Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Sunday, October 26, 2008

I had to say it....

SCMike asked me:

"For certain??"

To which I finally, after smashing my head against the wall and attempting to eat through my own wrists replied:

"I can just imagine you getting a stiffy every single time you say that. And I just shake my head - because it honestly makes you look like a dishonest, immoral, illogical 'tard.

You have yet to ever even attempted to provide evidence that one needs to be absolutely certain about something to state a true fact or postulate a valid argument.

You've stated yourself that you're not absolutely certain about EVERYTHING, just some things. Ergo, you are not absolutely certain about everything you ever say. Therefore, why do you keep asking me if I'm ALWAYS CERTAIN when you admit that you are not always certain? What a ridiculous(but convenient) double standard you have there."


Am I the only one who finds that reply - "are you certain?" "ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOU'RE CERTAIN THAT YOU'RE CERTAIN?" the single most annoyingly retarded nonsense EVER?

43 comments:

  1. Oh, I don't know about the ancient coveted title of Most Annoyingly Retarded Nonsense Ever. There are other contenders to consider, including:

    - "Can the law of non-contradiction be both true and not-true at the same time and in the same way??"
    - "How would you determine the validity of your senses?".

    and of course, my particular favorite:

    - "How do you account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason?"

    [eye twitching]

    Actually, now that I think about it, when you respond to any of the above there is a 90% chance the following response will be "Are you certain?"

    You're right. It definately deserves the title, especially given the number of times we've explained to him how retarded the question it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's a little project I just pulled up.

    S
    Please tell us how you know for certain that any of these things are in the Bible to begin with.

    S
    "Are you CERTAIN?? :) :) :)"

    M
    As certain as I can be.

    S
    Are you absolutely certain?? If so, how?? God Bless.

    M
    Sye could never accurately explain why one needed to be 'absolutely certain' about

    something in order to make a decision or assertion with a reasonable amount of confidence.

    I'll bet you can't explain it either.

    M
    I posit that you don't know anything for certain, either. You just pretend that you do.
    And before you ask me, like an ass, if I'm absolutely certain, I'll remind you that I'm

    not absolutely certain about anything, and that I don't need to be to have a valid point.

    S
    #1 How is it possible for you to know anything for certain in your worldview??


    S
    How do you know for certain that I am unable to use or recognize logic (don't worry, I

    know you won't answer.??

    S
    Are you certain you even had breakfast?? :)

    M
    You have also yet to explain why someone need to be absolutely certain to make a decision,

    or state something that is true.


    S
    #1 Are you certain that this is a logical fallacy?? If so, please tell us how you're

    certain, apart from God. If not, you certainly have no right to judge my claim.

    S
    Are you certain?? If not, please retract your accusation. Thanks.

    M
    Are you certain that it's not? Is god talking to you right now? Did he reveal to you in a

    way that you can be certain that your arguments are perfect and right?

    M
    You have yet to provide any evidence or reason that one needs to be 100% certain about

    something in order to state a fact correctly or posit a relevant idea or claim.

    M
    Why must you ask me ad nausem if I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about everything I ever say? You

    know damned well that I make NO CLAIM to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. I see no reason for you to do

    this other than an attempt to further evade answering questions you're uncomfortable with.

    M
    (to stew) And if he won't take that route he'll assert that you can't be certain of

    anything because you don't accept his laws of nonsense that he says god gave him

    specially.

    M
    I've described and explained why my personal certainty - or anyone else's has zero bearing

    on what is true. I've also discussed that SCMike ALSO doesn't claim certainty about

    everything - therefore why must I be 'certain' about everything myself?

    S
    (to Q) Are you certain of this?? If so, how do you account for absolutes and the certainty

    of knowledge in your worldview?? Did the universe tell you this??

    S
    how do you account for absolutes and certainty of knowledge in your worldview??

    S
    Are you certain that I forfeited the debate?? We both know that according to your

    professed beliefs, the exact opposite could be true. Isn't that right?? ;)

    M
    It could be true, but it isn't.
    I acknowledge the possibility that you could be correct, but I have stated many many many

    reasons to support my case that you're incorrect. It's called evidence based assertions -

    you should try it some time.

    S
    Are you certain??

    S
    In addition, how is the claim that you can know for certain that the data you get from your senses is accurate because something you percieve via your senses says it is, "logically possible"?

    S
    How do you presume to know for certain what we ALL agree on, since none of us has the same brain??

    S
    ...and tell us how you know for certain that the laws of logic can be or have been changed.

    S
    How do you know this for certain??

    S
    How is it possible to know anything for certain about me, if you admit that your senses are unreliable and self-verified??

    Q
    - I don't hold any opinion "for certain".
    - I was refering to the fact that this is an objective opinion held by society, not to every single individual.

    Q
    How many times are you going to ask this, Scmike? It's repetitive and pathetic. You already know our answer: we don't know anything for certain, but we can know things beyond reasonable doubt.

    This is your only warning: I am not going to answer this question again. I tire of the repetition. Ask it again, and I will take that as evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you are incapable of acknowledging our replies, and will discontinue this conversation.

    (Note: I didn't. I'm weak willed.)

    Q
    Yes. I don't know anything for certain. You already know my response to this.

    S
    Are you certain?? We both know that the opposite could be true. Right??

    S
    Are you certain?? Perhaps you're using the wrong laws of logic to determine this!! ;)

    S
    After your admission that you can't know anything for certain, it's quite humorous to hear you speak as if you are certain that you will discontinue this conversation. Are you??

    Q
    Not being "certain" about anything is not a problem to a logical person. I don't understand why you think it is a problem.

    S
    All of my arguments?? As in: absolutely all?? Are you certain of this??

    M
    (To Sye) You have yet(in MONTHS) ever even attempted to provide evidence that one need to be absolutely certain about something to state a true fact or postulate a valid argument.

    You've stated yourself that you're not absolutely certain about EVERYTHING, just some things. Ergo, you are not absolutely certain about everything you ever say. Therefore, why do you keep asking me if I'm ALWAYS CERTAIN when you admit that you are not always certain? What a ridiculous(but convenient) double standard you have there.

    S
    For certain??

    Terrifying, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It truely is mind boggling. It's like argueing with a five year old.

    I wonder if he was on the debate team at school? :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahh forget Ray and his cronies, they are small time.

    Now THIS guy - he's where it is at!

    http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2008/10/24/gods-revelation/#comments

    Ray cops a mention in thunderf00t's latest vid:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjEC3DTUyxs

    ReplyDelete
  5. These debates are like trying to untangle fishing line. No disrespect to you or your chest but why do you spend time with those boobs?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Craig said...

    "These debates are like trying to untangle fishing line. No disrespect to you or your chest but why do you spend time with those boobs?"

    I'm honestly curious to see if these guys are capable of conceding a point oe deviating from their script.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This one's pretty key too:

    SCMike:"And it's more than fair to ask you to account for the standard of logic and reason that you intend to use in evaluating my evidence. The ridiculous lengths you have gone to in order to avoid doing this, should tell you something....hello??"

    Me:I haven't avoided anything.
    I've told you plainly over and over again that logic(AND REASON WHICH IS THE SAME THING) is a man-made construct. Perhaps you've heard about that 'philosophy' stuff before? Maybe you should look into it a bit...

    So, now that I've accounted for it, lets hear your evidence, chief.

    ReplyDelete
  8. maragon,

    More power to you.

    I'm headed out for more Paxil.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you guys seem to have it rough. I wouldn't want to be in that argument.

    :-)

    Anyway - happy MoNdAy!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This debate between you and mike is getting really heated. Mike is really good at exposing absurd worldviews while you guys all gang up on him.
    It'll be interesting to see how this debate goes though.
    And I betcha mike will say something to the effect of
    Are you certain that you make NO CLAIM to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?
    IMO
    the priceless one was when Maragon said there were no absolutes and then mike asked here is that was absolutely true.
    I burst out laughing
    Sye's site is also pretty clever
    Good luck in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MFT said "Mike is really good at exposing absurd worldviews"

    Shit, there goes another irony meter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Heh. You said stiffy






    PS. Yes, it's a retarded argument. In any case, an intelligent person will almost always answer "no" - and Babbles just doesn't understand that

    ReplyDelete
  13. From what I have read in the threads you are all arguing with him on, and the excerpt here. It is obvious to me that he is not even reading your comments. Instead is throwing out his little one liners that he thinks make him look smart. A waste of time talking to him if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thunderfoot will be with us in Europe for a while, so don't mess it up over there while he's gone, k? ;)
    He looks like me (confirmed by my wife), so he must be great.
    I am certain.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maragon -

    BTW, easy on the head and wrists. Nobody is worth that aggravation (or pain).

    ReplyDelete
  16. MFT:

    "Are you certain that you make NO CLAIM to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?
    IMO
    the priceless one was when Maragon said there were no absolutes and then mike asked here is that was absolutely true.
    I burst out laughing"

    I can't imagine why you think that his response is funny or clever.
    If I've already stated that I never hold an opinion absolutely about 50 times, why ask me if I'm absolutely sure about that?

    it adds nothing to the discussion and is only a stalling tactic on his part so that he never has to account for anything he claims is true.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MFT wrote Mike is really good at exposing absurd worldviews

    I see no evidence for this whatsoever. Can you explain how you've reached this conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  18. MFT,

    Mike is really good at exposing absurd worldviews

    His own of course.

    I truly do not understand why so few Christians can see through this construct. So far only a couple of Christians around notice. So, MFT, How is it that you do not notice the construct as dishonest and a pile of trickery? I am serious.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I see no evidence for this whatsoever. Can you explain how you've reached this conclusion?

    Of course! God told him! :-) ;-)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quasar,

    Well, at some point I told Sye I would not continue because he was being dishonest (different words, but this is what it resolves to), and I actually stopped. Then I have given a few points here and there, mostly to others discussing with Sye, a few intents of conversations with Sye, then answered scmike a few times, but he was quick to withdraw. Seems like he has trained the Sye-shit ever since.

    Anyway, it requires strength because sometimes it seems like you can show them something. But it is futile.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Heh, no worries: Schmuke seems to have forgotten about me. Or he doesn't have enough time to respond to me. Or he just likes Maragon better.

    I'm actually relieved... I don't know how much more my desk (and skull) could have taken.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mrfreethiker said
    "the priceless one was when Maragon said there were no absolutes and then mike asked here is that was absolutely true. "

    Wow! Very funny....

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, Jean and Mr Freethinker: mind sharing the joke with the rest of the class?

    What does "absolutely true" even mean?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maragon said "Absolutes do not exist" for this to be true- her aforementioned statement would have to be absolutely true. Therefore absolutes wold have to exist. If her statement was not absolutely true, then it would only be partially true and absolutes would also exist.
    Scmike refuted Maragon's entire worldview with 4 words.

    ReplyDelete
  25. MFT,

    This is the kind of stupidity I just can't stand:

    Scmike refuted Maragon's entire worldview with 4 words.

    Entire worldview?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Isn't it amazing that after months of this that Mr. Freethinker is still making the most fundamental mistakes?

    Saying that absolutes don't exist is not appealing to any sort of absolute standard. It's an assertion based on the available evidence that is held to be marginally true.

    To say it's anything else is to completely misunderstand(read: lie about) what we've been trying to explain to you people for months.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Free

    By the way little man you still haven't justified your own use of induction.

    You claim that it is justified by a revelation from an unchanging God.

    But how do you know God's revelation are trustworthy? How do you know He is unchanging?

    Let me guess...induction? :D

    I guess I'm good at exposing the weakness of people's world view too. What do you know. :D

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Free

    You wrote "Maragon said "Absolutes do not exist" for this to be true- her aforementioned statement would have to be absolutely true."

    Totally false. For Maragon to state that no absolutes exist all that would be necessary would be for such a statement to be objectively true. No absolute truth necessary.

    Is that what you meant Free? That when SCMike makes such silly mistakes you like to laugh at him?

    Give the poor guy a break! I don't think SCMike can help making such stupid errors. After all he has shown himself to be intellectually challenged time after time.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Heh heh, I like being able to insult people over here without breaking my debate poker face over there. In some cases, it's easier to expose stupidity if I'm not insulting them.

    Of course, in other cases, I don't have to bother.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Maragon is the statement
    "Absolutes do not exist"
    1)Absolutely true
    2)partially true
    3)false
    I would be glad to hear your answer

    ReplyDelete
  33. MF wrote Maragon said "Absolutes do not exist" for this to be true- her aforementioned statement would have to be absolutely true

    False.

    "Absolutes do not exist" is a statement made by a being with limited perspective. It can be interpretted as "To the best of my knowledge, I have never found an 'absolute', and do not believe they exist".

    I (Whateverman) assert that absolutes do not exist. If someone can show me otherwise, I'll change my opinion (yes, that IS what we're really talking about here. Opinion, not fact). Until that happens, however, I can;t remember any hypothetical situation in which it was impossible to question the veracity or truthiness of the subject.

    This is true of opinion, legal issues, physics, psychology - and even math.

    ReplyDelete
  34. MrFreeThinker said...

    Maragon is the statement
    "Absolutes do not exist"
    1)Absolutely true
    2)partially true
    3)false
    I would be glad to hear your answer

    None of the above. It's objectively, or marginally true.

    It's your(and Mike's and Sye's) misuse of language that creates issues here.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Free

    An absolute truth is something which is true in all times & in all places.

    Two questions spring from this.

    1) How in the world can you have a partial absolute truth? [you listed that as one of the optional answers].

    2) Since we are finite human beings who cannot see all times & all places how would we recognise an absolute truth if we found it?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I insist, short comments, just play with them, do not give them so much stuff. Otherwise they find what they are looking for ... futile. I should insist.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am certainly certain that their certainty is bullshit. And I do not give a damn. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  38. 2) Since we are finite human beings who cannot see all times & all places how would we recognise an absolute truth if we found it?

    Their godie reveals it to them in a way that they can be certain of it. (In other words, they imagine that they know for certain just because they think there is a god who actually speaks to them. As of me, of course, I am "begging the question" that their godie cannot reveal things to them in a way that they can be certain of it.)

    Guys, even I can do it now! I am sick. Going to vomit BDUAAAAAGHH!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Chris wrote 2) Since we are finite human beings who cannot see all times & all places how would we recognise an absolute truth if we found it?

    Actually, it's entirely possible that we finite human beings could discover and by accident label something absolute truth.

    The greater danger, by far, lies in incorrectly identifying such a thing. As imperfect beings, we are by design incapable of confirming whether a truth is absolute or not.

    In short, I'd rather err on the side of caution (ie. nothing is absolute) rather than guarantee failure (ie. absolutes exist)

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ W.E.M

    You wrote "Actually, it's entirely possible that we finite human beings could discover and by accident label something absolute truth."

    Ah but i we only accidentally correctly label something as absolute truth then we can't claim it as knowledge. After all knowledge is defined as justified true belief.

    Such an accidental labeling would indeed be a belief & true but not justified.

    Sorry I didn't explain myself well before.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ G.E

    You wrote "Their godie reveals it to them in a way that they can be certain of it. (In other words, they imagine that they know for certain just because they think there is a god who actually speaks to them."

    There's a problem with such an answer. Let's for the sake of argument accept that God is real.

    How do we KNOW that such a being reveals Himself to anyone? And if we do know that how can we KNOW that such a revelation would be correctly interpreted? And if we know that how do we judge between people who claim such revelaions& utter fruitcakes who declare "God has spoken to me!"

    After all even the most militant fundie must admit there it is far more common for people to lie or be delusional than God granting important revelations to people.

    Just replying "Well God told me whom to trust" solves nothing. They themselves might be becoming delusional.

    See the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  42. My friend Chris,

    I do see the problem. They either don't or they pretend they don't. That is the whole point of their tool. To them (whether they notice or not I no longer know) when we deny their stupid argument, no matter how clearly we explain it, they have the escape clauses. Let me show you:

    How do we KNOW that such a being reveals Himself to anyone?

    Because He does it in a way that WE can be certain of it.

    And if we do know that how can we KNOW that such a revelation would be correctly interpreted?

    Because He does it in a way that we CAN be certain of it.

    And if we know that how do we judge between people who claim such revelaions& utter fruitcakes who declare "God has spoken to me!"

    You are not saying that God could not reveal it to us in a way that we can be certain, are you? That would be BEGGING THE QUESTION! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ;-D

    See? It is easy! You then might be annoyed that I actually ignored your last point, and if you insulted me, I would declare victory and say that, obviously, since you cannot justify logic (or you do not have an answer to my questions), you got mad. Obviously showing that you deny the truth in unrighteousness.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.