Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Free Thought and Rationalism Board struggles to say something Intelligent

Photobucket
atheists struggle answer God arguments



This is from the message board I spoke of day before last where they were mocking and ridiculing my ideas with very little substance, the first not the one from yesterday where I put up the thread, not the Dawkins board. These are the one's I call bullies because they wont even let me see the thread so I can not criticize it. I had someone else bring it over. It's called "free thought and rationalism board>" Of cousre they react violently and with great hatred toward anyone who does not think as they do.

the URL is here:


These guys discovered my Transcendental Signifier argument:



Preliminary Observations:


(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)

(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.

(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.



Argument:


P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.

P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS

P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.

P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.

rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED.




the first mindless insult is by jhsowter.


here is where you can read more about it.


Has anyone seen this guy's arguments before?

I came across him on another forum where he's insisting his "Transcendental Signifier" argument proves God exists. I want to point out where he's gone wrong, but it just seems like too big a task for this lifetime. I don't know where to start! Anyway, I thought I would provide a link to his argument for a good example of how you shouldn't present arguments.
jhsowter is offline Reply With Quote Go to the top
jhsowter
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by jouster
Old November 4, 2009, 05:52 AM #6167467 / #2
tynlamzic
Regular Member



The first mistake this guys makes is that I do not claim my arguments prove God. I make a very big deal out of saying I only argue for "rational warrant" not to prove the existence of God, and I think that matters, and the stupidity of these people for not understanding that should be obvious. Sloppy, arrogant and stupid are always on the defining characteristics of atheists on message boards.

Observe that he does not actually make an argument. All he does is say "O this is guy really (blah blah person insult) it would be a huge job categorize all his mistakes." But he never points out a single one. Surely if he really had an idea of something I argued wrongly it would not be too tiring a task to name just one right?



now we hear from the predominate thinker: tynlamzic, this is the guy who knows what semiotics is.


First off: I've formally studied Semiotics (you may have seen me reference it here before), and this is what he's trying to leverage in his argument. It's ironic, since Semiotics is concerned with uncovering relationships between human-constructed signs and the reality they represent, and his argument is based on trying to obscure the very human origin of such signs, and replacing it with an unevidenced extra-human origin. He ends up with a fundamental and unavoidable contradiction.



First he assumes that becuase semiotics is about sign than any reference sign must be semiotics and hat any use of semiotics must be totally within an ideological framework of naturism or one is violating semiotics. That's the sort of thinking fundamentalist sensationalists do. He's thinking like a Christian fundamentalist, a very legalistic one. There is no reason why one must be a naturalist to use something of semiotics, although that's not really what Derrida is doing.Since my argument turns upon Derrida's ideas it's also not really semiotics. If it was it wouldn't matter, no reason why semiotics has to be within a totally naturalistic framework.

Secondly, his assertion that I'm trying obscure human origins of signs and replace them with divine origins is stupid. I am doing no such thing and only a moral who can't read would think that's what argument is about. Humans observe the world, if humans have intuition or revelation or any sort of contact with te divine then putting that into the form of language would obviously involve using human signs, but in no way does it have to involving saying that origin of the signs themselves is divine.


Thirdly, this statement is one of sheer idiocy:

"his argument is based on trying to obscure the very human origin of such signs, and replacing it with an unevidenced extra-human origin. He ends up with a fundamental and unavoidable contradiction."


The argument is not based upon obscuring anything, nor does the argument stem from a premise that says God invented signification. that's stupid. As I just said, like the OA it's a deduction from the conditions of knowing. It has nothing to do with claiming divine origin for words or anything else. Of course there is no contradiction because its' a rubbish idea that if you use any concept you have to be 100% consistent with the inverter of the concept. Since I"m not arguing that God made up the signifier and gave it to man his silly understanding is down the brain.

these muddle headed know nothings do not know the basic issues in philosophy of religion. What I'm saying is that the TS is a transcendental deduction from the conditions of knowing. In no way does that involve making God the origin of human signification.


still with tynlamzic

His "Preliminary observations" reduce to unevidenced assertions and the principles he lays out are sophistry: stuff like

"We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of Transcendental Signified since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it".

is laughable antropocentricism. Invoking Derrida doesn't help his case, either: it's no wonder he likes Derrida, the practitioner (according to Michel Foucault) of "terrorist obscurantism", which Foucault's explained thus: "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part." Oo-er. Read the web page and keep that description in mind... Deja-vu. :P



What he says here shows how totally idiotic this guy is. He assume that I like Derrida and probably assume that I agree with him and that I'm trying to impress people by using him. Of course he should be impressed because I understand Derrida perfectly and he doesn't know shit form shinola about it. He thinks I'm in agreement with Derrida and if he knew anything about Derrida he would see that I"m actually arguing against him. The argument actually by reversing Derrdia. I sometimes call it the "reverse Derrida argument." what moron brought in the idiot's term "word salad?" This is the sort of thing people whose educations stopped with middle school say when they read real scholarship.


In short, what it all boils down to is dressing up a "necessary first-cause" argument in Semiological trappings. This approach actually works against him, because he's added an abstraction layer: language isn't reality, it's a human description of reality.


that's not at all what it is. this is guy an ignorant know nothing. First cause has nothing do with it whatsoever, he's a just a know nothing. he has no concept of what it's about, he knows nothing about Derrdia he was to say something so the thinks "O it must be first cause those stupid God believer types always talk about first cause so I guess this must be it too."

this stuff is way way way over this guy's head.

most of these replays are just typical atheist troll stuff. Certainly these two guys had nothing but they are probably among the best responses. They put down many many insults about my spelling of course. They seem genuinely angered by the attempt to argue for God. Just the idea that one believes and actually has the audacity to argue for what one believes seems to really make them furious.

The way atheists have come to totally despise God arguments and have given up completely on making legitimate answers to them, baffling though it may be, is certainly evidence here.

Here's a butt hole I know from a former message board, an moron called:





Join Date: July 2000

lpetrich

Default
I am all too familiar with Metacrock. He is a now-banned member of here, and I remember his ponderous, turgidly-written arguments. Arguments about an "Ultimate Transformative Experience" and a "co-determinate" and the like.

His misspellings can be very confusing, especially with some of the vocabulary that he uses.



He dashes off the sloginizing I do myself as though it means something but he has no concept of what it means and seems totally unaware that these are phrases I coined myself, he says them as though the others know what he's talking about, as the first demonstrate, they have no idea.

he makes the same mistake of the others trying to call it first cause:

His favorite arguments for the existence of God are various versions of the first-cause argument, like what the TS argument seems to be,



I suppose if the TS is true it would involve a first cause so you can see some things in common, but the argument does not turn on anything the first cause argument turns upon. Read the argument above and tell me where the hell that comes into it?


Here's a classic example of an atheist with nothing to say grasping at straws to find a criticism:


Eight Foot Manchild has disabled reputation

Looks like a form of the transcendental argument ("X doesn't make sense unless you believe in Yahweh") dressed up in vacuous word salad.



What does one have to do with the other? It's so odd to me why they can't just read the argument and say something about what it actually says!

first guy again:
jhsowter

The writings of this guy, in my opinion, show an extraordinary amount of hypocrisy.

Does anyone else here think that even the term "transcendental signifier" makes absolutely no sense? I hadn't heard of a signifier in the context of the philosophy of language before I looked it up, but it seems to me that to suppose a signifier that is transcendental is meaningless.



Good example of the utter stupidity and ignorance of these guys. They so brilliantly conclude the term makes no sense, having never heard it before, not really knowing what it means, knowing nothing about the linguistic disciplines that spawned it, having read no Derrida at all. If they were in Graduate school in history of ideas studying Derria they would come accords it all the time and they treat it with a form reverence that graduate students learn for words and phrases they have to use all the time. But these guys don't know anything because they haven't' been to school at a high level and they very ignorant so they are doing what small children do they are mocking things that are way over their heads.







beero1000

Even if the argument is true (which it's not, it consists of unproven (and sometimes false) assertion after assertion) it proves god's existence the same way the cosmological argument proves god's existence. That is, I'm going to call this philosophical premise god, and then assert that it is MY god, the god of the bible, and no other, with no proof.
This is worth commenting upon not because it's insightful but because it is a classic mistake atheists often make. As we shall see below it also contradicts with other things they also often say. But here we have assertion that the different understandings of God really represent thousands of different gods who are all vying for existence against each other. Instead of understanding it as different concepts of the same thing they try to play divide and conquor although it may also because they are don't understand the distinction between necessity and contingency. His plaintive cray that I'm wront to assert that the TS is "my God" indicates that he doesn't understand the concept of eteranl necessary being.

He probably wont understand what I say here because it requires conceptual intelligence for getting abstract concepts and clearly he can't think abstractly. But here goes: it's like a circle. All drawings of individual circles are really representations fo the same shape. It's not like there are a billion different circles vying for existence against each other, they are all examples of the same roundness that represents them all. So it is with God!






jonJ


Default
Transcendental Arguments for Dummies(TM):

1. Start with a premise which is obviously wrong:

"I want God to exist, therefore God exists".
why is that the premise? the real actual first premise is this:

TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.

why should that be equated wtih "I want God to exist?" Why doesn't he understand that in puttuing this shallow empty mocking stupdity only showing that he can't do logic because he can't actually deal with the argument itself?





2. Generalise, patronise and add long words:

"The human longing for affiliation with an ineffable being can be viewed by the enlightened as a fulfilment of the essential incompleteness of the cognitive universe."

I didn't say that. what's he doing here? This is an exampel of something he finds to be huge big words with no real meaning, I guess. I can see they have a meaning, I don't where he got its not anything I ever said I don't' think.

3. Rinse and repeat as necessary:

"Contemplating the ubiquity with which all sentient beings demonstrate an unfulfilled yearning for self-completion via the intellectual presence of an omnipotent Creator demonstrates to theologians and other enlightened minds the undeniability of that-which-fulfils (Ger: fufilzenshchaung; Czech: aztirdefgretl) as an essential element in the collection of objects of thought which are necessary for profound reflection on the nature of the Universe uninhibited by angst or distress."
jonJ is offline Reply With Quote Go to the top
jonJ

Be that as it may my argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with longings of yearnings. so he's merely creating a straw man argument based upon things that he finds stupid but he has no real referent to my arguments.





Sea

Default
He posts frequently on Theologyweb nowdays. Main two arguments are:

1. People in all sorts of different religions have their lives transformed, so the common element must be God exists. (Why not psychology as the common element?)

2. God is defined as the basis of existence*. Since there must be some basis for existence, there must be God. (Nevermind that a natural, mindless basis would count as "God" by this definition.)
Of course he's butchered both arguments terribly. But this has nothing to do with the TS. In fact it has nothing do with any of my arguments. It beats me why people can't understand what I say. The intelligent one's seem to why don't these guys?




Of course the "word salad" obfuscation mentioned above is every bit as important to his rhetoric as the actual arguments.
translation: I didn't go to school so don't use big words

* To be more precise, he likes to define God as "being itself" which so far as I can tell amounts to Pantheism. God is not merely the basis of existence, God is the exact same thing as existence.
Sea is offline Reply With Quote Go to the top


I've told these cretins often enough its not pantheism> i've told it's Paul Tillich why are they too stupid to look up Tillich?

I just presented this argument to a room of full of atheists in real ife not on the net they liked it and they liked me. why is that? Because they weren't stupid trolls.


Matthew Quentin Boes


These leaps are so common though. Like a person points out that you can't disprove a deistic god . . . and hey presto Jesus died for your sins.

I remember a point in Mere Christianity where a chapter actually ends with a phrase saying something like, "Not that we have proven anything close to Jesus or Christianity" but then goes on to pretend as if he had.
Aruging from guilt by association. Here's something one Christian does wrong so the other one must do it too. Of course I did not say my arugments proves God exists or that it proves Jesus. I am always very very clareful to say it's only rational warrant for bleief. these guys are stupid to understand that.

The rest is all just personal character assassination and bad mouthing me. I will post that soon but for now this is enough. no where in this thread was one single attempt to answer any of my arguments much less one with anything like a serious engagement with the logic, but a constantly dull witted repetition of character assassination.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Atheist Children on Dawkins board Disover my arugments

#

On the Dawkings board the children discovered my arguments for God. They have been looking at them in droves and making mocking and ridiculing comments deonstrating that they don't understand them. We can see from this how they exemplify the fourth state of the FBI hate group profile "the hate group gathers to mock the target." They have no constructive arguments of any kind. All they do is make little ridiculing troll comments.


What is a hate crime?



Diane Elmore, PhD, MPH, in the APA Public Interest Government Relations Office


Current federal law defines hate crimes as any felony or crime of violence that manifests prejudice
based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” (18 U.S.C. §245). Hate crimes can be understood as
criminal conduct motivated in whole or in part by a negative opinion or attitude toward a group of
persons. Hate crimes involve a specific aspect of the victim’s identity (e.g., race). Hate crimes are not
simply biases, they are dangerous actions motivated by biases (e.g., cross burnings, physical assault)


Maybe these lack the specific violence (unless speech can be a form of violence) but the motivations and the target chosen match up. The above definition says those when vent hatred agaisnt religion are a hate group.




Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby pinoyatheist » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:23 am

A Christian told me about this site that proves the existence of God. There are 42 arguments listed, well...I know that these arguments are all reharshed...but some seems to be quite new.

Maybe you guys can take a look at it.

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html

Thanks and more power.

Note: I think the guy who own this is a certain Metacrock.
pinoyatheist
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby IIzO » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:25 pm

That was a pain to read...most of those arguments already begs the question (God seems to always be necessary ), there are lots of arguments of designs , and many ontological arguments, lots of assertiongs like "conscioussness is a BASIC property of nature" that sound a lot like (everything is conscious) wich is a big assertion.Anyway your friend probably just wanted to make you read a whole lot of said "arguments" without having to discuss himself .Anyway that could be some fun having a critic of each of those arguments but who is really going to write an answer when actually the forum is already full of counters to those arguments.You should try browsing.
IIzO
Forum Member

Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: France

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby campermon » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:30 pm

pinoyatheist wrote:A Christian told me about this site that proves the existence of God. There are 42 arguments listed, well...I know that these arguments are all reharshed...but some seems to be quite new.


I had a quick look through the site... :nono:

Are there any arguments in particular you want looking at?

;)
newolder wrote:
newagedrivel wrote:Now if we only have a single infinite amount of that substance then you might call it nothing because nothing would have no definition ......
and if I had a brick I may as well call it Thursday 'cos the Teletubbies are mellifluous. What are you wibbling about here?
User avatar
campermon
Forum Member

Posts: 3840
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:57 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby Viraldi » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:52 pm

Are they any different from these?
Live life like there is no after life.
User avatar
Viraldi
Newbie

Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby IIzO » Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:07 pm

# METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (I)
(1) I have a philosophy degree.
(2) Your knowledge in philosophy is paltry in comparison to mine.
(3) Therefore you are unable to comprehend my intense philosophical proofs of God's existence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

# METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II)
(1) I created the term "arbitrary necessity".
(2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does.
(3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
# ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (I), a.k.a. METACROCK'S ARGUMENT
(1) I have a large number of arguments for God.
(2) One of them is probably true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.



Oh so he is that metacrock....you learn (almost) everyday.
IIzO
Forum Member

Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: France

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby DaveScriv » Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:25 pm

42 arguments eh?

I guess the people on that site don't read Douglas Adams's books (how he would have laughed if he was alive to see that), or they would have made sure their list came to any other number but 42.
DaveScriv
Forum Member

Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby Delvo » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:57 pm

pinoyatheist wrote:A Christian told me about this site that proves the existence of God.
Ask him/her for proof of some details about what God is like (and reasons why that should be loved/worshipped), not just whether or not he exists.
Delvo
Forum Member

Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:18 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby feign_ignorence » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:47 am

Viraldi wrote:Are they any different from these?


408. FERMAT'S LAST ARGUMENT
(1) My proof is so big it doesn't fit into the margins.
(2) Therefore, God exists.


Awesome. :lol:
I approve of this message.
feign_ignorence
Forum Member

Posts: 825
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby styrox » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:23 am

Why do they always have many arguments to choose from, would not ONE be enough if they actually believed it was solid ?

Now its like they are saying "here you go, i hope i can't see thru atleast one of theese" :)
styrox
Newbie

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:25 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby Enthymeme » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:28 am

styrox wrote:Why do they always have many arguments to choose from, would not ONE be enough if they actually believed it was solid ?


Reminds me of Einstein, "If they were right, they'd only need one". (When 100 scientists compiled their arguments into a book criticising Einstein's theories).
Enthymeme
Forum Member

Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:58 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby Enthymeme » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:00 am

Argument 1: Point 1 is an assumption. Point 2 is unsubstantiated. No point continuing further.

Argument 2: Firstly it's mispelled. Secondly it is based upon an appeal to consequence. Therefore fallacious.

Argument 3: Confuses descriptive laws for proscriptive laws.

Argument 4: Is answered by the Anthropic Principle.

Argument 5: Is an appeal to popularity. Therefore fallacious.

Argument 6: Is an attempt to logically prove that religion doesn't require logical arguments... how redundant.

Argument 7: Relies upon anecdotal evidence.

Argument 8: Also mispelled. Is a circular argument relying upon its own axiom as its conclusion.

Argument 9: God exists because trees are pretty... uhhhh.... right. Do I need to say anything?

Argument 10: They admit at the bottom that it proves nothing, making my job easy. Moving along.

Argument 11: God exists because we all feel the need for him to exist. I don't. Disproven.

Argument 12: Mmmm... Cookies (I just magically created cookies in my mouth by defining them into existence).

Argument 13: Dear god, these cookies are still delicious.

Argument 14: Seriously, you've got to try these cookies.

Argument 15: You're assigning traits to non-existence. Stop it. Non-existence doesn't have traits... don't make me quote never ending story.

Argument 16: Libraries use the dewey decimal system... therefore god exists. They're not even trying anymore. Once again they are confusing concepts for objects.

Argument 17: A hole would be something... no it was nothing. As threatened they assigned traits to non-existence against, thus I had to quote never ending story.

Argument 18: Mmmm, sure am glad I've got these yummy cookies.

Argument 19: And the nothing got bigger...

Argument 20: Confusing descriptive and proscriptive again... and I do mean confusing.

*gasp* That's it... I can't take anymore, must rest brain and replace stupidity filter. It's all clogged up.
Enthymeme
Forum Member

Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:58 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby Havoc » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:14 am

It seems to me (though I can of course be mistaken) --it just seems to me that the earth is too big and complicated and extremely diverse to have been brought into existence in the simplisitc manner outlined in the Bible or the Koran. They tend to skim over too many pertinent details, not to mention the chronology is all wrong. I think it was Carl Sagan who once said that the the fact that so few of the fidnings of modern science is prefigured in scripture casts doubts upon its divine inspiration. I mean, there's no mention of plate tectonics, or evolutionary theory, or the "germ" theory of disease --useful tidbits of information. And seeing that god is generally portrayed as omniscient and omnipotent and beneficent, why couldn't he have revealed a little more information rather than allow us to wallow for centuries in gross ignorance? Epilepsy was once thought to be the result of demonic possession. Earthquakes were sure and terrifying manifestations of god's displeasure, as was the bubonic plague. It's almost as though we human beings have had to figure all these things out for ourselves over many centuries and through much trial and error, and without any succor from on high. It almost leads one to believe that there's no god at all --at least not the meddling kind we read about in the world's holy books... :dunno:
Havoc
Forum Member

Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:22 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby RaspK » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:14 pm

Enthymeme wrote:*gasp* That's it... I can't take anymore, must rest brain and replace stupidity filter. It's all clogged up.

Have a mug: you deserve it. :cheers:
Image
User avatar
RaspK
Forum Moderator

Posts: 18335
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Moschaton, Attica, Greece

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby blindbloygrunt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:46 pm

IIzO wrote:That was a pain to read...most of those arguments already begs the question (God seems to always be necessary ), there are lots of arguments of designs , and many ontological arguments, lots of assertiongs like "conscioussness is a BASIC property of nature" that sound a lot like (everything is conscious) wich is a big assertion.Anyway your friend probably just wanted to make you read a whole lot of said "arguments" without having to discuss himself .Anyway that could be some fun having a critic of each of those arguments but who is really going to write an answer when actually the forum is already full of counters to those arguments.You should try browsing.



No they aer not rehashes they are not begging the question, you are. The whole little Dawkins thing is nothing more than begging the question. Your insistence all existence has to conform to the knowledge of biology that we have presently is nothing but Question begging. There are many scientists who see consciousness as more than just a side effect of brain chemistry. There is a large body of work arguing for consciousness as a property of nature. That work is largely demonstrated on the pages you are mocking. Convient that you just don't see the evidence isn't it?
blindbloygrunt
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby blindbloygrunt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:47 pm

IIzO wrote:
# METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (I)
(1) I have a philosophy degree.
(2) Your knowledge in philosophy is paltry in comparison to mine.
(3) Therefore you are unable to comprehend my intense philosophical proofs of God's existence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

# METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II)
(1) I created the term "arbitrary necessity".
(2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does.
(3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
# ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (I), a.k.a. METACROCK'S ARGUMENT
(1) I have a large number of arguments for God.
(2) One of them is probably true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.



Oh so he is that metacrock....you learn (almost) everyday.




that is nothing more than empty mocking. O fun fun fun. how clever. you are th emost clever person who ever lived.
now can you actually make an intelligent argument about the pages on the net? do you even understand what he's saying at all? did you read any of it?
blindbloygrunt
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby blindbloygrunt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:51 pm

DaveScriv wrote:42 arguments eh?

I guess the people on that site don't read Douglas Adams's books (how he would have laughed if he was alive to see that), or they would have made sure their list came to any other number but 42.


that's not an argument either. that's ideology name drop. you are just saying "He's not in like me, I'm in the in group because I subscribe to an ideology." This is pathetic. when I was an atheist it would about thinking of yourself. that' why it was called "free thinking." Not because everyone was required to intone little mantras ans show how cool they are, but because we really thought bout stuff.

now if you actually thoughts bout any of the ideas on "that site" do you think you could discuss some of them?

do you get that saying "I am cool I an drop the in name" is not actually argument. do you get that?
blindbloygrunt
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby 95Theses » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:54 pm

Good god who left the door to the internet unlocked again?
If for no other reason, we should refrain from ad homs because if we don't then we may be mistaken for creationists.

-Mr.Samsa
User avatar
95Theses
Forum Member

Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:22 am

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby blindbloygrunt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:56 pm

Enthymeme wrote:Argument 1: Point 1 is an assumption. Point 2 is unsubstantiated. No point continuing further.

Argument 2: Firstly it's mispelled. Secondly it is based upon an appeal to consequence. Therefore fallacious.

Argument 3: Confuses descriptive laws for proscriptive laws.

Argument 4: Is answered by the Anthropic Principle.

Argument 5: Is an appeal to popularity. Therefore fallacious.

Argument 6: Is an attempt to logically prove that religion doesn't require logical arguments... how redundant.

Argument 7: Relies upon anecdotal evidence.

Argument 8: Also mispelled. Is a circular argument relying upon its own axiom as its conclusion.

Argument 9: God exists because trees are pretty... uhhhh.... right. Do I need to say anything?

Argument 10: They admit at the bottom that it proves nothing, making my job easy. Moving along.

Argument 11: God exists because we all feel the need for him to exist. I don't. Disproven.

Argument 12: Mmmm... Cookies (I just magically created cookies in my mouth by defining them into existence).

Argument 13: Dear god, these cookies are still delicious.

Argument 14: Seriously, you've got to try these cookies.

Argument 15: You're assigning traits to non-existence. Stop it. Non-existence doesn't have traits... don't make me quote never ending story.

Argument 16: Libraries use the dewey decimal system... therefore god exists. They're not even trying anymore. Once again they are confusing concepts for objects.

Argument 17: A hole would be something... no it was nothing. As threatened they assigned traits to non-existence against, thus I had to quote never ending story.

Argument 18: Mmmm, sure am glad I've got these yummy cookies.

Argument 19: And the nothing got bigger...

Argument 20: Confusing descriptive and proscriptive again... and I do mean confusing.

*gasp* That's it... I can't take anymore, must rest brain and replace stupidity filter. It's all clogged up.



those are not arguments either. It sounds like you are making arguments becuase you are referring to them. But you are not actually demonstrating anything. you are just saying what you lame uneducated opinion is form having read every deeply and then you don't bother to actually argue it.

Not one thing that I see in this thread addresses a single one of those arguments on Doxa. you have failed to do anything but just childish silly little mocking of things you don't understand.

Make an argument. what's the deal? don't you understand the arguments? why can't actually make an argument?

if you want actually pick one and discuss I will. but just saying 'boo that! I don't like God boog this guy likes God and I dont' like God so boo him" what does that do? that's just childish prattle.
blindbloygrunt
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Some arguments I found in the Internet

Postby blindbloygrunt » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:57 pm

95Theses wrote:Good god who left the door to the internet unlocked again?



O good god, you can't just play your troll game but you have to account for your stupid ass opinion. o no! little bully hate groups like to actually have to make arguments do they?
blindbloygrunt
Newbie

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:40 pm



that guy Blindboygrunt came on to try and show them they aren't really arguing and they just insulted him with some crazy graphic. you see in that whole long thing there is not one single argument that has any substance.


as for the guy who said this:

I guess the people on that site don't read Douglas Adams's books (how he would have laughed if he was alive to see that), or they would have made sure their list came to any other number but 42.


yes idiot I did make 42 becuase I have read and love Hitchiker's guide. Did you know that Admas was not a philosopher, not a scientist and not a serious thinker? did you know his little joke book is not a serious piece of work? did you know that?

Atheists are so dull witted they can't even get obvious jokes in front of their faces.

Little atheist cowards who can't think

Loren bring my attention to this board:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=277969

They are butchering an argument they donk't understand, typical of the stupidity of atheists. I tried to get on there and discuss it, I am pre banned. Never been on their board but I'm banned. Moreover they fix it do so I can't go back and look at the argument to even answer it here. Now they know my machine they wont let me even see the thread.

why are atheist such little cowards? Because they bullies. Bullies are cowards. they get a big thrill out of bad mouthing religious thinkers, and who have brains and they have to protect their ilttle rush by not allowing people who can think to get a place where they can contradict the atheist stupidity. they know that if they allowed me to get on there I would treat their little misconceptions apart. So like the little bullies they are they wont even let me see the arguments.

One of them is a non thinking little coward from carm called "eptertrich" who is an idot and whose ass I kicked a thousand times.


If someone wants to send me thier arguments I'll show you what's wrong with hem, but I did see was stupid. the major thrust seems to be "I don't understand there, its' dumb."

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Jesus myhter's view of history?

Photobucket



I've always known that Jesus mythers have no regard for real history. It just stands to reason becuase historical presumption means nothing to them, they clearly have no respect for historians or for the rigors of academic thinking. what's really missing from their take on history and from the general atheist view itself is scholarly caustion. But the mythers are worse because there's is essentially a conspiracy theory. one ofht "followers" of this blog (he should really be called a ''hounder") is Bill Walker. Now he lays down a statement about the nature of history that is very reminiscent of skin head views.

He says:

billwalker said...

Joe, Please take your nose out of that book of fairy tales & read some goddam HISTORY books. Study the life of Constantine ,esp. his convention at Nicaea in 326CE. HE created your Hesus Krishna, by combining the old druid Hesus with Krishna (Christ in Sanskrit). It was HE who conferred divinity on the two gods he combi8ned into one. His idea was to do away with all that stupid internecine warfare (with which we are STILL plagued 18 centuries later. Your calling me stupid doesn't change history. It only points up your childish petulance when someone disagrees with you. For Krishna sake, GROW UP. Get a life. It's the ONLY one you get.

Of his assertion that he know anything about history is absurd becuase he hasn't the slightest regard for history written by historians since he despises historians and thinks he knows history so much better. Speaking of that, I was trained as real academic historian an dalmost got my Ph.D. in it, he was not so trained. His assertion that he knows hisotry books better than me is a laugh riot.

His assertion that Jesus was made by the council of Nicea is the kind of hilarious conspiracy theory I'm talking about when I say his view are like those of skin heads. The idea that Jesus was made up by a council in the 320's when a dozen historians in first and second century mentino him is idiotic and lame brained. Even if you subscribe ot the typical moronic sophomoric propaganda that most mythers spout about the Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus connection one thing is obvious even if you accept that none of those mentions amount to an argument for Jesus historicity, they all prove the idea of Jesus existed well before the council of Nicene. Not even likes of Doherty is stupid enough to try and get away with a claim that wild.

Then of course what would a conspiracy theorist's repertoire be without bogus language claims? They never study the languages make their wild claims about. Consider Doherty trying to claim that Paul's use of sarx doesn't imply Jesus had a flesh and blood life, as though he knows Greek when in fact he does not, I do and others who know it much better than I agree that Doherty's use of it is stupid. But then here is Bill trying to claim that Krisha is Sanskrit for Christ! he actually says it! Krishna (Christ in Sanskrit) total absolute unbridled ignorance!

Scholars are very certain
Christ is from the Greek Christos meaning "hero" used by Jesus to refer to Messiah. Has absolute nothing to do with Sanskrit. I do know of an unqualified hack from the nineteenth century who wrote Jesus went to India and made lying claims to that effect, but he did not know Sanskrit either. There are just some people who have a driving need to be right and deeply require the image of self that they are more knowledgeable and have secret deep insight others don't have, but for one reason or another they are not willing to really go to school and get it for real. This is probably the origin of most of these Jesus myther type conspiracy theories that real historians laugh at.

I also don't' believe a guy named Hesus existed among the druids but I dont' take the trouble to look that up.
Grow up he says! get a conspiracy theory like I have!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Admission of the Obvous.

Here's an atheist hate monger troll who finally admits that he's nothing more than venting rage and hate because he feels put down by religious people.

from CARM copied on Nov 19,2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
it's a real hate fest. let's do some more folks songs. not for "I hate Christians so bad it feels so good to hate them>"
paradoxical
You got it. If gay people weren't so meek and kind and in a minority, they would kick the you know what out of bigoted bible banging christians. Other than that, christians poison the minds of young impressinable humans and make derelicts out of older ones who claim they converse with imaginary beings inside their heads. Otherwise, christians are just fine.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

an example of the thug hate group impulse

here are three posts responding to the same single post of mine.


here is my post


Quote:atheist
There simply was NO sacrifice being that Jesus was god and knew he was, and knew heaven awaited. If anything, it was suicide by Romans. The entire premise of Christianity is a ruse as no sacrafice occurred. If Jesus KNEW he was a mere MAN, you could make that claim. But, all of you are assured he was the son of god, and god hium,self, so the whole sacrifice thing is an invalid argument.
Meta:what a lot of hateful garbage. you are so ignorant. you wouldn't' know a valid argument if it bit you.
you didn't back that up with any info you just said it as an ignorant little opinion with no back up at all.

you seem to think that if you just voice you known nothing opinion really loud and insisit that you are right then you are.


his three posts to this same deal:

atheist:
Prove me wrong then, MegaThug

he's not satisfied with that because it's not come back enough so he does this:

Mega, you need some intervention. One weekend and a few follow ups to get your mind right is normal. For you, triple that dosage. Then again, you appear to be beyond hope. They may not want the challenge
No substance but personally biting.

not enoguh so then this:


MegaThug, for your pea brain, I cut and pasted a post of mine on another thread. This may be difficult for your pea brain to comprehend. But, read it slow.

"Are you really SERIOUS with using bible quotes to contend Jesus suffered more than a normal human would have on that same cross? Your statements are all made up flowery sayings by believers. "Christ bore our punishment..." This is nonsense. He was simply hung on a cross, like many others were.

Christians have merely idolized this crucifixion into what they want it to mean to them. Besides, as you believe Jesus was god, this was simply suicide by Romans so he could get back to heaven more quickly. Finally, if all of this was pre-planned, which many think it was, it was a done deal, and the Romans were mere pawns in gods grand scheme. There is NO suffering, I tell you...NONE, ZIP, NADA, if you know you're going to heaven when you die.

Many of you seem to have difficulty grasping simple logic, and I am forced to repeat myself. All this nonsense of suffering and carrying the weight of someone sins are just words on paper. All made up well after the events took place, might I add. Just mind games and word games to give christians hope. I'm seriously baffled by it all. How christians will take a rather ordinary crucifixion that was no more gruesome than heinous murders before and after, and make it into this big SUFFERING and DYING for everyone's sin ruse. If you want to lay that guilt trip on yourself, go ahead. But, IMHO, its preposterous, and not even born out by the event itself."
no responses from me in between the had to keep coming back and saying more. Until this one he's just openly ridiculing my personal characteristics whch he doesn't know.

He talks like he was there at the cross.He doesn't know that Jesus didn't' have pain. He sure seems to in the Gospels. how does he know that? he doesn't' quote anything he doesn't have any fact. what dos he know anyway?

Jesus Myther Ignorance Grows More Brasen

this this little know all Jesus myth idiot whose ass I've kicked every single time I have deal with him. he's too stupid to know when he's been beaten. The first issue below is this moron said there where no Christians in the first century. They are so brazen about these really stupid things that no scholars credit. But he totally misunderstands what's being said.I said Christians existed in the first century. he somehow thought that meant that pagans too them seriously.


notice who has the documentation there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday,


Quote:
Wrong.
When Christian stories became known to the wider community they were comprehensively rejected as lies, superstition and myths.


No they weren't. but that's not what I meant. I meant there were Christians in the first century, they did exist.
I thought he was saying Christianity itself didn't start until second century in the sense of no followers of Jesus in first century.


Quote:
Tacitus called it a ruinous superstition.
Not an issue.

Quote:
Pliny similarly.
guess what he did with his spare time?

Quote:
Lucian ridiculed Christians as gullible fools who believed lieing priests.

Celsus wrote an ENTIRE BOOK on how the Christians were wrong - calling it FICTION based on MYTHS. Christians DESTROYED that book because it was so damaging to their false stories.



Celsus proves Jesus existed. you are dishonest in your application of this augment, or else you just don't have the smarts to get what I'm saying. Yes he said the miracles and stuff were lies but he did not say Jesus did not exist, he said he did exist. he disproves the Jesus myth lie.


Quote:
Julian said it's lies and myths.

Porphry said it was invented.

Megacrock knows that, but chooses to lie about the facts.


all irrelevant because you misunderstood my meaning to begin with.




Quote:Kapyoung:
So what?
Neither Paul nor Peter left any authentic claims to have met Jesus. Paul had a vision, Peter's books are forged.
But if they had not (Paul didn't meet him) If Peter had not met him why would he allow everyone to say he did?


The pre mark redaction includes Peter. so in his own life time the story went around.


Here's where the moron really puts his foot in it.


Quote:
Wrong.
Polycarp does NOT ever mention meeting John. Anyone can check Polycarp's letter here :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...carp-lake.html
A quick search will show that the word "John" is NOT found once in the entire letter.
(Instead, someone ELSE, LATER claimed Polycarp met John.)


that is as wrong as it can be. you don't know what you are talking about. it's dishonest. you are totally dishionest. you didnt' do a Google search because you an obvious find that. if you had done one you would have found my website where I have that.

(of cousre he's quoting the wrong letter)

It's here on doxa



from the Calvin college website fragments of lost work



here's the quote:

Quote:
For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.

do you see the word the John there underlined?

Quote:Kapyoung
Which is like most of the Christian claims - it's always someone ELSE that makes the claims, but when you check the facts, they are quite different.


you did not check the facts you didn't even do a google becuase had you done so you would have found my site.

here's part of one I did:


Quote:
#
olycarp: Definition from Answers.com
Polycarp, Saint , cAD 70-AD 156?, Greek bishop of Smyrna, Father of the Church. ... It is probable that he knew John the Apostle, the disciple of Jesus. ...
www.answers.com/topic/polycarp-saint - Cached - Similar -
#
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint John
According to the traditional order, the Gospel of St. John occupies the last place among ... He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the ... through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. .... mentioned by Papias, who can in turn be none other than John the Apostle (cf. ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm - Cached - Similar -
#
Apostle John the Evangelist
St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly along .... Here is John's mention in the Bible of the number six hundred sixty six: .... (Irenaeus himself says he did the calculation based on what those who knew John said). ..... John's disciple Polycarp, was the leader of the church in Smyrna. ...
www.cogwriter.com/john.htm - Cached - Similar -
#
Saint Polycarp - New World Encyclopedia
May 17, 2009 ... As mentioned above, Polycarp was (initially at least) most renowned for his .... second, it is probable that he knew John the Apostle, .... But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polycarp - Cached - Similar -
#
Bishop David's Blog: St Polycarp - a link in the chain
In his youth, Polycarp sat at the feet of the Apostle John from whom he learned the Faith. ... It says in Revelation that the Lord knew their works and tribulation and poverty .... We just mentioned St Irenaeus who became Bishop of Lyons around 178 A.D. He ... One of his key teachings was to do with the Eucharist. ...
bishopdavidsblog.blogspot.com/.../st-polycarp-link-in-chain.html - Cached - Similar -
#
St John, Apostle and Evangelist
St. John, directed by the instinct of love, knew him and gave notice to Peter: .... received this account from the very mouth of St. Polycarp, St. John's disciple, ... St. Chrysostom and other fathers mention that the evangelist prepared .... you do enough ": an answer, says St. Jerome, worthy the great St. John, ...
www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOHNEVAN.HTM - Cached - Similar -
Quote:
Megacrock has been told this fact many times.
But he chooses to repeat the lie.


ahahaahahha you ignorant arrogant little know nothing! Its' been on my website for 10 years. how dare you say that?

I've known where hat quote was for ten years. if you ever said that before I am sure i showed it to you so you should know you have been disproved. If you just can't keep that knowledge in your head form one year to the next, now you know it again. you are wrong >I disproved your carp.

I kicked your ***!


Quote:
Wrong.
Anyone who checks the facts will find Megacrock is wrong here again too.
yea, like he really checked the facts on that last one.


Papias (why can't you check your spelling Megacrock? is it because you never check anything at all?)

Papias, that's how I spell it, that's how it is spelled. What is wrong with your brain? are you leaking gay matter?

Quote:
Papias (as quoted by master-forger Eusebius) merely makes some unclear claims about people who had heard from followers. He does NOT claim to have met anyone who met Jesus at all.
yes he sure does claim to have their words.

Kapyoung also attacks Euseibus as a liar and fabricator because of course our knowledge of Papias is very dependent (although not totally) upon Eusebius.

This is super ignorant to think that. Eusebius was lieda bout by liar and piece of garbage Gibbon. it was the swine Gibbon who made the pias fraud statement not Eusebius. You are have no erudition because that has been put about well enough you should know it.

why can't you read?



you are such a ignorant, unlearned unread know nothing.

Quote:
Megacrock has been told this fact many times.
But he chooses to repeat this lie too
.

I have disproved these same know nothing assertions time after time.



Quote:
Rubbish.
The Jewish tales of Jesus are from 2nd and 3rd centuries and later.


ahahaahahahah what total ignoarnce! how dumb can you get! ahahhaha that is totally disproved. the John Rylands fragment disproves that even if you give it a wide birth. the stuff form Koester I was aruging with Grog about disproves it. that is the most ignorant carp I've ever seen.

He's basing his garbage upon the misnah but ingorning the fact that its' well known the material is form the first century. ti was written down in the second and third but it was put about orally in the first. He's assuming that's the only reliable knowledge of Jesus. he's ignoring the Gospels as though they don't exist.

no scholar believes that. no one! no educated scholarly person who studies this stuff for a living believes that. I don't think even the Jesus seminary guys are that dumb.


Quote:
They tell all sorts of wild stories :
* Jesus a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* conceived during menses
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lud
* learned black magic in Egypt
* Jesus is in hell in a boiling vat of ****


Celsus proves that stuff was going around in the first century. That's what the Jews told him about Jesus personal life and it was already old when they gave it to him. he tells us that. so that proves it was already there.



Quote:
Megacrock never repreats the actual details (even though they have been pointed out many times), but he lies that those bizarre stories support the Christian stories !
(notice how he thinks it's clever to Megacrock that's like really some huge inovative thing no one could think of).

you are unlearned and unread I was researching this stuff 40 years ago. In high school. You are so bad at it you don't understand what you read, no concept of scholar caution you have no idea what historians do or what assumptions they make you can't understand what you read, you totally ignore all information that disproves your lunacy, you are really really really bad at this stuff.

I'm a historian and you are not! you don't know anything you don't' pay attention when people disprove your lies.

you are horribe at this. you suck at doing this.

Sadly, we can all see Megacrock is an continual liar for Jesus.

I am the one whit the documentation.