Our New Home

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

The Forum

Monday, November 3, 2008

It is finished

Comment 571 on the massive presuppositional thread over here. From myself to scmike.

Oh wow. Big surprise. You dodged the original question, again, ignored the fact that I have pointed out over and over again that within the context of this debate, the words "sense" refers to any data gathering device, again, fled into sematics to make me look 'foolish' despite knowing both of the above, and repeated the same statement I quoted 3 previously provided answers for above. Again.

You continue to conflate knowledge with data, despite my repeatedly correcting you on this, you make the statement that I was refuting in reponse to the example within the refutation, showing no sign of having even noticed the context, and you show no indication of having retained any of the information I have repeatedly provided you since the beginning of this debate.

I have no interest in continuing to repeat myself. You could not validify your own worldview under the logic you used to supposedly disprove mine. You could not acknowledge arguments which refuted your own, choosing instead to ignore them and simply repeat the already refuted arguments. You could not even directly answer the same question you continually ask your opponents.

I accept that you will proclaim yourself the victor, but this outcome was unavoidable from the start due to your inability to acknowledge opposing arguments.

Goodbye, scmike. This discussion is terminated.


EDIT: It is also worth noting that in the post immediately above this, I warned Scmike of his proximity to terminating the discussion:

Given that your entire argument rests on your opponents supposed inability to answer it, your own inability disproves either both our arguments (if your logic is valid) or neither of our arguments (if your logic is not).

Avoid it again, and I will conclude that you are unable to acknowledge any answer that disagrees with you, and follow Maragons lead and terminate this discussion.

54 comments:

  1. Cheers to you for your keyboard/monitor lasting as long as you did.

    The guy is a fucking asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have also noticed really strange behavior when debating fundamentalist Christians.

    They seem to go into debate determined to win instead of trying to learn or expand their horizons.

    Instead of conversing with, these fundamentalists talk at us and never admit fault with their arguments.

    I suppose I would call it intellectual dishonesty if I thought they understood what they were doing. Instead, I believe "immature" is a far better descriptor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I tried to read into it, but I was distracted by the goalposts whizzing all around the place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ironically, fundamentalists often declare themselves the winner and accuse others of being too foolish or immature to acknowledge their assertion.

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. Am I the only one who sees "presupposition" as a buzz word among creationists? They don't exactly seem to understand presuppositions, and they seem incapable of applying the same logic to themselves, but they have been told that science requires presuppositions... therefore...

    muddied water...

    Godidit!

    Palm -> air -> face -> eyes close.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quasar,

    Don't worry. We have all been drawn into the dens of those crazy bastards at times.

    Do not despair, you are not the only one who has wasted countless hours. What you did not realize is that SCMike had a simple plan to keep you engaged until you were ready to jump off a tall building.

    This is merely a tactic than some fundamentalists learn that makes them popular for a short while.
    It is their last vain attempt to try to draw people into conversing with them. Mike will find a new mark now.

    This type of circular logic is very commom to people that work with mentally challenged types.

    They do not have the capacity to expand their scope of conversation, so they dwell on a concept that is totally disengenuous, and as you have found out, they can be rather successful at garnering attention this way.

    We all find that out the hard way.

    When you see this happening, there is no reason to try to prove anything to the poor souls. They have learned an attention getting device and as you can see, sometimes it works on even the most learned of us.

    There is nothing wrong with admitting that SCMike is a mentally challenged cretin that has nothing to do with anything except his own self absorbed interest in retaining you to ague with him, that is what validates his miserable and deluded life.

    Write him off as the derelict that he is. He is a pathetic, insecure, bumbling idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Froggie, I never thought of it that way, but I think you make a good point.

    Public creationism and circular arguments as a form of intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to garner attention...

    I think you're onto something; and it's a real game changer. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kait,
    I see presupps as people who are totally without imagination or intelligence that have found a way to retain people to argue with them, and thus validate their own importance.

    They are not religious or anything else. The are imcompetent boobs that only desire to try to perpetuate their stupid arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kaitlyn wrote Instead of conversing with, these fundamentalists talk at us and never admit fault with their arguments.

    I suppose I would call it intellectual dishonesty if I thought they understood what they were doing. Instead, I believe "immature" is a far better descriptor.


    I actually think it's something else. Since having joined the Raytractors, I've been trying to look for evidence of a hypothesis I have. It is as follows:

    The fundamentalists I've seen appear to be unable to distinguish between criticism of an idea, and criticism of their God.

    Even if I were to claim some of "our opponents" to be guilty of this, I wont suggest all of ray's supporters (or even all Raytractor critics) exhibit this behavior.

    Still, it would explain that they seem to treat criticism as mean-spirited. They react as if every statement is meant to belittle them or their views.

    To be sure, some of us (myself included) ladle criticism with insult; and so maybe I'm partially responsible that they don't take me as seriously as I'd hope.

    That doesn't change my basic premise, however. I believe they feel we simply love our sinful nature, and are incapable of hearing the word of God. They believe our ears are closed; when we wound them with criticism, they seek to do no more than return the favor.

    IOW: they're incapable of perceiving the difference between criticism and insult

    ReplyDelete
  11. Incidentally, this is why that frikkin topic went to 500+ posts. SCMike is incapable of making a logical argument or responding to one. Presuppositionalism is simply blind criticism; it doesn't care to listen to other "philosophies", and presumes it's own validity accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, I bailed out a few days ago.
    He'll claim victory over you just like he did with me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Congrats Quasar!

    I did not last that long in my first encounter with a presup. When I noticed the trickery and intellectual dishonesty I stopped. Then I just watched others keeping the discussion to learn, just putting a line or two from time to time to test them and find what other answers they would give.

    Now I just put a line or two for them to have some fun predicting what their next argument would be.

    The intellectual dishonesty is so obvious that I cannot even entertain the idea that they are not conscious about it.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The intellectual dishonesty is so obvious that I cannot even entertain the idea that they are not conscious about it.

    QFT

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maragon,

    High-five to you for beginning the first comment with, "SCMike mewled,...".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, I think Kaitlyn is spot on with describing them as "immature". I've gotten back to reading Piaget to complement my early childhood education courses, and some chapters on how children strive to understand and make sense of the world seem to apply to fundies in many cases.

    More explicitly, Ray and his minions insist that you must have "child-like faith". A child intuitively "knows" that things have a creator (this also discussed by Piaget et al), etcetc. You know what else children "know"? That the world is flat. Why do fundies omit this ageless portion of truth?

    I'll see if I can draw together some material and do a post on some of this in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quasar,
    In the words of "WOPR" of War Games, "the only winning move is not to play".

    Or, as I myself am fond of saying, when you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, but only the pig enjoys it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Henwli: Interesting. I think this is because children (and fundies) base their knowledge off of appearances: "common sense" if you will. If something looks flat, it is. If something looks designed, it is. If something looks intelligent and agree's with my presuppositions, it is. Etc.

    The way to combat "common sense" is by subjecting it to critical thinking. The world might look flat, but that isn't consistent with this and that, so therefore it can't be flat.

    Fundimentalists are indoctinated to believe that critical thinking, at least on some issues, is bad. Therefore, they tend to rely on common sense.

    Or are they just idiots and I'm reading too much into things?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're right quasar. Their mindset values intuition and common sense over critical thinking and doubt.

    In fact, they are told not to do any of the latter directly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just thought of this article I had stashed away in my PDF folder.

    Conclusions from Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science, Science 316, 996-997 (2007):

    "[...] These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientiic alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy."

    There's fertile breeding ground aplenty right across the fence... I would imagine "common sense" in some instances does not apply as in everyday parlance, but rather pertains to the dominating definition of a distorted type of "common sense" within a certain group.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Since Quasar wants to keep you guys and gals up to date on our conversation, here is the current installment. Enjoy!

    quasar,

    ""Oh wow. Big surprise. You dodged the original question,""

    Because you are begging the question. Your question assumes that God could not reveal things to us totally apart from our senses.

    It's kind of like me asking you if you're still a shoplifter.

    ""again, ignored the fact that I have pointed out over and over again that within the context of this debate, the words "sense" refers to any data gathering device,""

    Yes, you have said this over and over again, despite the fact that, by definition, senses are not devices, they are faculties. Allow me to show you the difference:

    faculty--(n) one of the inherent cognitive or perceptual powers of the mind

    device--(n) 1. a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, esp. a mechanical or electrical one.
    2. something elaborately or fancifully designed.

    You see, your revised definition is just flat wrong. However, if you insist on using the word "device", then by definition you are referring to something that was "made for a purpose", "invented" or "fancifully designed".

    This doesn't help your argument at all, as the question then becomes: who made, invented, and designed our senses??

    ""again, fled into sematics to make me look 'foolish' despite knowing both of the above, and repeated the same statement I quoted 3 previously provided answers for above.""

    However, your answers were not true, and you should have known better. Perhaps you can see this clearly now?? You continue to say that ALL data must be gathered through the senses, yet you have provided no justification for this very statement.

    In fact, you have gone to ridiculous (and perhaps dishonest) lengths to try and validate this self-refuting position, to no avail.

    Trying to redefine words and meanings to make them fit your very weak argument is underhanded to say the least. I expected better of you, Q.

    ""you show no indication of having retained any of the information I have repeatedly provided you since the beginning of this debate.""

    I have examined the information you presented and found it to be grossly inaccurate.

    I have called you on this tactic before, yet you continue to engage in this behavior. This is further evidence of your willful suppression of the Truth that God has revealed to all of us. You really should give this some serious thought, as it is both foolish and dangerous.

    ""I have no interest in continuing to repeat myself."

    That's good. I'm glad you see that simply repeating these untruths won't make them true.

    ""You could not validify your own worldview under the logic you used to supposedly disprove mine.""

    Sure I did. You just didn't like my validation and even refuted yourself in trying to disprove it. That should tell you something.

    ""You could not acknowledge arguments which refuted your own,""

    You haven't provided any. Everytime you tried, you ended up refuting yourself. That's what happens when you hold a worldview which denies God.

    ""You could not even directly answer the same question you continually ask your opponents.""

    Just because you don't like my answers (because they are devastating to your position)doesn't mean I haven't answered.

    ""I accept that you will proclaim yourself the victor,""

    No need. The conversation is there for all to see.

    ""but this outcome was unavoidable from the start due to your inability to acknowledge opposing arguments.""

    Hey, you're the one engaging in the question begging and linguistic revision. Don't get mad because I called you on it. Just acknowledge your errors, apologize, and continue the discussion.

    ""Goodbye, scmike. This discussion is terminated.""

    Alas, poor Quasar. I knew him well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. whateverman,

    ""The guy is a f***ing a**hole.""

    ""To be sure, some of us (myself included) ladle criticism with insult; and so maybe I'm partially responsible that they don't take me as seriously as I'd hope.""

    You called it. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Kaitlyn,

    ""Instead of conversing with, these fundamentalists talk at us and never admit fault with their arguments.""

    Sounds like you may be a little bit prejudiced against Christians K. Why??

    ""Ironically, fundamentalists often declare themselves the winner and accuse others of being too foolish or immature to acknowledge their assertion.""

    Did you happen to read any of Maragon's posts where she did exactly what you're accusing "fundamentalists" of doing?? See for yourself. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  24. dal....uh, I mean froggie,

    ""This type of circular logic is very commom to people that work with mentally challenged types.

    They do not have the capacity to expand their scope of conversation, so they dwell on a concept that is totally disengenuous,""

    You mean like the concept of appealing to absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that you can't account for. You really are too much, dal......er, froggie.

    ReplyDelete
  25. maragon,

    ""Yeah, I bailed out a few days ago. He'll claim victory over you just like he did with me.""

    Wow, it's kind of surreal actually seeing someone spread false rumors about me firsthand. Weird.

    Nevertheless, I present to you Maragon's parting comments:

    ""Well, I'm going to go ahead and be the bigger person here and walk away from this ridiculous, time-wasting, mudslinging fest.

    I called it. I hope this thread stands as a testament to the hopeless circularity of the presupposistionalist posistion, their blatantly dishonest tactics, their inability to account for the unproven premises in their worldview, and their willingness to twist anything and everything in order to discredit their opponent rather than attempt to refute any of their points.""

    Sounds like you still have the problem of trying to blame others for the things that YOU have done. Responsibility Meagan, responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi scmike,

    I see that you reposted your crap here.

    So I ask again, did you take a crash course in South-Western Ontario? Are you Sye in disguise?

    I also repeat that I find it nauseating. Your tactics are intellectually dishonest, as are your conclusions. I am truly sorry to see you transformed into that thing you are now. I kinda respected you before. I know you do not care. Now you are another warrior showing how atheists "deny god in unrighteousness." But to me, what a loss.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Okay, so I'm not willing to engage in discussion with scmike. I have read a bunch of the post over on his blog and saw a lot of people presenting valid arguments and scmike holding his own worldview as the basis to judge other people's holding of their worldview to his arguments, but rarely if ever providing an argument as to WHY.

    Anyway, since I don't desire to engage him in a discussion and will not be continuing to argue the above, I do not feel at all fallacious or think it in any way inappropriate to say the following:

    SCMike, you are an arrogant, prideful, illogical, unreasonable, argumentative, abrasive, petty, disruptive, condescending, stubborn, pathetic, repetitive ignorant, overly defensive embarassment to your religion whose desire to convert, convince, or otherwise learn and teach is below sea level, and instead you are full of puerile, stupid, worthless scripts which are only there to make your overinflated, bloated, self-obsessed ego feel better as it somehow stretches its neck to such a degree that it clears the beer gut of juvenile swill it consumes in order to suck its own cock.

    Take care!

    ReplyDelete
  28. get education,

    ""Hi scmike,

    I see that you reposted your crap here.""

    I see you returned to the F.A.C.T.S blog despite giving your word that you wouldn't (October 9, 4:54 PM). Why??

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kaitlyn,

    Just in case you have not observed their style of "discussion." Presups do not actually discuss anything. Their tools consist on prefabricated answers and trickery. They will take just a few pieces of whatever you say, misinterpret it (on purpose of course, I call this tactic the "instant strawman"), and then attack it. They will use any little window to make you feel angry. They will use any trick, no matter how obvious, such as playing with the semantics (one meaning here, another meaning the next time). The whole point is to irritate you until you insult them, quit the exchange, or whatever else, so that they can claim victory with such words as those you can see in scmike's answers to Quasar.

    So, no need to engage these guys. Please do not fall for it. It is useless.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey scmike,

    So, I "gave my word"? (Suddenly I felt all solemnity and all.)

    I went back because Quasar put a link. I was curious about whether you would finish with a Sye-style conclusion, which you did.

    Anyway, I am back here. Do not worry. I am leaving that poor guy alone.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  31. the shaggy,

    ""Okay, so I'm not willing to engage in discussion with scmike.""

    Don't blame you. I wouldn't want to either if I was in your position.

    ""I have read a bunch of the post over on his blog and saw a lot of people presenting valid arguments and scmike holding his own worldview as the basis to judge other people's holding of their worldview to his arguments, but rarely if ever providing an argument as to WHY.""

    What kind of gibberish is that?? No wonder you don't want to debate. Get some sleep, dude.

    ""Anyway, since I don't desire to engage him in a discussion and will not be continuing to argue the above, I do not feel at all fallacious or think it in any way inappropriate to say the following:

    SCMike, you are an arrogant, prideful, illogical, unreasonable, argumentative, abrasive, petty, disruptive, condescending, stubborn, pathetic, repetitive ignorant, overly defensive embarassment to your religion whose desire to convert, convince, or otherwise learn and teach is below sea level, and instead you are full of puerile, stupid, worthless scripts which are only there to make your overinflated, bloated, self-obsessed ego feel better as it somehow stretches its neck to such a degree that it clears the beer gut of juvenile swill it consumes in order to suck its own cock.""

    All said while hiding behind a computer screen many miles away. How brave thou art!! Priceless ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. kaitlyn,

    G.E. said:

    ""Just in case you have not observed their style of "discussion." Presups do not actually discuss anything. Their tools consist on prefabricated answers and trickery. They will take just a few pieces of whatever you say, misinterpret it (on purpose of course, I call this tactic the "instant strawman"), and then attack it. They will use any little window to make you feel angry. They will use any trick, no matter how obvious, such as playing with the semantics (one meaning here, another meaning the next time). The whole point is to irritate you until you insult them, quit the exchange, or whatever else, so that they can claim victory with such words as those you can see in scmike's answers to Quasar.""

    Beware accusations void of specific examples. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  33. scmike,

    Does Sye call you "padawan"?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  34. get education,

    ""I went back because Quasar put a link.""

    After you said that you wouldn't.

    ""Anyway, I am back here. Do not worry. I am leaving that poor guy alone.""

    So, we can believe you this time, huh??

    ReplyDelete
  35. Beware accusations void of specific examples. Take care.

    Ehem! ...you can see in scmike's answers to Quasar

    And there are more examples in your answer to theshaggy.

    And these are not "accusations," but "warnings." ;-D

    Take care.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  36. get_education,

    ""Does Sye call you "padawan"?""

    Hey, I thought you were all about learning and education. Why so upset??

    ReplyDelete
  37. So, we can believe you this time, huh??

    See Kaitlyn? Pure trickery.

    scm: Did I attack that poor guy over there during my brief visit to see your Sye-Style answer?

    ReplyDelete
  38. get education,

    ""Ehem! ...you can see in scmike's answers to Quasar

    And there are more examples in your answer to theshaggy.""

    The key word is SPECIFIC, G.E. I noticed you didn't provide any here either. Nice.

    ""And these are not "accusations," but "warnings." ;-D""

    Warnings without justification are merely false accusations, G.E. Hey, you just learned something!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey, I thought you were all about learning and education. Why so upset??

    (See Kaitlyn again: he adds the "Why so upset??" So that when I answer, if I do not add anything there, I admit I am upset, if I do say I am not upset, then it means I am upset, so I lose anyway ... or else, to make sure I will answer to show I am not upset. Psychological trickery is part of the arsenal)

    Ehem, learning and education. I do not remember any of these being synonymous with mastering trickery and intellectual dishonesty, nor with loosing a person one could talk to, in exchange for just-another-Sye. :-)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Warnings without justification are merely false accusations, G.E. Hey, you just learned something!!

    Oh you just gave plenty of justification scmike. Thanks! ;-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  41. G.E.,

    I said: "So, we can believe you this time, huh??"

    You said: ""See Kaitlyn? Pure trickery."

    No trickery. Just want to know why we should believe you this time since didn't keep your word last time. Let us know.

    ReplyDelete
  42. G.E.,

    I said: ""Hey, I thought you were all about learning and education. Why so upset??""

    You said: ""(See Kaitlyn again: he adds the "Why so upset??" So that when I answer, if I do not add anything there, I admit I am upset, if I do say I am not upset, then it means I am upset, so I lose anyway ... or else, to make sure I will answer to show I am not upset. Psychological trickery is part of the arsenal)""

    Whoa there G.E.!! Sounds like you might just have a small case of paranoia going on there. Calm down.

    ""Ehem, learning and education. I do not remember any of these being synonymous with mastering trickery and intellectual dishonesty, nor with loosing a person one could talk to, in exchange for just-another-Sye. :-)""

    "Mastering Trickery"??? Lay off the Star Wars, G.E. It's starting to get to you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. G.E.,

    ""Oh you just gave plenty of justification scmike. Thanks! ;-D""

    OKAAAAYYY....

    ReplyDelete
  44. No trickery. Just want to know why we should believe you this time since didn't keep your word last time. Let us know.

    Because god has revealed it to us in a way we can be certain of it this time. ;-)

    (See Kaitlyn? He insists that I "gave my word," making it a charged question. I will look bad no matter what. That is the point. Ignoring my previous answer is also part of the tactics, I answered the charged question, trying to "discharge it." Of course he "forgets" and comes again with the same stuff. This way I should become irritated at some point and start insulting him, and then he wins! Need more specifics?)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  45. See Kaitlyn?

    Whoa there G.E.!! Sounds like you might just have a small case of paranoia going on there. Calm down.

    I think you can decompose this one yourself.

    Thanks for the demonstration scmike. I am still a bit sad we lost you to the dark side. ;-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  46. G.E.,

    ""(See Kaitlyn? He insists that I "gave my word," making it a charged question. I will look bad no matter what.""

    Yep. Lying tends to do that to people.

    ""That is the point. Ignoring my previous answer is also part of the tactics, I answered the charged question, trying to "discharge it." Of course he "forgets" and comes again with the same stuff. This way I should become irritated at some point and start insulting him, and then he wins! Need more specifics?)""

    I love the way you say that, as if I am responsible for you insulting me. A person's lack of self-control is their own problem not mine.

    I'm serious about the paranoia thing, though. You're getting kinda creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. G.E.,

    ""Thanks for the demonstration scmike. I am still a bit sad we lost you to the dark side. ;-D""

    Again, too much Star Wars = Not a good thing. Take a break and get some fresh air, G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  48. G.E.,

    ""(See Kaitlyn? He insists that I "gave my word," making it a charged question.""

    Here is what you said (October 9, 4:54 PM): ""I am not coming back here. This was an accident.""

    Your words not mine. Why don't you just own up to breaking your word instead of trying to somehow place the blame on me??

    ReplyDelete
  49. Scmike is trying to lead people around in circles in order to keep them away from Jesus. His actions are evil.

    Scmike needs to find Jesus and stop all his (or her) nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I love the way you say that,

    Yeah I know, I am so cute.

    as if I am responsible for you insulting me. A person's lack of self-control is their own problem not mine.

    Responsible balanced adult routine ...

    I'm serious about the paranoia thing, though. You're getting kinda creepy.

    Paranoia? Naaaaaah! I do not think you mastered your trickery just to use it on me. ;-P

    ... instead of trying to somehow place the blame on me??

    And I am the one who's got paranoia? Riiiiiiiiight! ;-D

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jesus Will Save wrote stop all his (or her) nonsense

    I believe the proper term is "it"

    ReplyDelete
  52. We absolutely, abstractly, immaterially, universally love scmike. :-)

    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.