Atheism is a mental illness
Kadaitcha Man
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
concludes that there are only shallow and superficial motives for
being an atheist. These shallow motives of the atheist are drawn
from neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God. In many
instances, atheism can be seen to be the result of neuroses caused
by domineering mothers and weakling, submissive fathers, as well as
by sexual or physical abuse, or from the imposing effects of
hate-filled, manipulative fathers. Professor Paul C. Vitz draws
parallels of atheism with the Oedipus complex and highlights that
atheism is the soft option when personal, social and professional
needs for acceptance override the need to be genuine on the grounds
that it's too much trouble and too inconvenient.
"Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering,
of death, of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for
allowing it to happen. Any early anger at God for the loss of a
father and the subsequent suffering is still another and different
psychology of unbelief, but one closely related to that of the
defective father."
"Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial
motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances
the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well."
The Psychology of Atheism
Professor Paul C. Vitz
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
Instructions and RULES
+====================+
1) Read the referenced paper in its entirety.
2) Check the provided list of objections and answers
before replying. If your objection is listed, do not
reply. That also applies if your objection is notionally
similar to one of the canned and wholly predictable
atheist fallacies.
3) If you really _feel_ that your objection is not listed,
select an appropriate logical fallacy and make your
objection there.
4) DO NOT argue against the Appendices. They have been
provided only to confuse you into failing to observe
these rules so that your sundry arguments can be subjected
to automatic disqualification under rule 5).
5) FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE RULES is an automatic disqualification
of your argument. There will be no exceptions. Please ensure
that you read and understand rules 2), 3) and 4) BEFORE you
reply.
Thank you.
The following text, in its entirety, with the exception
of referenced material, is copyright 2004, Kadaitcha Man
http://kadaitcha.cx It may not be used or reproduced
without permission of the author. The author's decision
to post the material on Usenet does not constitute any
form of implicit, explicit or tacit release into the Public
Domain.
Pick your atheist objection:
Professor Paul C. Vitz was never an atheist:
Professor Paul C. Vitz publishes a paper
imputing that he is a liar?
If Christians have an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being
on their side, why are Christians so worried about atheists?:
Atheism is a neurotic psychological illness and the
mentally ill should always be encouraged to seek help.
Please seek professional help immediately.
Professor Paul C. Vitz didn't think like an atheist:
So, just how did you get into the mind of
Professor Paul C. Vitz to arrive at that
conclusion?
God does not exist:
Prove it.
You can't prove a negative:
People who need excuses for their idiotic notions always
make that statement. It is equivalent to "I am right and
you can't prove that I'm wrong because I have no idea at
all about what I'm gibbering on about."
One does not equal two.
There are no humans on Pluto.
Galileo did not invent TV.
Horses do not have six legs.
Prove that God exists:
Prove that you are you.
See Appendix A before disputing.
Professor Paul C. Vitz is an idiot:
So, you're a psychologist too, huh?
Professor Paul C. Vitz did not provide any supporting
evidence or research:
Discussions with psychologist colleagues are not
research? All of the contents of Professor Paul C. Vitz'
publications that are referenced contain no research?
Have you checked all those sources and can you prove
that no research was undertaken in those sources also?
16 bibliographical references to various philosophers
and psychologists, including Freud and Pollock are
not references?
Professor Paul C. Vitz is a backslider and was only using
atheism as an excuse for sex, drugs and rock'n roll:
So, you must be an atheist in order to do sex, drugs
and rock'n roll then?
That's all very illuminating, but perhaps we need to start
from scratch. What's your definition of "God"?:
Read the Bible.
Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard and his
view is typical of a Christian:
So, you're a psychologist as well and can
construct a formal refutation and publish
your work in journals for your peers to
critique, can you?
This is a totally bizarre idea of what makes people tick. This
is typical Christian paranoia:
See above. Ad hominem.
Professor Paul C. Vitz is an opportunist, has an axe to grind, or
has an hidden agenda:
Take an opportunity yourself. See above. Ad hominem.
Professor Paul C. Vitz has questionable integrity:
See above. Ad hominem.
There is no evidence for God:
Christians tell you that God is not physical but spirit.
Asking for evidence of the immaterial is pissing into the
wind.
If there was a God we would see his interaction with the world:
Christians tell you that God interacts with the world but
you refuse to accept the explanations as reasonable. The
Bible teaches that it is the restraining hand of God, through
the Holy Spirit, that prevents man from falling into absolute
moral decay, for example.
The idea of God is just so much bullshit and/or gobbledegook:
Atheism is a neurotic psychological disorder. And anyway,
your statement disproves the psychoanalysis in what way?
The Christian God is a bloodthirsty wargod:
And that has what to do with atheism being a neurotic
psychological disorder? Avoidance and diversion.
Christians try to debunk evolution:
And that has what to do with atheism being a neurotic
psychological problem?
This is just an attack on atheism:
Avoidance and denial.
Atheism is a neurotic psychological problem.
Atheists just don't believe what they are told to believe:
So where, in this post or in the article, is anyone
telling you what to believe? Atheism is a neurotic
psychological problem.
Professor Paul C. Vitz makes two assumptions. 1) Atheism is
a psychological problem. 2) He presumes that atheism is only
in reference to the Christian God:
About assumption 1) The introduction is a summary of the
argument. Read the argument, not the
summary.
About Assumption 2) Any Christian, Jew or Muslim will tell
you, there is only one God. It's quite
acceptable to be atheist about all other
gods, but not the one true God.
Professor Paul C. Vitz assumes his own conclusions:
The introduction is a summary of the argument. Read the
argument, not just the summary.
Professor Paul C. Vitz' argument is not convincing:
So, you're a psychologist as well and can
construct a formal refutation and publish
your work in journals for your peers to
critique, can you?
Professor Paul C. Vitz relies too much on Freud. Freud is
obsolete:
So you consider Freud obsolete in it's entirety? And you
dismiss the work because of these references to Freud
without validating the given references to determine
if they are still in keeping with the known body of
psychology today? Atheism is a neurotic psychological
problem.
And don't lose sight of the fact that Freud was very
critical of religion.
Also note the qualifications Professor Paul C. Vitz
gives to Freud's work. If you missed that bit, you
didn't read it, so don't complain.
If Professor Paul C. Vitz is correct then the affliction of
atheism should respond to psychological treatment:
Read your Bible and pray for help. Also try mind-stabilising
drugs such as Thorazine, Mellaril and Haldol. Suicide is
an option but can be messy if you botch it. Use a plastic
sheet so you don't mess up the carpet if you take this
option.
Professor Paul C. Vitz can't attack our reasoning, so he's
gone after our psychology instead:
Atheism is a neurotic psychological problem, and defective
reasoning is symptomic of neuroses. The corollary is that
it is not possible to convince an idiot that he's an idiot.
Professor Paul C. Vitz postulates a defective father syndrome.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with my father:
This is a statement made by those suffering the Superman
Syndrome and is the opposite to parent alienation. It is
indicative of unrequited love and, if left untreated, it may
manifest as an obsession. Please seek immediate professional
help.
Atheism is not a mental disease. It is the default position
and can only be changed by brainwashing and indoctrination:
Since God can neither be proved nor disproved via empiricism,
agnosticism is the correct default position. Any default
position other than agnosticism in the absence of empirical
evidence leads to incoherence of argument.
Balanced brainwashing and indoctrination are the only
effective tools against atheistic brainwashing and
indoctrination caused by domineering mothers or scheming,
manipulative fathers.
Victims of atheistic parental brainwashing and indoctrination
show symptomic signs of neuroses. Atheism has been shown to
be a mental illness, even if it is self-inflicted or induced
via parental brainwashing and indoctrination. Denial and
avoidance are also symptomic.
The notion that there is a God is as ridiculous as the notion
of gremlins, goblins, faeries and sky pixies. What logic is
there that would lead a person to believe in God? There is
none:
That goes to the question of rational belief. Since
defective reasoning and the loss of the ability to perform
reality checking are common features of neuroses and psychoses,
including schizophrenia, disorganisation, catatonia, and
paranoia, you are in no position to assert your own
rationality or the irrationality of gremlins, goblins,
faeries and sky pixies. Anyway, you have a higher IQ, so
why are you thinbking about gremlins, goblins, faeries and
sky pixies anyway?
Blind faith often denies truth and fact, and blind faith in
atheism is no different to any other kind of blind faith.
Please seek immediate help.
On the matter of logic, proceeding from a single, basic
assumption that God is a sovereign God, then the five
points of Calvinism form a logical framework that explains
the logical structure of Scripture. If you wish to tackle
the logical framework of Scripture, please have your Bible
ready and visit: http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm.
Christians have killed too many people in the name of religion:
And that has what exactly to do with atheism being a mental
disorder? Avoidance and diversion. Besides, atheists kill
for their gods too. Greed, power, money, sex, drugs, oil,
mineral resources etc etc ...
Atheists are reasonable people. Agnostics lack the intellectual
integrity to get off the fence:
Agnosticism is the only correct default position in the
absence of knowing that God is real. Any other position
is logically absurd, incoherent and unsupportable. The
reality of God is an unprovable truth. See Appendix A.
Denial and avoidance of the truth that atheism is absurd
does not imply intellectual integrity in the atheist. It
implies mental illness.
Insert other atheistic objections (logical fallacies) under the
appropriate category.
Ad hoc assertions:
(pathetic evasions go here)
Additional ad hominem:
(call Christians rude names here)
Red herring:
(Assert something irrelevant here)
Straw man:
(Totally misrepresent an argument and demand that someone
refute your misrepresentation here)
Affirmations of the consequent:
(A implies B, B is true, so A is true.)
Argumentum ad Septicus:
(Assert that "there is no God" is not an assertion
See Appendix B for etymology)
Amphibolies:
(spurious ambiguity due to lack of grammatical coherency)
Argumentum ad baculum:
(You'll kick my head in and screw my wife)
Anecdotal fallacies:
(A lack of evidence proves there is no God)
Argumentum ad ignorantiam:
(The Bible is a lie, everybody knows that)
Argumentum ad misericordiam:
(Appeal to pity, the Barry OGrady school of thought)
"If God cares about his creations he should be willing to
learn about our needs and wants."
"he will ignore me like he ignores the cries of agony from
his creations every day."
Shift the burden of proof:
(Assert that you are not mentally ill and demand
additional proof that you are, for example.)
Argumentum ad nauseam:
Repeat your assertions here that atheism is not a
mental illness. The more times you repeat it, the more
likely you'll believe it)
Argumentum ad numerum:
("No atheist will buy this shit" assertions go here)
Hypostatisation:
(You can't show me that God exists therefore God does not
exist assertions go here)
Argumentum ad populum:
(Appeal to other atheists for support here)
Argumentum ad verecundiam:
(Insert names of famous atheists here. Also assert that
you are a scientist and have a higher IQ therefore you are
not mentally ill here. Also see Appendix C)
"right. trained scientists unable to use logic? are you serious?
and I mean *real science, not engineering. I think it's a case
of these people being so intellectually superior to you that you
find them incomprehensible. don't feel bad, we can't all be
geniuses." for example.
Bifurcation:
(It's highly unlikely that you were created. Science seems to
tell you that you came out of a primordial slime due to random
chance and chemicals, and you'd rather believe a scientist, Mary
Baker-Eddy for example)
Complex question and fallacy of presupposition:
(So, have you stopped belting your wife yet?)
Hasty generalisations:
(Assert a portion of Scripture to be false (without backup
argument) then ascribe falsity to the whole of Scripture)
Denial of the antecedent:
(You've never met God and if God existed, He'd have let you
know, therefore God does not exist)
Sweeping generalisation:
(Solve the world's moral problems here by asserting
your own rules)
Fallacy of division:
(I am an idiot, therefore all Christians are idiots)
(All Christians are idiots, therefore I am an idiot)
Tu quoque:
(IKYABWAI Lames go here... Assertions that Christianity is
a mental illness, for example)
Ignoratio elenchi:
(Assert an irrelevant conclusion that has nothing at
all to do with you being mentally ill)
Argumentum ad logicam:
(Argue that atheism is not a mental illness because
it's the conclusion of a fallacious argument)
Non sequitur:
(Assert a conclusion not logically connected to any
premise here, assert that the universe was farted
out of a giant badger, for example)
Plurium interrogationum:
(Ask a complex question and demand a simple answer here)
No true atheist fallacy:
(no true atheist would buy this crap type assertions
here, please)
Non causa pro causa:
(blame something else for your mental illness here
without showing how that something else is the cause)
+=========================================================+
APPENDIX A
+========+
PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+
If you cannot prove that you are you, how can you logically
expect anyone to prove that God exists?
This is a two part proof. Part 1 is an argument. Part 2 is
a logical proof of the conclusion of Part 1.
1) You cannot prove that you are you.
Corollary 1 of 1): Only you know that you are you.
Corollary 2 of 1): Truth outruns provability.
Proof by argument:
Assume you are requested to prove your identity
to someone or some government agency.
Assume you provide bank statements, photo drivers'
license, birth certificate and passport.
Those things are erroneously labelled as proof.
They are actually only reasonable evidence of who
you are, and the assumption of proof is ascribed to
the documents. That is to say, the documents are
not proof, but are assumed to be reasonable as proof.
This can be further illustrated by the fact that
false documentation is often accepted as "proof" of
identity.
The corollary of that argument is that if these
documents were indeed proof of identity, then false
documentation would not be accepted as proof at all,
in any scenario. That is to say, lies cannot prove
truth.
In other words, the documents are not proof, but
reasonably assumed to be proof.
Now, let's assume you decide that you can actually
prove that you are you by taking a DNA test. One
could reasonably infer that the final proof would
lie there. However that is a wholly fallacious
position, and this is why:
I have here a report from an actual DNA test. It
states, and I quote verbatim:
There are two figures given in the Report:
(i) A Paternity Index - a number which is
the ratio of the likelihood of the
putative father being the true father,
as compared to a male chosen at random
from the population.
(ii) A Relative Chance of Paternity - a
percentage probability based on the
Paternity Index.
1) In this case, the Paternity Index of
137,649 means that X is about 137,649
times more likely to be the father of
Y than is another male chosen at
random from the Australian population.
2) In this case, the probability of X
being the father of Y is 99.9993%.
So, there you have it. 99.9993% is still not 100% proof.
Now, to further complicate matters, even if we grant that
99.9993% is so close to 100% that it doesn't actually
matter, all that has been proven is that you are the
child of parents W and X. You still have not established
that you are you. Only you know that you are you.
Of course, you could always argue that you're an only
child, but again, how do you PROVE that to be true?
Statutory declarations from your parents and other
relatives? Again, they are documents that are not
proof, but can be assumed to be reasonable as proof
for different purposes.
Conclusion: Truth outruns provability.
PART 2: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+
The logical proof for the conclusion of Part 1 is Gödel's First
Incompleteness Theorem. The following section deals with the
applicability of this proof.
Applicability of the logical proof:
+=================================+
The formal proof applies directly to the conclusion of Part 1, viz
truth outruns provability. I have argued at other times that Gödel's
First Incompleteness Theorem applies to the self but this has been
disputed a number of times. However the arguments against it have
been outright assertions based on a fixed notion that the proof only
applies to formal mathematical systems. For the sake of illustration,
I will go into that argument in more detail. When the proof is
presented, it will be in support of the conclusion of Part 1, not in
support of my claim that the theorem does indeed apply to the self.
Other objections have been based entirely on the meaning of two words,
computable and provable. These objections are petty but have been dealt
with below.
Part 1 shows that the self is an incontrovertible instance of truth, and
that all forms of proof are inadequate to prove the self. Furthermore
Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of
"this sentence is unprovable".
Only the knowledge that the self has of itself is adequate. This
knowledge that the self has of itself constitutes a clear self-reference.
"I know that I am I." In this instance, the conclusion is that the truth
of the self is beyond proof.
Since the self is self-referential, it has the fundamental
trait required of a formal system for it to be a Gödelian
self-referential system. The self has been shown by argument
in Part 1 as being equivalent to the statement "this sentence
is unprovable".. The argument in Part 1 should be sufficient
to convince the most hardened opponent that the self is a
Gödelian self-referential system, however additional support
for the position is provided below.
"The proof, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, of the existence
of formally undecidable propositions in any formal system of
arithmetic. More precisely, his first incompleteness theorem…
states that in any formal system S of arithmetic, there will be
a sentence P of the language of S such that if S is consistent,
neither P nor its negation can be proved in S. …This makes it
possible to show that there must be a sentence P of S which can
be interpreted (very roughly) as saying 'I am not provable'.
A Dictionary Of Philosophy. Second edition. (Pan Books 1984). Page 133.
Source: http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/godeldef2.htm
Part 1 clearly shows that the self is equivalent to the statement
'I am not provable'. That is so despite "formally undecidable
propositions in any formal system of arithmetic".
The next question to be decided is if the self is actually
a formal system that constitutes an adequately axiomatisable
system.
I will define a part of the human mind that directly deals with
encoding and decoding syntactic notions of things like "formula",
"sentence" and "proof"', that also applies axioms, evaluates
assumptions for validity and so on, as being a system - Sf.
In order to demonstrate the existence of Sf, one should only need
point to what is going on inside your own head...
Answer this question:
"Ten plus five minus two equals what?"
If you get 13, there is direct evidence that Sf decoded the
syntactic notions of a formula from an encoded sentence, also
applied axioms (add and subtract rules) and possibly performed
a verification process before it accepted the output as correct,
then encoded it back to a formula, which Sf expressed as the
number 13.
A) The human mind Sf can encode and decode syntactic notions
of things like "formula", "sentence" and "proof"', can apply
axioms (rules), evaluate assumptions for validity and so on
to arrive at a rational output.
To apply the logical proof to the self, the following assumption
is required:
ASSUMPTION: The human mind Sf can encode sequences of numbers
and can computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode
the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
Logical Proof - Truth Outruns Provability
+=======================================+
Purpose: To prove that truth outruns provability
Definitions:
Computable: Capable of being computed, numbered, or reckoned.
Note: The definition of computable does not imply machine
computation. The mind is capable of performing
such computations and can apply rules (axioms)
to those computations independently of a machine.
Provable: Capable of being proved; Capable of being established as
truth.
Truth: Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with
that which is, or has been; or shall be. Conformity to
rule; exactness.
Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set
of numbers which encode sentences which are provable from the given axioms.
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE
is definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle again) s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Source:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness
For Tarski, see same page.
Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be proved.
Corollary: Truth outruns provability.
So, if you are an atheist, please seek immediate medical attention.
APPENDIX B
+========+
Argumentum ad Septicus
Septic wrote:
> "There is no God" is not an assertion, knucklehead, it is the denial
> (negation) of the theist assertion that a magic invisible something
> theists refer to as "God" might exist anyway, even though there is no
> evidence of any such thing
No it isn't. The negation of a phrase that conveys notions must,
by necessity, be the notional negation of the notion. It is false
to take a notion and attempt to directly negate a notion with a
logical NOT. The negation must be applied to the notion in the
phrase, not to the phrase itself.
For example:
Let P = "The cat sat on the mat"
Not P = "The cat did not sit on the mat"
Let P = "Pigs fly"
Not P = "Pigs do not fly"
As you will see in the first example, the logical NOT is applied
to the act of sitting on a mat. It is not applied to the cats
that are asserted to be doing or not doing the sitting, nor is
it applied to the mat that the cats are or are not sitting on.
In the second example, the logical NOT is applied to the act
of flying. It is not applied to the pigs that are asserted
to be doing or not doing the flying.
I have defined a completely new logical fallacy from your mad
assertions. As discoverer of this new fallacy, I will call it
Argumentum ad Septicus.
Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction.
Derived from Septicum Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction.
Of or relating to or caused by putrefaction
Appendix C
+========+
The Gruemm Paradox and How to Invoke it
+=====================================+
Atheists actually claim to have an higher than average IQ
yet their heads are totally empty and wholly illogical.
I have identified the problem as being a true paradox, which
I have named the Gruemm Paradox, after H R Gruemm, a self-noted
physicist in whom I first noticed the symptoms of the paradox
to be manifest.
The paradox revolves around the notion of how such brilliant
minds, so full of the wonders of science and mathematics etc,
can be so totally empty and devoid of all rational thought.
These minds display a preposterous propensity to a complete
inability to reason according to basic logical principles when
faced with ONE, SINGLE, particular WORD. In fact, when this one
word is presented to them, they display such an immense capacity
to deduce wholly erroneous conclusions out of the void that
is the delusion of their own supposed intelligence. Really, no
joke. One word triggers it all off.
Now, in order to set off a totally irrational response in
these supposedly brilliant minds and send them into a tizz
of tail-spinning around in their own pseudo-intellectual
drool, all you have to do is write that one single word.
One single word causes these brilliant minds to implode into
illogic. That one word is ...
God
Oddly, when you write that one word, atheists descend into
making insanely mad demands for proof and evidence of something
that can be PROVABLY shown to them as being UNPROVABLE.
In fact, they deny any and all logic in a real, formal logical
proof that provide to them that clearly proves that TRUTH is
beyond provability and that there are such things as unprovable
truths. Their denial of this logic is very odd behaviour. It is
psychological denial in full swing. They deny the applicability
of the proof to the self.
So, truth does indeed outrun provability in relation to the self.
Yet these supposedly brilliant minds descend into outright
denial of this very plain fact and exhibit a wholly irrational
response when the word God is associated with the fact of
truth being beyond proof. You can point out the irrationality
in their demanding proof and evidence of something they have
been PROVABLY shown as being UNPROVABLE, but they actually
persist in their illogic by stating things like this:
"right. trained scientists unable to use logic? are you serious?
and I mean *real science, not engineering. I think it's a case
of these people being so intellectually superior to you that you
find them incomprehensible. don't feel bad, we can't all be
geniuses."
Kadaitcha Man
> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>
>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>
BZZZZT!
Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist reply
already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
Atheism makes you stupid.
john
<777 lines of crap>
This is the first and last time I ever acknowledge you on Usenet: FUCK
OFF.
Vic Sagerquist
>*** Please read the rules before replying ***
Screw the rules. I make my own rules.
Why does the presence of atheists shatter the Christian world view? Why do
they hate us so? What business of theirs is it if I choose not to believe
their fantasy?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Plonked by Angelicusrex 2/24/04
______________
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God".
The wise man announces it to the world.
Daeron
fuck all
Robibnikoff
says...
>
>*** Please read the rules before replying ***
No.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Kadaitcha Man
> On 10 Mar 2004 15:21:55 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>
> (I wish *I* was as stupid as Bill Gates or Ted Turner)
>
>
> Forrest J. Ackerman
> Phillip Adams
> Brandy Alexandre
> Woody Allen
> Shulamit Aloni
BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
(Insert names of famous atheists here. Also assert that
you are a scientist and have a higher IQ therefore you are
not mentally ill here. Also see Appendix C)
Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
> Irrelevant cross-posting removed.
Irrelevant cross-posting put back.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
> Kadaitcha Man says...
>>
>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
>
> No.
BZZZZT! Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
Kadaitcha Man
>
>
> First off, if you want me to follow your rules
BZZZT! Falure to observe rule 2 and/or rule 3. Automatic disqualification
under rule 5.
Robibnikoff
Man says...
Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
Kadaitcha Man
> On 10 Mar 2004 15:21:55 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> wrote:
>
>> W. Syme wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>>
>>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>>>
>>> It's an interesting theory, but
>>
>> BZZZZT!
>>
>> Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist
>> reply already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
>>
>> Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
>>
>> Atheism makes you stupid.
>
You were saying?
Kadaitcha Man
> On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>> under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>
You have already been disqualified. Besides that, you are an atheist and
therefore mentally ill, so your opinions are only worth anything to other
neurotics. Please fuck off and die. Thank you.
chrisv
>On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>>under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>
>Irony being that the above is an argumentum ad logicam.
Troll feeder.
*plonk*
chrisv
Vic Sagerquist
Feed troller.
<plink>
DJ Nozem
wrote:
>Professor Paul C. Vitz postulates a defective father syndrome.
>There was absolutely nothing wrong with my father:
> This is a statement made by those suffering the Superman
> Syndrome and is the opposite to parent alienation. It is
> indicative of unrequited love and, if left untreated, it may
> manifest as an obsession. Please seek immediate professional
> help.
ROFLMAO!
Brilliant! Let's see how many flies you catch.
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
Robibnikoff
>
>One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach chrisv:
>
>>W. Syme <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>>>>under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>>>
>>>Irony being that the above is an argumentum ad logicam.
>>
>>Troll feeder.
>>
>>*plonk*
>>
>>
>
>Feed troller.
>
><plink>
Feel triller
<plank>
Cyanyde
church services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time
spent helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious
would be a real inconvenience."
**
HARHAR, I'm surprised we haven't heard that one from any of "them".
Aside:
I just wanted to point out the fact that the quoted verses in the other
thread, (as well as in many of the arguments put forth) are from the Old
Testament.
The whole idea is, God was the "God-Fearing" version.
The New Testament, "The Christian Handbook" was a loving God,
I guess once he had his kid it mellowed him out.
My point is, All of the "kill this", "sacrifice that" crap stopped once
Jesus arrived on the scene.
Thus began the "God-Loving" era.
Anyway, carry on..
I think I'll go and kill my father now. Wish fulfillment and all that.
Robibnikoff
>
>Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
>
>Don't feed the troll.
Don't troll the feed ;p
p.mc
with guidance and sets of rules to follow, in my case it's the law. In
earlier times when the majority of the people where ignorant and uneducated,
the simplest way to get a message across was story telling, and in my
opinion this was one of the more popular stories that has been extended and
elaborated on ,and has outgrown it's intended use.
Who knows though in another millennium father Christmas may become the son
of Elvis.
--
Regards
p.mc
For personal replies please leave or type signature
"p.mc" In the body of the message otherwise
posts will not be received.
Thanks
"Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:aW3pveckK8Ss4902918B...@kadaitcha.cx...
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
> > nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> >
> >
> > First off, if you want me to follow your rules
>
> BZZZT! Falure to observe rule 2 and/or rule 3.
I knew you'd use your unilateral and self-imposed rules to avoid having to
deal with substance. That's your modus operandi and marks you as an
intellectual coward.
> Automatic disqualification
> under rule 5.
IOWs you have no anwers. Your failure to answer the charges I raised means
that you've lost the debate by default. But if it makes you feel better
I'll go make up a list of numbered rules so that I can disqualify you in my
own little game.
>
>
>
>
quibbler
Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm says...
> >
> >In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> >the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>
> something hardly means he's right.
Particularly when the analysis of vitz is so shallow. Why is the father
figure automatically presumed to be more important that the mother figure
or siblings. He smuggles in the ridiculous bias that all people think of
"god" in masculine and anthropomorphic terms. It could well be that one
hates one's father but believes in god because, there is simply no obvious
connection between a parental caregiver and a deity.
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> You were saying?
He was saying that you're a fucking idiot, which is something of a
tautology to begin with.
quibbler
chr...@nospam.invalid says...
> Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
> >Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
>
> Don't feed the troll.
We're going to follow another strategy, called, "make the troll drink from
a firehose". That's because k-man is not like most trolls. He appears to
read and respond to many things that get said. Therefore, the better
strategy is to tire him out.
Diogenes
You will bore him, not tire him.
--
Diogenes
quibbler
says...
> Don't troll the feed ;p
I agree. Let's feed ka-dorka man all the razor blades he can eat.
Vic Sagerquist
Isn't the effect the same?
Vic Sagerquist
Troll feeler.
<spank>
chrisv
*plonk*
chrisv
> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach chrisv:
>
>>W. Syme <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>>>>under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>>>
>>>Irony being that the above is an argumentum ad logicam.
>>
>>Troll feeder.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
> Feed troller.
>
> <plink>
*plonk*
quibbler
diog...@sinope.gr says...
K-man has already managed to bore most of us. However, I really don't care
whether he gets bored or tired, so long as he goes the fuck away
eventually.
Vic Sagerquist
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:23:42 -0600, Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>
>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach chrisv:
>>
>>>W. Syme <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>>>>>under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>>>>
>>>>Irony being that the above is an argumentum ad logicam.
>>>
>>>Troll feeder.
>>>
>>>*plonk*
>>
>> Feed troller.
>>
>> <plink>
>
>*plonk*
>
>
<flunk>
Douglas
Hü©k Hö§hïmötö !
> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
Good Grief! EIGHTEEN PAGES of your mindless babbling and there are "rules"
to replying?
Talk about mental illness!
chrisv
> Brilliant! Let's see how many flies you catch.
*plonk*
chrisv
> Anyway, carry on..
*plonk*
chrisv
! wrote:
> Talk about mental illness!
*plonk*
chrisv
*plonk*
Duke Robillard
> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
> concludes that there are only shallow and superficial motives for
> being an atheist. These shallow motives of the atheist are drawn
> from neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God.
As an aside, here's a humorous piece (sort of a Koan) that does
better to explain the point of view of the atheist than anything
else I've seen.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
Duke
Jesse F. Hughes
Normally, I avoid the atheism/theism debate. It's tedious. A bit
less pleasant than licking razor blades. Proponents on each side come
off as strident, arrogant and annoying.
This link is a pleasant surprise. It's genuinely funny. It might
offend some, but only the humorless who can't see their own beliefs
from an alternative perspective and poke fun at themselves (and,
admittedly, some of the life-defining and most deeply held features of
their world-view).
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"[blah blah blah] which you are trying to dispute, but I've found that
you've used ***definitions*** rather than mathematical logic, often in
your posts." -- James Harris on the insufficiency of math. definitions.
mlw
I read that a long time ago. I love it, it is perfect.
ZenIsWhen
> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
> >
> >the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism.
In summary - that is a blatant, but typical, lie!
Show ANY source that indicates he EVER said anyting about neurotic - sewer
trash!!
>
> It's an interesting theory, but the fact that one professor says
> something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
> theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
> it.
Hell - it's not even a theory - it's utter crap!
That's why it's in a meaningless book, and a just as deranged web site, ..
and NOT in a peer reviewed journal!
I just love it when insane idiotic, brain dead, fanatics, like K-man use
"truth" in their headers - and proceed to post the most outrageously
deranged garbage!
Kadaitcha Man
>
>> JPG wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:21:55 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> W. Syme wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>> <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an interesting theory, but
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist
>>>> reply already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
>>>>
>>>> Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
>>>>
>>>> Atheism makes you stupid.
>>>
>>> Here is Krapaitcha Man's list of stupid people:
>>>
>>> (I wish *I* was as stupid as Bill Gates or Ted Turner)
>>>
>>>
>>> Forrest J. Ackerman
>>> Phillip Adams
>>> Brandy Alexandre
>>> Woody Allen
>>> Shulamit Aloni
>>
>> BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>> under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>> you are a scientist and have a higher IQ therefore you are
>> not mentally ill here. Also see Appendix C)
>
> Who says mental illness equals low IQ?
Good question. Who does say mental illness equals low IQ? Show where it's
even in the post you're replying to.
Atheism is a mental illness.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <pQhLUkYrnkyY90D4465B...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>
>> Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
>
> what you say or think.
Well, tou give a shit enough to keep replying so that you can tell me you
don't give a shit. One might expect that kind of behaviour from the mentally
ill, though.
> Your attempts to control the conversation are
> hilarious, but probably will be and should be ignored, by and large.
Invalid inference. If the suggestions that I'm a troll are true, what troll
in their right mind would prevent a thread from growing and growing and
growing? Big threads mean fame. And don't go saying I'm not in my right mind
either, because I'm not an atheist.
Vic Sagerquist
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:28:40 -0700, quibbler wrote:
LOL...
Chris is out to plonk all of Usenet.
Christopher A. Lee
<Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>
>>In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>
>It's an interesting theory, but the fact that one professor says
>something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
>theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
>it.
Does the moron also imagine not believing in Santa Claus is a mental
illness?
Why does the asshole feel he can libel atheists?
>The selective way in which xians accept or refute science is rather
>amusing. The fact that the majority of biologists support the
>evolution theory doesn't bother them at all, but once ONE professor
>says something negative about atheism, they act like the ultimate
>truth has been discovered.
John Baker
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.10....@nospam.invalid...
What a fucking idiot.
<PLONK!>
>
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <pQhLUkYrnkyY90D4465B...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> > nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> >
> >> Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
> >
> > You still seem to be laboring under the delusion that we give a shit
> > what you say or think.
>
> Well, tou give a shit enough to keep replying
That doesn't mean we give a shit about what you're saying. You've
obviously neglected the possibility that we might be doing this for our own
entertainment. Then again, thinking never was your strong suit.
> so that you can tell me you
> don't give a shit. One might expect that kind of behaviour from the mentally
> ill, though.
One might expect that type of trivial and easily defeasible analysis from
the mentally feeble, of whom you've now proven yourself a member.
>
> > Your attempts to control the conversation are
> > hilarious, but probably will be and should be ignored, by and large.
>
> Invalid inference. If the suggestions that I'm a troll are true, what troll
> in their right mind would prevent a thread from growing and growing and
> growing?
I've explained before that you're a very particular type of troll. You
like high thread count, but you also desire to control the thread and to
reply to many of the posts. That doesn't mean you're not a troll, since
you do crave attention and attempt to get it by massively cross-posting and
being confrontational.
> Big threads mean fame. And don't go saying I'm not in my right mind
> either, because I'm not an atheist.
That's an obvious non-sequitor. Even if all atheists were crazy, not being
an atheist would not be a guarantee of sanity. However, the fact remains
that many atheists are far more sane that theists. The allegation that
atheists had negative father figures would not be sufficient to show that
the experience actually traumatized them in any psychologically significant
way. Again, there is no reason to think that god would be a father figure,
as opposed to a mother figure or a sibling or a relative. Vitz quite
lamely attempted to smuggle in his male anthropomorphic biases and they are
laughable.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <BzJfJuPVN8O80068...@uk.ikari-int.com>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>
>> You were saying?
>
> He was saying that you're a fucking idiot, which is something of a
> tautology to begin with.
Well, bad luck for him. His reply was already catered for in the original
article... in more than one place. For example:
Fallacy of division:
(I am an idiot, therefore all Christians are idiots)
(All Christians are idiots, therefore I am an idiot)
So, given his notions were already overed off by one or more stock atheist
responses, please show where the rationality is in stating what was already
stated.
Frostbite
<fuck>
--
Why would I be worried about SCO? I dont own any of their stock.
Mark K. Bilbo
<slrnc4vf...@howequoy.inf.ed.ac.uk> we saw our hero Me <a@b.c>:
> In article <GoK98hKDjd2966BAAF84...@kadaitcha.cx>, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Robibnikoff wrote:
>>> In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
>>> Kadaitcha Man says...
>>>>
>>>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> BZZZZT! Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
>
> Disqualification from what?
His fantasy of being a moderator...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <BzJfJuPVN8O80068...@uk.ikari-int.com>,
> > nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> >
> >> You were saying?
> >
> > He was saying that you're a fucking idiot, which is something of a
> > tautology to begin with.
>
> Well, bad luck for him. His reply was already catered for in the original
> article... in more than one place. For example:
>
> Fallacy of division:
> (I am an idiot, therefore all Christians are idiots)
> (All Christians are idiots, therefore I am an idiot)
Wrong, that was not the conclusion. All that I stated was that you're an
idiot. You've manufactured a sweeping generalization that I didn't make
and then proceded to "refute it". One term for that is fallacy is
ignorantio elenchi.
>
> So, given his notions were already overed off by one or more stock atheist
> responses, please show where the rationality is in stating what was already
> stated.
You didn't cover even a tiny fraction of the responses and arguments which
have been generated. Rather, you're attempting to distort what people do
say to fit your original, incompetently made list.
quibbler
amikchi says...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:11:19 +0000 in episode
> <slrnc4vf...@howequoy.inf.ed.ac.uk> we saw our hero Me <a@b.c>:
>
> > In article <GoK98hKDjd2966BAAF84...@kadaitcha.cx>, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >> Robibnikoff wrote:
> >>> In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
> >>> Kadaitcha Man says...
> >>>>
> >>>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> BZZZZT! Automatic disqualification under rule 5.
> >
> > Disqualification from what?
>
> His fantasy of being a moderator...
The really laughable thing is that poor little ka-douchebag man worked so
hard on his 18 pages of rules. Yet I don't think that even one person,
other than himself which hardly qualifies, has even bothered to read all
his bullshit. Furthemore, he didn't anticipate many dozens of decisive
arguments against the vitz article, despite his exhaustive attempt to cover
every base.
>
>
Mark K. Bilbo
<MPG.1ab97c472...@news.individual.de> we saw our hero quibbler
<quibb...@yahoo.com>:
K twit has been in my killfile for, oh, years now.
Dunno how old he is in calendar years but he's pretty much permanently
12... no, 10... maybe 8... years old mentally.
Or that age when they like fart jokes, which ever one that is...
Mike Smith
=*** Please read the rules before replying ***
Since you're notorious for ignoring rules, why
don't you just go pound sand?
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction shall drive it far
from him." - Pr:22:15
Frank O. Hodge
> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
### Please stop cross-posting to those juvenile, non-OS-oriented groups.
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>
> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
> concludes that there are only shallow and superficial motives for
> being an atheist. These shallow motives of the atheist are drawn
> from neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God.
And obversely: "These shallow motives of the []theist are drawn
from neurotic psychological [compulsions] to belief in God."
[Much presumptuous or dilatory stuff snipped clean away
(snippage hereinafter, * * *)]
> The following text, in its entirety, with the exception
> of referenced material, is copyright 2004, Kadaitcha Man
> http://kadaitcha.cx It may not be used or reproduced
> without permission of the author. The author's decision
> to post the material on Usenet does not constitute any
> form of implicit, explicit or tacit release into the Public
> Domain.
(Little danger there)
* * *
> Prove that God exists:
> Prove that you are you.
As the French say, BZZZT -- Straw man.
* * *
>
> That's all very illuminating, but perhaps we need to start
> from scratch. What's your definition of "God"?:
> Read the Bible.
>
Won't a (secular) dictionary suffice? Does one read the Bible (still,
why?) to define God, or, having defined (i.e., hypothesized) God, read
the Bible for substantiation (notwithstanding that some or many truths
lie beyond logical proof)?
* * *
> There is no evidence for God:
> Christians tell you that God is not physical but spirit.
> Asking for evidence of the immaterial is pissing into the
> wind.
WAIT, KADAITCHA AND FRANK. IT'S NOT CALLED "PISSING INTO THE WIND," BUT
"LACKING FAITH IN (MAYBE ANTHROPOMORPHIC) ME." I WILL THAT YOUR
DISCUSSION RETURNS TO THIS, BELOW.
* * *
> Atheists just don't believe what they are told to believe:
> So where, in this post or in the article, is anyone
> telling you what to believe? Atheism is a neurotic
> psychological problem.
Just there.
(Atheism is a neurotic etc. (ad nauseam).
(Neurosis is bad (cloyingly if boringly implied).
(It's bad to be an atheist.)
> Professor Paul C. Vitz makes two assumptions. 1) Atheism is
> a psychological problem. 2) He presumes that atheism is only
> in reference to the Christian God:
> About assumption 1) The introduction is a summary of the
> argument. Read the argument, not the
> summary.
So you imply that it's not neurotic after all, for the moment, anyway.
* * *
> Professor Paul C. Vitz' argument is not convincing:
> So, you're a psychologist as well and can
> construct a formal refutation and publish
> your work in journals for your peers to
> critique, can you?
Ex cathedra. Besides, merely to assert that Vitz's argument is not
convincing, vel non, would beg the question of why and how anyone's
elucidating conviction about it. On the third hand, "On the web no one
knows you're a dog."
* * *
> Atheism is not a mental disease. It is the default position
> and can only be changed by brainwashing and indoctrination:
> Since God can neither be proved nor disproved via empiricism,
> agnosticism is the correct default position. Any default
> position other than agnosticism in the absence of empirical
> evidence leads to incoherence of argument.
"Asking for evidence of the immaterial is pissing into the wind."
(Pace, God, as per above. But one infers that empirical evidence won't
be forthcoming.)
* * *
> Atheists are reasonable people. Agnostics lack the intellectual
> integrity to get off the fence:
> Agnosticism is the only correct default position in the
> absence of knowing that God is [not] real. Any other position
> is logically absurd, incoherent and unsupportable. The
> reality of God is an unprovable truth. * * *
(At last, after all the ad hominem incantation about neurosis. The
poster requires a lot of patience, though (pardon the expression) God
knew that he'd get there sooner or later.)
* * *
> Tu quoque:
> (IKYABWAI Lames go here... Assertions that Christianity is
> a mental illness, for example)
(Here's an apparent acronym, and a misprint (for which, read, "that
atheism is a mental illness ...").)
* * *
> Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be proved.
> Corollary: Truth outruns provability.
Second corollary: There are more statements that are true, but that
cannot be proved, than you may think.
* * *
> So, truth does indeed outrun provability in relation to the self.
> Yet these supposedly brilliant minds descend into outright
> denial of this very plain fact and exhibit a wholly irrational
> response when the word [no-]God is associated with the fact of
> truth being beyond proof. You can point out the irrationality
> in their demanding proof and evidence [see above] of something they have
> been PROVABLY shown as being UNPROVABLE, but they actually
> persist in their illogic by stating things like this:
"Read the Bible. [Because:] Atheism is a neurotic psychological
problem." (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.)
And, to conclude: Redmond delenda est!
Kadaitcha Man
>
>> Maverick wrote:
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
>>> news:pQhLUkYrnkyY90D4465B...@kadaitcha.cx:
>>>
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:21:55 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> W. Syme wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>>>> <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis
>>>>>>>> of the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism.
>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist
>>>>>> reply already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atheism makes you stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is Krapaitcha Man's list of stupid people:
>>>>>
>>>>> (I wish *I* was as stupid as Bill Gates or Ted Turner)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Forrest J. Ackerman
>>>>> Phillip Adams
>>>>> Brandy Alexandre
>>>>> Woody Allen
>>>>> Shulamit Aloni
>>>>
>>>> under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>>>> you are a scientist and have a higher IQ therefore you are
>>>> not mentally ill here. Also see Appendix C)
>>>
>>> Who says mental illness equals low IQ?
>>
>> Good question. Who does say mental illness equals low IQ? Show where
>> it's even in the post you're replying to.
>
>
> IQ therefore you are not mentally ill..." But perhaps english went
> through some drastic changes since I read that the first time.
Do you see the words "Also assert ... "? The ones you conveniently snipped
and ignored? Yes?
Do you know how to put things in context? Are you able to look at anything
in its whole and infer from any part of it any single notion that has the
quality of imagination? You know, qualties that that give an incongruous or
fantastic turn to ideas? You know, qualities that tend to excite laughter or
mirth by painting ludicrous images and representations of atheists? Hmmm?
Kadaitcha Man
> I've explained before that you're a very particular type of troll.
No shit, Sherlock? How astute of you.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <4WTpop7xx03jBC5379BD...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>
>>> It's an interesting theory, but
>>
>> BZZZZT!
>>
>> Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist
>> reply already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
>>
>> Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
>>
>> Atheism makes you stupid.
>
No. I'm not an atheist.
Kadaitcha Man
>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>
>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism.
>
>
> In summary - that is a blatant, but typical, lie!
BZZZT! ... pre-empted, canned response:
Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard and his
view is typical of a Christian:
Kadaitcha Man
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:04:27 GMT, W. Syme
> <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>
>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>>
>> It's an interesting theory, but the fact that one professor says
>> something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
>> theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
>> it.
>
> Does the moron also imagine not believing in Santa Claus is a mental
> illness?
BZZZZT! Pre-empted, canned atheistic response.
The notion that there is a God is as ridiculous as the notion
of gremlins, goblins, faeries and sky pixies. What logic is
there that would lead a person to believe in God? There is
none:
That goes to the question of rational belief. Since
defective reasoning and the loss of the ability to perform
reality checking are common features of neuroses and psychoses,
including schizophrenia, disorganisation, catatonia, and
paranoia, you are in no position to assert your own
rationality or the irrationality of gremlins, goblins,
faeries and sky pixies. Anyway, you have a higher IQ, so
why are you thinbking about gremlins, goblins, faeries and
sky pixies anyway?
Blind faith often denies truth and fact, and blind faith in
atheism is no different to any other kind of blind faith.
Please seek immediate help.
On the matter of logic, proceeding from a single, basic
assumption that God is a sovereign God, then the five
points of Calvinism form a logical framework that explains
the logical structure of Scripture. If you wish to tackle
the logical framework of Scripture, please have your Bible
ready and visit: http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <PI3n0J2c6gJPC279FC21...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Kadaitcha Man:
>>>
>>>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
>>>
>>
>> BZZZZT!
>>
>> Your rules are covered under the logical fallacy of sweeping
>> generalisation
>
> BZZZZZZT! It's very clear from multiple statements made by Vitz that
> he does in fact harbor
BZZZT! Canned and pre-empted response...
Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard and his
view is typical of a Christian:
So, you're a psychologist as well and can
construct a formal refutation and publish
your work in journals for your peers to
critique, can you?
Professor Paul C. Vitz is an opportunist, has an axe to grind, or
has an hidden agenda:
Take an opportunity yourself. See above. Ad hominem.
Kadaitcha Man
> Because there is no evidence to support their garbage
BZZZT! Pre-empted, canned atheist response:
There is no evidence for God:
Christians tell you that God is not physical but spirit.
Asking for evidence of the immaterial is pissing into the
wind.
Anecdotal fallacies:
(A lack of evidence proves there is no God)
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <ueju409jff9lptnn9...@4ax.com>,
> chr...@nospam.invalid says...
>> Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
>>
>> Don't feed the troll.
>
> We're going to follow another strategy, called, "make the troll drink
> from a firehose". That's because k-man is not like most trolls. He
> appears to read and respond to many things that get said. Therefore,
> the better strategy is to tire him out.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <ff1a36208d46d99b...@news.teranews.com>,
> diog...@sinope.gr says...
>
> K-man has already managed to bore most of us. However, I really
> don't care whether he gets bored or tired, so long as he goes the
> fuck away eventually.
BWAHAHAHAHHA!!! No chance.
Kadaitcha Man
> In all societies people need to look at someone or something to
> provide them with guidance and sets of rules to follow, in my case
> it's the law.
Ok, so call the police.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <aW3pveckK8Ss4902918B...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>> In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
>>> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>>>
>>>
>>> First off, if you want me to follow your rules
>>
>> BZZZT! Falure to observe rule 2 and/or rule 3.
>
> I knew you'd use your unilateral and self-imposed rules to avoid
> having to deal with substance. That's your modus operandi and marks
> you as an intellectual coward.
>
>> Automatic disqualification
>> under rule 5.
>
Why should anyone else deal with your mental illness?
Kadaitcha Man
> No, k-man ... has some
> obsessive belief that he can prove the existence of god
*blink*
What? Can prove that there is even remote reality in that mad imagining? Are
you aware that such imaginings are symptomatic of mental illness?
Kadaitcha Man
> Nope, it's not ad hominem since (1) it's the truth and (2) it's not
> being used in itself to discredit his argument. In fact nothing I'm
> saying is fallacious.
Pick one:
Ignoratio elenchi:
(Assert an irrelevant conclusion that has nothing at
all to do with you being mentally ill)
Argumentum ad logicam:
(Argue that atheism is not a mental illness because
it's the conclusion of a fallacious argument)
Non causa pro causa:
(blame something else for your mental illness here
without showing how that something else is the cause)
Red herring:
(Assert something irrelevant here)
Ad hoc assertions:
(pathetic evasions go here)
Kadaitcha Man
>> There was absolutely nothing wrong with my father:
>> This is a statement made by those suffering the Superman
>> Syndrome and is the opposite to parent alienation. It is
>> indicative of unrequited love and, if left untreated, it may
>> manifest as an obsession. Please seek immediate professional
>> help.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> Brilliant! Let's see how many flies you catch.
;->
Humour seems to be thin on the ground amongst the mentally ill, eh.
Kadaitcha Man
> Furthemore, he didn't anticipate
> many dozens of decisive arguments against the vitz article, despite
> his exhaustive attempt to cover every base.
Eh? I didn't cover off the possible logical fallacies you would commit? You
mean atheism has undefined logical fallacies?
bob young
"W. Syme" wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
> >
> >In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> >the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>
> It's an interesting theory, but the fact that one professor says
> something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
> theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
> it.
>
> The selective way in which xians accept or refute science is rather
> amusing. The fact that the majority of biologists support the
> evolution theory doesn't bother them at all, but once ONE professor
> says something negative about atheism, they act like the ultimate
> truth has been discovered.
If the Proff is an atheist himself and is writing about his innermost
feelings, then we should sit up and take notice. The chances are
though he is not but is still writing about his inner most feelings.
Emmett Fields below is much closer to a clear and concise viewpoint
bob
Hong kong
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the
religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than
this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming
religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The
definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is
merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
>
>
>
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
>
> > Nope, it's not ad hominem since (1) it's the truth and (2) it's not
> > being used in itself to discredit his argument. In fact nothing I'm
> > saying is fallacious.
>
> Pick one:
>
> Ignoratio elenchi:
I already picked this to describe one of your arguments, however, none of
these apply to what I stated. BTW, do you really think that you're
impressing anybody by obsessively listing categories for the various
logical fallacies that you commit?
quibbler
I don't have a mental illness. You don't know me. You don't know my
family. You don't know jack shit in general. However, you have proven
yourself to be a gullible moron, by continually invoking a theory that is
far from achieving consensus in psychology. When atheism appears in DSM as
a disorder, which it never will, then perhaps you would have been justified
in continually spreading your irresponsible libel and insults. Until then
you've merely made a fool of yourself (yet again).
>
>
>
>
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
Yawn. Could you try to be coherent for a second. BTW, you are constantly
diagnosing people with mental illness. I'd like to know what your
credentials are. I've got a degree in psychology. How about you?
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
I should have imagined that a mentally ill, obsessive-compulsive like you
would not tire easily. Or perhaps you've entered your manic stage at the
moment.
>
>
>
>
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <ff1a36208d46d99b...@news.teranews.com>,
> > diog...@sinope.gr says...
> >> quibbler wrote:
> >>> In article <ueju409jff9lptnn9...@4ax.com>,
> >>> chr...@nospam.invalid says...
> >>>> Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't feed the troll.
> >>>
> >>> We're going to follow another strategy, called, "make the troll
> >>> drink from a firehose". That's because k-man is not like most
> >>> trolls. He appears to read and respond to many things that get
> >>> said. Therefore, the better strategy is to tire him out.
> >>
> >> You will bore him, not tire him.
> >
> > K-man has already managed to bore most of us. However, I really
> > don't care whether he gets bored or tired, so long as he goes the
> > fuck away eventually.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHA!!! No chance.
You'll be gone in a few days, with your tail between your legs as usual.
>
>
>
>
Kadaitcha Man
> Emmett Fields below is much closer to a clear and concise viewpoint
>
> bob
> Hong kong
>
> "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom.
> Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that
> the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than
> this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming
> religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all.
> The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is
> merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
> [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Weasel words. Meaningless weasel words. So, yes, I can see why you say it's
a clear and concise viewpoint.
bob young
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> W. Syme wrote:
> > On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
> >> under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
> >
> > I
>
> You have already been disqualified. Besides that, you are an atheist and
> therefore mentally ill, so your opinions are only worth anything to other
> neurotics. Please fuck off and die. Thank you.
Is this what they call 'the true Christian spirit' or what?
Mental illness starts when people sit on a park bench threading a string of
beads through their fingers, murmuring to themselves. The same can be
witnessed in any mental hospital, on any day of the week.
When people prostrate themselves to nothing alongside others who also suffer
from mass hysteria. When people bow to the east five times a day to appease
a god they believe is all knowing, yet does not exist.
The gap between brain washed and mentally ill people...... is infinitesimal!
Bob
Hong Kong
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking
to people and guys walking on water. We're ......sophisticated.'"
[Paul Provenza]
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <PI3n0J2c6gJPC279FC21...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> > nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> >> Vic Sagerquist wrote:
> >>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Kadaitcha Man:
> >>>
> >>>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
> >>>
> >>> Screw the rules. I make my own rules.
> >>
> >> BZZZZT!
> >>
> >> Your rules are covered under the logical fallacy of sweeping
> >> generalisation
> >
> > BZZZZZZT! It's very clear from multiple statements made by Vitz that
> > he does in fact harbor
>
> BZZZT! Canned and pre-empted response...
Nope. You've just distorted it to fit one of your moron strawman
responses. Try again.
>
> Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard and his
> view is typical of a Christian:
I didn't say that liar.
> So, you're a psychologist as well and can
> construct a formal refutation and publish
> your work in journals for your peers to
> critique, can you?
Yep. However, I highly doubt that Vitz's nonsense would make it past
serious peer review. He might circulate it amongst his fundy colleagues,
but it would clearly be laughed to scorn by real scientists.
>
> Professor Paul C. Vitz is an opportunist, has an axe to grind, or
> has an hidden agenda:
Just a statement of fact.
> Take an opportunity yourself. See above. Ad hominem.
As usual, you don't know what ad hominem is. Just because I say something
you don't like about Vitz doesn't mean it's ad hominem. The evidence
supports the idea that he's promoting an agenda without regard for the
actual facts. It's certainly not ad hominem to say that either.
>
>
>
>
Kadaitcha Man
You wish, huh?
Of course, if I have another motorbike accident and lose my other dick,
you'll be able to explain my absence out of sheer mad postlation, eh.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <4gSeQ7t8Ic84586F393E...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>> In article <ueju409jff9lptnn9...@4ax.com>,
>>> chr...@nospam.invalid says...
>>>> Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Go tell someone who cares, jackass.
>>>>
>>>> Don't feed the troll.
>>>
>>> We're going to follow another strategy, called, "make the troll
>>> drink from a firehose". That's because k-man is not like most
>>> trolls. He appears to read and respond to many things that get
>>> said. Therefore, the better strategy is to tire him out.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> I should have imagined
What with?
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <FDPcbgdfSwzO3A9104FB...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>> In article <aW3pveckK8Ss4902918B...@kadaitcha.cx>,
>>> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>>>> quibbler wrote:
>>>>> In article <ZRBy6Y6FqrHUA973...@bbs.wavejam.com>,
>>>>> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First off, if you want me to follow your rules
>>>>
>>>> BZZZT! Falure to observe rule 2 and/or rule 3.
>>>
>>> I knew you'd use your unilateral and self-imposed rules to avoid
>>> having to deal with substance. That's your modus operandi and marks
>>> you as an intellectual coward.
>>>
>>>> Automatic disqualification
>>>> under rule 5.
>>>
>>> IOWs you have no anwers.
>>
>> Why should anyone else deal with your mental illness?
>
> I don't have a mental illness.
Argumentum ad nauseam:
Repeat your assertions here that atheism is not a
mental illness. The more times you repeat it, the more
likely you'll believe it)
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
>
> groups.
>
>>
>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>
>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>> being an atheist. These shallow motives of the atheist are drawn
>> from neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God.
>
> And obversely: "These shallow motives of the []theist
BZZZT! Canned and pre-empted response:
Tu quoque:
(IKYABWAI Lames go here... Assertions that Christianity is
a mental illness, for example)
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <HkN7WQd1uP7ZDBDF7517...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>
>>> No, k-man ... has some
>>> obsessive belief that he can prove the existence of god
>>
>> *blink*
>>
>> What? Can prove that there is even remote reality in that mad
>> imagining? Are you aware that such imaginings are symptomatic of
>> mental illness?
>
>
> Yawn. Could you try to be coherent for a second.
Argumentum ad nauseam:
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <fnxQEDwrbdw0D3987896...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>> In article <PI3n0J2c6gJPC279FC21...@kadaitcha.cx>,
>>> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>>>> Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>>>>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Kadaitcha Man:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *** Please read the rules before replying ***
>>>>>
>>>>> Screw the rules. I make my own rules.
>>>>
>>>> BZZZZT!
>>>>
>>>> Your rules are covered under the logical fallacy of sweeping
>>>> generalisation
>>>
>>> BZZZZZZT! It's very clear from multiple statements made by Vitz
>>> that he does in fact harbor
>>
>> BZZZT! Canned and pre-empted response...
>
> Nope. You've just distorted it to fit one of your moron strawman
> responses. Try again.
Ok.
Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard and his
view is typical of a Christian:
So, you're a psychologist as well and can
construct a formal refutation and publish
your work in journals for your peers to
critique, can you?
Professor Paul C. Vitz is an opportunist, has an axe to grind, or
has an hidden agenda:
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <Cu15Vk7MbE7g262C2B4D...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, it's not ad hominem since (1) it's the truth and (2) it's not
>>> being used in itself to discredit his argument. In fact nothing I'm
>>> saying is fallacious.
>>
>> Pick one:
>>
>> Ignoratio elenchi:
>
> I already picked this to describe one of your arguments
Tu quoque:
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:04:27 GMT, W. Syme
> > <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> >>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
> >>
> >> something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
> >> theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
> >> it.
> >
> > illness?
>
> BZZZZT! Pre-empted, canned atheistic response.
Your canned rebuttal is nonsense, BTW, just so you know and all. It's not
a matter of the belief being rational, but being empirically truth
tracking. Goblins and gremlins don't correspond to empirical reality.
Neither does god. Atheists who state this prove that they have a grasp of
reality, which likewise demonstrates sanity. You, OTOH, insist that your
god fantasy is real, which in fact this is not a feature which objectively
matches reality. That suggests that you're the one with the mental
problem.
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> ZenIsWhen wrote:
> >> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
> >>>
> >>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
> >>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism.
> >
> >
>
> BZZZT! ... pre-empted, canned response:
>
> Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard
As before, it's the truth, which is a perfect defense.
> and his
> view is typical of a Christian:
Yep, he smuggles his religious nonsense into his so-called science with
ridiculous anthropomorphism and assertions about the masculinity of god.
There is no good reason to think that god would only correspond to a father
figure.
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> Me wrote:
> > In article <4WTpop7xx03jBC5379BD...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's an interesting theory, but
> >>
> >>
> >> Violation of rule 2) Your reply is covered by the canned atheist
> >> reply already provided under "That's all very illuminating, but "
> >>
> >> Violation of rule 5) You are disqualified.
> >>
> >> Atheism makes you stupid.
> >
> > You are a sad, pitiful person, aren't you?
>
> No. I'm not an atheist.
Which is why you're said, pitiful, stupid, and demented. If you were an
atheist you might be able to overcome these many crippling defects.
quibbler
nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
> quibbler wrote:
>
> > I've explained before that you're a very particular type of troll.
>
> No shit, Sherlock? How astute of you.
I'm glad you admit it, troll. Then again, you're the one who played dumb
(though it's any easy role for you to play, being a moron and all) and
tried to deny your trolling behavior earlier.
>
>
>
>
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> W. Syme wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2004 16:26:20 GMT, "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BZZZT! Failure to observe rule 3). Your assertion is covered
>>>> under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam:
>>>
>>> I
>>
>> You have already been disqualified. Besides that, you are an atheist
>> and therefore mentally ill, so your opinions are only worth anything
>> to other neurotics. Please fuck off and die. Thank you.
>
> Is this what they call 'the true Christian spirit' or what?
>
> Mental illness starts when people sit on a park bench threading a
> string of beads through their fingers, murmuring to themselves.
No. That's a symptom, but thanks for sharing your experience.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <A2pPEBgV3TVaEDDA0B34...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>>
>>> I've explained before that you're a very particular type of troll.
>>
>> No shit, Sherlock? How astute of you.
>
> I'm glad you admit it, troll. Then again, you're the one who played
> dumb (though it's any easy role for you to play, being a moron and
> all)
Actually, you're quite wrong. I am a quintessential master of disguise.
> and tried to deny your trolling behavior earlier.
Eh? I've never denied being a troll. Please show proof for that assertion,
which is yet another one of your many imaginary claims. You really are
mentall ill, aren't you?
Kadaitcha Man
Tu quoque:
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <qp7AEdeegI0W1516B121...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> ZenIsWhen wrote:
>>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>> <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>>>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism.
>>>
>>>
>>> In summary - that is a blatant, but typical, lie!
>>
>> BZZZT! ... pre-empted, canned response:
>>
>> Professor Paul C. Vitz is a lying Christian bastard
>
> As before, it's the truth, which is a perfect defense.
Tu quoque:
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <V48uBWHlNjd6D4840733...@kadaitcha.cx>,
> nos...@kadaitcha.cx says...
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:04:27 GMT, W. Syme
>>> <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>> <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary, Professor Paul C. Vitz undertakes a psychoanalysis of
>>>>> the atheist mind to uncover the neurotic basis of atheism. He
>>>>
>>>> It's an interesting theory, but the fact that one professor says
>>>> something hardly means he's right. Once it has become an accepted
>>>> theory and is supported by a mojority of psychologists, I'll accept
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Does the moron also imagine not believing in Santa Claus is a mental
>>> illness?
>>
>> BZZZZT! Pre-empted, canned atheistic response.
>
>
> Your canned rebuttal is nonsense, BTW, just so you know and all.
> It's not a matter of the belief being rational, but being empirically
> truth tracking. Goblins and gremlins don't correspond to empirical
> reality. Neither does god.
The notion that there is a God is as ridiculous as the notion
of gremlins, goblins, faeries and sky pixies. What logic is
there that would lead a person to believe in God? There is
none:
That goes to the question of rational belief. Since
defective reasoning and the loss of the ability to perform
reality checking are common features of neuroses and psychoses,
including schizophrenia, disorganisation, catatonia, and
paranoia, you are in no position to assert your own
rationality or the irrationality of gremlins, goblins,
faeries and sky pixies. Anyway, you have a higher IQ, so
why are you thinbking about gremlins, goblins, faeries and
sky pixies anyway?
Blind faith often denies truth and fact, and blind faith in
atheism is no different to any other kind of blind faith.
Please seek immediate help.
On the matter of logic, proceeding from a single, basic
assumption that God is a sovereign God, then the five
points of Calvinism form a logical framework that explains
the logical structure of Scripture. If you wish to tackle
the logical framework of Scripture, please have your Bible
ready and visit: http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm.
Lucine Tawfiq
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:57:28 +0100, Kadaitcha Man drooled:
>
> <777 lines of crap>
>
> This is the first and last time I ever acknowledge you on Usenet:
Thank you.
> FUCK
> OFF.
Make me.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
Kadaitcha Man
> You didn't cover even a tiny fraction of the responses and arguments
> which have been generated. Rather, you're attempting to distort what
> people do say to fit your original, incompetently made list.
You atheists don't need anyone to distort your positions. You do it all on
your own. I can show you if you like, assuming you're up to it. I say that
you cannot define your atheism without me forcing you into one of two
situations:
A) You fall into a logical fallacy or take an incoherent
position.
B) You change your definition or intended meaning of your
atheism either deliberately or unwittingly by way of
any explanation that you provide to my questions or
statements.
So, if you want a real demonstration of just how absurd your atheism really
is, put up your definition of your atheism and I'll show you.
Note the emphasis is on _your_ definition of _your_ atheism. Not someone
else's. Yours.
Incoherent
Wanting coherence or agreement; incongruous; inconsistent;
having no dependence of one part on another; logically
disconnected.
Inconsistent
Not consistent; showing inconsistency; irreconcilable;
discordant; at variance, esp. as regards character,
sentiment, or action; incompatible; incongruous;
contradictory.
Here are the proposed rules of engagement. Please indicate that you accept
them or reject them or wish to make minor changes.
I'll be looking to force you into a logical fallacy, incoherency, or an
inconsitency between your words, sentiments or actions. Or I'll be looking
to force you, one way or another, into changing your definition because your
explanation is inconsistent with your original statement. Therefore if your
explanation clearly implies a different meaning to what you originally
stated, you have changed your definition. Such change, BTW, implies
inconsistency or incoherency in the original statement.
You get an allowance of two logical fallacies AND two inconsistencies then
you lose and I terminate the demonstration.
In return, if you get through that challenge unscathed and end up with a
consistent, coherent, unchanged statement of your atheism, I will allow you
to try and find just ONE logical fallacy _OR_ ONE inconsistency in my
position.
So, you get four bites at the cherry, and if you get through without falling
over on your face, you get to do the same to me but I get only one bite at
the cherry. That's good odds in your favour according to my bookie.
Of course, I'm not allowed to throw logical fallacies at you, nor are you
allowed to throw them at me. So, if I ask you a question or make a statement
that is inherently a fallacy, I lose, first time, no questions asked. Thus,
if and when it's your turn to question my position, if you ask me a question
or make a statement that is inherently a fallacy, you lose, first time, no
questions asked.
I recommend this page as the source reference of what defines a fallacy:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
So, if you take up the challenge, here is my position _before_ you start
with yours.
I know that God is real with 100% certainty, as a fact unquestionably
established.
Your turn.
bob young
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
...it is always easy to see when a point hits home, the response is generally
abusive, and a 'dead give away'.
Bob
If a man wants to be of the greatest possible value to his
fellow-creatures, let him begin the long, solitary task of perfecting
himself.
[Robertson Davies]
bob young
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Jesus let the Romans arrest him and painfully and cruelly kill him by
nailing him to a cross with two common criminals.
What could be the purpose
of this for an omnipotent God?
After all his grossly inefficient and ineffective teaching and
crusifiction
he rose from his crypt and went back to heaven from whence he came.
He left behind no documents or writings of his own, as evidence of his
instructions to the human race. Instead he left it to fallible humans
to
document his instructions in frequently varied and contradictory
documents
now called the Bible. Despite the passage of 2,000 years he has still
left
millions without the knowledge or benefit of his teachings.
Man has been able to create world wide communications systems such as
radio,TV and cell phones. Why didn't God use his awesome powers to
reach
all of his subjects directly via some efficient similer communications
system. Why doesn't he now?
The answer is simple. This whole Christian/Jesus belief system is pure
mythology.
[Bill Mech]
Thanks Bill, nice appraisal
bob
Hong Kong