Friday, November 11, 2011

StOoPiD MoNkEy Displays Typical Atheist Ignorance.


On the post the circular nature of atheist ideology this character calling himself "StOoPiD MoNkEy chimes in to show us that he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

his comment:
This example of circular reasoning that your attribute to atheist does not work. What exactly was the evidence that the theist presented. Personal experience perhaps? If that is the case, well then yes...that is not evidence. Please remember, the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. As far as CARM goes. It has been shown already that Matt Slick is full of it and most of, if not all, his arguments have big issues with them.
Here we see the problem immediately. He's reciting slogans form the atheist propaganda wagon without thinking about how they apply or what they mean. For example who has the burden of proof has nothing to do with weather or not the argument they make is circular. The only issue in relation to circular reasoning is "does the premise rest upon the conclusion." I'll show momentarily that in the case I discussed it does. That's a totally separate issue form who has the burden of proof. He says the example of circular reasoning doesn't work but then he doesn't bother to say why. He goes off reciting propaganda slogans and doesn't deal with the issue.

Of course he recites the ignorance programed into him by his atheist brain washers, that personal experience can't prove anything. That has nothing to do with the circular nature of their argument, which is what my blog spot was about.

here is the post in question.

The Circular nature of atheist ideology

Atheism wants to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.


atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."

Believer--why not?

Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.

Believer--how do you know that?

Atheist: because there aren't any


Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.

Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.

that little hypothetical exchange Demosthenes the circle in the reasoning, the premise rests on the conclusion because he starts form the premise that there can't be any proof for SN because it's SN and that doesn't issue in proof. The proof of that statement is that based upon excluded all examples, there are no examples. That's obviously circular reasoning; the conclusion is the same as the premise.

it doesn't make any difference if other aspects of theistic argument are wrong or badly done that who has the burden of proof is irrelevant to circular reasoning. he's not even thinking about logic as a subject of it's own, but just as an aid to further propaganda..

(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.

(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.

(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.

(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.

(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.

(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________


Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM




NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.


Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?


I asked him what's ridiculous about it:

I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.


Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?






9 comments:

StOoPiD_MoNkEy said...

Another comment that you made that I must address is that atheism is an ideology. Although you have (or claim to have) a PHD in theology, I see things still have to be defined for you.
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.

Atheism is simply a nonbelief in a deity. That's it, plain and simple. What sir, I ask you, does this make you believe atheism falls into this category? Please don't make the common mistake that most do. Do not combine things like Secularism, humanism and Naturalism to atheism. Can atheist be those things; yes. Are they mutually exclusive to one another? The fact that you think they are shows your ignorance no matter what level of education you claim to have.

The rest of your comment is nothing but blathering ranting about social atheistic agendas with nothing to back it up. Small minded insults from a small mind.

Now on to your original blog post. Yes you have a point; circular reasoning and burden of proof are NOT the same thing. Yeah, duh! The contrived example you give of atheistic circular reason is set up specifically to put one point of argument in a light that favors your point of view and is not a real representation of an argument. The argument would go more like,

Atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God." <--this is the change. The question is then, what pile of fact do you have. Show them to me.

Your base has a structural fallacy and you know it.

I do find it hilarious as you sit there on your computer (which science has given you) and knock the validity of it. Is science the only truth? Perhaps not for there are no absolute truths. But for practical reasons, yes science is the only truth that can be validated and tested. Your belief in jeebus cannot be. Atheism is not a belief, religion or ideology.

The fact that you state an atheist agenda is purely absurd. Let me ask you this. Scientist have been looking for the answers for centuries now. As it is not a perfect system, yes findings are changed and reevaluated on the facts and evidence that are in existence. Science is fluid in its pursuit of knowledge, not static. If any evidence was good enough to be viewed as life changing, where are the peer review papers, the journals etc. I don't mean papers written here and there by creationists (which I understand that you claim you are not), but the articles and studies done by main stream science? Scientists would be winning Nobel prizes for showing the existence of god or any deity for that matter. Religion has never had a leg to stand on by itself. It attaches itself to social and political venues to make itself seem correct. Alone, it falls apart.

StOoPiD_MoNkEy said...

As far as my knowledge about religion and god. Well your personal attacks on my character, without knowing who I am are laughable. Just because you are a paper believer with your PHD, I have actually been in the trenches doing missionary work. The end result is, no I do not believe a god exists. Am I open to being shown? YES! Provide good solid evidence and I am there. Not your pseudo-scientific nonsense.

All in all your initial blog and comments afterwards are nothing but straw man arguments and ranting pieces to give yourself something to do. You are deluded and seriously mistaken if you think that crap you're trying to pawn off as an intellectual stance is anything but contrived.

If I have missed something, please let me know as I can see from how quickly you wrote me a comment, then created a whole blog piece about it, that you have mass amounts of time on your hands with nothing to do besides write nasty blogs and comments to people and play with yourself.

Do I hate god? No. I don't hate something that I don't believe exists. It seems though that you have much more hatred in your heart than I do. What I do dislike, is right wing xians that push their agenda into our politics and social structure. People like you that tell my wife (who believes in god) that she is going to hell because she doesn't hold the same beliefs as you. Or poisoning my children's minds (I have two), or separating them from others simply because they choose either not to believe as others. From your words alone, you have a twisted moral view of the world. Of course you "watch" atheist. You are scared because you know that deep down inside your jeebus myth with all its literary truth is garbage. But hey, it's your life and your waste thereof. Enjoy yourself silly theist

StOoPiD_MoNkEy said...

Plus I find it hilarious that moderators from a xian website have banned you for your ignorant and inflaming remarks. It seems that you have a nasty habit of not really debating, just attacking people and their persona with out even knowing them. You sir are not worth my time. I am sure you'll deny this comment and not even post it on your blog. lol.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=4328

Before you deny it.

StOoPiD_MoNkEy said...

another site you've been banned from, and from your own admission

"I was banned from TWeb so I can't go over there and answer his lies. I was banned because I threatened to sue them.I threatened to sue them because they would not stop this guy and another little demoniac name "Pixie" from spreading the lie that I made up a source, a fictional article called "On Rational Warrant" by Stephen Toulmin."

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-am-being-slandered-by-demoniac-liars.html

Lol, you seem to have a "everyone is against me" philosophy. awww...poor thing. So back to our last back and forth, this is a literary truth is it not? So it's valid and true, which means that you sir have no clue what you are talking about and have been shown to be a fraud. Lol. Go play in traffic silly theist.

StOoPiD_MoNkEy said...

Tit for tat. Just for you. You can click http://whatisarealamericananatheistview.blogspot.com/2011/11/metacrock-is-crock-of-shit.html

Metacrock said...

Tit for tat. Just for you. You can click http://whatisarealamericananatheistview.blogspot.com/2011/11/metacrock-is-crock-of-shit.html

so you really are as childish as you appear.

Metacrock said...

Plus I find it hilarious that moderators from a xian website have banned you for your ignorant and inflaming remarks. It seems that you have a nasty habit of not really debating, just attacking people and their persona with out even knowing them. You sir are not worth my time. I am sure you'll deny this comment and not even post it on your blog. lol.

I find it halarious that you are a lying idiot you can't read.

None of those banned me for "inflammatory remarks." doumb ass. they banned for threatening to sue them, can't you read? I threatened to sue them for a very legitimate reaosn. you are so stupid.

Metacrock said...

As far as my knowledge about religion and god. Well your personal attacks on my character, without knowing who I am are laughable. Just because you are a paper believer with your PHD, I have actually been in the trenches doing missionary work. The end result is, no I do not believe a god exists.

that's a super stupid remark. thinking I have to know you to know that you don't' nkow what you are talking about when I can tell by the fact that what you say is stupid. I do know the subject matter and you don't I know what you are saying is wrong. I'm an expert and you are an idiot.



Am I open to being shown? YES! Provide good solid evidence and I am there. Not your pseudo-scientific nonsense.

great then shut up and listen

All in all your initial blog and comments afterwards are nothing but straw man arguments and ranting pieces to give yourself something to do. You are deluded and seriously mistaken if you think that crap you're trying to pawn off as an intellectual stance is anything but contrived.


you are not listening you are running off at the mouth trying to defend your ignorance.

Metacrock said...

the last comment I'm going to answer in the main blog spot.