Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2010, 12:42 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 11:23 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(15-03-2010 08:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  QUESTIONS THAT MARTINB59 NEEDS TO ANSWER:

- Do you still believe that the Bible contains evidence of dinosaurs?
- Where in the Bible is Leviticus 20:13 repealed?
- Where did you find this "fallacy of the crucial experiment"?
- How is my understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument deficient?
- Are the things you post your own thoughts?
- Why do you think that I should defend a position that I do not hold?
- Where is your evidence that there is a "target" to evolution/change?

And do you still think that there is no such thing as an atheist?

BTW the links you provided went to the whole page, so I am not sure what you mean but I will try my best.
1. The word Dinosaur was coined in 1842, the word means “terrible lizard”. Do I believe based on what the Bible says that there were “dinosaurs” absolutely? And MOST bible believers do not disagree, not ALL, I have to watch myself with you.

Of course MOST bible believers will agree...what better way to debunk the 'scientific theory' by making a false theory of dinosaurs in the bible a literal truth.

BTW, the history of the term 'behemoth' is as follows:

"Word Origin & History

behemoth

late 14c., huge biblical beast (Job xl.15), from L. behemoth, from Heb. b'hemoth, usually taken as plural of intensity of b'hemah "beast." But the Heb. word is perhaps a folk etymology of Egyptian pehemau, lit. "water-ox," the name for the hippopotamus.Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010 Douglas Harper"

Source - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behemoth

Not a dinosaur, it is a hippo Job is referring to (FYI, the Hippo found in Egypt at the time of the ancients has long gone extinct).

Quote:2. The laws in the Old Testament were Jewish laws don’t forget. Christians believe that the Old Testament Law has been fulfilled in Jesus; He Himself said so. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin and needs to be dealt with in the same way another sin is dealt with. Prior to 1962 ALL states had “sodomy” laws on their books. According to sodomylaws.org, Virgina still has a law and continues to prosecute, five years in jail. Oklahoma 10 years. So if you look at the Bible since Jesus there was no penalty for homosexuality, it was sin like any other sin.

So, because Jesus said it himself, then it's true. I say that balloons are made of concrete, so it must be true. Sorry, martin, but sins in the bible were punishable by death (for the most part) or some other type of ghastly torture. Your whole fallacy of 'no penalty for homosexuality' is incorrect.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - sounds like condemnation to me!

Because 'states' have sodomy laws doesn't make it right. I know plenty of homosexual men, none of which practice their sexual exploits in public. What do I care what they do behind closed doors? If it makes them happy,....

Quote:3. Let’s use the common term “Smoking Gun”.

I don't know enough about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but from what I have read, I disagree with it.

Quote:4. I have responded twice to that question, look up the previous posts. Do your research don’t ask me to do it for you, I showed you the issues that have to be addressed by the first two premises that you responded to with “Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause.” I asked you to show your proof of that and under what conditions, and so far you haven’t and you keep asking the same questions.

This one's between you and Unbeliever...I support Unbeliever, BTW...

Quote:5. I guess the simple answer is yes, since they came from my brain no matter how they got there. Your posts to me, they are the same atheist responses that have been around for years. Look at your ”Arguments” not one is certainly original and your responses are equally as old. Except for your response to your “Argument from Morality” Where you responded with, and I quote “No, they don’t”. Others have put way more thought into their responses, and even though we don’t agree, it made me think, and maybe I made them think, after all the name of this site is the “The Thinking Atheist” Not the “dredging up the same old junk and responding the way everyone else does”

It can be argued that the same responses are given because theists just 'don't get it'. Yes, I have seen and I have used similar arguments against the theist claims but, as user bluent points out at the following video, "I love how they [theists] always ask questions, but NEVER take the time to listen to the answers. If they did, then they would not bring the same questions to the table over and over and over again."

An Epydemic of Poor Questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTATcnoeM-M

Quote:6. Not holding a position is “A POSTION”, saying I don’t believe in leprechauns don’t exist, is a position, saying God does not exist IS A POSITION, sorry! You need to defend your position, it is what the burden of proof is all about, I have talked about burden of proof before and you shrug it off.

martin, by simple definition of 'burden of proof', the position to defend is yours:

"...Ontologically "positive claims" are those that would extend the current body of knowledge. There is always an added burden upon him making the ontologically positive claim. (Though some, such as Adler, contend that challengers to the ontologically positive claim also carry some, though a lighter, burden.[5]) The fairy example contains an ontologically positive claim: that fairies exist. (While both "fairies exist" and "fairies are imaginary" are syntactically positive, only the former is ontologically positive.) Therefore, since fairies exist is an ontologically positive claim, an added burden is placed on the proposition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

Quote:7. Sorry, Dawkins points to a “beautifully designed animal” emphasis on “DESIGNED ANIMAL”, that was on top of a mountain, he then showed a mountain with a cliff on one side and a gently sloping path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL”, He then showed us the nice path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL” sorry, I need to stop here. The poster child of atheism in the following video said, at about 40 seconds “and somehow we have to imagine” The word “imagine” must make all you scientists cringe! Anyway, I was using Dawkins as my reference, maybe I shouldn’t have.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxSazfyJAw&feature=related
Dawkins: Lecture 3. Climbing Mount Improbable (7 of 8 )

Here is Richard Dawkin's full quote, which you like to quote mine so much:

"Anybody who didn't know about the Ramp Evolution, which is what that is called, would, if they saw an animal perched on the top, a beautifully designed animal, and only saw the cliff, they would assume that it had to be the result of a miracle. But in fact the only way up Mount Improbable is the slow, gradual climb up the Ramp Evolution. You have to add all the little steps up together and after a very large number of steps you can climb very, very high indeed."

What he was alluding to was that if you DIDN'T take Ramp Evolution into consideration, your first thought WOULD be a 'beautifully designed animal'. However, since Ramp Evolution was a wonderfully postulated example of how evolution actually works, it would be preposterous to consider an animal 'designed'.

Quote:8. Yes I still believe that there are only agnostics.

Then, simply for your confounded stance, you SHOULD leave this site, as most of the folks here prescribe to atheism, which you don't believe exists.

Oddly enough...you believe in an invisible, supernatural being ruling over the universe with ZERO proof of their existence and you adhere to that with no issue. Yet, here you are debating with atheists and you stick to your premise that we DON'T exist. Tell me martin, do you know what reality is?
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 08:05 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 10:30 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I understand what you're saying, but I still don't agree. I think he should be allowed to stay, with the condition that both he and I keep our vendetta to this thread. As somebody famous once said, "I don't respect what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
...Or something to that effect, anyway. Free speech is important, even if what is said is mind-numbingly stupid.

However, this forum isn't my personal playground. If expelling martinb59 is what everyone else thinks we should do, then I can't stop you. But I would warn that this forum wasn't exactly the most active before he arrived. Banning the sole voice of the opposition is bound to lower activity. It's like having a token liberal on a conservative board. Everybody hates him, he's annoying as hell and everyone wishes he would go away, but if he disappears it's suddenly very quiet. After all, without the liberal, there's nothing to do but sit around and say "Hey, isn't conservatism great?"
I also feel a little empathy for martinb59. I'm in his exact situation over on a few other boards - one where I am the sole skeptic in a board full of paranormal believers... and AboveTopSecret. Confused

ETA: There is another option. This forum supports ignore lists. Anyone who doesn't want to listen to martin can simply ignore him; his posts won't show up.


I think you are confused on the concept of "free speech". Constitutionally protected speech does not extend to private messages boards (which this is) or allowing anyone to run their mouth without incurring any consequences; e.g.: it does not protect one from criticism. Also, free speech does not mean everything someone says matters, is important, or should be tolerated. Free speech is important in regards to free press, right to protest, whistleblower protection, etc. It is not important to listen to every mouth regardless of their content.

Tolerance is often an early enabler of great atrocities. Be very careful about "tolerance" in general. It's a lofty ideal, but blind tolerance to anything and anyone is, bluntly, stupid. Don't let your good nature fuck you over.

That all said, the point of the matter has nothing to do with the troll, personally. It is about the escalation.

I have to admit, I have been entertained by this person. The gaping holes in his argument are often amusing. Hell, he contradicts himself more than the Bible does. Watching your rebuttals can be good reading. However, when I saw this thread it threw off a huge red flag that I have been witnessing for the last 18 years of BBS/Message board participation.

It generally follows the same path: Interesting debate, constant debate, minor trolling & circular reasoning (used to lengthen debate and pull in others, threadjacking, etc), special considerations (such as your special thread for argument overflow to avoid threadjacking). From there will be personal attacks to get attention, ignoring of the special considerations (not enough attention), more threadjacking, and the board will eventually die as regulars get tired of the drama and new possible members will be scared off.


If the spirit of the website and the forum is to give Atheists a place to feel more connected to each other and you allow someone to turn it in to a constant and distracting debate between "Us" and "Them" you are participating in its the destruction.

You assume that the board cannot survive without someone making every thread a debate on a single topic. That is false and, frankly, illogical. The more interesting threads and topics here have nothing to do with this troll. For example, thoughts on raising Atheist children. That is useful and interesting. Watching someone struggle to use the bible to justify their own insecurities is only amusing for so long before it becomes repetitive and trite.


I can only confirm to you that I personally have zero interesting in reading the debate generated by god freaks every single time I come here. I get plenty of that in my daily life. If no thread exists without the god people turning it in to a debate, what is the point? How many people are of the same opinion right now? How many will come to this opinion? How many will just slowly stop coming? How many will run before they even bother registering? This is the point of my suggestion to you and the board. Either I am right and you need to face this, or I am wrong and somehow this board will self-correct despite the overwhelming examples of this exact kind of burnout all over the web.

By the way, just putting one troll on ignore does not work. The conversation will center around the troll without him being directly visible. Essentially, it will make understanding or engaging in the participation difficult or impossible.

There is a intentional morbid tone to my original letter to you; I hoped it would read a bit like a condolence letter. I am sure you and others find his antics to be benign and have a soft place for him. I get that. Been there many times. I am even sure he is a nice man with a decent family and good intentions. I am just extending my own experience as a warning and a wake up call.

I have high hopes for this place but I have been around far too long to put any emotional investment in to it when it's this unstable so this is about all I have to say on the topic.

I will only add that I get up at 4am for work and today there was an earthquake about 4 minutes after my alarm went off thus causing me to expend a lot of adrenaline and energy I didn't have to spare. I have clearly rambled here but my point has been made so forgive me if I don't spend any more time trying to clean it up. Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 08:41 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 08:05 PM)Cranky Wrote:  I think you are confused on the concept of "free speech". Constitutionally protected speech does not extend to private messages boards (which this is)

I know that. De jure, free speech has zero protection on the internet. De facto, though, it does (in most places). I don't see any reason to censor opposing opinions here.

Quote:or allowing anyone to run their mouth without incurring any consequences; e.g.: it does not protect one from criticism.

There's a difference between "criticism" and "banning".

Quote:Also, free speech does not mean everything someone says matters, is important, or should be tolerated. Free speech is important in regards to free press, right to protest, whistleblower protection, etc. It is not important to listen to every mouth regardless of their content.

To listen? No. To let them say it whether or not you are listening? Yes.
Acceptance of free speech means letting anyone say whatever they want to, no matter how hateful or disgusting. However, it also means that you are at perfect liberty not to listen, or to reply with equal vitriol.

Quote:Tolerance is often an early enabler of great atrocities. Be very careful about "tolerance" in general. It's a lofty ideal, but blind tolerance to anything and anyone is, bluntly, stupid. Don't let your good nature fuck you over.

I think you're taking this a little too seriously. It's a forum. It's not like us refusing to ban martinb59 is going to lead to the next Inquisition.

Quote:That all said, the point of the matter has nothing to do with the troll, personally. It is about the escalation.

I have to admit, I have been entertained by this person. The gaping holes in his argument are often amusing. Hell, he contradicts himself more than the Bible does. Watching your rebuttals can be good reading. However, when I saw this thread it threw off a huge red flag that I have been witnessing for the last 18 years of BBS/Message board participation.

It generally follows the same path: Interesting debate, constant debate, minor trolling & circular reasoning (used to lengthen debate and pull in others, threadjacking, etc), special considerations (such as your special thread for argument overflow to avoid threadjacking). From there will be personal attacks to get attention

Already happened, actually.

Quote:ignoring of the special considerations (not enough attention), more threadjacking, and the board will eventually die as regulars get tired of the drama and new possible members will be scared off.

While I can see how this might happen, it hasn't yet. If martin gets too out of control, then yes, we should ban him. However, simply banning him right now without giving him an opportunity to change may be a little bit of overreaction.
As far as I have seen, martin has made a serious effort to tone down his personal attacks and threadjacking. Over the past few days, there has been only one case of this - see the "Arguments for God" poll thread.
So I propose a system for regulating this. As martin obviously needs to be monitored for continued threadjacking/personal attacks, we can do this through use of the karma system.
Every time that martin attempts to hijack a thread or makes a personal attack on another member, one person and one person only should quote the offending message and state that they have given him negative karma for it. If martin's karma total reaches a preset number, say negative five or ten, then he will be banned.
How does this sound?

Quote:You assume that the board cannot survive without someone making every thread a debate on a single topic. That is false and, frankly, illogical.

Survive? Yes, I think it can. Remain as active as it is now? No, I don't think so.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:05 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Quote:What is lacking on this site is Intellectual honesty.

IRONY

Quote:1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

And you don't see how this applies to you? You have committed the argument ad hominem fallacy so many times that I have lost count. You rely on insults rather than evidence. You simply hand-wave away arguments, stating that they are "unoriginal", "pointless" or "stupid".

Quote:4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

And you haven't done this. I've pointed out the fallacies you use many times, but you repeat them over and over and over. Like above. You keep coming back to the Smithsonian, which is the argument from authority fallacy.

Quote:5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

You also haven't done this. We've explained how you were wrong about several things, such as your quote-mining of Darwin.

Quote:7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

Again, you do this all the time. Just look at any of the posts you make where you talk about me.

Quote:8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

You've strawmanned several times, with both Darwin and Dawkins.

Quote:10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

You also have not done this.

Quote:I was I perfect in that? No, but I was way better than most on this site.

No, martin, you weren't. Out of all the participants on this site, you broke the above rules most often and most egregiously. I'm sorry that you're so self-deluded that you cannot see that, and I hope that in future you find it within yourself to examine your behavior with honesty.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:26 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(18-03-2010 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:What is lacking on this site is Intellectual honesty.

IRONY

Quote:1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

And you don't see how this applies to you? You have committed the argument ad hominem fallacy so many times that I have lost count. You rely on insults rather than evidence. You simply hand-wave away arguments, stating that they are "unoriginal", "pointless" or "stupid".

Quote:4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

And you haven't done this. I've pointed out the fallacies you use many times, but you repeat them over and over and over. Like above. You keep coming back to the Smithsonian, which is the argument from authority fallacy.

Quote:5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

You also haven't done this. We've explained how you were wrong about several things, such as your quote-mining of Darwin.

Quote:7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

Again, you do this all the time. Just look at any of the posts you make where you talk about me.

Quote:8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

You've strawmanned several times, with both Darwin and Dawkins.

Quote:10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

You also have not done this.

Quote:I was I perfect in that? No, but I was way better than most on this site.

No, martin, you weren't. Out of all the participants on this site, you broke the above rules most often and most egregiously. I'm sorry that you're so self-deluded that you cannot see that, and I hope that in future you find it within yourself to examine your behavior with honesty.

You win o wise one, I fall at your feet in wonder of how someone so smart is so young, you have proven to me that God does not exist. I got sucked back in here, but I am going to unsubscribe somehow or host please block me. Again to those that want to have an intelligent discussion

martinb59@cox.net
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:30 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Again you demonstrate your reliance on ad hom attacks. At least put some effort into your defenses.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: