Friday, May 21, 2010

What happens when you force a theist to debate fairly?

In the last week, this site had a rather amusing, but somewhat unpleasant visitor by the name of PG.  PG was arguing for the Atheist's Riddle as an "airtight inductive proof".  I responded to his assertions in this post.  PG responded, but in a strange (ie. theist kind of) way.  He (She?) avoided nearly every point I made, and just repeated the same argument over and over again.  After days of posting frequently here, he still had not addressed the points in my original reply to him.  He also ignored the majority of comments made to him by other users.  He scattered his responses over 3 different threads, making it nearly impossibly for anybody to follow the debate.  The behaviour was trollish, and it was obvious that confusion was one of the tactics he was trying to employ to convince people.  He also used multiple logical fallacies, each on multiple occasions.

I decided to take control of the conversation and steer it towards an actual debate, one in which points are made and then responded to.  After warning him fairly, and demanding he respond to my original post, I turned on comment moderation and told him to respond to the points in my original post, beginning with point #1.  He had accused me of ad hominine (sic) attacks, but clearly did not know what it meant, in addition to not knowing how to spell or pronounce it.  I called him on it as point #1 of my response.  He was asked to respond to this question, "Did you screw-up the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of the term ad hominem?", as a condition for continuing the conversation.  My intention was to get a reply, then make him answer each one of my other original points, in order.

His response was very interesting:

"Fuck you asshole, I got better things to do then jumping through your hoops. You delete any and all the IDers posts which destroys your 19th century ideology. Your just a pussy hiding behind a screen name, spewing your bullshit because deep down you have no proof to back up your bullshit.

The only reason you are an atheist is because it allows you to get buttfucked without feeling guilty..

Fuck off you asshole faggot! "


Let it be noted that this theist considers staying on topic and addressing our counterpoints to be a "hoop" to "jump through".  Let it also be noted that PG, after being asked on at least 4 occasions, would not admit to being wrong about what ad hominem means.  He wouldn't even answer, "No" to the question about whether or not he screwed it up.  That tells me that he doesn't want to lie, so he avoids the topic completely when he knows we've made a point.  That explains very nicely his jumping from point to point to point, often without ever addressing people's replies.  Another thing to ask ourselves is if PG was not willing to admit that he was wrong about something that he was demonstrably wrong about (ie. dictionary spelling/definition of ad hominem), why would we ever expect him to admit that he was wrong about any of the important points in his argument?  So instead of answering the question, he threw a hissy fit like a little girl.

Jumping around, ignoring responses, refusing to admit fault, hissy fit....  we were never going to have a fair debate with a guy like PG.  He clearly is one of the poorest representatives of theism to have ever visited this site.  He will not be missed.

40 comments:

Jim said...

Well played PG. You showed your true colors as an ignorant person with no ability to logically (or grammatically, i.e. 'your' instead of 'you're') debate. You ask for civil and "intillectual" (sic) conversation, and you have been invited many times.

Here's some advice:

Grow the hell up.

In a previous thread the Admin and I were debating the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did either one of us lose our temper and resort to name calling? Of course not. We were having that intelligent debate you so obviously crave.

But you and all theists tend to resort to the name calling and hissy-fits first. I wonder why that is? I would wager to guess that you KNOW you can't debate your points because you have no proof of anything. Let's check the facts:

1. It doesn't matter if DNA is a code or not.
2. The "Atheist Riddle" is not a real proof.
3. DNA has to be natural.
4. Your god doesn't exist.

These are facts, my friend. Plain and simple. It's hard to argue against facts. And you have no legs to stand on. And you know it. Deep down you know you're (I know grammar!) wrong. You know you can't prove any of your arguments.

And that's fine. It happens to everyone. Everyone is wrong at some point. There is no shame in it at all.

But to resort to gay slurs and hate speech, well, it goes to show that now only are you wrong, but you're a coward.

ANTZILLA said...

I guess we atheists should be thankful we can debate atheism at all. If we had debates 200 yrs ago people like PG would have us killed and think nothing of it.

Theism and debates are polar opisites, does any think any theist has had a honest internal debate with themselfs regarding their faiths?

PG sounds like that anti-gay dude ending up being gay.

Admin said...

I'll turn off comment moderation shortly, unless PG comes back. In that case, I'll use it again to force him to answer the question.

Magnamune said...

At least we got a few days of annoyed giggling out of this guy (girl?). It certainly sounds as though he'll go the hell away now, which is fine by me as I feel he can be of no more entertainment value.

Hmm, it seems that people such as PG are of no more value to me then the limit of the entertainment they provide...

Jim said...

It's ironic that these people, who believe so adamantly in Hell and sin, never see their own faults. I'm sure Jesus would have something to say about calling people "asshole faggot".

Sounds perfectly Christian to me. So, on top of the Holocaust, the Crusades (which was a sort of attempted Muslim genocide), the Dark Ages, killing people that don't believe in their viewpoint, gay-bashing, woman-bashing, black-bashing, child molestation, child abuse, child rape, rape in general, abuse in general, covering up abuse, molestation and rape, believing that the Earth was the center of the universe, we now can add name calling and hissy-fits to the list.

Good job PG.

And, again, thanks for that (sic)"intillectual" debate. You've been great at proving us right.

Admin said...

I found PG's response very satisfying, for 3 reasons:

1. He showed us exactly what kind of ugly theist he is, with the gay-bashing

2. He resorted to calling me gay instead of addressing the topic, which ironically is an ad hominem attack

3. He showed that he'd never admit being incorrect about anything

Daniel said...

The whole homophobe thing really enflamed me, and I'd be bloody hard-pressed not to fuck this bitch up if I met him.

Feki said...

Hi y'all

Although the debate with PG is clearly over (and it really wasn't a debate, we know that), I thought you might find this scientific discovery relevant:

http://www.zdnet.com/photos/scientists-build-first-synthetic-bacteria-photos/425927

Yup, man-made bacteria...

Jim said...

On the man-made bacteria.

So obviously the Catholic church has to open it's big mouth about this. But their stance is predictable.

They say it's bad to play god and create stuff.

But they say if the man-made bacteria leads to cures for diseases, then it must have been god's will for man to be able to create it.

Pick a fucking side. It's either against your fake god, or with it. Quit waiting around until you find out if it's good or bad before you tell us what you think. Bunch of cowards.

Hey, cowards. Seems to be a theme lately.

Daniel said...

So now science has empirically created life, but God is still making excuses for it's own (non-)existence?
See what happens when we flip off all the maniacs and get our heads down?
We make LIFE, baby!

Feki said...

And Man said, "Let the labs put forth bacteria with synthetic DNA multiplying exponentially, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.

Well, unlike the biblical crap, this is actually true.

It is about time christians recognize their deity sucks at proving its very own existence and the "feats" it's been so widely credited for.

Admin said...

Hey Feki, I still owe you a response to the email you sent me. I've been delaying it until a time when I need something to post about. I'm not ignoring you.

Jim said...

The universe was created.
A supernova created the Earth.
The Earth created man.
Man created god in his own image.
Man created life.
Man abandoned god.
Man became god.

Feki said...

Hi Admin, thanks and no worries :-)

Jim, the word “create” is an argument often used by theists to justify an alleged “creator”. Given that Man is the only known entity that purposely creates stuff, I took a creative leave and modified your timeline as follows:

The universe started.
The Earth was formed from a supernova.
Life developed on Earth.
Man evolved.
Man invented god in his own image.
Man CREATED life.
Man abandoned belief in god (and the supernatural)
Man became Man, for the first time.

Whaddaya think?


Note – Ok. A few animals, like chimps, can also create tools, display creative behavior and consciousness of cause-effect situations… but that’s a bit off the subject.

Jim said...

I like it. Good call on the edit.

I thought I would also bring up a little story.

I got in a little debate with a theist on another site about evolution, and he used this as his defense:

"Why is it that if you mate a horse with a mule and get a donkey, the donkey can not reproduce? Evolution destroyed. Atheism destroyed."

While I kindly pointed out that it takes a donkey and a horse to create a mule, and that this proves only that man has the ability to cross-breed animals, he refused to admit he was even wrong about the mule/donkey mix-up. When asked to explain how this disproved anything, he decided to inject the Hitler was an atheist argument. Again, when I pointed out that, not only does a persons personal beliefs prove anything, but that Hitler is quoted as saying he is Christian, he refused to acknowledge it.

Either PG is on the other post, or PG has spread his stupidity elsewhere.

Daniel said...

Actually, horse+donkey = mule is in FAVOUR of evolution.
The species are similar enough to have a viable product, but their genetics are not similar enough for such a creature to have a functional reproductive system(as in making ova/sperm).
Only because these animals have a common ancestor can they crossbreed, like lion+tiger = liger/tigon, horse+zebra = zebrorse. If they were explicity designed then these hybrids would not be possible.

Feki said...

I agree. Mules are actually a good case against creationism and intelligent design.

Mules are hybrids created by men, not god.

And, like Cypher said, mules are possible because both horses and donkeys share common ancestors, yet if there was an "intelligent designer" then mules would be fertile 100% of the time.

And Hitler was a christian retard, (a christard?) who believed in a "god-given" racial superiority. In fact, he distanced himself and his Party from atheism on the grounds that atheists were considered communists. Look into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

Mmmm these arguments sure carry the mark of PG all over.

niemand said...

Besides Hitler sort of created his own religion with him as the Messiah and many of the things thata we critisize about religions are things Hitler did as well (being intolerant, having dogmas, attacking civil rights and stopping cultural progress).

Jim said...

It was pretty funny. I had a long remark debunking everything he said. I used links and facts, backed up every argument I made. Everyone in the thread started to tell this person to debate me properly (even the theists, because they tend to follow the leader and refrain from forming their own thoughts), but all he could spout was crap about atheism being dead and evolution being debunked.

Eventually the site moderator (which is impressive, given that this was not a blog, but a news website) started in on the debate. He told this guy to respond to the questions, or have his account deleted for trolling.

It may not have been PG, but it goes to show that there are a lot of morons like PG floating around.

Admin said...

"Eventually the site moderator started in on the debate. He told this guy to respond to the questions, or have his account deleted for trolling."

Are you serious? So it isn't just me who is sick of that crap? Clearly that moderator must be an atheist asshole faggot, too!

Jim said...

I thought it was pretty funny. Especially when the moderator for a website that has hundreds of threads gets in on it. These people must be everywhere pissing people off.

Feki said...

Jim, they are all over the place.

You can hardly comment on Thunderf00t's youtube videos anymore because of the many christards lurking around denying everything that contradicts the bible.

Some are even stupid enough to congratulate Ed Current, even though he's done a very explicit in-your-face video addressing the very fact that he is an atheist disguised as a fundie.

Yes, they get served most of the time. But it takes patience, teamwork and a lot of time to spare.

Have you seen this video?

http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2010/05/25/spanish-artist-faces-hefty-fine-for-cooking-christ/

Ben said...

Using Perry's logic
1) God does not have a physical brain

2) All things with a conscious minds have a physical brain

3) Therefore God does not have a conscious mind

All you need is 1 example of a thing with a conscious mind without a physical brain. But you can't use god until you demonstrate that god exists.

Ben said...

Here's another example I think these two statements equivalent "all codes are created by conscious minds"="all known codes created by conscious minds minus dna" union "dna is created by conscious minds"

the atheist riddle is true if one of the following are true:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information ...
storage mechanism.
2) all known codes created by conscious minds except dna; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Right... non sequitur...

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) dna is created by conscious minds; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

right... that's circular logic...

That's the problem with "inductive proofs" (an oxymoron)

Ben said...

One more illustration of this argument:
"all codes are created by conscious minds" really means "all previous codes outside of dna/rna that we've seen have been created by conscious minds" so... we can substitute that in the atheist argument.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2)all previous codes outside of dna/rna that we've seen have been created by conscious minds; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Right...non sequitur

I have a feeling those who push such asinine arguments have no understanding of logic/reason.

Key point: arguments with logical fallacies are absolute garbage. the conclusion could still be true but you have to prove it independently of that argument... namely demonstrating that god created dna?

Jim said...

The first thing any of the theists who wish to argue the point must do is prove their god exists. That's all they have to do. No one cares about DNA and codes and all that crap. It's just a way for theists to attempt to get us to concede a point to them. It's like they think that if atheists admit that DNA is a code, then by some magic, their gods exist and atheism is no more.

They forget the part where if DNA (or anything at all, for that matter) is created by a conscious mind, you must first prove that your "conscious mind", i.e. "gods", exist.

Anonymous said...

Why don't theists have to prove that a god created DNA complete as it is today? Because we know this isn't the case. DNA evolved from RNA, and from simpler chemicals before that, back to a time when it wasn't DNA or RNA at ALL, just chemicals interacting, as chemicals will naturally do. Only after many billions of years do we have DNA as we recognize it today. This evolution was nature's struggle to create a successful system for propagating life (though nature itself was not consciously seeking this success). A real god would have needed NONE of those steps, and, considering the raging debate over ID and evolution, wouldn't (or shouldn't) have chosen to do it that way, ENSURING that we would be fighting about it.

The clock argument is no different. The most advanced clock we have today is just an "evolved" version of a less advanced clock, going backwards in time through simpler and simpler versions, back to sundials, and finally to the beginning of "clocks" when a Neanderthal noticed the changing shadow of a tree. Human minds may have designed clocks, but we didn't design the passage of time. Nature did that when our planet started spinning on its axis (or whatever simpler, more cosmic definition of "time" you prefer).

A skyscraper may have been designed by a mind, but it's really just an "evolution" of a cave. Was an intelligent mind necessary for there to be caves?

Daniel said...

That's actually quite a nice point mr. anon.

Jim said...

Well played indeed.

Godless Bastard said...

Okay, so let's recap. You don't believe in god so that you can get fucked in the ass without guilt or remorse. Gotcha. But I'm curious to know if this includes YOU fucking others in the ass - or is that found along some other line of reasoning?

Well, there's no beating that kind of logic. [shrug]

WINNING!

Anonymous said...

i had a quick look at the comments on this thread, and it seems like people really don't like christians. i don't know what sorta christians you guys have stumbled onto, but i swear not all of us are aggro, name-calling, ignorant, brainless dweebs. there are a lot of us who just want to live our lives and be good people.

i'm not here to debate rationally with you guys, as i know i'd never win. my boyfriend's atheist and we've had that conversation so many times. he still doesn't really understand (and neither do i), but my faith is just a part of me. it doesn't make much sense in my head when i try to really think about it rationally, but i just seem to know it in my heart that there's definitely something out there. so yea i guess i'm just trying to very briefly show my point of view of why i'm a "theist".

people like to lump "atheists" and "theists" together, but i think it should be much more complex than that. because each person has had their own experiences and own reasons as to why they live their life that way. true, a lot of them are really retarded. but i would really appreciate it if you guys don't think all "theists" are that way.

Jim said...

Either you have an imaginary friend that you think created everything around us, or you don't. Which is more rational? This is why all theists are lumped together. Because theists believe in imaginary friends and atheists don't.

Admin said...

I'm with Jim. You may not be out there going door-to-door to preach or killing people or anything but you're lumped in with all theists because you're delusional and have an imaginary friend. When people have imaginary friends that are not gods, we generally refer to them as insane. I don't make a distinction.

Think about it. If you're wrong, you have an imaginary friend. Isn't that crazy? Now, can you prove that you're correct? No? Doesn't that make you think? Does it worry you? Are you deluded? Insane?

Anonymous said...

you can look at that in a few ways

1. who's to say who's normal and what's normal? even in medicine the 'normal range' varies from person to person. what may be perfectly normal for a patient may be a really bad sign for another.

2. and you guys talk about an imaginary friend. its not abnormal for kids to have 'imaginary friends'. are they insane? i must admit, it's not seen as the healthiest thing, but i wouldn't lock them up in an institution and campaign against them or anything.

3. i can never prove to anyone else that i'm correct, nor do i want to because it's up to them to decide for themselves. but no, i'm not worried. because i know in my heart, it makes sense. i'm not going to let the world dictate how i'm going to feel. it's kinda the same with homosexuality. it may not seem normal or to make sense or whatever, but i'm not going to let people stop me from being who i am. i'm not hurting anyone. i'm actually helping people with my chosen career, literally. i don't think my sanity is an issue here. and i really don't appreciate you guys stooping low to calling me insane. i thought you would more reasonable and understanding. or would i be right in saying that this particular bunch of atheists are blinded by their own beliefs and are not open to other points of view?

4. there's a saying that pretty much says every person needs to be a bit deluded to remain sane. life is difficult. we do a lot of things to get by. i suppose you could say my faith is the lil bit of delusion i need to remain sane

Admin said...

"i don't think my sanity is an issue here. and i really don't appreciate you guys stooping low to calling me insane."

Are you insane? Are you an adult with an imaginary friend? If it's not real, would you be deluded?

"i thought you would more reasonable and understanding."

Understanding of what? Your imaginary friend? No! Who is unreasonable, us or you?

"or would i be right in saying that this particular bunch of atheists are blinded by their own beliefs"

Our beliefs? So if you can't prove your case, we're blinded by our beliefs? Nice try.

"and are not open to other points of view?"

I'm not open to "points of view". I'm open to reality and evidence. I don't care what you "feel" or "believe in your heart".

Admin said...

"there's a saying that pretty much says every person needs to be a bit deluded to remain sane. life is difficult. we do a lot of things to get by. i suppose you could say my faith is the lil bit of delusion i need to remain sane"

Sounds like a pretty good saying for the weak. This is why many atheists call religion "a crutch for the weak". Reality is good enough for me, because it's real.

Anonymous said...

i was never here to prove anything. i just wanted you to hear my side, hear another perspective and think outside the box. that's what you're trying to figure out, right? why theists believe what we believe? well i was tryng to tell you then. we are humans and we think in different ways. that's what "other points of views" mean. just because you think you're right doesn't mean you go up your high horse and judge everyone around you. you don't have to believe my beliefs, or even like them. i just want you to acknowledge them, maybe a bit less negatively.

my boyfriend is an atheist, but he acknowledges my point of view. and he says himself, a lot of atheists have a superiority complex. they think they're so right because they assume they understand more.

you seem to not know very much about mental health. when people are made to stay in mental institutions or locked up in jails, it is because they have some sort of disorder which prevents them from undertaking the usual activities of daily living an average person in our society are expected to maintain. or, they are causing trouble out in the streets. even then, "insane" is not the politically correct word to use. and i'd like to point out, my functioning is perfectly fine, i'm studying a university degree, i have a job, a family, all that stuff. i am not causing trouble, i actually do volunteer work, i will be mentoring people in my degree when term starts up again, and i am studying to be a nurse. and trying to be a good one. so no, i am not insane.

you may think i'm weak, i do think that too myself sometimes. but i get by, so that's ok. if you think you're so good at figuring everything out, then kudos to you.

Admin said...

"i just wanted you to hear my side, hear another perspective and think outside the box."

Think outside the box? Like think that perhaps fantasy is true? Sorry, won't do it. Fantasy is fantasy and real is real. Assuming you're a mainstream Christian, you believe many or all of the following:

- a virgin had a baby by a spirit
- the baby was its own father
- it died then came back to life after 3 days
- it then went to a fantasy realm
- if i don't believe in it i will be tortured forever
- talking snake?
- etc., etc., etc.

Is this "outside the box"?

"just because you think you're right doesn't mean you go up your high horse and judge everyone around you."

Right, because the Christians never judge me or tell me I'll be judged. HA!

"i just want you to acknowledge them, maybe a bit less negatively."

I acknowledge your beliefs and think they're crazy. What you want is for me to respect them. Not gonna happen without evidence.

"even then, 'insane' is not the politically correct word to use."

Did you see the words "politically correct" in the title of this blog? Don't care.

"i'd like to point out, my functioning is perfectly fine, i'm studying a university degree, i have a job, a family, all that stuff. i am not causing trouble, i actually do volunteer work, i will be mentoring people in my degree when term starts up again, and i am studying to be a nurse. and trying to be a good one. so no, i am not insane."

I'm glad you're a good person. Unfortunately your mystical beliefs provide cover for many who are not, and you still can't acknowledge reality. You mentioned it's a coping mechanism, well just know that there are people out there who do not need such a coping mechanism because we are strong. I suspect you even have a strong feeling your beliefs are not accurate and are trying to persuade yourself otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"Right, because the Christians never judge me or tell me I'll be judged. HA!"

if you know it's not the right thing to do, why do it? why not be the better person and do the right thing?

"I suspect you even have a strong feeling your beliefs are not accurate and are trying to persuade yourself otherwise."

I do have doubts, yet i have made the decision to stand by my religion. i dont know for sure that everything in the bible is true. i must admit, i cannot explain the talking snake, the virgin birth and stuff, because i have doubts on those too. what i try to focus on are my feelings and my relationship with God, as it's what keeps bringing me back to religion. I have tried, for several years, to understand religion and to think about it rationally and let it make sense in my head. It still doesn't make too much sense, sadly, but i just cant deny this incredible, complex feeling that makes me know in my heart that there is a God, there has to be some sort of higher power out there. i think the bible was just man's attempt to understand life, lay ground rules for society and be a guide for people to develop a relationship with god. it's the last bit that im really in it for.

"Unfortunately your mystical beliefs provide cover for many who are not"

there will always be good and bad people everywhere. even christians arent perfect. even christians can be hypocritical too

"you still can't acknowledge reality"

iv always wondered what reality really means. it seems like reality for a person can change with how they view things, or life, in general. you know the glass half full / half empty? how people view things can really change who they are and the decisions that they make. what im trying to say is, maybe reality is a human construct. and im just trying to live my life based on my reality, based on how i see and experience the world.

Admin said...

"if you know it's not the right thing to do, why do it? why not be the better person and do the right thing?"

I'm sorry, are you breaking with one of the central doctrines of your religion? Judging people is wrong, is that correct?

"I do have doubts, yet i have made the decision to stand by my religion."

Belief is not a choice. You can't force yourself to be convinced of things that you are not. You can only lie to yourself over and over again, hoping that you might actually believe it someday. You sound like an atheist who would rather not give up on her(?) religion for some reason.

"i must admit, i cannot explain the talking snake, the virgin birth and stuff, because i have doubts on those too."

Could that be because they're ridiculous? If this wasn't a mainstream religion, you'd be ridiculed for believing these things. If I believe my hamburger is talking, people would say I'm crazy. But if you say a snake is talking, oh, that's not crazy, it's religion. This is what the world appears as to an atheist. If you've never (openly) been one, think about it. If all of this magic is not true, then these beliefs are flat-out STUPID and people who hold them are, at least in some sense, crazy.

"what i try to focus on are my feelings and my relationship with God"

Right, your relationship with the imaginary friend. Does it talk to you? Do you hear voices? What is the fundamental difference between you and an adult who thinks he has an imaginary friend named George?

"but i just cant deny this incredible, complex feeling that makes me know in my heart that there is a God, there has to be some sort of higher power out there."

It's called "wishful thinking". And unfortunately the being that you want to exist is a murderous thug of an ogre. I'm sure between the two of us we could think of something more humane and kind that that monster. Also, if you have a feeling there is a "higher power" and the Bible doesn't make sense, why are you Christian? How did you make that leap? Just because it's the most popular where you're from?

"iv always wondered what reality really means. it seems like reality for a person can change with how they view things, or life, in general."

As a prominent atheist puts it, reality is the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.