That One Question: What is Religion?

Debate Analysis 1

2011-10-26T02:31:00.000-07:00

I was recently invited to take a stab at debate on a pro-Fox News/Glenn Beck facebook channel. Yes, I know... probably a poor idea, especially given the response from one of their locals when faced with being called out on logical fallacies and childish behavior. This really is just as bad as all the childish BS that you would expect to find on YouTube. The issue I had, though, was with someone, Maggie, misinterpreting what I said and continued to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding on the definition of the word "sexist". Also, looking at other comments, it seems like many of these people use scare tactic words that dont actually apply, are used incorrectly, or the generalizations are so profoundly ridiculous its hard to imagine a grown adult making them.

I have gone through and dissected the entire discussion, and I think it is pretty self-explanatory. What I would like to know is what the rest of you think: was that a sexist remark? Did Maggie avoid making logical fallacies? Was I too mean? Was I too soft? Was she justified in playing her Victim Card the way she did? Etc, etc.

Thanks in advance!

(last names have been omitted)

(this was taken from the comment section of one of Voiceof America's pictures. No, this is not the official "Voice Of America" media page, nor does it have any affiliation with it.)

(Origional comments are in white, my additional deconstruction is in red. Superscript notation added to help with specific association to points addressed.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Voiceof America and here is one for all the Obama supporters lol

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie You've found something Obama does well next to taking great vacations none of his every day supporters can afford.

Friday at 8:41am ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin And just think how much worse off we would be with the McPalin team.

18 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

There isn't any American Pres/VP duo who could possibly be worse than Obama/Biden's destruction and demise with the help of a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years and Dem-controlled Senate now. McCain's platform was nearly identical to that of JFK, which didn't make him the greatest GOP candidate, but he couldn't have done a worse job than Obama us doing and he wouldn't have had an agenda as destructive as Obama's get rich plan for his cronies.

16 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

Yes, actually, the McPalin team¹ would have ended with open revolts against the government for their failure². Palin wouldn't have a clue how to do anything³, and that is a very bad thing to have for a VP. McCain chose her because of her sex and religious affiliation to fill the gap when Clinton lost, thats the *only* reason anyone outside of Alaska knows about her⁴. Its friggin sad.

9 hours ago ·

1 - the phrase "McPalin team" is twofold: two specific individuals (McCain and Palin), and a team implies they are working together.

2 - Opinion - I dont think highly of McCain for many reasons, chief of which being his reasons for choosing Palin. That alone shows me he was more focused with getting into office than having a strong team to serve the people of this great country.

3 - Just about any interview or public event will betray her ignorance of the system in which she was supposed to be running. This was apparent shortly after McCain brought her to the public stage. Examples available on request, starting with these apt words from the Fox News Chief Political Correspondent, Nov 5, 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BXMv64EfU

4 - Anyone confused about this probably doesn't remember the sequence of events: Clinton lost, McCain chooses Palin to try and get the women voters. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/how-mccain-chose-palin/ Further proof available/willing to research upon request, but will only do so after it is proven that the article was read and understood.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

The ability to know the hearts, minds, thoughts and future actions of people one barely knows is truly an uncanny gift¹. While it's nice to indulge in predictions without any knowledge base², right now, we only have facts, which tell us Obama, with full benefit of a Democratic Congress for two years has given us an economy only Jimmy Carter likes, since Carter now knows he isn't the worst president ever. While Canada, once saddled with a flagging economy worse than the US' in 2008, is experiencing growth and signs of recovery, the US isn't seeing the same signs of recovery and sinks further into a worse economy, thanks to Obama and Congressional Democrats³. While I appreciate your desire to repeat yourself and state your opinion⁴, there is nothing to back your statement⁵. ------------------------------------------------- I wasn't a big fan of McCain with his policies that looked more like JFK's back in the day, but even Biden wouldn't have done as miserably as Obama has⁶. ----See More

8 hours ago ·

1 - Sarcasm, deflection.

2 - bad assertion - we do have a great deal of knowledge, especially now, of how well it would have gone.

3 - Utterly invalid point and fallacious statement. Comparing Canada to USA, these two situations are not reliant on each other in any way, shape or form.

4 - sarcasm mixed with deflection: childish. I was expanding on my post, and stated the reason why McCain chose Palin in the first place (the start of later BS) which resulted in the loss of his election.

5 - baseless assertion; dismissal without examination or even asking to validate my position. This is a great sign of willful ignorance.

6 - gratuitous and off topic. Additionally, interesting to note Maggie didn't think much of McCain in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

Sorry, Maggie, comparing Canada and USA by saying the only difference is our president really emphasizes the level of fallacious logic, pure BS, and profound ignorance of that position. Its okay to be upset, but willful ignorance and misplaced anger doesn't actually solve anything.

-Obama didn't "give" us this economy. Thinking like that just shows how much you really understand the system. Sure, it sucks right now and his policies might fail to do what they were intended, but that is no reason to blatantly ignore everything about it just so you can blame it all on one person. That is criminally negligent.

"While I appreciate your desire to repeat yourself..."

Do you know what the word "clarifying" or "explaining" means?¹

"...there is nothing to back your statement."

You are certainly free to believe that :)

8 hours ago ·

1 - sarcasm begets sarcasm, especially in the face of apparently completely missing the point

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

I'd also like to add that I think the Democratic and Republican parties have catastrophically screwed over this country as they no longer work for the country itself, but to promote their own ideals/agenda. They both need to be disbanded to prompt a complete, and modern overhaul of the system.

8 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

Mr. H, your abilities continue to astound since you now have the talent of just uttering something to make it true¹ and have determined acidity now equates to an enlightened response². My comment was one made in response to your opinion of your fantastical future vision³, which doesn't leave you in a position to be complaining about quality⁴, let alone bandying definitions⁵. It's peachy you possess the ability to explicate your uneducated opinions about your visions of events that didn't happen. I do agree though that our political parties are not serving us at all, so we have a common ground in that. However, I would never go so far as to say any president in history (thus far) could possibly be a lot worse than Soros' puppet, Obama, but then I have a lot of history and facts to back that⁶. I would also never say any other candidate would have been worse, as that would be akin to pointing out any guy on the street and proclaiming he would be a lousy father just because I said so...and not based on any facts⁷.

7 hours ago ·

1 - gratuitous sarcasm, probably used in order to avoid actually defending a position

2 - Yes, finding ways to not only say "fuck you" but to do it in an intelligent way that actually addresses the specific issue, rather than just displaying pure emotion without context or possibility of conclusion (which is a great way to start a flame war)

3 - Opinion, which again ignores any request for clarification of the point being made

4 - Complete lack of debate experience on Maggie's behalf. Quality is what matters in debate. Ignoring quality allows it to devolve into a flame war. Order and structure is required.

5 - Further proof of debate inexperience, and a lack of perception/understanding about the human language. Unless everyone knows what you are talking about, discussions become one way and no one will get anything out of it. Therefore, definitions are key.

6 - Self contradiction. "I would never..., but ...". Starting with the premise of never doing something but then allowing for a means to do it not very logical.

7 - The last statement of "...and not based on any facts" is the key that invalidates the entire point: I do have facts, specifically the complete inexperience and lack of political familiarity that has made Palin the laughing stock she is today.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

BTW, while throwing out definitions, it would be good to note only a sexist bigot would say a candidate was chosen solely for their gender and religious beliefs while ignoring all other factors.¹

7 hours ago ·

1 - Inflammatory and spiteful via implication. First major sign of real childish behavior with emotional retaliation. The only other factors to consider support the conclusion: Clinton lost to Obama, McCain then chooses Palin after a mere week and only meeting her once. How much more blatant can one be?

Additionally, the fact that Maggie makes this statement is because I am a male. If a woman had made the same statement, would Maggie call her a sexist?

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

‎"...only a sexist bigot would say a candidate was chosen solely for their gender and religious beliefs while ignoring all other factors."

Sexist: is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Neither of those apply to this conversation, my dear Maggie, since I am talking about one man's choice of candidate in a political race. I'm sorry, but you are getting far too emotional to deal with rationally. I already gave you the reasons for what I said about McCain's choice (Clinton losing, Palins religious affiliation).

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Clearly, you can not speak about this topic rationally. I've come to expect that from people like you.

7 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

I think it is pretty funny how you chose to attack me personally rather than ask for more information or to prove something. Very telling indeed.

Your only tools here seem to be the use of shameful logical fallacies based in childish emotional retaliation. Good luck with that in the future.

7 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

Mr. H- Again, just you saying something doesn't make it so¹. You introduced the acidity². It appears you can dish out an irrational opinion³, yet hate to be called on it. If you can't handle an intelligent response or females, in general, one might think you don't belong in the arena⁴. You've failed to notice your undeserved name-calling leaves you with three fingers pointing at yourself⁵. You'll also note my responses are directly to your statements, while yours are knee-jerk, angry, inane rhetoric for the sheer sake of it in petulant resistance to being caught in an uninformed rant, which continues⁶. Let me guess here...you're a liberal and you've played World of Warcraft a little too long, which is my opinion, but now backed by enough of your printed word to justify it⁷. One would also note you've now justified my opinion you are sexist and likely also a bigot⁸, as your comments do equate to same....EOE 101. And, good luck to you with your world of video games and your momma's couch⁹.

7 hours ago ·

1 - Of course not-thats why its called opinion, and opinions are usually backed up with reasoning. Instead of being dismissive, one should inquire about the reasoning instead.

2 - Acidity which was born from Maggie's initial sarcasm and dismissive attitude

3 - Assertion with no validation.

4 - Gratuitous and spiteful. I am specifically fishing for intelligent responses, yet only get emotional attacks.

5 - Hypocritical.

6 - Textbook psychological projection.

7 - Ad Hominum logical fallacy, x2. Additionally, how the hell does anything said belie playing a specific video game? It doesn't. Spiteful response with the intent to reciprocate emotional pain.

8 - Lie, spiteful. These accusations of bigotry and sexism were already made as statements of fact, thus, as they were already implied, they were not mere opinions by this time: statement is a lie.

9 - Inflammatory, Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Parroting my exact statement in the previous comment with the "good luck" is childish. The Ad Hominem comes in with the "momma's couch", iced with a belittling tone via word choice. This Ad Hominem is apparently linked to Maggie's fantasy of WoW players being stuck at home in their parents' home (second order Ad Hom? heh).

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

‎"If you can't handle an intelligent response or females..."

Wow, seriously, do you even read what I type? Laughable.

"yet hate to be called on it"

If it was an intelligent deconstruction, I'd welcome the criticism. However, you do not inspire that kind of reaction from me, I'm sorry to say. Why not? Its simple: you are responding with fallacious and emotional retorts. Its very embarrassing.

"You've failed to notice your undeserved name-calling..."

It was all deserved, Maggie. To prove it, you didn't even know how to invoke the words "bigot" and "sexist" correctly, and in fact emulate both of those yourself instead. I'm sorry, Maggie, but you haven't been able to make a valid point yet.

"you're a liberal and you've played World of Warcraft a little too long"

Thank you! This really made me laugh! I will treasure this response for quite a while!

My dear, silly Maggie, you should not be trying to debate like this on the internet. You are an excellent example of an angry, active, yet clueless individual trying to stick up for concepts well beyond their own capacity¹. You have just committed the final steps in your intellectual suicide, and it was very embarrassing to watch an adult behave like a child.²

Seriously, grow up.

7 hours ago ·

1 - This is based on the level of response to the points: nothing but emotional attacks after outright dismissing them.

2 - The abuse of Ad Hominum logical fallacies indicate a total breakdown of logical structure, which usually means it has reached the point to begin a flame war.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

Additionally, Maggie, in case you forgot how Palin came into the public eye:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/how-mccain-chose-palin/

Read the comments to get a feel for just how well she was received, and how insulted the American public was. Be sure to read how even the McCain female supporters were outraged at his blatant move to steal their vote. Seems like people forget things, important things, very easily.

The truth hurts, and it has nothing to do with your malicious insults to my character.

Rather than being angry and responding the way you did, you should have asked "WHY", that, at least, I could have respected.

6 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

To review: Mr. H comes to a conservative site and comments Palin was only chosen because of her gender, ignoring the other accomplishments of this woman¹, then puffs he's not a sexist². 20+ years in HR tells me, H is not only sexist,... but a delusional one³. Then, he bashes yet another woman⁴ for making statements⁵ to which his response has largely been name-calling⁶ and use of the dictionary⁷. ----- Then, a reference to his liberal leanings and penchant for World of Warcraft (WoW) is met with the uber-intelligent version of a raspberry⁸. ---- While WoW is on his list of activities⁹, as are a cadre of liberal zealots¹⁰. ----- Your retorts are only a few syllables shy of "na, na, na, na, na"¹¹ and you have been exposed as a SEXIST¹², just one who huffs and puffs in denial. If this is all you got, you shouldn't bother¹³.

6 hours ago ·

1 - Thats because her accomplishments were not a factor to McCain's choice. Even McCain supporters during the 2008 election could see this (see the link in the previous comment).

2 - Clearly, Maggie doesn't know what the word "sexist" means. It was McCain's bad choice, not Palin's, which is the whole point. There would still be a problem with McCain's choice EVEN IF Palin turned out to be a strong political candidate, OR if it was a male, but she wasn't, which further compounded McCain's error in judgement (which should have been to choose a strong person to help run the country, not to be a puppet to get more votes for getting into office without regard to how right she was for the job).

3 - Spiteful and baseless assertion.

4 - Playing the "Victim Card" logical fallacy. Just because I strongly disagree with her, and logically deconstruct everything, I'm suddenly "bashing" her and a "sexist"? Further evidence showing ignorance of the word.

5 - Maggie's "statements" have been emotionally spiteful and fallacious, not mere "statements".

6 - Blatant lie. Hypocrisy.

7 - Two words were defined, out of all of this... additionally, how the hell is the use of a dictionary a bad thing? I'm sure that will prompt jokes about Palin supporters and intelligence/education.

8 - Yes, .... abuse of logical fallacies, like the Ad Hominum and Red Herring (distraction tactic) are bad, and not acceptable in debates.

9 - Apparently the World of Warcraft makes me an evil person? (then so are the 12 million who play it, I guess... and what about all the other video game players? Are we all evil? Slippery Slope there)

10 - Spiteful name-calling. Carl Sagan is a liberal zealot? Dr Ken Miller, Catholic high school text book author? Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education is a 'liberal zealot'?? Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennit, Harris, all zealots? More use of words (zealot) which Maggie doesn't actually use correctly.

11 - Childish lie, dismissive. Demonstrably false.

12 - Lie. Demonstrably false, and can actually prove Maggie doesn't know what the word means.

13 - Try actually reading what I type, next time.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

H info -- lists WoW as H's activity and H' inspirations coming from a Who's Who list of anarchists, capitalism-bashers, atheists and "we don't live in the real world, but we went to college" liberals, anarchists and atheists¹. We have our first troll². Why can't liberals ever send an intelligent one?³ It appears there are only angry, indignant, name-calling liberal trolls and we're getting the bottom of the barrel⁴...Justin must've missed the bus to the OWS camp rally⁵.

6 hours ago ·

1 - Hypocritical, inflammatory, spiteful, Red Herring. Hypocritical with the initial complaint waged against me for pretending to know the minds and hearts of people. List of anarchists... what? Not believing in a god has nothing to do with this conversation, that is a Red Herring.

2 - Hypocritical, inflammatory, definition ignorance. Maggie herself qualifies as a forum troll more than I do, as this is my first day here. You can not be a forum troll after a few hours. Clearly does not know what the word "troll" means, and uses hypocrisy in application of either common definition (troll as in being mean/rude, or a forum troll being someone who stays with a particular forum for a long period of time).

3 - Conspiracy Theory nut. Yes, because the "liberals" are out to get you... on... a random facebook page welcoming anyone .... totally.

4 - Hypocritical, Psychological Projection, Parroting, spiteful. Hypocritical in that she has clearly done all the above. Projection as that is exactly what she has done yet appears to think otherwise, and by projecting it on to me and attacking those attributes it somehow makes her feel better. Parroting as thats what I've been continuing to say she has been doing-not very creative to repeat what I accuse her of doing.

5 - Red Herring, assertion. The OWS camp has nothing to do with this, typical distraction tactic to try and demonize me. Not only that, but I actually dont agree with the OWS guys. Fail. Thats what happens when you make assumptions: you make an ass out of yourself. This failure could have been avoided if Maggie remembered the comment I made on Voiceof America's photo of the demotivational poster Ignorance.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

Yeah, Palin wasn't received well....well, not by your liberal crowd anyway.....that's fantasy world¹. Otherwise, she's looking pretty successful on her own right². Still doesn't erase that you ignored her accomplishments³ and said she was chosen for her gender....no matter how you rant and whine at me, your message was and is sexist⁴. Again, you're on a conservative site, so you need to bring something besides name-calling⁵. And, yeah, I get you don't respect my responses....I'm a woman and you're a sexist...wouldn't expect anything else from you⁶.

6 hours ago ·

1 - Dismissal, willful ignorance of additional material provided which invalidate the statement.

2 - Already demonstrated to show Palin has little understanding of the political system.

3 - Red Herring. Because they are irrelevant to the poor choice McCain made, which was specifically because of her gender. That has been established, years ago.

4 - Try using a dictionary.

5 - Hypocritical, blatant willful ignorance. Thats all Maggie has done, along with making logical fallacies, baseless assertions, etc etc, everything that would embarrass a Freshmen student on a debate team.

6 - Red Herring. It isn't the orientation of Maggie's genitals that I have been using as the basis for my arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

"To review: Mr. H comes to a conservative site and comments Palin was only chosen because of her gender"

Start with a lie and the rest of your statement is meaningless. Look at the comment history, I said "McPalin", remember? The "Mc" refers to McCain.

I'm sorry, but at least try to be honest and not lie when its blatantly obvious.

6 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

‎@ JH-Deception from you, once again.... The H¹ statement-direct quote: ".... PALIN wouldn't have a clue how to do anything, and that is a very bad thing to have for a VP. McCain chose HER because of her sex and religious affiliation..." (emphasis added)² --- ---- --- Justin, I realize you're liberal and not accustomed to having your fantasy statements analyzed³, but the statement I just quoted is yours, you made the part about Palin quite clear, and your statement is SEXIST⁴. ----- Textbook sexist...the kind that would slap a lawsuit on you in the adult world of employment⁵.---- The whole "I said it, so it's real" only works in liberal land⁶...not in the land of adults contending with the real world⁷. And...Name-calling and insults blaming everyone for your difficulties here isn't a real response⁸. ----- Seriously, The Daily Kos would love you...you'd be with your own kind. ----- Even your dear Eugenie would scowl at you for this hooey. (You can look up the word, hooey, too.)⁹

5 hours ago ·

1 - Childish renaming. I'm now "The H"? Clear sign of emotional mood undermining logical capabilities. This usually happens with people who dont know what they are talking about try to make a stand for their "team" regardless of how well they can do.

2 - Yes, McCain did the choosing, not Palin. McCain is a male. HE made the bad choice. Palin's political inexperience and failings only helped to underscore exactly how big of a mistake that was. As stated before, it wouldn't have mattered which gender Palin was, it was still a bad choice to choose a VP the way he did.

3 - Psychological Projection. Only a maverick would say that! ... lol.

4 - Cherry Picking, invalid use of terms. Yes, and as I stated in the first two comments, I'm pointing out McCAIN's choice. Completely missing the point. The word sexist does not apply here.

5 - Need a dictionary for Maggie to look up the definition of the word "sexist".

6 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection.

7 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection. Not only has Maggie been shown to abuse logical fallacies, but also constantly employs childish tactics to avoid discussing the point.

8 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection, blatant lie/fabrication/Straw Man logical fallacy. .....how am I "blaming everyone"... at ANY point here? Which specific difficulties am I blaming "everyone" for?

9 - Baseless assertion with a fallacious appeal, hypocrisy. Now Maggie knows the mind and heart of someone's future actions for which she has no possible means of knowing?

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

Dear Liberals, please send another troll¹. The one you sent isn't even a challenge...just whining, blaming, false accusations, denial, deceit, feigned victimhood drama, and name-calling....it's like you sent Obama himself². ........... And, geesh, he needs to use a dictionary just to respond³. ..................... Please send an intelligent liberal troll, one with information and facts...are there any⁴? ........................ The last time liberals got any information and facts or worked in the real world, they became conservative, so perhaps not⁵.

5 hours ago ·

1 - Invalid use of term. Needs to actually look up the definition of "forum troll".

2 - Conspiracy Nut, hypocritical, lying, Psychological Projection. My presence here in no way signifies a "liberal agenda" to specifically target this page, that is incredibly paranoid and quite pathetic. Every one of those accusations can be shown to be Maggie's own tools, if they can be shown to be done by either party in the first place.

3 - Lie, Red Herring. The lack of understanding of my word choice is not my fault, and if there is something one doesn't know the definition of, one should look it up (but, as Maggie has demonstrated-she seems to be willing to invent her own definition instead). Additionally, this is mere distraction and doesn't address any point, but more over signifies a particular disdain for intelligent and educated responses that actually form a common ground for a discussion. Making sure everyone knows what a word means before proceeding... thats somehow a bad thing? Also, citing a definition was done only twice, hours previous.

4 - Hypocrisy. Didn't Maggie accuse me of initially just repeating myself after my second comment?

5 - Gratuitous and childish lie.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

My 1st comment: "And just think how much worse off we would be with the McPalin team."

My 2nd comment: "Yes, actually, the McPalin team would have ended with open revolts against the government for their failure. Palin wouldn't have a clue... how to do anything..."

Do you know what the word "team" means¹? Did you even read the article that I posted, or are you too willfully ignorant to dare to challenge your own pre-conceived notions?

So, lets see... because I'm a male making comments "only" about Palin supposedly (what a friggin joke), I'm automatically a sexist bigot, despite validating what I said with additional material?

Now, lets run a little thought experiment here: if I had posted that same comment, word for word, with an account that looked like it was a woman, would you call "her" a sexist bigot or just a bigot?

You are such an angry person, aren't you, Maggie? You have shamefully abused many logical fallacies, blatantly ignored points that refute your statements, resort to childish and malicious insults and tactics (such as the whole "The H" thing), and on and on.

I really feel sorry for you, Maggie². You must be such a miserable person. I really wish the best for you.

2 hours ago ·

1 - Team implied more than one person, and working together. Maggie continues to completely miss the point that I'm mocking McCain's reasons for his choice, and Palin's political competency.

2 - Honesty. I really do feel sorry for how angry and upset Maggie must have been, so blinded by her own stubborn bigotry and apparent sexism.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

‎"Then, he bashes yet another woman..."

Awesome logical fallacy, Maggie. If we both made the exact same comments as we have here, yet we were both the same sex, does that suddenly negate your accusation of sexism?

Do you realize that this point alone makes YOU the sexist? The whole "HELP! A male doesn't agree with me, therefor he must be a sexist!" doesn't make you look very mature, and that is why I have a big issue with you now.

You are not thinking things through, you are just angry, spiteful, and reacting without reason. Your assumptions are unfounded, and your accusations are baseless.

I really hope you get over whatever it is that is infuriating you so that you are able to actually listen to what people have to say, ESPECIALLY when you dont agree with it.

2 hours ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

‎@ H- You know you very clearly said, "PALIN wouldn't have a clue how to do anything"¹...YOUR WORDS...then, you said Cain only "chose HER because of her sex and religious affiliation"².......again, YOUR exact words. ........ You can spin this all you want and huff and puff and pretend you're somehow a victim and all the females who dare call you on your own words are icky-poo people....then spin your psycho babble³. ...... But, in the end, there are still your words...posted for all to see and they say it all, plainly⁴. ............... The appropriate response from you WOULD have been: I apologize for making a baseless, sexist comment about Palin, which wasn't my intent...that is, IF you weren't sexist⁵. ......... While a sexist response would be all the blabber you've been giving us, your red-faced, endless rambling, finger-pointing and mumbling about your faux victimhood⁶ .......... This is called self-incrimination. (I already hear you scrambling for your dictionary⁷.) Thanks for the well wishes, which sounded so genuine. ........ And, I wish you luck in college and with the real world, when you get there⁸.

about an hour ago ·

1 - Cherry Picking. And out of context, yes, that would be very sexist. However, we are talking about politics, and Palin has clearly demonstrated a very high level of failure in competency over the years. If she had been in the White House after that election, she would have been a miserable failure because of her experience, not because of the orientation of her genitalia.

2 - Cherry Picking. Yes, McCain chose her. McCain is the focus here, not Palin. It was McCain's choice I was referencing here. Point completely missed, even after being directly quoted.

3 - Psychological Projection multiple times, blatant dismissal and fabrication. I'm clearly not the spin doctor. Who exactly brought up the accusation of sexism first? Oh right, that was Maggie. Not only was I accused of being a sexist first, but Maggie also played her own Victim Card an hour previous.

4 - Exactly, and they are still here IN CONTEXT and without Maggie Cherry Picking.

5 - Childish. It would have been, if what I said wasn't taken out of context, spun, and if Maggie actually knew what the word sexist meant in the first place.

6 - Childish fabrication, Psychological Projection, Hypocritical. No, actually, it wouldn't. A sexist response would be sexist in nature, but then again its clear Maggie doesn't know what the word means. All this "blabber" is actually the logical deconstruction and specific highlighting of specific logical fallacies. Yet again, psychological projection: projecting her own negative characteristics/actions on to me and then attacking them. My "faux victimhood", oh really?

7 - Childish and inflammatory insult.

8 - Childish. My well wishes are sincere. Every human lives in the real world regardless of which political camp they think they side with.

--------------------------------------------------------

Justin

You are the one spinning. You are the one lying. You are the bigoted, sexist, hypocrite, and your comments prove it.

I'm not a victim, YOU are playing the victim card because I'm a male who doesn't agree with you. Grow up.

"I already hear you scrambling for your dictionary."

You are so damned childish. Why are you being like this? Did I really hurt you that badly, or do you behave like that to everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Again-sorry if my vocabulary is too far over your head. That doesn't give you the right to be vicious and spiteful-though I've come to expect that from people when they either dont understand something or feel like someone is deliberately trying to insult them by using big words.

I've spent years debating elsewhere, so that means I've had a lot of experience. I really wish you would slow down and think about this a little more

about an hour ago ·

--------------------------------------------------------

Maggie

‎@ H-If you felt your statements about Palin only being chosen for her sex was NOT sexist....and IF you aren't sexist, then just apologize for the sexist statement¹. ............ But, if you are sexist, then ramble on for a few thousand words about how you're making a point by being condescending². ......... I think we readily see the direction you chose. Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Sparky. ....... I'm not angry, I just don't believe trolls should get to make inane statements, pretend to be victims, think derogatory remarks are an actual point, make up rules and spins as they go and play junior psychologist in arenas they aren't equipped to understand³. ......... You've made your sexist statement about Palin⁴. You've owned it. You've tried to deny being sexist by acting as though you meant the McCain/Palin team was chosen for their sex, when your words do not state this⁵. ....... But, you've not denied being a liberal troll nor have you retracted your statement about Palin only being chosen for her sex and religious affiliation⁶. ......... You've been calling me names since I first caught you in your sexist statement⁷, directly and implied, and worked yourself in your own snit and verbal tirades. ...... I don't need you to agree with me. ...... You've made yourself the poster child for the liberal caught being sexist....and now you're mad because you can't get by with it⁸. ..... Get over yourself..... If you can't handle the consequences of your own words, refrain from blabber⁹. ......... Or, as the women like to say, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."¹⁰

1 - Not going to apologize for something that was misunderstood. That's why I've been trying to explain it: thats what you do when someone doesn't understand the point.

2 - Logical inconsistency. Being condescending has nothing to do with being a sexist. I'm being condescending because I believe it is warranted based on the responses given.

3 - Textbook Psychological Projection, hypocrisy.

4 - Maggie still doesn't understand what my point was actually about, nor what the word sexist actually means.

5 - A correct statement! I didn't ever say the McCain/Palin team was chosen for their sex. That is absolutely correct. I said that McCain chose Palin because of her sex, and further validated it with additional material.

6 - Hypocritical, Argument From Silence logical fallacy. Because I ignore a fallacious point, it must then be my position? Thats childish, and rather pathetic.

7 - Lie, hypocritical. And still, the word sexist doesn't apply. Pointing out logical fallacies is not "name calling", its addressing the problems with a person's argument.

8 - Childish fabrication.

9 - Psychological projection. Could this get any more blatant?

10 - Hypocritical. And cup de grase: she uses a sexist remark to end on, after all of that.... wow.

-----------------------------------------

And that is really all there is! If you have read all that, please leave your thoughts! The only comments I'll remove are the standard array of flamers and rabid fundamentals, but otherwise I'll let anyone have their say!

In Response to the Noah's Ark Story

2011-09-07T17:30:00.000-07:00

Here is the script for the 2 part video series I did about Noah's Ark. Here, I list 47 reasons why the story simply does not stand up to a single moment of critical thinking.

Watch the videos at the bottom of this blog entry, or here:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYKJw8zc_uk

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5o7VEvfAVM

Script
Voices: Ryan, Heather (PC voice programs)

The Intellectual Suicide of Creationists: Ark Impossible, Part 1.

This material is protected under Fair Use law, section 107. False DMCA claims are a crime.

Don’t forget about Exodus 20:16.

Ancient proverb: “The road to Hell is paved with good intensions.”

This video is a general rebuttal to people who call themselves literalists and use the Christian Bible, namely the book of Genesis, to promote a Creationist world view. If you treat Genesis and other early Hebrew books in this multi-cultural anthology as metaphor, this isn’t directed at you.

Paraphrasing for expediency.

The Bible: Book of Genesis:

Most everyone knows the story. 600 year old man builds a boat, gets two of every kind, then it rains a lot.

Oh, and for whatever reason, there are seven pairs of every kind of bird as well (7:3).

Asexual organisms were just out of luck.

Everyone else, except for his wife, three sons and their wives, dies a horrible death by drowning.

Every alligator, kitten, kangaroo, centipede, and parrot not one of the lucky pairs on the boat, die a horrible death, as well.

The boat was made of gopher (cypress?) and sits at exactly 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, with three decks (6:14-15).

Month 2, day 17: all the springs of the deep burst forth, and the giant door in the firmament opens, letting the rain fall down (7:11).

Then, after every last polar bear, panda, and (according to some) Allosaurus, were secure, God himself closes the door to the Ark.

It rains for 40 days. As the waters rise the Ark floats and rises with it.

There was so much water it covered even Mount Everest by about 20 feet, which would be around 30,000 feet of water on a global scale (7:19).

For one hundred and fifty days, the waters flooded the entire planet with 30,000 feet of water (7:24).

Now, thankfully, the all knowing being suddenly remembered Noah. With a little wind, the waters began to recede (8:1).

The springs in the deep were corked, and God closed the door in the glass firmament above the world.

Month 7, day 17: the Ark hits ground on the Ararat mountains (8:4).

Month 10, day 1: the tops of the mountains poked out from under the sea.

Noah sent out a Raven to look for a place to land, but it couldn’t yet. So it kept flying around until the water finally dried up.

Then he tried sending a dove, but it didn’t have any luck either. After seven days, he tried again and it returned with a fresh olive leaf.

He waited another week and sent the dove again, which did not return. He waited another week.

Month 1, day 1: Noah was now 601 years old, he removed the cover of the ark (8:13).

Month 2, day 27: The earth was dry again, well, where it should be dry at least.

Noah finally gets a message from God to leave the Ark so that he and the animals can get a little frisky and multiply like bunnies in heat (8:16).

In his excitement, Noah takes a few of the “clean” animals and birds, and slits their throats on the alter he built as an offering of thanks (8:20).

And you wondered what happened to the Unicorn, Manticore, Mermaid, and Chupacabra? There you go… they were a sacrifice.

God was beside himself with that pleasing aroma of the fresh butchery (8:21).

The pleasing smells of the burning flesh and sounds of the gushing blood made God promise himself he would never do that again.

…despite that he even knew every child is evil from birth (8:21).

With a decree that every animal and fish is now property of man to eat and do with as man pleases, he makes another:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (9:6).

God makes the Covenant and promises that there will never again be a flood to destroy the world (9:11).

Then God says that the rainbow will be the sign of the Covenant (9:16).

Now the story goes on to the incestuous acts which populated the rest of the world.

*time spent: 4:20

Okay, that is pretty much it. Here are the facts according to that story:

F-A) Noah was 600 years old before the flood.
F-B) The Ark was 450 x 75 x 45 feet, with 3 levels.
F-C) It rained for 40 days, and ended in the night of the last day.
F-D) The 30,000 feet of water remains constant for 150 days.
F-E) The tops of the mountains were visible after 8 months.
F-F) The entire planet was flooded for 1 year and 10 days total.
F-G) Some of the clean animals and birds were sacrificed as burnt offerings.
F-H) Only 8 humans survived, all four males were from the same immediate family.

Proponent (Christian Creationist) Speculation:

S-A) There were anywhere from 16,000 to 50,000 animals on the Ark.
S-B) Some say their math shows only 30% or so of the Ark’s space being used, leaving the rest for supplies.
S-C) Carnivores might have chosen a vegetarian life style to cope with food issues.
S-D) Animals might have all developed and shared hibernation techniques to deal with the long period of time in a boat.
S-E) To account for insects and snails, they could have floated on driftwood.
S-F) There was one supercontinent before the flood, which explains how all the animals got to the Ark.
S-G) Rising magma temperatures boiled away a significant amount of the ocean, which later provided the rain.
S-H) After the flood, the supercontinent broke apart and separated, carrying the animals to their new and distant homes, also pushing up mountains all over the world.
S-I) The Grand Canyon could have been made in a week, or a few days, or five minutes.
S-J) The Ice Age was after the flood.
S-K) Dinosaurs were on the Ark because Genesis says all land animals boarded the boat, and this includes them as well.
S-L) Dinosaurs might have been carried as eggs or very young, not necessarily fully grown.
S-M) Variation in humans, like different skin color or skeletal structure, is a result of one of Noah’s sons being “cursed” by Noah himself.

*time used: 6:30

Opponent (Non-Christian Creationist) Arguments:

O-1) No geologist will state that the world was flooded for a full year and ten days.

O-2) A global flood would not leave the fossil record or geologic column as we find it today.

O-3) No archeologist, anthropologist or historian will say there were 8 people alive 4500 years ago.

O-4) It is impossible for four couples who are related by blood to spawn our entire genetically diverse civilization.

O-5) Scholars and Creationist groups (like Answers In Genesis) agree that this flood was about 4500 years ago (2500 BC). Other cultures around the world survived as normal through this time and didn't drown. How can those older cultures be unaware of a global flood?

O-6) Neolithic Chinese cultures (Hongshan, Fuhe, Machang, Henan-Longshan, Shandong-Longshan, Liangzhu, Shijiahe, Hubei-Longshan, Baodun, Tanishan, Shixia, Nianyuzhuan, Qinglongquan, Hedang, Baiyangcun, Qijia) did not cease to exist 4500 years ago, but instead continued before, during, and after the supposed global flood.

O-7) How can Mesopotamia be united under the Akkadian empire in 2300 BC if there are all dead? Empires do not rise suddenly and inexplicably after only 8 people were alive a hundred years previous.

O-8) The Early Bronze Age is well documented and could not have been propagated by four couples of humans just a hundred or two years before.

O-9) No land plant would survive being crushed under 30,000 feet of water suddenly, much less for a whole year.

O-10) In order for it to rain for 40 days, the air pressure from the water vapor in the atmosphere would create around 13,000 psi (pressure per square inch), which is lethal, instead of the planet’s normal 14.5 psi at sea level.

O-11) The worst rainfall in recorded human history is 3.8 cm (or 1.5 inches) in one minute, from Barot, Guadeloups. Mt. Waialeale, on the island Kauai, Hawaii, gets an average of 474 inches per YEAR, with a record of 683 inches (or 57 feet) in 1982. In order to reach 30,000 feet (or 360,000 inches) in 40 DAYS, it would have to rain at a rate of 750 feet (or 9000 inches) per day, 31.25 feet (or 375 inches) per hour, .52 feet (or 6.24 inches) per minute.

O-12) Given the daily food requirement of a zoo, feeding 16,000 animals, much less 50,000, for an entire year is quite impossible. One Penguin would need a little over a ton of food for a year. Elephants eat 300 to 500 pounds of food per day, making it around 91 tons of food for one elephant for just one year.

O-13) It is physically impossible for 8 people to tend to the supposed numbers of animal on the ark, even if that were one minute a day to feed and clean them. With six hours of that day per person to sleep, eat, and clean themselves, that leaves 18 hours to tend to the animals. 1 animal per minute, 60 per hour, 1080 per 18 hours per person (of which there are 8).

O-14) How long would it take a kangaroo, polar bear, komodo dragon, or capybara to get to Turkey?

O-15) Dinosaurs. A single Brontosaurus, much less two, would have destroyed the Ark simply by walking on it with all of its 35 metric tons of weight onto the cypress wood planks. Some dinosaurs are up to 100 or even 134 feet long. Some are 40 to 60 feet tall. Others, like the Ultrasaurus are estimated to be as much as 180 tons in weight.

O-16) There are about 527 genera of Dinosaur, with 10 to 20 being discovered each year. Estimates are around 1800 in total genera that we could possibly find in the next century or two. Some we will never find.

O-17) Dinosaurs did not live with humans. The Flinstones cartoon was not a documentary. There are no books or reports in any cultures history that refer to town defenses against roaming groups of Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus.

O-18) Mixing the worlds fresh and salt waters would have destroyed marine ecosystems. There is no mechanism for the waters to have divided into fresh and salt water bodies 4500 years ago.

O-19) There is no mechanism to dispose of 30,000 feet of water on the surface of the entire planet, nor producing it in the first place.

O-20) Global population at around 3000 BC was about 20-25 million. In 2000 BC, estimates place global population at 35 million.

O-21) Exodus is placed at 3500 years ago. Bible says over 600,000 males over 20 years of age left Egypt, making it nearly one MILLION people including women and children. Four couples cannot reproduce into one million in under 1000 years, from 2500 to 1500 BC, much less 35 million.

O-22) If you believe in Noah's Ark you believe in SUPER Evolution. The rate of speciation of those limited pairs of animal would require an impossible speed to make up for the known and unknown level of diversity on this planet in such a limited amount of time.

O-23) The excuse of "fossils on mountains" doesn't work. Identifying those fossils will reveal that they are simpler forms of marine life that havn't been around for a very long time. There are no elephant or human fossils along with those marine fossils on mountain tops.

O-24) Admitting the world wasn't flooded for a year and 10 days invalidates the story as factual.

O-25) Admitting the world was not covered in 30,000 feet of water invalidates the story as factual.

O-26) A single Norway Spruce tree has a root system that has been growing for 9950 years. Sitting under 3000 feet in altitude, it obviously didn't suffer a global flood for a year.

O-27) Additional trees in Sweden have been shown to have survived for 5000 to 6000 years.

O-28) California White Mountains has a 5000 year old tree.

O-29) The Arizona Meteor Crater was not formed in the last 4500 years, as a global flood would have erased or filled in much of it.

O-30) The Ark itself has not been found, and the claims by Ron Wyatt have been refuted by multiple governments and agencies who have examined that specific Ark claim site near Dogubayazit with multiple tests.

O-31) Others of Wyatt's team have retracted their support for this claim, realizing they were mistaken. David Fasold is among them.

O-32) Lorence G. Collins, retired professor of geology from California State University, Northridge, published a paper co-authored by Fasold who was heading the last team permitted into the now military zone in Turkey.

"Bogus Noah's Ark from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure", published in Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444.

O-33) Multiple cultural references to their own versions of a flood story when those cultures are supposed to be dead doesn’t exactly stand on a firm foundation of logic.

O-34) If different versions in other cultures for a religious event in a specific faith is some kind of proof, what about virgin births?

O-35) European Project for Ice Coring (EPICA) in Dome C at Antarctica has a three kilometer ice core sample that shows the last 740,000 years of snowfall. This sample describes 8 separate ice ages.

O-36) The Genographic Project, and the data on Mitochondrial Eve, refutes the suggestion that the entire human population came from four couples 4500 years ago.

O-37) Human migration around the world did not start 4500 years ago with one family.

O-38) If the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of a single massive flood, there would be similar geologic formations around the world.

O-39) The Grand Canyon shares no traits or formations in common with any kind of flood, and in fact the meandering of the canyon, along with about a dozen other items, is evidence against such a suggestion.

O-40) Hawaii is a land mass created by a hot spot under the Pacific Plate. The Emperor Seamount chain, the history of this hot spot for the last 80 some million years, is impossible to form in 4500 years.

O-41) The suggestion of the water supply for the flood coming from an extraterrestrial location, like comets, is absurd. They would disintegrate in the atmosphere or explode on impact, vaporizing the water and incinerating much of the surrounding area.

O-42) If fissures opened and released as much water as would be needed to cover the planet, the entire crust of the planet would have collapsed in on itself, destroying the geologic column. This would also eliminate an escape method for all of that water as there would be no place for it to drain.

O-43) If magma boiled off significant portions of the ocean, every single fish and ocean dwelling animal would die instantly, obliterating every marine ecosystem. This would also present serious thermal issues for the rest of the world, not to mention making the atmosphere too wet and thick to breathe.

O-44) There are physical limitations to a strictly wooden boat, regardless of overall design, which would make the Ark itself impossible.

O-45) The excuse of a “super continent” doesn’t work. Continents don’t move, the Tectonic Plates do, and slowly at that (50 to 100 mm a year). A super continent would take several hundred million years to spread apart, not 4500 years.

O-46) Plain water freezes at 32° Fahrenheit (0° Celsius). Ocean water does freeze, but it depends on the salt content. At 30,000 feet, the temperature gets to about -50° F. The surface water would have frozen, entombing Noah and all the animals to a slow death by freezing.

O-47) There is 1/4th the amount of oxygen at 30,000 feet than at sea level. Normal humans cannot reach 5 miles in altitude without assisted breathing tanks (1980 -Reinhold Messner is just amazing), much less survive for 150 days while tending to tens of thousands of animals.

Lecture Response - Howard 1

2011-01-10T21:36:00.000-08:00

"The Dishonesty of Atheism"

Bill Howard, Associate Professor of Chemistry

Faculty Adviser for Bible Campus Ministries.

UAF, Reichardt. Monday, 11/15/10.

The lecture hall had been constructed recently, for universities, which lent to the impression that this was indeed a hall of intellectual pursuits. The auditorium seating was angled steeply, and the chair and desk spacing was designed to be comfortable and easy to use while allowing for an extremely efficient use of space. The lighting and technology that had gone into the hall was impressive, and of special note was the individual directed lighting over the chalk boards, even. Everything about the event location sat in sharp contrast to the topic of the evening, and as Bill Howard later demonstrated, this pristine facility of modern science and education would be sullied by the messy intellectual suicide from one of its own.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks club, Bible Campus Ministries, was hosting an aggressive lecture which was presented by the group's faculty adviser. Doctor Bill Howard, Associate Professor of Chemistry, had been planning and practicing his lecture many times over and seemed to hold a great deal of passion on the topic itself. As most of the audience had settled and were waiting for the lecture to start, Dr. Howard faced the wall clock and watched the seconds tick by until the appointed hour had arrived, precisely. One of the astute members of Dr. Cole's History class pointed out that Dr. Howard was indeed wearing red pants. The significance of this was amusing as an inside joke, but it became an ironic and very accurate representation of the utter failure to come.

After the brief overview, Dr. Howard starts into a very slow paced parable of his own design. In this story, a vacationer in an unfamiliar country stops to refuel his vehicle and asks the station attendant for the location of hotel so that he might rest for the night. The friendly attendant goes so far as to even draw a map for the vacationer and sends him on his way. In attempting to follow the directions, the vacationer takes a wrong turn and ends up somewhere completely different. It is important to note here that the vacationer does indeed actively try to find this hotel by following the directions on the map. He pulls over, gets out of his car, and looks all around the area for the missing hotel. Next, he is greeted by a farmer slowly passing by on a tractor, who asks if he could be of any assistance.

The vacationer complains to the farmer that the station attendant had lied to him, to which the farmer assures him that the hotel does indeed exist and the map is indeed correct. In attempting to tell the vacationer that he had simply taken a wrong turn, the audience is slapped in the face by the punch line of the parable: "I will never find this hotel because I am an A-Hotelist". At this point, the lecture fractures on its logical axis and completely derails the rest of the night. A simple yet unspoken question rises from the quick glances around the room: "A traveler would ask for something he would need yet simultaneously believe that it didn't actually exist?". This, however, is just the beginning.

Dr. Howard, speaking through the parable of course, assures the audience that "there is no such thing as blind faith. If faith is blind, then its not faith". One thing that continually exposes even the most devout religious followers as less than honest is when one simply compares what is spoken by the proselytizer and what is written in their books. In the Christian Bible, the book of John, chapter 20, verse 29, the character of Jesus Christ speaks to the Apostle Thomas: "because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." This is the story that has become the Doubting Thomas story that emphasizes belief without question, belief in the Word without doubt: blind faith. This alone stands in stark contradiction to the words of Dr. Howard and his assertions about his religion. As he mentions later on that night, when confronted with a question about a conflict between science and his religion, "my understanding is that I go with the science unless the bible says something specific". How can this apparent contradiction exist with a devout Christian follow who should most certainly know the words of his god by heart?

Continuing with the examination and definition of faith in the parable, the farmer tells the vacationer that "faith is the substance of a thing hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Again the audience is presented with the contradiction between faith being a statement of something unseen-something a person is blind towards. Finishing with his own parable, Dr. Howard presents another example of faith and following directions. This example is one of his own travels with visiting his son for dinner at a restaurant. The audience is again presented with a laughable assertion: one wouldn't know if a restroom would exist at that particular dining establishment, therefore it took faith to follow the directions of the waiter in order to locate it. Analogies like these fail completely when realizing that there are such things as building codes and even organizations like the American Restroom Association that concerns itself with such issues and standards that relate to restrooms.

What is an honest skeptic, and what is a dishonest skeptic, according to Dr. Howard? An honest skeptic is defined as someone who can check the claim, ask for evidence, and follow a procedure. This is an admirable definition of a mentality that should be shared by any scientific mind. In Dr. Cole's History class, the Ferris article on science and liberalism mirrors this definition quite well. A dishonest skeptic is someone who has prejudices and doesn't want to check something that might prove those prejudices are false. Once more, right from the start, Dr. Howard seems to forget a basic trait of human psychology: every human has bias and prejudices in various degrees, and that is something that cannot be changed. Thankfully, Dr. Howard adds the qualifier of reluctance to check to this statement, otherwise it would be completely unconvincing at any level. Beyond that, the argument of "you just dont want to know the truth" does not have any logical strength as it requires many assumptions about this "truth" being asserted.

Keeping the definitions of honest and dishonest skeptics in mind, one should reflect back on the opening parable presented by Dr. Howard with the vacationer and the map. Should the audience be surprised that Dr. Howard seems to confuse his own story with poor logic as he tangles both of these definitions with the vacationer? At the start of the parable, the vacationer does indeed genuinely try to find the hotel by using the map. The vacationer only pulls over and looks around when he is frustrated by being unable to find the hotel. Ignoring the amusing holes in the parable that imply the vacationer not only knew what a hotel was, but actually desired to stay at one, consented in using the map given to him by the station attendant, and actually seems to know or have some idea of what he was looking for, how does this even remotely apply to the definition given for a dishonest skeptic?

The vacationer in his parable, after speaking to the farmer for a time, is proclaimed to be an A-Hotelist suddenly and inexplicably by stating he doesn't believe such things exist. This was utter nonsense, and demonstrated the continual abuse of demented logic throughout the presentation that can be easily found in most religious arguments. To exasperate the problems, Dr. Howard made sure to tie in a critical element of catastrophic failure into the map, which is obviously a representation for his particular version of one of the Christian Bibles, in having the farmer say to the vacationer; "you are interpreting this map literally, I think you should interpret it allegorically. The very definition of faith is belief in something that can't be proven". Single handedly, Dr. Howard had laid a fatal mistake in the parable meant to be the foundation of his presentation, while at the same time contradicting many of his points and assertions, such as what was said on blind faith.

The overall message of this lecture was one of following directions, and claiming that people who didn't do so were dishonest and liars. As these parables and definitions have been demonstrated as fallacious, so too has the message been framed with a self-defeating foundation. The element of catastrophic failure in this entire presentation was the assertion that examining the map/bible literally was not the correct way to interpret it because such reading must be done allegorically. If the vacationer, or any other kind of A-Hotelist, sees a straight line on a map drawn by a station attendant that should represent a road, apparently one is to interpret that straight line based on the alignment of the stars, the persons mood, or any number of external or internal influences that would change the meaning of a line into anything else besides a literal representation of a road. As Dr. Howard continued to demonstrate, this is utterly and completely absurd.

The Five Steps in Dr. Howard's Procedure to Find God were listed for the audience. The first step was to move the priority of finding his god as the number one focus on one's life. This comes before food, money, mates, housing, everything. Right from the start, the logical structure of Dr. Howard's map fails. Asserting that one must believe in this particular version of an Abrahamic god of the main monotheisms in the world is a logical fallacy called Begging the Question, Circular Logic, Fallacy of Redundancy: an argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises. Stating that you must believe in a god in order to find a god is an amazing statement coming from a respected "scientific" individual.

The second step is to "hate sin", and to acknowledge that everyone "truly deserves eternal suffering in the Lake of Fire". Indeed, there are a number of disturbing implications in this step as well. Preaching hate is not normally considered a positive thing to do in any situation, especially in an educational environment. Sin, in this case, is anything that leads to disobedience to his god and that leads to unbelief. If a person is taught to hate someone or something that causes offense to their religious views, what are those people entitled to do in the practice and venting of that hatred? Aside from the issue of requiring hatred, Dr. Howard instructs the audience that everyone is a worthless individual that actually deserves the worst punishment he can imagine. Unless a person accepts that they are filthy liars and that even the smallest infraction during their moral life condemns them to an eternal punishment of torture, they will never find Dr. Howard's god. It is a good thing every snake oil salesman has exactly what one needs in order to avoid the problems they just finished describing.

The third step is another Circular Logic fallacy that requires belief in order to believe; to believe in Jesus Christ as the "only begotten son of God". Additionally, there is a qualifier specific to the death of this character in the Christian Bible that paints a picture reinforcing the hate and anger the believers seem to cherish (being followers of a religion focused on martyrdom) "that he died a horrible death on the cross in your place". The underlying assumption in this death is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of other people: substitution atonement and salvation through blood sacrifice. Ignoring the absurdity of an all knowing and all powerful being sacrificing itself to itself in order to create a means for atonement that is required as a result of the condition of "original sin" originating from the actions of the first creations of this perfect god, the obsession with the death of their god/part of their god/the son of their god, and the symbolic cannibalism of their god in specific events such as "the Lord's Super", further demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

Finally, the fourth and fifth steps again abuse the same logical fallacies of requiring belief in order to find a way to believe in a god, this time through prayer and reading the Christian Bible as a "token of your belief in Jesus Christ". Every single one of these steps requires a violation in the rules of logic. How can this map of Dr. Howard's design possibly impress or convince any student or individual at a higher learning facility designed to educate students? As Dr. Howard implied before with his particular version of the Christian Bible, should his list of steps to find his god also be taken as allegory, leaving each individual to interpret these steps in their own way?

The last segment of Dr. Howard's presentation described his own journey into his specific branch of theism. As he had stated previously, prayer was key. Lots of prayer. When he was a child and had finished a long session of praying on his porch, he went inside to the living room of his house where the television was tuned in to a local lottery game. As Dr. Howard described it, his god placed an image of the winning numbers in his head moments before the numbers were revealed, and since he had just finished his prayer sessions he chose to view this as nothing other than a sign from his god. The alleged winning lottery number itself held significance for him. Being the number 613, he later found out that his was the number of commandments in the Jewish Torah, which is the foundation of Christianity. At that point, he counted himself among the religious.

Prayer is another common theme running all throughout the presentation. However, Dr. Howard asserts that "God often does not answer prayer until a person has prayed exhaustively". Again, the audience is left with a nonsense statement that completely stands against the very scriptures in the Christian Bible. In the book of Matthew, chapter 21, verse 21, " And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen."" Obviously, there are some blatant contradictions and fallacious statements that have completely crippled Dr. Howard's presentation.

The final segment of the presentation concluded and the Question and Answer session began. Among the questions, one of the better questions asked seemed to define exactly why Dr. Howard cannot be taken seriously as an intellectual elite. When asked about other religions, he replies: "I havn't tested any others. If there is a god different from the god in the bible, I have no knowledge of that god and I have no desire to know that god". Using his own definition, Dr. Howard is a dishonest skeptic, a liar, a hypocrite. Regarding the specific claim that non-believers are dishonest liars, Dr. Howard tried to emphasize this with a simple idea: "If a man is given directions to find something, but doesn't follow the directions, he has no legitimate right to claim it doesn't exist". At face value, such a statement certainly is true. However, as demonstrated, Dr. Howard is anything but honest when it comes to outlining any aspect of his religious views with what he believes of his gods as well as what he demands of others. With final statements such as "I will go to heaven because of the righteousness of Jesus, not because of anything I have done", he has undermined everything he could have possibly hoped to achieve, given the event topic, and especially the audience.

In relation to examining this presentation in terms of the Ferris article from Dr. Cole's History class on science and liberalism, it should be incredibly obvious where Dr. Howard stands. Ferris asserts that science can only flourish in a liberal democracy for a number of reasons. What is science? Simply put, it is the methodology used to observe and participate in our environment towards the goal of attaining knowledge about that environment. It is a structured practice that demands specific procedures.

Science is anti-authoritarian, which is to say it asks impertinent questions. Dr. Howard's views strictly forbid such questions when it comes to his religious views and the steps prescribed to find his specific version of an Abrahamic monotheism. Without being able to ask questions, and by demanding blind faith, the power resides in the self-proclaimed leaders of the religion. This is very authoritarian theocratic. That aspect also destroys, or at least severely limits another aspect needed for science to flourish: promoting growth. Little or no growth or change can occur in a stagnant system written in unchanging words and ideals.

As demonstrated by Dr. Howard, his religious views are anything but self-correcting, which is another point Ferris brings up as a boon to real science. Even when religious texts are written, sometimes even in stone, supposedly, they are still not literal-since they must be taken as allegory, according to Dr. Howard. There can be no self-correction when opinions change from person to person. There can be no self-correction with the "perfect and unchanging" word of a god. And to that end, very few are chosen to be the spokesmen for this "Word of God", which necessarily excludes another requirement of good science: unrestricted inclusions, no discrimination.

In conclusion, it is clear that Dr. Howard lacks a great many critical thinking skills when it comes to dealing with and promoting his religion. As the early French uniforms of World War I included red pants out of pride in a sense of tradition and of "fighting the [previous] war", so too did the irony of Dr. Howard's red pants relate to his methods of threats, hellfire and brimstone, personal experience, and failed logic, to the concept of "fighting the [previous] war" of street preaching by ignoring the intellect of modern non-believers. In this age of instant and global communication and advanced science, personal stories and threats from on high have exceedingly little effect on the educated. Dr. Howard made a strategic error in believing that he could use centuries old arguments in waging this new cultural war. By ignoring the logical and scientific advancements of the current age, he has ensured defeat at his own negligence and pride.

The question now becomes one of Dr. Howard's sanity and credibility as a person instructing young college students. Without even attending the event, every non-believer in his particular version of an Abrahamic monotheism passing by the fliers for the lecture were greeted by an accusation of being dishonest, of being a liar. This is incredibly poor taste, especially given that these fliers are being placed in an academic setting where honesty and hard work is a key aspect to success. As demonstrated in great detail, Dr. Howard continuously butchers the rules of logic during his lecture. Almost every aspect of the presentations promotes a mentality and ideal that is utterly contrary to a strong scientific and free thought environment geared towards an expansion of knowledge and understanding of our surroundings. Dr. Howard tried to present a passionate and moving demonstration of his faith to those who chose to listen, but instead he committed intellectual suicide in front of a shocked audience. This display was shocking, not for the content of what was said, but for who was saying it. For some students, they will never respect Dr. Howard as an intellectual for the poor performance at the Reichardt lecture hall.

Exploring Logical Fallacies

2010-09-07T13:42:00.000-07:00

Logical Fallacy. There are two words to this concept; logic and fallacy. Let us first define what those are using the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1983, because that is what I have on hand).

Logic: log-ic (loj′ik), n. 1. the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inferences. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness: the irresistible logic of facts.

Logical: (loj′i kəl), adj. 1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference. 2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person, the mind, etc.: a logical man; logical thinking. 3. reasonable; reasonably to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats. 4. of or pertaining to logic.

Fail: (fāl) 1. to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: The experiment failed. 2. to receive less than the passing grade or mark in an examination, class, or course of study: He failed in history. 3. to be or become deficient or lacking; fall short; be insufficient or absent: Our supplies failed.

Fallacious: fal-la-cious (fə lā′shəs) 1. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 2. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

Fallacy: (fal′ā sē), n., pl. -cies. 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness: the fallacy of our trust in such methods was soon apparent. 4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obs. deception.

Now, put all that together into one phrase: logical fallacy. In my own words, it is a self-refuting statement. Here are some others:

http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy

* A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed, essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire argument, invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu

Clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.
A mistake in reasoning
Logical fallacy is an incorrect conclusion derived from faulty reasoning. See also post hoc, ergo propter hoc and non sequitur.

So, now that we have reasonably established what a logical fallacy is, why is it a bad thing to use in an argument? Quite simply, if you use a logical fallacy to support an argument, you are using a weak foundation that fails and your argument has no logical foundation, no standing, no grounds, etc.; it only serves to discredit you and remove yourself from serious consideration on the topic. Logical fallacies ruin the one using them, and everyone else will just point and laugh-depending on the crowd, of course: most might just laugh. Because logical fallacies are failures of logic, you do not have to actually know the name of the specific logical fallacy being used in order to fall into their trap. It is, first and foremost, a failure of logic.

Here are some of the most common with definitions from all over the place:

Straw Man

A misrepresentation of an opponent's position
A fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Reasoning:

Person 1 has position A
Person 2 doesn't agree in part or in full with position A, but then presents a superficially-similar position B.
Person 2 attacks position B, declaring that position A is therefore false/incorrect/flawed.

Example: "Evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Example: "Evolution says everything came from nothing."

Ad Hominem

Attacking the person rather than the argument.
Using irrelevant personal distractions about the presenter to avoid the argument.

Reasoning:

Person 1 makes claim X
Person 2 says/creates something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

Example: "You are fat, therefore you are wrong about the heliocentric model of the solar system."

Example: "You must be a Cheeto loving slob living in your mother's basement."

This argument is close to a Red Herring, which is another diversionary tactic.

Caution:

This fallacy does not mean people are free from being offended. The failure of logic is in attacking something personal rather than the argument because the physical condition of the presenter has nothing to do with the intellectual argument. This fallacy does not take effect unless an insult IS the intended refutation of the argument presented. If a logical argument is presented to refute the initial argument, this fallacy does not apply to any additional insults that are not part of the argument itself: that is called being rude or belligerent.

False Dichotomy / False Dilemma / Either-Or Fallacy

Asserting there are only two answers to a question which, in fact, there are many more.

Reasoning:

Person 1 makes a statement or question in which only alternative A or B is offered.
Person 1 ignores solution C through Z.

This is also known as a Morton's Fork: a choice between two equally unpleasant options.

Fun fact: An opposite of Morton's Fork is the Buridan's Ass paradox.

Example: "If you are not with us, then you are against us."

Example: "Are you a Christian or an Atheist?"

Example: "If you dont follow Christ, then you believe everything came from nothing!"

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Placing the responsibility for validating a position on the wrong party.

In debate, the one who makes the positive claim must validate their position. If someone states their position as fact, they must validate that position. A common misconception is that non-believers must validate their own argument before the believer is supposed to validate their argument. This is generally not the case for the main reason that non-belief in a god is not a factual statement of denial of a god, but a statement of opinion in the lack of belief of a god. It is also impossible to directly prove a negative statement. This goes to the very definition of "atheist" vs "theist.

If someone defines "atheist" as a denial of a specific god, then they must show a definition of "theist" to be a positive belief in that specific god the anti-statement denies. Such a relationship does not exist. If the non-believer makes a factual statement about the non-existence of a specific entity, THEN they have the burden of proof to validate their statement.

The most common position is: "God is real." This must be validated before it can be accepted as truthful. There has yet to be any irrefutable validation for any god(s)/system of gods yet to be presented for the last several thousand years over the many thousands of gods in human culture.

When a factual statement is presented, it is not the responsibility of the opponents of that statement to prove it is not factual. When such a statement is presented, those supporting the statement have the responsibility to prove it is true.

A common tactic from non-believers is to first get the believer to identify specific beliefs they have/rely on to be accurate representations of their religion. Once those specifics are identified, the debate/argument can proceed. Without specifics, there is little to no possibility of satisfactory debate. Religious statements and debates will often substitute words, like "God", to mean the accepted representation of which ever culture the debate happens to be in/about. In the USA, this is most often assumed to be the Christian god. As there are 30,000 some different sects/divisions of the Christian faith, specifics must be defined for rational debate.

Example:
"God is real."
"I don't believe in your god."
"You must prove God doesn't exist."

Example:
"You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he exists."

Example:
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster put monkeys in Neptune's core."
"I don't believe that."
"Prove the FSM didn't."

Argument from Authority / Appeal to Authority

Asserting that an argument is true because another individual who is regarded as authoritative said so.

Reasoning:

Person 1 says A is true.
Person 1 is authoritative.
Therefore, A is true.

This fallacy is used quite often. If someone makes a statement about a field of study or situation well outside of their own understanding or familiarity, their status in unrelated fields has no bearing on the validity on that statement. Clergy have little or no credibility on the subject of Evolution or Quantum Mechanics if they havn't actually studied it. Biologists have little or no credibility on theology if they havn't actually studied it. A seventeen year old minor who proclaims to be a "good Christian" is not an authority on Evolution. A fifty year old retired car salesmen is not an authority on Photolithography.

Biologists ARE an authority on biology. Clergy ARE an authority on their specific religion.

Example: "My parents said so, so it must be true."

Example: "My priest said it was true, therefore it must be true."

Example: "Pat Robertson said the Haiti earthquake was due to a deal with the devil by the Haitians, therefore it is true."

Argument from Popularity / Ad Populum

Asserting that something is true because many, most, or all people appear to believe it is true.

Reasoning:

Lots of people are doing it, therefore it must be good/true.

This is also known as: appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad numerum.

The old refutation of this kind of argument asks the person if they would join their fellows in jumping off of a cliff to fall to their death.

Another refutation is to ask the person what they would believe at a certain point in history, and place emphasis on the reason they would believe, knowing how absurd some of them are considered to be today. At one point in our history, we believed the world was flat but that didn't have anything to do with changing reality. We once believed demons caused illness, but again that didn't have anything to do with reality. The point is to ask the person if they would be a "sheep" and follow the crowd because everyone was flocking in a certain direction, or would they accept or follow something else based on intelligent reasons.

Example: "Most of the world believes in religion, therefore there must be a god."

Example: "Everyone else is doing it."

God of the Gaps / Argument from Ignorance

An argument that asserts the divine hand of a god into a current gap of scientific knowledge.
Asserting the lack of a mundane explanation must prove supernatural intervention.

Reasoning:

Person 1 points to A and claims their god is responsible.
Person 2 shows the naturalistic evidence that explains A.
Person 1 points again to a specific aspect of A, claiming B is the work of their god.
Person 2 shows the naturalistic evidence that explains B.
Person 1 continues searching the gaps in modern science.

Reasoning:

It cannot be shown that A is true
Therefore A is not true

Similarly:

It cannot be shown that A is NOT true
Therefore A is true

This is most easily defeated by pointing out the obvious: just because there isn't a natural explanation does not prove there is no natural explanation.

This is related to the Moving the Goal Posts fallacy, in which the defender of a position continues to demand different or more complex answers in order to be satisfied. The problem with this is that the goal posts will continue to be moved: the statement or problem sets the person up to fail. This is most often recognized by someone asking for "transitional fossils" or asserting that the "missing link hasn't been found". This stance is most often intentionally dishonest because the real issue is about faith. Faith does not require evidence because it is, by definition, not required, and any evidence presented simply doesn't matter. This begs the question: why bother with what is obviously a rhetorical statement in the first place, then?

Example:

Gods were used to explain natural events, like lightening or earthquakes or rough seas. The phenomena that is responsible has been understood. Advocates of a god shift their "proof" to the fringe of our understanding every time a new scientific revelation is founded.

Consider:

Gods used to be titanic creatures roaming the world, influencing everything we see around us. Now, some will say the god(s) are the force that binds atoms together. The supposed power and observable influence of gods have continued to shrink through the centuries in correlation with our ability to understand more and more about our reality.

Circular Logic / Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question / Fallacy of Redundancy

Stating that the consequence of a phenomena is also its cause.
An argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises

While not as common, there are individuals who use this kind of logic to support their belief in a god. See the second example.

Example:
"Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because..."

Example:
"Is there a God?"
"Yes."
"How do you know?"
"Because the Bible says so."
"How do you know the Bible is correct?"
"Because it was inspired by God."

Special Pleading

Rejecting a premise or set of rules that would apply, without justification.
Exception to generally accepted rules without justifying the exemption.

This comes close to a double standard, or the famous "just because" or "because I said so" excuse. This is a failure of logic because there is no reasonable justification for the resistance to the exemption that would normally be applicable.

Example:
"Everything must have a cause, and God was the initial first cause."
"What caused god?"
"God doesn't need a cause."

Cherry Picking / Quote Mining

Citing or reporting specific data to support a claim which ignores a larger scope of the data that may refute that claim.
Taking something out of context and making a false representation out of it.

This is a very deceptive and intellectually dishonest tactic that basically, and knowingly, lies in order to make an attempt at convincing someone else.

Example:
"Even Darwin admitted the eye was too complex in the first sentence of this paragraph!"
"Read the rest of the paragraph, and those that follow, and you will realize he says quite the opposite."

Argumentum Ad nauseam / Argument From Repetition / Argumentum Ad Infinitum

Repeating the same thing over and over until the opponent gives up

No matter how many times someone repeats a statement, it does not have any relation to the factual nature of that statement.

Example:
Person 1 "God is real."
Person 2 "I dont see any evidence to support that claim."
Person 1 "God is real."
Person 2 "Can you prove it?"
Person 1 "God is real."

References:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

http://skepticwiki.org/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Reason to Live

2010-08-10T13:18:00.000-07:00

I've come by the question from believers (and non-believers too, probably) who ask about the purpose of life from someone who doesn't believe in life after death. I think I've finally articulated something that expresses my response to that kind of question. This was written and developed as I thought of it one day, and while it isn't proper English it does, hopefully, convey the depth of thought I was getting at:

Secular Response To The Purpose of Life Question

Is not unlike a pillar holding up a frame, a pillar of influence that holds the framework of our race.

Through our entire life, we have a sense of doing something important; of being someone of note, to leave our legacy to those who will follow.

We begin with a foundation; the early years in our lives of which the stones of our Pillar of Influence are carved from the mass of potential from our race. We are each restricted and bound in many ways to the types and limitations of those specific stones that we claim as our own, or of which have been set for us. Each stone represents a part of who we are: our sense of humor, tolerance, our will... everything that is us, is shaped and molded and finally placed at the empty spot that is to become our life, our Pillar of Influence.

As we live, we grow and rise in our environment from our foundation to something more. Each moment adds more and more onto our pillar, each moment adding to the history of what we were, what we have done, who we have influenced, and why we have done; each moment helps to plan for where we are going and how our pillar is shaping up. We rely on our foundation for guidance, but we have the potential to exceed and redefine how we build our pillar.

Dramatic events in our lives may change, alter, crack or even completely reshape our pillar. Dramatic events in the lives of others will also influence our own pillars, but never in quite the same way. Some pillars will never be influenced by our own pillars, but will influence our own quite profoundly. We will always be influenced by other pillars, for that is the very nature of our existence: for we are not solitary things, but things that grow when there are multitudes of us. We always see those pillars around us that we choose to see, and some that we don't even know are there, even if we do not want to see them.

When we stop growing, we end the creation of our history by our own efforts, but it is the legacy of our influence that we hope continues on in our place. Even if we no longer grow and influence by doing actions or speaking words, our influence, however small, adds to the history and to that which defines our race: our legacy of individual influence continues to shape that which will be. We are not one. We are many, and our strengths and weaknesses are reflected between ourselves over and over again, unbound by generation or any physical limitation.

We stand as one. We stand as many. We stand as a thing held and supported by that which has come before us. We stand as the inspiration and influence for that which comes after us. By the influence of those before us, we shape the future in front of us. We are nothing more and nothing less than the individual Pillars of Influence which support what we call humanity.

And thus I present my answer to that question: The Pillars of Influence.

Understanding the Prefix

2010-08-01T17:23:00.000-07:00

Language and Concept

Language is an interesting thing. While we use it as a tool to convey complex thoughts like how to build something or go somewhere, it seems like it fails at some level to really and fully express abstract thoughts. When we look at something, there are dozens or hundreds of little aspects about that thing which we can draw upon to identify it and its role. When that identification is complete we associate that object and particular attributes with a word or label for future reference. These labels serve us very well, almost all the time, especially when dealing with objects.

We seem to have a communication problem with the more abstract things in our lives. Ask someone to explain their concept of self or creativity, and you might be stuck for a while. And then there are the problems with expressing emotion; "Words just aren't enough", or "words cannot express...", and the like. Philosophers have been playing with this for a very long time I would think, and it almost seems like we are hindered by our own slow and clumsy tool which is the primary one we use, frustratingly enough, for getting those concepts from one person to another.

I also note the irony in trying to talk about the problems and limitations of using language to describe abstract thoughts ... by... using.... language to convey these abstract thoughts. Quite amusing.

Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism

So how does that influence the topic of religion? Well, first off, the feeling theists try to hold up as validation for their continued belief: "feeling the Holy Spirit". How can anyone even try to express what that is when our language is clearly inadequate? Usually they don't, or will say you have to experience it yourself-and that holds true for anything, really: emotional states... like love, or depression or other extreme emotions. That tangent will have to wait. The problem with language and labels as it relates to religious topics can be addressed on a basic level.

The way we try to deal with the abstract concepts in language is to construct labels. When someone mentions that a particular person is very beautiful, we don't automatically start trying to gauge the person's aesthetic qualities to the standards of the commentator-we assess that beauty with our own concept of the label "beautiful". This seems to be one major problem with religious debates, at least on an "average Joe" level with the general public. Defining theism, atheism, agnosticism, and a few other key words (like theory vs scientific theory-another tangent for another time), creates an initial rift or gap between the different debating parties because everyone is using their own concept of the words. Bridging that gap will go a long ways in avoiding misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and probably saving a number of those parties from being frustrated with the other.

So let's examine the words and some of the common arguments I've seen used with them:

Theism - belief in the existence of a god. This is a positive statement-a label that affirms acceptance or agreement with what the label is assigned to: belief in god(s).

Atheism - disbelief in god(s). This is a negative statement against the primary label of "theism" because of the prefix "a". This means that the word is a label founded on the first word to which the prefix applies.

What is a prefix? A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem or base of a word, which then modifies that word and creates a new meaning that is derived from that first word. The prefix does not make a completely different word that has no relation to the first word because that simply isn't how our language works. Some examples: the "un-" in unkind or "pre" in prefix. In those examples, the "un" means not, and expresses the opposite of "kind" which could also be replaced with other words and labels that are associated with being unkind, like "mean". With the word "prefix", the "pre" means before the affix, which will then modify the affix.

What is the problem?

Many theists claim that those who don't believe/accept their position of belief in a god, and who then call themselves atheists, are making a claim that the theist's god doesn't exist. Why are they taking this position? Primarily, I believe this is an intellectually dishonest tactic to try and force the non-believers into the position of having to validate "their claim", or shifting the Burden of Proof, so the theist doesn't have to validate anything themselves. This is called a Strawman logical fallacy. The theist is misrepresenting (intentionally or otherwise) the position of the other person and then attacking that misrepresentation to make a distraction from the point(s).

The reason this is a misrepresentation is because of what the prefix does to the word. The prefix "a" modifies the word to make a new meaning, but it doesn't have anything to do with making a claim against the base/stem word. Here are some examples:

Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical

The prefix "a" does not imply the non-existence of symmetry, it describes the opposite, or state of being "not", of the affix: symmetrical.

Moral vs Amoral

When someone is described as amoral they are "without" morals, and not claiming that morals somehow don't exist.

There are many other examples to demonstrate this relationship, but that should do. Validation comes from the origins of the word itself; the Greek prefix "a" means "without". With regards to the base/stem word "theism", the prefix "a" modifies that word to mean "without god" or "not believing".

The word "theist" breaks down to "theo" (meaning "god") and "ist" (suffix that means "one who practices").

The word "atheist" breaks down to "a" (meaning "without") and "theist" (one who practices/follows a belief in a god or gods).

Theism/Atheism vs Gnostic/Agnostic

Another misconception about these labels is a basic understanding of what they actually represent in a position. Theism and atheism are statements of belief, not affirming knowledge of one thing or another. gnostic and agnostic are statements regarding knowledge. Most people will recognize that their religious or non-religious position is a combination of both of these statements: a gnostic theist affirms that they believe in their god because they know it is real, while an agnostic theist would say they believe the proposition of a god is true but do not claim they know it for sure. The agnostic atheist does not believe in gods, but allows for the possibility of such entities, while the gnostic atheist doesn't believe in such things and further affirms that they do not exist.

Richard Dawkins expanded this concept a little more in his book The God Delusion by making a numerical scale of seven. The first being a "Strong Theist " who knows gods exist, fourth being a "pure Agnostic", and seven being "Strong Atheist" that affirms with 100% certainty that gods do not exist.

Regardless of which position is taken, there must be a statement of opinion/affiliation, and to what degree to form a foundation for any debate or argument. For that, we have two labels for each aspect (belief and knowledge) that defines the person's identity.

Conclusion

Every time someone says atheists must validate their position, or asks how atheism can be true/proven, they are either mistaken or deliberately trying to use fallacious logic to deflect/distract the argument.

One great example is a notorious YouTube user by the name of "ShockOfGod". He has a question he always asks: "What is your proof that Atheism is accurate and correct?". This is the kind of thing that promotes intellectual dishonesty and it spreads like cancer among a people who are used to not questioning or validating anything. Belief or non-belief in something is a statement of opinion, not a statement of knowledge-which means proving an opinion is a meaningless and impossible proposition. That question needs to be addressed to the individuals who claim gods do not exist because they are actually making a positive claim that requires validation.

As with any other hot topic of "our day", which ever generation/culture/location that may be, understanding one's position is a combination of belief and knowledge statements. Once there is an understanding by all parties, the discussion can be all the more productive.

Defining The Question

2010-07-18T16:22:00.000-07:00

I first created my youtube account name, ThatOneQuestion, with a purpose. I didn't really have a good way to express that reason, really, and didn't bother with it until I decided to try and make a "video intro" that explained a little bit about that. So, I've only recently articulated that question into something more meaningful and thought provoking, but I think it does a great job.

"The concept of our world view is founded on the answer we define for one question: What is religion?"

I believe that when you answer that question you will have a deeper understanding of your own concept of religion. That may or may not help you with what you currently believe, but at the very least, that will help you define yourself.

If you find that religion is some kind of truth about reality, then it will take you down a certain group of explanatory terms to define reality.

If you find that religion is something like a psychological aspect to human nature, then that conclusion will similarly guide you down specific paths.

Introductions

2010-07-18T15:07:00.001-07:00

Hello! I've started this blog as a tool for myself to share, examine, and save inspired and detailed discussions and topics for myself in the general category of religion.

I've spent most of the last three years of my religious exploration on youtube-but before you roll your eyes or facepalm yourself, think about it for a moment. Youtube is a global communication tool that connects billions of people in one common point of reference. Just one quick search, and you can find thousands and even millions of people who actually share the same ideas, tastes, desires, etc, that you do. That is something local communities can not offer.

Communication is very important. Its even more important in broadening your own experiences and understanding of things. And as I am expanding into another facet of global communication to "put myself out there" as it were, I am looking forward to seeing what all it can do for my growth as a person and as someone with a few things to say on what I find important.

Personal Story - As It Relates To The Topic

The most significant aspect of my life that has defined who I am, when it comes to religion, is the early passing of my father. As I have very few memories of the man who was my father, I have had to rely on what I have been told. This has presented an interesting problem for me in how to relate to others who have both parents and how that influences their development, but thankfully I've usually had a male father figure around most of the time (grandfather and uncle).

I have been told that my father was devoutly religious. He would read from his particular Christian Bible every morning. I do have early fragmented and fuzzy memories of what I think is Catholic church mass on Sundays, doughnut social events afterwords, but not a great deal more. My father's cancer claimed his life just around the time when the important religious questions should have started to come up. Given the very strong religious conviction of my father, I often wonder how I would view the world now had I been guided by his words. Would I still have rejected the notion of a supreme being? Would I still desire to learn about science, or would I spit on it as "blasphemy" like a fundamentalist and close my mind?

My mother was not as devout as my father, but, from what I can remember, still stands firmly in her beliefs of a divine being. I do get the sense that she, like many moderates I have come to be familiar with, do not accept or even like organize religion. That, however, does not sway her (nor should it) in the reasons she has to or not to believe what she does. While not seemingly religoius at all, a better term to describe my mother would be "spiritual" (and yes, as labels go, this is still fairly useless because it is far too vague-and there is much to be said about social labels some other time). As the calm and cool intellectual influence on my life, I have her to thank for what she has had to teach me.

My brother and I seem to have shared our view of the world since I can remember. Oddly, or not so oddly, the question of religious affiliation never really presented itself to our family because of my father's cancer. That was the focus of our lives for a long time, and thing like religion took a back seat to more practical concerns. In recent years, my brother share occasional jokes about the silly things religious fundamentals tend to do and say.

My uncle and aunt, whom I lived with for a number of years, seemed to have also kept religion at a fair distance. It is because of this continued benign influence from the religious world that has left me to explore it on my own. That freedom has lead me to develop my own concepts of a world view in peace, without harassment and indoctrination from "the home".

So Where Does That Leave Me?

While willing to entertain and seriously consider claims (at least the first time around) in favor of such things, I dont believe gods exist. Through everything that I have read, seen, heard, and experienced, I think the best explanations for religion can be described by human psychology. Intellectual tools, such as defining logical fallacies, have helped me specifically identify why certain aspects of religion have failed to convince me.

The most important thing to me is intellectual honesty. Making claims about one thing or another is perfectly fine, but what matters are the reasons you make those claims; the underlying foundation to a claim will determine everything else about it. In a word: evidence.

I think this should do for a quick introduction. I will enjoy writing more, and I have a great deal to "put out there", if only to read it back to myself and develop those ideas even further. If it can spark some good debate/arguments/flamewars, hey, all the better. Hopefully I can entertain some of you, and intellectually challenge others!