys, remember--
ReplyDeleteYou're under no obligation to re-create the rules of logic and evidence for the idle amusement of some troll. Especially when he defends his own rules of logic and evidence by saying that God revealed it all to him in a puff of smoke, and we'll just have to take his word for it.
The general rules of discourse are agreed upon by all parties, Xtian and atheist. For instance, circular arguments are ruled out by both sides, for long-established reasons. For Sye to demand that we put these long-established rules of logic, evidence and critical thought up for re-negotiation is as reasonable as demanding that we all start speaking in French instead of the currently agreed-upon English for his amusement.
Sye's a troll. Fuck him.
"Um, you're not suggesting that racism is absolutely morally wrong are you?"
ReplyDeleteGuess what Sye, I'm not. As nobody has convincingly demonstrated that human races even exist, the term is a simplification to mean discrimination of people of a phenotypically distinguishable genetic heredity. These are arbitrary distinctions of groups of people. From this, I don't conclude that racism is a reasonable basis to set standards for a functioning society. I may be wrong.
CC, this is hilarious !! (and true!)
ReplyDeleteOk Sye,
ReplyDeleteNothing is absolutely wrong in the manner you are suggesting. We agree as a society what is right and wrong based on how we feel about things. Racism was once the norm and not considered immoral. This is no longer the case.
We don not know anything with 100% certainty.
Your first principle you start from, that God magic'd certainty into your head, is completely, utterly and absolutely ;) ridiculous. In fact, it is verging on the mentally retarded.
Oh no, there is no absolute morality!!!!! but doesn't that mean some people could just decide that murder, rape, torture etc are ok?
YES! That is exactly what it means and guess what?, people do decided these things. We call them murderers, rapists, tortures etc.
Most normal poeple don't want to do these things. We don't need a magical fairy in the sky to forbid them. We have figured out for ourselves that they are wrong. Funny thing, some of the people in history who have done all these terrible things did so whilst praying to your god. Not surprising really, Yahweh has commanded and condoned genocide, rape, slavery and human sacrifice. Your god is immoral. A wretched, perverse invention. I judge your made up god according to my own morals. He apparently would do the same with me were he real.
I have previously written a blog post on Absolute morality Vs Relative morality that address some claims as to why absolute moral facts exist. href="http://celticchimp.blogspot.com/2008/04/there-are-no-moral-facts.html"
You see, when you appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic to criticize fundies, you must borrow the foundations of that standard from the Christian worldview.
There were innumerable gods before yours Sye. Is Christianity borrowing from Zeus. FFS! Wake up a little please. The stupidity is starting to burn.
I will personally not be dealing with this particularly vacuous, dim-witted point any longer.
Get a new drum Sye, the one you are banging is all worn out.
Sye,
ReplyDeletehow do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
Knowing that you will say it's from God's revelation; what proof do you have of God?
Knowing that you will revert back to your proof; what proof do you have "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition? And, give us an example of something that is absolute and demonstrate how that is true under every possible circumstance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad I found you guys.
ReplyDeleteI often pop in to comfort's blog, usually to shake my head in disbelief. I loved the comments section. When I read of the "strike" and saw the comments drop off I was disappointed. I had no idea you had all set up shop here. A good move.
Stew, Welcome !!!!! :)
ReplyDeleteWelcome aboard, Stew.
ReplyDelete'Atheist Central' is becoming a more and more laughable title by the minute...
"Only 10% of the world's population claim atheism. It looks like you've managed to
attract most of that population to a single blog! Truly amazing."
Looks like there are only around 40 people in the world these days - and I thought overcrowding was going to be problem!
Very nice, Chimp!
ReplyDeleteIf I could add just one more - fundies have an irrational fear of there own genitals and an irrational obsession with what other people do with their genitals.
In fact, I heard Camport cries about it 24/7 cause he has the spiritual gift of being a super-soul winner. Thanks Camport for your constant vigilant concern about my testicles!
Ahem...
ReplyDeleteTo repeat something someone else said...
Felix, I agree.
This will provide ammunition to racism hyperbole.
And Celtic chimp...
I too think that fundies are
impervious to reason and logic.
...What, no one important[You know, someone people care about] wants to speak up? Okay.
Since we are talking about foreskins, I did a little research to find that a good average foreskin runs about one square foot in area. Who knew?
ReplyDeleteI think it's a shame they throw them all away, that is useful material for making change purses, etc, once they are cured properly.
Anyway, this is just another seemingly silly bible verse that did actually hold validity in it's day. Over generations, in a day when people didn't have good hygene, they noticed that muck would collect in the foreskin and soon the guy's penis would fall off and such. One of the customs of the day was to smear oil and scents on the body (which the French still do) and that was their "bath."
Then, instead of just realizing that taking a bath once a week and cleaning that area would prevent the penis from falling off, they decided, "Let's cut off those pesky foreskins!, besides, then our penises will be different from those Pagan's penises!" And they did. And they still are.
Same goes for all those other prohibitions on sexual matters and the subjugation of women, including homosexuality.
It is my opinion from the material I have studied that one thing is very clear. The Hebrews were a very small superstitious group and they realized they had to do everything they could to build their population.
That brought on the prohibitions on masturbation (don't waste that shit, kid!) Same with the gay guys.
It was considered wasteful to spill the seed on unfertile ground.
So, for those of you who still have your foreskins, keep 'em clean!
Brother sye,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been to a party or maybe a Deeper conference and a friend pulls you aside and discreetly tells you your fly is open? You would probably be embarrassed but grateful someone told you.
In that spirit I would like to be that friend to pull you aside and tell you your head is completely up your ass. I think you made your point along time ago. Your argument is airtight. Godlogic rulz!
I'm sorry but you've become a big floating turd in the world wide punch bowl and Jesus is weeping. Your headed towards a buzz saw and I'm offering you a parachute.
For the love of all that is holy, for God's sake and in Jesus' name pull that thick melon out of your ass, take your hand off your mouse, grab your million $ bills and go save some souls. Good places to witness are malls and fast food restaurants. Do what Ray does, target naive and gullible teenagers. Whatever you do, stay away from schoolyards and playgrounds. That could only end badly for you.
It's called tough love brother. Just remember, I'm pullin' for ya.
Dales said: "What are these "Laws of Logic" that you are referring to?"
ReplyDeleteYou know, the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, et al.
Cheers,
Sye
Tripmaster Monkey said: "The "laws of logic" aren't floating around somewhere inscribed on stone tablets, Sye. They are merely creations of men, based upon our observations of the universe, and revised and refined over the ages, based upon their ability to generate consistent results and accurate predictions."
ReplyDeleteAlright, let me ask you this then, could the sun have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man 'created' the law of non-contradiction?
Cheers,
Sye
Captain Howdy said: ”guys, remember--
ReplyDeleteYou're under no obligation to re-create the rules of logic and evidence for the idle amusement of some troll.”
Of course you are not obliged to, but if you wish to use universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and accuse me of violating them, you should be able to justify them according to your worldview. Of course, you could just start calling me names to hide the fact that you don’t have an answer.
”For instance, circular arguments are ruled out by both sides, for long-established reasons.”
Such as?
Cheers,
Sye
Fundies are not afraid to use blatant stupidity. In fact, they regularly display stupidity that goes way beyond the limits of common decency. This is as intellectually dirty as it gets. If you are not properly prepared they will rapidly drain your patience. Patience shortages are the principle cause of fundie hunt related injuries.
ReplyDeletehey, I like this one.
The Celtic Chimp said: ”Ok Sye,
ReplyDeleteNothing is absolutely wrong in the manner you are suggesting. We agree as a society what is right and wrong based on how we feel about things.”
Is THAT absolutely right?
”We don not know anything with 100% certainty.”
Well, then YOU don’t know THAT now do you? In other words, if you are not certain, that certainity is impossible, then certainty may very well be possible.
”Your first principle you start from, that God magic'd certainty into your head, is completely, utterly and absolutely ;) ridiculous. In fact, it is verging on the mentally retarded.”
Are you certain? If not, you are refuted. If you are, you are also refuted.
”Oh no, there is no absolute morality!!!!! but doesn't that mean some people could just decide that murder, rape, torture etc are ok?
YES! That is exactly what it means and guess what?, people do decided these things. We call them murderers, rapists, tortures etc.
Most normal poeple don't want to do these things.”
There you are though, imposing an absolute standard of ‘normalcy.’ You are just moving the goal posts.
”I will personally not be dealing with this particularly vacuous, dim-witted point any longer.”
By what standard of logic, is my argument vacuous, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument? Oh, I forgot, you’re bailing :-)
Cheers,
Sye
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about anyone else, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that the laws of logic were something he thought up somewhere between creating the small hill and the three trees (way before He made the midgit though). Of course, he told me this in such a way that I could be sure it came from His Noodley Goodness and that I could be sure it was true, 100%. Fact.
ReplyDeleteRAmen
Sye,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"You know, the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, et al."
Except that the law of non-contradiction is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the ground that any proof or disproof must use (or reject) the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion, and thus beg the question.
Excluded middle, or excluded third, "principium tertii exclusi." The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
You just got beat by your own law.
Don't break a hip, ol' timer!
Dale said: "Except that the law of non-contradiction is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the ground that any proof or disproof must use (or reject) the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion, and thus beg the question."
ReplyDeleteThat's right Dale, now, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, such as the laws of logic according to your worldview? (I already knew that they were unfalsifiable).
Cheers,
Sye
ExPatMat said: "I don't know about anyone else, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that the laws of logic were something he thought up somewhere between creating the small hill and the three trees (way before He made the midgit though). Of course, he told me this in such a way that I could be sure it came from His Noodley Goodness and that I could be sure it was true, 100%. Fact."
ReplyDeleteThen what, pray tell, are you doing on an atheistic blog? Perhaps you are here to refute them as well???
Sye sez:
ReplyDeleteAlright, let me ask you this then, could the sun have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man 'created' the law of non-contradiction?
Are you really this dim?
Try to read my post again. Slowly, since you obviously didn't comprehend it the first time around.
Prior to mankind codifying some of the more important characteristics of the universe into "the laws of logic", those characteristics still existed. Trying to make it seem as if I said they didn't exist prior to our writing them down is disingenuous...par for the course for you.
Let me save some time and hash out the rest of your "argument":
Sye: So, you say the laws of logic are just mankind's observations of the characteristics of the universe. But how do you explain the presence of those characteristics?
TMM: Why exactly do I have to explain them? That's just the way the universe works.
Sye: HA! You can't explain them, because then you'll either have to admit God made things that way, or try to claim that the universe created itself!
TMM: First Cause argument. Invalid. All you did was push things back one level. How did your God come to be?
Sye: He is Eternal.
TMM: So...the First Cause argument holds up right until we get to God, and then it promptly falls apart. Right?
Sye: That's right. God transcends all.
TMM: Then why can't the First Cause argument fall apart one step earlier? It's pretty much the same thing, and it has the marked advantage of being one God lighter.
Sye: ...
There. I just saved us three hours of pointless bullshit. Feel free to thank me.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteLogic is not "invariant."
One one side of your argument you claim it is, on the other side you claim it isn't.
Sye said: "Then what, pray tell, are you doing on an atheistic blog? Perhaps you are here to refute them as well???"
ReplyDeleteHang on, I'll just ask him...... oh, he said to carry on as if he didn't exist and had nothing to do with the inception, operation and eventual destruction of the universe; he's modest like that.
What was the purpose of your god creating the universe again? Oh that's right "to glorify himself", got to massage that giant ego, eh? I can see why you like the guy...
I'd just like to point out that Maragon has a bunch of unanswered questions in the post entitled I just puked in my mouth a little...
ReplyDeleteMac & Lance, build up that Bathroom Wall!
ReplyDeleteLooks like Sye's been run off this thread...
ReplyDeleteSee, guys...there's no reason to ban Sye....that would only give him validation he clearly doesn't merit.
@weemaryanne--
ReplyDeleteMac & Lance, build up that Bathroom Wall!
I think our first troll should be special. I vote Sye gets a room of his own.
Would you like that, Sye? Any particular color?
Looks like Sye's been run off this thread..."
ReplyDeleteActually no, I happen to have a life outside of here.
Don't worry, I'll be back :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Mac & Lance, build up that Bathroom Wall!
ReplyDeleteMac's got the technical skills - I'm not even sure how I'd go about doing that.
The problem here is that we don't have our own server space. If we had our own space, then we could set up an IP based filter. Unfortunately, blogspot's tools to do that are slightly...lacking.
ReplyDeleteSo, IF anyone has free server space AND we can register our own URL, I would be glad to try and get us set up with a better system than this.
Sye sez:
ReplyDeleteActually no, I happen to have a life outside of here.
Sure you do, Sye. <snicker>
That's why you came back long enough to toss out a snarky comment, but failed to address my earlier demolishing of your "argument". Because of your "life". Riiight.
Poor Sye,
ReplyDeleteHe asks,
"How can you be absolutely sure about anything etc. etc."
I reply.
"I can't be absolutely sure"
His retarded response.
"Can you be absolutely sure about THAT?"
Am.....no...
How dimwitted can you get?
Sye,
I think you should seek proffessional help. There appears to be something wrong with your brain. If someone says they cannot be 100% certain aboout anything, can you see the problem with asking them how they can be 100% certain about that? Probably not. Without your single broken brained question to ask you wouldn't have anything to type.
Sye. You are a moron. I can't be ABSOLUTELY certain of that but that is what the evidence suggests
Cheers :),
Gary.
Tripmaster Monkey said: ”That's why you came back long enough to toss out a snarky comment, but failed to address my earlier demolishing of your "argument". Because of your "life". Riiight.”
ReplyDeleteDemolishing my argument eh? Cute. I imagine that you mean this post, so now that I have a bit of time, I’ll respond.
”Prior to mankind codifying some of the more important characteristics of the universe into "the laws of logic", those characteristics still existed.”
Uh, how do you know?
”Trying to make it seem as if I said they didn't exist prior to our writing them down is disingenuous...par for the course for you.”
Well, you are the one that said: “They are merely creations of men”, how was I supposed to know that you really meant the complete opposite? Plus, how do you know what did or did not exist prior to man’s existence??? Where exactly does the ‘demolishing’ of my argument begin?
"Let me save some time and hash out the rest of your "argument":
Sye: So, you say the laws of logic are just mankind's observations of the characteristics of the universe. But how do you explain the presence of those characteristics?”
Nope that’s not at all what I would say. I would say, “How do observations become law-like?” If the laws of logic are based on observation then they are contingent to what was observed, and they lose their universality.
”TMM: Why exactly do I have to explain them? That's just the way the universe works.”
Of course if you said this, I would just counter with, “Why do I have to explain the existence of God, He just exists! How do you like your argument now?
And if you said this: ”TMM: First Cause argument. Invalid.”Even though I don’t use that argument, I’d ask: “By what standard of logic is the first cause argument invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the first cause argument?
”There. I just saved us three hours of pointless bullshit. Feel free to thank me.”
Thanks, but your strawman argument is pathetic.
Cheers,
Sye
The Celtic Chimp said: ”Poor Sye,
ReplyDeleteHe asks,
"How can you be absolutely sure about anything etc. etc."
I reply.
"I can't be absolutely sure"
His retarded response.
"Can you be absolutely sure about THAT?"
Actually on your July 25, 8:49 AM post you said: ” We don not know anything with 100% certainty.”
Then on my 1:43 PM post I said: “Well, then YOU don’t know THAT now do you? In other words, if you are not certain, that certainity is impossible, then certainty may very well be possible.”
Big difference. Nice try though :-)
”I think you should seek proffessional help. There appears to be something wrong with your brain. If someone says they cannot be 100% certain aboout anything, can you see the problem with asking them how they can be 100% certain about that?”
Well, I didn’t ask, I merely exposed your contradiction (scroll up). If you cannot be 100% certain about ANYTHING, then you cannot be certain about that very sentence, so, in fact, you could be certain about some things.
Cheers,
Sye
Dale said: "Sye,
ReplyDeleteLogic is not "invariant."
One one side of your argument you claim it is, on the other side you claim it isn't."
Quotes please. Methinks yous a tad muxed ip :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Oh look. Simple Sye is back. Joy.
ReplyDeleteUh, how do you know?
Observation. You know, it is possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today. This "were you there" argument is as weak as all your others.
Well, you are the one that said: “They are merely creations of men”, how was I supposed to know that you really meant the complete opposite?
I did not mean the "complete opposite", dolt. There's a difference between natural phenomena and man's observations of them. If you're really too feeble-minded to grasp that, I can see how the understanding of the basic rules of logic can elude you.
Plus, how do you know what did or did not exist prior to man’s existence???
See above, simpleton.
Where exactly does the ‘demolishing’ of my argument begin?
It's not surprising that you failed to understand just how flawed your arguments are.
Nope that’s not at all what I would say. I would say, “How do observations become law-like?”
Of course that's what you would say. I see I gave you far too much credit when I tried to guess what argument you would use.
If the laws of logic are based on observation then they are contingent to what was observed, and they lose their universality.
When 2+2 is observed to !=4, this point will be valid. Don't hold your breath.
Of course if you said this, I would just counter with, “Why do I have to explain the existence of God, He just exists! How do you like your argument now?
I like it just fine, since there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of God. Can you say the same for the universe?
I’d ask: “By what standard of logic is the first cause argument invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the first cause argument?
Sye, don't you realize yet that every time you yammer “By what standard of logic is <blank> invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to <blank>?", you disqualify yourself from participating in a rational discussion?
Thanks, but your strawman argument is pathetic.
Not nearly as pathetic as your real "argument". What a joke.
Tripmaster Monkey said: ”Observation.”
ReplyDeleteYou observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.
”You know, it is possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today.”
Alright, then produce the argument that proves that the sun could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before mankind ‘created’ the law of non-contradcition.
”This "were you there" argument is as weak as all your others.”
I guess we’ll see about that once you produce your proof.
”There's a difference between natural phenomena and man's observations of them.”
So, if man did not create the laws of logic (as you earlier stated), where’d they come from?
”It's not surprising that you failed to understand just how flawed your arguments are.”
By what standard of logic are my arguments flawed, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
”When 2+2 is observed to !=4, this point will be valid.”
How do you know that 2 + 2 will = 4 tomorrow, since you have not observed tomorrow?
”I like it just fine, since there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of God.”
Prove this please.
”Sye, don't you realize yet that every time you yammer “By what standard of logic is {blank} invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to {blank}?", you disqualify yourself from participating in a rational discussion?”
By what standard of logic are my questions irrational, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my questions? You seem to want to hold my argument to some universal, invariant, abstract standard of logic, but you have yet to account for one according to your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Simple SyeMan met T.M.M.
ReplyDeleteGoing to the fair.
Said Simple SyeMan to T.M.M.,
"How d'you know you're there?
For I am here and I've been told
I cannot be mistook.
How do I come to know this?
Why, it's writ in this old book.
So how're you sure that you are here
In this partic'lar place?"
T.M.M. answered not a word,
But pied Sye in the face.
Sye,
ReplyDeletetripmaster monkey's argument was:
Observation. You know, it is possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today.
Your response:
Tripmaster Monkey said: ”Observation.”
You observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.
So, taking this out of the context and mocking is an obvious attempt at obfuscating and annoying. Even if you then talk about the rest of the sentence, this part is still inappropriate. Now tell me this is not out of pure trollism. But do not change it to a "how do you account." Be a man and answer whether this was done just to annoy. Otherwise what for.
G.E.
Simple Sye sez:
ReplyDeleteYou observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.
Straw man. Invalid.
Alright, then produce the argument that proves that the sun could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before mankind ‘created’ the law of non-contradcition.
Asked and answered.
I guess we’ll see about that once you produce your proof.
See above.
So, if man did not create the laws of logic (as you earlier stated), where’d they come from?
You're confusing the nature of the universe with mankind's observations of same again. Try to keep up.
By what standard of logic are my arguments flawed, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
Disqualified. Thanks for playing.
How do you know that 2 + 2 will = 4 tomorrow, since you have not observed tomorrow?
I don't know it. I have a reasonable expectation that it will, based on the fact that it has, as far as we can tell, since the beginning of the universe.
How do you know it?
Prove this please.
Shifting the burden of proof. Invalid.
Really, Sye, can't you do any better?
By what standard of logic are my questions irrational, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my questions? You seem to want to hold my argument to some universal, invariant, abstract standard of logic, but you have yet to account for one according to your worldview.
And disqualified again Thanks for playing.
GE said: ” So, taking this out of the context and mocking is an obvious attempt at obfuscating and annoying. Even if you then talk about the rest of the sentence, this part is still inappropriate. Now tell me this is not out of pure trollism.”
ReplyDeleteIf TMM wants to show the deduction that proves that since the sun cannot be both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way today, then it could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before man existed, he is welcome to do so.
Granted, my response was cheeky, but just look at our history to see if TMM warrants any more respect. If he wishes to argue in the vein that you have now chosen, I would be happy to respond in kind.
Cheers,
Sye
So this is what you're reduced to, Sye? Talking about me in the third person, trying to insinuate that I'm avoiding an argument that I've already refuted?
ReplyDeleteI thought your God didn't like it when you lie...Commandment #9 and all that.
What a joke. You Fundies take hypocrisy to hitherto undreamt-of levels.
Clearly, you have nothing more to offer on this thread. Be seeing you.
Tripmaster Monkey said: ”So this is what you're reduced to, Sye? Talking about me in the third person, trying to insinuate that I'm avoiding an argument that I've already refuted?”
ReplyDeleteUm, how can I talk about you in the first person??? If you believe that you have proven the deduction that the sun could not have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man could have observed this, then I can’t help you. Look, I already believe that you are self-deceived about sooooo many things, adding this proof of yours to the list is no biggie.
Cheers,
Sye
Simple Sye sez"
ReplyDeleteUm, how can I talk about you in the first person???
*sigh*
Honestly...it's like trying to teach calculus to a squirrel.
If you believe that you have proven the deduction that the sun could not have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man could have observed this, then I can’t help you.
And now you're reduced to outright lies. Sadly, I expected no better of you.
Look, I already believe that you are self-deceived about sooooo many things, adding this proof of yours to the list is no biggie.
I'd say "you're not fooling anyone, Sye", but the really tragic thing here is that you've probably managed to fool yourself with your constant barrace of disingenuous bullshit.
So go ahead, add this latest Straw Man to your "list". At least you're impressed by it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGranted, my response was cheeky
ReplyDeleteThank you for admitting this Sye. However, I do not see any justification. I have followed your conversation with TMM (sorry to talk about you like you are not there TMM), and yes, he calls you names, but somehow you earn that. Let me show you (and I am not trying to be insulting):
TMM said:
They are merely creations of men, based upon our observations of the universe, and revised and refined over the ages, based upon their ability to generate consistent results and accurate predictions.
Then, as you tend to do, you do not try to understand the full meaning, you just take the bit where TMM said "created," give it the meaning most convenient to you and answer:
Alright, let me ask you this then, could the sun have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man 'created' the law of non-contradiction?
So, to me it is clear that TMM was not implying "creation" of logic as such. The choice of this word is inconsequential if you read the whole thing and take the meaning as intended. However, you chose to change it so you can mock it and sound like you were the smart one.
Now, I bet you do understand, yet you do not care as long as you can piss off the "opponent." So, an "opponent" has no option but to conclude that, either you are being dishonest (troll), or you are dim. TMM chose the second. So, you chose to, not only continue this change of meaning, but also take offense and do the mocking more intense.
By the way, the first time we exchanged posts, you did the exact thing to me, changed meanings, cared little if at all about what I was trying to say, and I did not even once called you any names. I stopped then at the point where I felt only insulting you would be appropriate, since you were insulting me with your "tactics." Granted, I started insulting you afterwards, but not that time.
Now I would ask, if this is your strategy, then what would be your accomplishment? You look too obviously dishonest or dim to us. You do not look like your arguments were convincing. Are you looking to be labeled a troll? (Even if an unwilling troll, since you seem to think you are doing something out of christianity, not out of trollism). Or maybe you just want the christians to feel like you accomplished something even if you did not?
Again, I might not be able to post too often, but I will be listening.
G.E.
GE said: ”I do not see any justification. I have followed your conversation with TMM (sorry to talk about you like you are not there TMM), and yes, he calls you names, but somehow you earn that.”
ReplyDeleteDisagreeing with one’s argument may lead to name-calling in the school playground, but in a debate between adults it’s just childish.
”Then, as you tend to do, you do not try to understand the full meaning of the sentence, you just take the bit where TMM said "created," give it the meaning most convenient to you and answer”
If he did not mean that men created the laws of logic, he should not say that. I’m not a mind reader.
”So, to me it is clear that TMM was not implying "creation" of logic as such, but the choice of this word is inconsequential if you read the whole thing and take the meaning. However, you choose to change it so you can mock it and sound like you were the smart one.”
If he means that logic is a characteristic of the universe, and that man has no part in it, he should say that, but to imply in any way that man had a part in the creation of logic AND that it is a characteristic of the universe is having one’s cake, and eating it too.
”So, you choose to, not only continue this change of meaning, but also take offense and do the mocking more intense.”
Nope, I point out what he is saying in the hopes that he might clarify his argument, but all he does is claim that he has already defeated my arguments with the verbal diarrhea he claims as an argument.
”By the way, the first time we exchanged posts, you did the exact thing to me, changed meanings, cared little if at all about what I was trying to say, and I did not even once called you any names.”
Fact is, when I engage people in these kind of debates, I start by asking how they account for universal, abstract, invariant laws according to their worldviews. Look at how long these conversations have been going on, and no one has yet even attempted to do so. They obfuscate, dodge, and weave, but do not answer the question. When someone gives me a non-answer, I try to bring them back on topic by sifting through what they give me. It hardly makes sense to accuse me of misunderstanding them, when they aren’t even answering my question. Take TMM’s response for example. From what he has said, do you know whether he believes that the laws of logic are man made, or are a characteristic of the universe? Look at your own responses to me, you haven’t even addressed the topic. If anyone should get frustrated and start calling names, it should be me.
”Now I would ask, if this is your strategy, then what would be your accomplishment?”
I am only trying to expose those who claim to have justification for the laws of logic outside of God, by showing that this is simply not the case. It would be great if the people here would step up to the plate and actually answer my questions, but not having any answers tends to bring out the worst in them.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeletedo you know whether he believes that the laws of logic are man made, or are a characteristic of the universe?
TMM is clearly stating that these are characteristics of the universe. No way around that. The created thing is obviously an attempt at explaining that men abstracted the stuff out of observation of the universe, and so on and so forth. It is crystal clear. It is also crystal clear that you chose the meaning. Whether the purpose was to annoy or not, I leave it to you.
I did give you answers too at that time. Quite direct to your question. After that time I considered it useless, since you were not going to pay any attention. But I guess there is no point discussing this any more. You are not accepting this. I will be at the "hijacked." thingie with our other dialogue.
G.E.
GE said: ”TMM is clearly stating that these are characteristics of the universe. No way around that. The created thing is obviously an attempt at explaining that men abstracted the stuff out of observation of the universe, and so on and so forth. It is crystal clear.”
ReplyDeleteSo, are the laws of logic characteristics of the universe, or are they abstracted by man out of characteristics of the universe? Did the laws of logic exist before man abstracted them out of characteristics of the universe? What if man abstracted the laws of logic out of the random characteristics of the universe, would they be valid?
Clear as mud you mean.
Cheers,
Sye
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSye,
ReplyDeleteYou see? Once you start playing this way it is when we have to make a conclusion about you. I still do not know if there is a third alternative. Is there?
It is crystal clear, but you, very artfully I might add, make it look muddy. but it is just your art. Something that should not happen if you were playing cleanly.
So, I stop this one right here not to go into the insults again.
Also, I am still on the other, though you seem prone to start the tricks there too.
G.E.
GE said: "It is crystal clear, but you, very artfully I might add, make it look muddy."
ReplyDeleteSo crystal clear, in fact, that you don't answer my questions as to TMM's meaning:
Are the laws of logic characteristics of the universe, or are they abstracted by man out of characteristics of the universe? Did the laws of logic exist before man abstracted them out of characteristics of the universe? What if man abstracted the laws of logic out of the random characteristics of the universe, would they be valid?
I seriously do not know his position on this, if you do, congrats.
Cheers,
Sye