AnnaAgainstAtheists
4 views
Skip to first unread message
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2008, 9:28:16 AM12/13/08
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Greetings!
A relatively new anti-intellectual theist has appeared in the Pat
Condell comment sections, most notably in the "God Bless Atheism"
video comment section. Her user name is "AnnaAgainstAtheists."
According to her profile, Anna is 19 and lives in Cardiff, in Wales,
in the United Kingdom.
Apparently, Anna is on something of a crusade against what she calls,
"fanatical atheists," and the crux of her campaign has been to use
certain well-known (to atheists, anyway) quotes from Albert Einstein,
as if those quotes somehow invalidate atheism, in general.
So what are the problems with her arguments and her approach?
That is what this thread will be about.
A relatively new anti-intellectual theist has appeared in the Pat
Condell comment sections, most notably in the "God Bless Atheism"
video comment section. Her user name is "AnnaAgainstAtheists."
According to her profile, Anna is 19 and lives in Cardiff, in Wales,
in the United Kingdom.
Apparently, Anna is on something of a crusade against what she calls,
"fanatical atheists," and the crux of her campaign has been to use
certain well-known (to atheists, anyway) quotes from Albert Einstein,
as if those quotes somehow invalidate atheism, in general.
So what are the problems with her arguments and her approach?
That is what this thread will be about.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2008, 10:42:04 AM12/13/08
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Anna and I have already had a few encounters and, not surprisingly,
considering her relative youth and inexperience with real life, she's
presumed quite a good deal about just how important her commentary
might be.
Anna has a variation of a common tactic used by YouTube Christians.
When countered, she moves away from the substance of the discussion,
repeats arguments, though not always verbatim, and ignores direct
challenges and questions.
For example, it's one thing to quote Newton as claiming that atheism
is senseless, but Anna seems to have no competence in demonstrating
that atheism is truly senseless. Why not discuss the merits or lack
of merits to the argument? Why not present a substantive rationale
for the argument and then discuss it to see if the argument has any
merit?
These things, Anna won't do.
Instead, she takes some comment of her own that she presumes is clever
and posts it on her channel page:
"Now just listen up you atheist creep, we've got Newton telling us
that atheism is 'so senseless', and as if that's not enough we've got
Einstein hitting out against atheist fanatics and talking about an
"infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we,
with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of
reality", and then we've got a bunch of atheist crybabies like you
twisting and detracting and telling everyone that this kind of talk is
rubbish."
I've already been warned that there is no point in responding on the
channel page. It isn't surprising to hear that Anna removes any
commentary that challenges her. That's a common tactic used by
theists in YouTube and it's a tried-and-true Internet tactic, used by
religious people, in all forms of forum that they may happen to
control.
So let's examine the claim, here.
It is true that I control this forum, but I will guarantee that
rebuttal commentary will remain. This is as permanent a repository of
debate between YouTube theists and atheists that I can promise.
Anna engages in a well-known fallacy known as "the argument from
authority." This fallacy involves the use of commentary by persons
known to have some stature in the scientific, intellectual, or
religious communities. The most common form of the argument from
authority fallacy used by religious people is the use of quotes by
individuals that at least appear to support some position or another
taken by the religious person using the quote.
There are a couple of things that make this a fallacy. The first is
the idea, in this case, that Newton was right in some things, so he
must be right about this particular issue, even though no evidence is
presented that he is correct and he has no particular expertise in the
subject.
The second flaw in the fallacy is the presumption that Newton was
infallible.
These are the presumptions that Anna makes. The argument from
authority fallacy can take other forms and variation of the forms
mentioned, but these are the forms that I will address here.
(I will deal with the comments of Albert Einstein in a separate
thread.)
Isaac Newton was a mathematician and scientist who lived in the 17th
and 18th centuries and contributed mightily to the fields of math and
physics. He is well-known as the founder of the Calculus and
developed many of the laws of gravitation and motion that are still
considered valid, today.
But Newton was a product of his times. A natural philosopher, Newton
was one who viewed the natural world as an expression of God. This is
a view that, even today, is not widely shared by religious people.
Still, his view was that a study of nature was a means by which one
might study God and his manifestation in the natural universe. These
were common ideas for as long as science, in its infancy, retained the
ideas that were developed by centuries of human religious evolution -
ideas that science did not discard until the last century.
And while Newton was certainly brilliant, he was neither omniscient
nor infallible. He made mistakes. He was demonstrably wrong in many
areas. For example, Newton's calculations for the mass of the Earth,
as they appeared in the final printing of his seminal work, the
Principia, are wrong (Garisto, American Journal of Physics 59(1):42.
He was very arrogant and often refused to acknowledge the scientific
contributions of Hooke and Boyle, even as there were demonstrable
errors in some of his theories on optics (Glashow,
http://www.iecat.net/butlleti/pdf/90_butlleti_sheldon.pdf).
That Newton was in error, at least on occasion, is certainly no proof
that his claims about atheism being "senseless" are in error.
However, Anna's use of his commentary on the matter as if that settles
the matter is certainly an example of this logical fallacy. Instead
of quoting on the matter and leaving it at that, one must actually
evaluate the ideas presented against what is known and make a
determination. Anna doesn't do that.
We need to remember that religious people do not thrive on free
thought, but on submission to authority. Generally, that authority is
religious, itself, in nature. Catholic popes, though the ages, have
emphasized that the duty of the Catholic is obedience and submission
to authority. Religious people are taught this from birth, and this
stifles their tendency toward free thought. Free though involves the
questioning, even of religious or scientific authorities. One of the
reasons that science continues to advance, while religion remains
stagnant, is because scientists may respect and even revere scientific
authorities like Newton, but they do not treat statements by
scientists as sacrasanct and not subject to question or challenge.
Obviously, then, the mere citation of a comment by Newton is not
sufficient to determine if, indeed, atheism is "senseless." It won't
be senseless because Newton declared it so. If it is senseless, it
must be because it can be objectively determined to be senseless.
And so, I challenge AnnaAgainstAtheists to debate. The resolution may
be any variation of "atheism is senseless" and we can work out the
details once Anna accepts the challenge - if she has the courage to do
so.
considering her relative youth and inexperience with real life, she's
presumed quite a good deal about just how important her commentary
might be.
Anna has a variation of a common tactic used by YouTube Christians.
When countered, she moves away from the substance of the discussion,
repeats arguments, though not always verbatim, and ignores direct
challenges and questions.
For example, it's one thing to quote Newton as claiming that atheism
is senseless, but Anna seems to have no competence in demonstrating
that atheism is truly senseless. Why not discuss the merits or lack
of merits to the argument? Why not present a substantive rationale
for the argument and then discuss it to see if the argument has any
merit?
These things, Anna won't do.
Instead, she takes some comment of her own that she presumes is clever
and posts it on her channel page:
"Now just listen up you atheist creep, we've got Newton telling us
that atheism is 'so senseless', and as if that's not enough we've got
Einstein hitting out against atheist fanatics and talking about an
"infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we,
with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of
reality", and then we've got a bunch of atheist crybabies like you
twisting and detracting and telling everyone that this kind of talk is
rubbish."
I've already been warned that there is no point in responding on the
channel page. It isn't surprising to hear that Anna removes any
commentary that challenges her. That's a common tactic used by
theists in YouTube and it's a tried-and-true Internet tactic, used by
religious people, in all forms of forum that they may happen to
control.
So let's examine the claim, here.
It is true that I control this forum, but I will guarantee that
rebuttal commentary will remain. This is as permanent a repository of
debate between YouTube theists and atheists that I can promise.
Anna engages in a well-known fallacy known as "the argument from
authority." This fallacy involves the use of commentary by persons
known to have some stature in the scientific, intellectual, or
religious communities. The most common form of the argument from
authority fallacy used by religious people is the use of quotes by
individuals that at least appear to support some position or another
taken by the religious person using the quote.
There are a couple of things that make this a fallacy. The first is
the idea, in this case, that Newton was right in some things, so he
must be right about this particular issue, even though no evidence is
presented that he is correct and he has no particular expertise in the
subject.
The second flaw in the fallacy is the presumption that Newton was
infallible.
These are the presumptions that Anna makes. The argument from
authority fallacy can take other forms and variation of the forms
mentioned, but these are the forms that I will address here.
(I will deal with the comments of Albert Einstein in a separate
thread.)
Isaac Newton was a mathematician and scientist who lived in the 17th
and 18th centuries and contributed mightily to the fields of math and
physics. He is well-known as the founder of the Calculus and
developed many of the laws of gravitation and motion that are still
considered valid, today.
But Newton was a product of his times. A natural philosopher, Newton
was one who viewed the natural world as an expression of God. This is
a view that, even today, is not widely shared by religious people.
Still, his view was that a study of nature was a means by which one
might study God and his manifestation in the natural universe. These
were common ideas for as long as science, in its infancy, retained the
ideas that were developed by centuries of human religious evolution -
ideas that science did not discard until the last century.
And while Newton was certainly brilliant, he was neither omniscient
nor infallible. He made mistakes. He was demonstrably wrong in many
areas. For example, Newton's calculations for the mass of the Earth,
as they appeared in the final printing of his seminal work, the
Principia, are wrong (Garisto, American Journal of Physics 59(1):42.
He was very arrogant and often refused to acknowledge the scientific
contributions of Hooke and Boyle, even as there were demonstrable
errors in some of his theories on optics (Glashow,
http://www.iecat.net/butlleti/pdf/90_butlleti_sheldon.pdf).
That Newton was in error, at least on occasion, is certainly no proof
that his claims about atheism being "senseless" are in error.
However, Anna's use of his commentary on the matter as if that settles
the matter is certainly an example of this logical fallacy. Instead
of quoting on the matter and leaving it at that, one must actually
evaluate the ideas presented against what is known and make a
determination. Anna doesn't do that.
We need to remember that religious people do not thrive on free
thought, but on submission to authority. Generally, that authority is
religious, itself, in nature. Catholic popes, though the ages, have
emphasized that the duty of the Catholic is obedience and submission
to authority. Religious people are taught this from birth, and this
stifles their tendency toward free thought. Free though involves the
questioning, even of religious or scientific authorities. One of the
reasons that science continues to advance, while religion remains
stagnant, is because scientists may respect and even revere scientific
authorities like Newton, but they do not treat statements by
scientists as sacrasanct and not subject to question or challenge.
Obviously, then, the mere citation of a comment by Newton is not
sufficient to determine if, indeed, atheism is "senseless." It won't
be senseless because Newton declared it so. If it is senseless, it
must be because it can be objectively determined to be senseless.
And so, I challenge AnnaAgainstAtheists to debate. The resolution may
be any variation of "atheism is senseless" and we can work out the
details once Anna accepts the challenge - if she has the courage to do
so.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2008, 8:17:15 PM12/13/08
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
AnnaAgainstAtheists has posted this to me:
"What's wrong with you is that you don't like getting humiliated in a
discussion with a woman and so you're going nuts here posting left,
right and centre to try and boost your poor deflated male ego and
that's your problem not mine. Anyone can go to Pat Condell's God Bless
Atheism and see for themselves what happened there and the mess that
you and Mr NoGooder got yourselves into and how you kept twisting my
words just to try and confuse things and save face exactly like what
you're doing now and trying to involve some google group forum which
I'm not interested in."
So, using some rather bizarre reasoning, Anna is refusing to debate.
I'm always puzzled by this sort of thing. If, indeed, things were
made such a mess in a YouTube comment section and if, indeed, I was
being humiliated by a woman, how much more effectively could that be
demonstrated in a debate in a threaded group, in which messages do not
cycle away or disappear or in which readers can compare and contrast
the articles posted by the debators, free from interference by other
members (whose comments would be limited to a peanut gallery thread)?
"What's wrong with you is that you don't like getting humiliated in a
discussion with a woman and so you're going nuts here posting left,
right and centre to try and boost your poor deflated male ego and
that's your problem not mine. Anyone can go to Pat Condell's God Bless
Atheism and see for themselves what happened there and the mess that
you and Mr NoGooder got yourselves into and how you kept twisting my
words just to try and confuse things and save face exactly like what
you're doing now and trying to involve some google group forum which
I'm not interested in."
So, using some rather bizarre reasoning, Anna is refusing to debate.
I'm always puzzled by this sort of thing. If, indeed, things were
made such a mess in a YouTube comment section and if, indeed, I was
being humiliated by a woman, how much more effectively could that be
demonstrated in a debate in a threaded group, in which messages do not
cycle away or disappear or in which readers can compare and contrast
the articles posted by the debators, free from interference by other
members (whose comments would be limited to a peanut gallery thread)?
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2008, 8:32:49 PM12/13/08
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Like many theists, AnnaAgainstAtheism likes to comment on a number of
issues about which she has little knowledge. One such issue is
evolution. In the comments section of a video entitled, "How to
Convert an Atheist, Part I," Anna wrote:
"Evolutionary scientists cant make adequate sense of the fossil
record.
Evolutionary scientists cant prove that natural selection and random
variation can account for great complexity.
Evolutionary scientists cant do computer simulations using Darwinian
mechanisms in biology.
Evolutionary scientists have a complete lack of lab evidence.
Darwinian evolution is no more than theory with holes."
What would happen if we took each of these claims, one by one? To
keep things short, I'll attempt some quick responses to each of the
claims, and if Anna wishes to debate any of this further, we'll have
that opportunity.
> Evolutionary scientists cant make adequate sense of the fossil record.
This is actually a very vague statement to parse, but it is easy
enough to refute, at least, in general. Evolutionary biology and
paleontology has done wonders in making sense of the fossil record
and, in fact, some very good evolutionary lineages were developed long
before the modern sciences of genetics and molecular biology were used
ot actually confirm much of what was discovered in the fossil record.
One nice example is the horse series, which creationists often
disparage, but only in general terms founded on false and misleading
information. The human fossil record provided us with outstanding
evidence of simian ancestry long before we were ever genetically
compared to other apes. Yes, humans are apes. The fossil record
tells us that, and it makes perfect sense.
> Evolutionary scientists cant prove that natural selection and random variation can account for great complexity.
This is simply false. Natural selection was an outstandingly elegant
solution and, in fact, was developed specifically to explain diversity
and complexity. Everything from Darwin's finches to the presence of
evolutionary patterns explained by natural selection in populations of
ground squirrels in California illustrates natural selection. Natural
selection was, in part, designed to explain what Anna claims it does
not "prove." It is a silly and ignorant argument.
> Evolutionary scientists cant do computer simulations using Darwinian mechanisms in biology.
Evolutionary scientists have been doing computer simulations testing
Darwinian mechanisms for the better part of two decades or more, as
illustrated prominently by simuations described by Richard Dawkins in
his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker.
I could cite other examples, but one is sufficient to refute the claim
that they can't be done.
> Evolutionary scientists have a complete lack of lab evidence.
Considerable evidence has been collected through laboratory
experiments, mostly in the field of genetics, that support natural
selection and show further elegance to the theory. In field labs,
other evidences have been gathered showing natural selection at work
in insect populations and fish populations in various parts of the
world.
> Darwinian evolution is no more than theory with holes.
All theories have holes, but until someone falsifies the theory with
*evidence* instead of rhetoric, it will remain a viable and useful
explanation for the diversity of life.
issues about which she has little knowledge. One such issue is
evolution. In the comments section of a video entitled, "How to
Convert an Atheist, Part I," Anna wrote:
"Evolutionary scientists cant make adequate sense of the fossil
record.
Evolutionary scientists cant prove that natural selection and random
variation can account for great complexity.
Evolutionary scientists cant do computer simulations using Darwinian
mechanisms in biology.
Evolutionary scientists have a complete lack of lab evidence.
Darwinian evolution is no more than theory with holes."
What would happen if we took each of these claims, one by one? To
keep things short, I'll attempt some quick responses to each of the
claims, and if Anna wishes to debate any of this further, we'll have
that opportunity.
> Evolutionary scientists cant make adequate sense of the fossil record.
This is actually a very vague statement to parse, but it is easy
enough to refute, at least, in general. Evolutionary biology and
paleontology has done wonders in making sense of the fossil record
and, in fact, some very good evolutionary lineages were developed long
before the modern sciences of genetics and molecular biology were used
ot actually confirm much of what was discovered in the fossil record.
One nice example is the horse series, which creationists often
disparage, but only in general terms founded on false and misleading
information. The human fossil record provided us with outstanding
evidence of simian ancestry long before we were ever genetically
compared to other apes. Yes, humans are apes. The fossil record
tells us that, and it makes perfect sense.
> Evolutionary scientists cant prove that natural selection and random variation can account for great complexity.
This is simply false. Natural selection was an outstandingly elegant
solution and, in fact, was developed specifically to explain diversity
and complexity. Everything from Darwin's finches to the presence of
evolutionary patterns explained by natural selection in populations of
ground squirrels in California illustrates natural selection. Natural
selection was, in part, designed to explain what Anna claims it does
not "prove." It is a silly and ignorant argument.
> Evolutionary scientists cant do computer simulations using Darwinian mechanisms in biology.
Evolutionary scientists have been doing computer simulations testing
Darwinian mechanisms for the better part of two decades or more, as
illustrated prominently by simuations described by Richard Dawkins in
his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker.
I could cite other examples, but one is sufficient to refute the claim
that they can't be done.
> Evolutionary scientists have a complete lack of lab evidence.
Considerable evidence has been collected through laboratory
experiments, mostly in the field of genetics, that support natural
selection and show further elegance to the theory. In field labs,
other evidences have been gathered showing natural selection at work
in insect populations and fish populations in various parts of the
world.
> Darwinian evolution is no more than theory with holes.
All theories have holes, but until someone falsifies the theory with
*evidence* instead of rhetoric, it will remain a viable and useful
explanation for the diversity of life.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2008, 4:30:47 PM12/14/08
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Let's call this one "Anna's Threat."
We had a bit of contact with Anna, today - well, several other
atheists and me. It is no surprise that Anna was every bit as
incapable of generating a new argument today as she was yesteray.
After having her repeated claims again demonstrated to be logically
flawed, Anna tried a recitation of The Lord's Prayer. She's also
trying to blame me for the bad ratings her comments tend to get. When
I responded to her claims about the events in Pat Condell's "Thank God
For Atheism" video comment area, Anna wrote:
"Oh sure, sure, so that explains why all my posts have been given
thumbs down or spam bin after you made asses of yourselves there, and
if I do ever decide to go to that google groups page of yours you
better watch out and I just hope for your sake that you take all your
thumbs down and spam bin mates with you because you'll need them."
In other words, Anna seems completely incapable of generating any new
arguments (several were repeated in the same hour) and has, instead,
descended to "just you wait" juvenile threats.
Of course, I would welcome Anna's participation in this debate area.
No doubt, she would liven things up.
But given her rather abysmal performances in the YouTube comment
sections, so far, no one has any real reason to believe that the level
of discourse from her end would be any different here than it has been
on YouTube.
So, to Anna, I say, let's not "just you wait." Bring it on.
We had a bit of contact with Anna, today - well, several other
atheists and me. It is no surprise that Anna was every bit as
incapable of generating a new argument today as she was yesteray.
After having her repeated claims again demonstrated to be logically
flawed, Anna tried a recitation of The Lord's Prayer. She's also
trying to blame me for the bad ratings her comments tend to get. When
I responded to her claims about the events in Pat Condell's "Thank God
For Atheism" video comment area, Anna wrote:
"Oh sure, sure, so that explains why all my posts have been given
thumbs down or spam bin after you made asses of yourselves there, and
if I do ever decide to go to that google groups page of yours you
better watch out and I just hope for your sake that you take all your
thumbs down and spam bin mates with you because you'll need them."
In other words, Anna seems completely incapable of generating any new
arguments (several were repeated in the same hour) and has, instead,
descended to "just you wait" juvenile threats.
Of course, I would welcome Anna's participation in this debate area.
No doubt, she would liven things up.
But given her rather abysmal performances in the YouTube comment
sections, so far, no one has any real reason to believe that the level
of discourse from her end would be any different here than it has been
on YouTube.
So, to Anna, I say, let's not "just you wait." Bring it on.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 14, 2009, 10:28:29 AM1/14/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Perhaps it is time to post a bit more in this thread.
AnnaAgainstAtheists continues her tirades and video channel comment
section trolling. We're not seeing much that is different. Anna
posts some stray quote or another, the fallacy of the use of the quote
is exposed, she responds with virtiol and runs from challenges.
What follows are several unanswered questions and posts that are
illustrative of Anna's shallow approach to these discussions. These
are only my comments. I have no rights to reproduce those of others,
but others are certainly welcome to comment.
From the comment section of Pat Condell's "Godless and Free" video:
Poor child...Anna, do you still not have an understanding about what
constitutes a theory? And I do thank you for the amusement, this
morning: While you chide atheists time and again for using
"narrowminded logic," you would claim to be logical. I've never seen a
logical argument from you, Anna - only assertions. Your arguments,
such as they are, are a litany of logical fallacies, exposed time and
again.
*
The CS Lewis quote, as Claire has already pointed out, is an example
of an argument from incredulity, Anna. That's a logical fallacy. Get
it?
Just so the audience can be reminded: Anna has been challenged many
times to debate these things in more debate-friendly forum and she has
repeatedly refused. The last time I challenged her - on her channel
page - she did not even allow the challenge to appear.
What are you afraid of, Anna?
*
Anna, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that Einstein and
all of the other people you quote as "proof" that God exists believe
that and believe in exactly the same God that you do.
Could they have been wrong?
Why are they right, and the many critical thinkers who disagree with
the idea wrong?
*
Anna, you have used, as part of what we will, for the time being, call
your "arguments," the idea that there are 2.1 billion Christians on
the planet.
Why do you believe that to be significant, if it is not a use of the
"argument from numbers" fallacy.
*
Anna, in your attack on evolution, you claimed that evolutionary
scientists frequently disagree. You were not specific, but you made it
appear as if no two scientists can come to agreement. NascentAtheist
exploded that silly argument, but you were also asked, in rebuttal,
why it is significant that scientists disagree, but appearently not a
problem that clergymen among those 2.1 billion Christians also
disagree - often in rather marked terms and on trivial matters. Do you
have an answer?
*
AnnaAgainstAtheists continues her tirades and video channel comment
section trolling. We're not seeing much that is different. Anna
posts some stray quote or another, the fallacy of the use of the quote
is exposed, she responds with virtiol and runs from challenges.
What follows are several unanswered questions and posts that are
illustrative of Anna's shallow approach to these discussions. These
are only my comments. I have no rights to reproduce those of others,
but others are certainly welcome to comment.
From the comment section of Pat Condell's "Godless and Free" video:
Poor child...Anna, do you still not have an understanding about what
constitutes a theory? And I do thank you for the amusement, this
morning: While you chide atheists time and again for using
"narrowminded logic," you would claim to be logical. I've never seen a
logical argument from you, Anna - only assertions. Your arguments,
such as they are, are a litany of logical fallacies, exposed time and
again.
*
The CS Lewis quote, as Claire has already pointed out, is an example
of an argument from incredulity, Anna. That's a logical fallacy. Get
it?
Just so the audience can be reminded: Anna has been challenged many
times to debate these things in more debate-friendly forum and she has
repeatedly refused. The last time I challenged her - on her channel
page - she did not even allow the challenge to appear.
What are you afraid of, Anna?
*
Anna, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that Einstein and
all of the other people you quote as "proof" that God exists believe
that and believe in exactly the same God that you do.
Could they have been wrong?
Why are they right, and the many critical thinkers who disagree with
the idea wrong?
*
Anna, you have used, as part of what we will, for the time being, call
your "arguments," the idea that there are 2.1 billion Christians on
the planet.
Why do you believe that to be significant, if it is not a use of the
"argument from numbers" fallacy.
*
Anna, in your attack on evolution, you claimed that evolutionary
scientists frequently disagree. You were not specific, but you made it
appear as if no two scientists can come to agreement. NascentAtheist
exploded that silly argument, but you were also asked, in rebuttal,
why it is significant that scientists disagree, but appearently not a
problem that clergymen among those 2.1 billion Christians also
disagree - often in rather marked terms and on trivial matters. Do you
have an answer?
*
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 14, 2009, 10:36:44 AM1/14/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
On Anna and Christopher Hitchens. In this message, we can see a
perfect illustration of the dangers of quote-mining, as Anna does when
she claims to falsify a comment made by Hitchens.
*
Anna: CAFoster58
you .. use one logical fallacy after another
___
Out of desperation you're just slapping your own sad state onto me,
and your Hitchens hero has been refuted,
THIS IS TRUE
"There are many things which can be asserted without proof and which
can't be dismissed without proof" (AnnaAgainstAtheists)
THIS IS FALSE
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without
proof" (Christopher Hitchens)
THIS IS TRUE
Atheists are delusional.
Let God bless and enlighten atheists †
*
No, Anna, there is no desparation on my part, certainly, since I hold
the higher intellectual and evidenciary ground, and I know how to
construct a logical argument.
You have none of those things. Your arguments are so bad, some
consider them spam, obviously, and mark them as such, on sight.
Your response is a case in point. You argue by assertion, but you
can't support any of the assertions with any kind of substantial
argument.
*
Anna, you claim, "your Hitchens hero has been refuted."
Aside from the fact that I have no "heroes," please explain, in
detail, what, specifically, was refuted and how it was refuted.
Assertion and boasting and posting fueled by your juvenile petty
grievances won't count. Make an argument.
*
Anna, you asserted, "there are many things which can be asserted
without proof and which can't be dismissed without proof."
If this is so, Anna, then we must accept any claim made by anyone
about anything and assume that it is true, while those making the
assertions are not bound by logic or the rules of evidence to support
their claims.
*
Anna, the Bible says that women will not go to Heaven. Now, I've made
that assertion without proof. But you are doomed. You're going to Hell
because you're a woman.
It's quite a silly thing to claim (though I can cite a Bible verse
that can be read to support the idea) and you cannot be allowed to
simply dismiss it without some sort of proof of your own, according to
your own standards.
*
"THIS IS FALSE 'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed
without proof' (Christopher Hitchens)"
Aside from the fact that you are relying on quotes without considering
substance, why is it false, Anna? Because YOU say so?
Hitchens's comment is a corrollary to the explanation of logical
fallacy, in which those making claims to certain things bear the
burden of proof. If that burden is not accepted and explanations and
evidence not provided, we may dismiss the claims.
*
Context is not such an amazing thing, Anna, but you clearly have no
interest in it. Hitchens has said, quite clearly, and has written as
well, that the comment is a response to the kinds of arguments made by
religious people like yourself, that is, arguments by assertion, lack
of evidence, and refusal or inability to accept the burden of proof.
God is the flying spaghetti monster, Anna. That is offered without
proof. Can you dismiss it without proof?
*
"THIS IS TRUE Atheists are delusional"
I've asked before, Anna: What is "delusion," according to you, and how
do atheists (and we must notice that you are not attacking "fanatical
atheists" as delusional, but ALL atheists) demonstrate delusion? If we
decide that delusion includes believing in things that are not
evidenced or that have been refuted, atheists don't qualify.
Anna, we all know that "atheists are delusional" is your juvenile
response to Dawkins's book title, don't we?
*
[I posted those rebuttals and several others, all of which were
ignored by Anna, but the same argument was going on in the video, "The
Case Against Atheism - Dr. William Lane Craig." I challenged Dr.
Craig to a debate over much of what he says in this video. Perhaps it
was wrong of me to send my rebuttal points, in advance, because he
refused.
At any rate, here is the extension to the Hitchens commentary "debate"
with Anna]:
*
Anna is a quote-miner. She has no idea that the Hitchens quote that
she uses is not an argument, it's a statement following the argument
presented, that is, that religious people make claims for which there
is no evidence and have an expectation that they will be accepted and
taken for granted as true. Anna has never been one to consider the
context from which she lifts quotes, most of which are never derived
from the original author's writings, in any case, but from web sites.
*
I know that Anna will not answer me, so to "THINGS LIKE THOUGHT,
SENSATIONS AND EMOTIONS THAT CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT PROOF AND CAN'T
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PROOF" as her "rebuttal" to Hitchens, I will
suggest that Hitchens does not deny that these things exist, nor do
they constitute the sorts of things he was talking about. Furthermore,
humans experience these things, directly or indirectly, and there's no
question that they exist, so there need to be no assertions and denial
would be perverse
*
perfect illustration of the dangers of quote-mining, as Anna does when
she claims to falsify a comment made by Hitchens.
*
Anna: CAFoster58
you .. use one logical fallacy after another
___
Out of desperation you're just slapping your own sad state onto me,
and your Hitchens hero has been refuted,
THIS IS TRUE
"There are many things which can be asserted without proof and which
can't be dismissed without proof" (AnnaAgainstAtheists)
THIS IS FALSE
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without
proof" (Christopher Hitchens)
THIS IS TRUE
Atheists are delusional.
Let God bless and enlighten atheists †
*
No, Anna, there is no desparation on my part, certainly, since I hold
the higher intellectual and evidenciary ground, and I know how to
construct a logical argument.
You have none of those things. Your arguments are so bad, some
consider them spam, obviously, and mark them as such, on sight.
Your response is a case in point. You argue by assertion, but you
can't support any of the assertions with any kind of substantial
argument.
*
Anna, you claim, "your Hitchens hero has been refuted."
Aside from the fact that I have no "heroes," please explain, in
detail, what, specifically, was refuted and how it was refuted.
Assertion and boasting and posting fueled by your juvenile petty
grievances won't count. Make an argument.
*
Anna, you asserted, "there are many things which can be asserted
without proof and which can't be dismissed without proof."
If this is so, Anna, then we must accept any claim made by anyone
about anything and assume that it is true, while those making the
assertions are not bound by logic or the rules of evidence to support
their claims.
*
Anna, the Bible says that women will not go to Heaven. Now, I've made
that assertion without proof. But you are doomed. You're going to Hell
because you're a woman.
It's quite a silly thing to claim (though I can cite a Bible verse
that can be read to support the idea) and you cannot be allowed to
simply dismiss it without some sort of proof of your own, according to
your own standards.
*
"THIS IS FALSE 'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed
without proof' (Christopher Hitchens)"
Aside from the fact that you are relying on quotes without considering
substance, why is it false, Anna? Because YOU say so?
Hitchens's comment is a corrollary to the explanation of logical
fallacy, in which those making claims to certain things bear the
burden of proof. If that burden is not accepted and explanations and
evidence not provided, we may dismiss the claims.
*
Context is not such an amazing thing, Anna, but you clearly have no
interest in it. Hitchens has said, quite clearly, and has written as
well, that the comment is a response to the kinds of arguments made by
religious people like yourself, that is, arguments by assertion, lack
of evidence, and refusal or inability to accept the burden of proof.
God is the flying spaghetti monster, Anna. That is offered without
proof. Can you dismiss it without proof?
*
"THIS IS TRUE Atheists are delusional"
I've asked before, Anna: What is "delusion," according to you, and how
do atheists (and we must notice that you are not attacking "fanatical
atheists" as delusional, but ALL atheists) demonstrate delusion? If we
decide that delusion includes believing in things that are not
evidenced or that have been refuted, atheists don't qualify.
Anna, we all know that "atheists are delusional" is your juvenile
response to Dawkins's book title, don't we?
*
[I posted those rebuttals and several others, all of which were
ignored by Anna, but the same argument was going on in the video, "The
Case Against Atheism - Dr. William Lane Craig." I challenged Dr.
Craig to a debate over much of what he says in this video. Perhaps it
was wrong of me to send my rebuttal points, in advance, because he
refused.
At any rate, here is the extension to the Hitchens commentary "debate"
with Anna]:
*
Anna is a quote-miner. She has no idea that the Hitchens quote that
she uses is not an argument, it's a statement following the argument
presented, that is, that religious people make claims for which there
is no evidence and have an expectation that they will be accepted and
taken for granted as true. Anna has never been one to consider the
context from which she lifts quotes, most of which are never derived
from the original author's writings, in any case, but from web sites.
*
I know that Anna will not answer me, so to "THINGS LIKE THOUGHT,
SENSATIONS AND EMOTIONS THAT CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT PROOF AND CAN'T
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PROOF" as her "rebuttal" to Hitchens, I will
suggest that Hitchens does not deny that these things exist, nor do
they constitute the sorts of things he was talking about. Furthermore,
humans experience these things, directly or indirectly, and there's no
question that they exist, so there need to be no assertions and denial
would be perverse
*
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 14, 2009, 10:39:17 AM1/14/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
In reply to the William Lane Craig arguments, I posted:
*
By the way, when I challenged Bill Craig to debate (he refused) a few
years ago, I pointed out that the fact that atheist "expectations" of
God are generally based on the claims of his believers with respect to
him. Isn't it interesting, then, that, when God cannot meet the
expectations of atheists, based on what BELIEVERS have told us,
atheists are being accused of being "enormously presumptuous."
*
When God fails to meet expectations, according to Bill Craig, we
should adjust our view of God, because we cannot presume to dictate to
God.
Atheists, of course, commonly have done that. We reevaluate, further,
based on what various believers tell us, you know, those who
presumptuously tell us about the character and person of God.
We find that those other expectations are not met, either.
So whose presumptuousness is actually being exposed, here?
*
Well, Anna, if there's one thing you do, it's repeat yourself, even if
your arguments have no substance, and even if they are easily exposed
as vacuous and superficial.
Two hours before you posted your latest line of drivel, I exposed both
you and Bill Craig and your poor arguments. See no response and no
attempt at rebuttal. What I see is evasion. You'll "spoon-feed" us
tomorrow? I can hardly wait.
I'll just expose you again...and again...and again...
*
"Atheists, have the humility to revise the reasoning of yours which
demands that God has to show those precise signs of existence that you
atheists are demanding."
As I have pointed out repeatedly, Anna, any expectations that we might
have are generally based on what you religious people have claimed
about God. We simply expect you to support your arguments and you are
incapable of doing so, while God remains silent (and unevidenced).
*
So, Anna, it is disingenuous of a religious person to complain that
atheists reject God because of some presumptuous expectation of what
God should be or how he should act. We are told these things by
religious people, in the first place.
Neither you nor Bill Craig has a substantial argument. If God has not
met our expectations and, indeed, if he cannot be evidenced, the
burden is on those who claim his existence, and we are within our
rights to disbelieve until that evidence is provided.
*
*
By the way, when I challenged Bill Craig to debate (he refused) a few
years ago, I pointed out that the fact that atheist "expectations" of
God are generally based on the claims of his believers with respect to
him. Isn't it interesting, then, that, when God cannot meet the
expectations of atheists, based on what BELIEVERS have told us,
atheists are being accused of being "enormously presumptuous."
*
When God fails to meet expectations, according to Bill Craig, we
should adjust our view of God, because we cannot presume to dictate to
God.
Atheists, of course, commonly have done that. We reevaluate, further,
based on what various believers tell us, you know, those who
presumptuously tell us about the character and person of God.
We find that those other expectations are not met, either.
So whose presumptuousness is actually being exposed, here?
*
Well, Anna, if there's one thing you do, it's repeat yourself, even if
your arguments have no substance, and even if they are easily exposed
as vacuous and superficial.
Two hours before you posted your latest line of drivel, I exposed both
you and Bill Craig and your poor arguments. See no response and no
attempt at rebuttal. What I see is evasion. You'll "spoon-feed" us
tomorrow? I can hardly wait.
I'll just expose you again...and again...and again...
*
"Atheists, have the humility to revise the reasoning of yours which
demands that God has to show those precise signs of existence that you
atheists are demanding."
As I have pointed out repeatedly, Anna, any expectations that we might
have are generally based on what you religious people have claimed
about God. We simply expect you to support your arguments and you are
incapable of doing so, while God remains silent (and unevidenced).
*
So, Anna, it is disingenuous of a religious person to complain that
atheists reject God because of some presumptuous expectation of what
God should be or how he should act. We are told these things by
religious people, in the first place.
Neither you nor Bill Craig has a substantial argument. If God has not
met our expectations and, indeed, if he cannot be evidenced, the
burden is on those who claim his existence, and we are within our
rights to disbelieve until that evidence is provided.
*
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 16, 2009, 10:42:14 AM1/16/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Here is another interesting exchange that reveals much about Anna's
superficiality (and, apparently, an inability to read or bother to
parse the argument of the other person. Note, especially, what
happens when she claims that we insist on "absolute proof.").
*
CAF:
Your appeal to a variation of Paley - as superficial and vague as it
is - was refuted - yes, REFUTED - hundreds of years ago.
We understand too many natural processes that explain what happens
around us, and that understanding occurs by invoking what is known and
not by invoking what is not evidenced, that is, God.
The basic premise, "there is a God, look around you" is seriously
flawed for a lot of reasons, Anna.
That's just one of them.
Where is your specific evidence?
*
Anna:
You're making a doublestandards demand here for absolute proof that
you yourself haven't got, so YOU give ME some examples of absolute
certainties that YOU have in life and provide the same logic to
support them that you've been demanding from me. I've cited Einstein
and Flew and Lewis and Goethe and Mill and plenty of other great
thinkers as supporting evidence for the reality of God and Jesus, but
you can't even understand REALITY let alone GOD or JESUS so educate
yourself.
*
CAF:
Anna, stop lying to us, or, at least, read what is being asked of you.
No one is asking for "absolute proof."
I'm asking for evidnece. Where is it?
Quit trolling and then whining when you are caught. Present your
evidence.
Anna, intelligent human beings understand that there are no "absolute
proofs." I can't prove that there are no supernatural beings, though I
can make a compelling case that your "God" doesn't exist and you would
have no rebuttal (at least, you haven't so far).
Responding to me by misstating my challenge, ducking it, and then
demanding my evidence is a cowardly tactic, Anna. The burden of proof
is yours. You made the claims. I am challenging them.
Where's your evidence?
*
Anna:
Fine, well stop demanding absolute proofs from believers, and stop
buzzing around like a bee stung into action every time you lose an
argument and hit back hopelessly with a load of useless responses
because I find it embarrassing for you and you're only hope is that
people only read YOUR posts and assume they're based on some sort of
truthful representation of exchanges which they aren't.
[Editorial Note: Notice that I was quite clear that "absolute proofs"
are not demanded. Anna ignored that and insisted that we stop
demanding them.]
*
CAF:
Yes, Anna, you've quote-mined quite a few people, but that is not
evidence that God or Jesus are *real*. I've explained that to you, yet
you were instransigent and, frankly, childish. Even when we showed
that there were flaws in what was being said by these great men of the
past - and we can acknowledge that without deifying them - we also
demonstrated that you are relying on a classic fallacy, the argument
from authority.
Tell me, Anna, how does a quote from a "great mind," even if we accept
that the person was intelligent, demonstrate the *reality* of God or
Jesus?
Could any of those great thinkers have been wrong about that?
What about the myriad great thinkers that I could quote (and that some
have quoted in response to you) who will contradict quite directly and
unequivocally the claims you make about the men you quote?
You've never answered that question, either.
Anna, you assert that I don't understand "REALITY" and yet, when I
asked for specifics, you provided none, and when I asked where we are
supposed to "look it up," as it were, when you insisted that this is
what was needed, you did not reply.
Where should we look it up, Anna?
Let me also respond to "educate yourself." Anna, I have a ThD and a
PhD in history. I'm proud of those because they took years and hard
work.
But, again: I wasn't an atheist when I started my ThD program.
How, exactly, must I educate myself?
You're 19. What do you know that I don't?
*
This particular thread ended at that point. There was no further
response from Anna at that time.
There have been subsequent responses, but no answers, as this thread
will further demonstrate.
superficiality (and, apparently, an inability to read or bother to
parse the argument of the other person. Note, especially, what
happens when she claims that we insist on "absolute proof.").
*
CAF:
Your appeal to a variation of Paley - as superficial and vague as it
is - was refuted - yes, REFUTED - hundreds of years ago.
We understand too many natural processes that explain what happens
around us, and that understanding occurs by invoking what is known and
not by invoking what is not evidenced, that is, God.
The basic premise, "there is a God, look around you" is seriously
flawed for a lot of reasons, Anna.
That's just one of them.
Where is your specific evidence?
*
Anna:
You're making a doublestandards demand here for absolute proof that
you yourself haven't got, so YOU give ME some examples of absolute
certainties that YOU have in life and provide the same logic to
support them that you've been demanding from me. I've cited Einstein
and Flew and Lewis and Goethe and Mill and plenty of other great
thinkers as supporting evidence for the reality of God and Jesus, but
you can't even understand REALITY let alone GOD or JESUS so educate
yourself.
*
CAF:
Anna, stop lying to us, or, at least, read what is being asked of you.
No one is asking for "absolute proof."
I'm asking for evidnece. Where is it?
Quit trolling and then whining when you are caught. Present your
evidence.
Anna, intelligent human beings understand that there are no "absolute
proofs." I can't prove that there are no supernatural beings, though I
can make a compelling case that your "God" doesn't exist and you would
have no rebuttal (at least, you haven't so far).
Responding to me by misstating my challenge, ducking it, and then
demanding my evidence is a cowardly tactic, Anna. The burden of proof
is yours. You made the claims. I am challenging them.
Where's your evidence?
*
Anna:
Fine, well stop demanding absolute proofs from believers, and stop
buzzing around like a bee stung into action every time you lose an
argument and hit back hopelessly with a load of useless responses
because I find it embarrassing for you and you're only hope is that
people only read YOUR posts and assume they're based on some sort of
truthful representation of exchanges which they aren't.
[Editorial Note: Notice that I was quite clear that "absolute proofs"
are not demanded. Anna ignored that and insisted that we stop
demanding them.]
*
CAF:
Yes, Anna, you've quote-mined quite a few people, but that is not
evidence that God or Jesus are *real*. I've explained that to you, yet
you were instransigent and, frankly, childish. Even when we showed
that there were flaws in what was being said by these great men of the
past - and we can acknowledge that without deifying them - we also
demonstrated that you are relying on a classic fallacy, the argument
from authority.
Tell me, Anna, how does a quote from a "great mind," even if we accept
that the person was intelligent, demonstrate the *reality* of God or
Jesus?
Could any of those great thinkers have been wrong about that?
What about the myriad great thinkers that I could quote (and that some
have quoted in response to you) who will contradict quite directly and
unequivocally the claims you make about the men you quote?
You've never answered that question, either.
Anna, you assert that I don't understand "REALITY" and yet, when I
asked for specifics, you provided none, and when I asked where we are
supposed to "look it up," as it were, when you insisted that this is
what was needed, you did not reply.
Where should we look it up, Anna?
Let me also respond to "educate yourself." Anna, I have a ThD and a
PhD in history. I'm proud of those because they took years and hard
work.
But, again: I wasn't an atheist when I started my ThD program.
How, exactly, must I educate myself?
You're 19. What do you know that I don't?
*
This particular thread ended at that point. There was no further
response from Anna at that time.
There have been subsequent responses, but no answers, as this thread
will further demonstrate.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 16, 2009, 10:52:52 AM1/16/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
Anna has taken to complaining that my responses to her posts far
outnumber hers. She did so, again, today. Here is a thread in which
that came up before.
*
CAF:
No one is asking you to follow anyone around in circles, Anna, except
for the circles that you create while trying to avoid answering direct
questions and challenges.
Where is your evidence?
*
Anna:
43 posts in 6 pages without actually saying anything must be some kind
of record even for an unbeliever. You ask questions, receive answers
and then cynically deny they're answers, same way as you as demand
evidence, receive it and then deny receiving it, then you invent your
own demented account of exchanges and set yourself up as judge, and
all of this in the hope that nobody will bother checking back through
your jungle of useless posts to see what really happened. So
pathetic.
*
CAF:
I've already explained this, Anna. Posting explanatory commentary is
far more substantive than the sorts of behaviors that you exhibit, and
if substance is a problem for you, well, that's not surprising.
You do not answer questions. Where is the evidence for your claims? If
quotes from experts that apparently support your beliefs are valid,
why are quotes from experts that disagree with you not valid? Where do
we "look up" what you call "REALITY?" These are just a few of the
questions.
You have failed to answer them all, Anna.
Now, either you are a liar or you are delusional. I suspect that it's
a little bit of both.
What evidence have you posted? You've posted quotes. You've claimed
that they are evidence.
I have refuted you. You are wrong.
I don't have a problem with people checking back through the posts,
Anna. I suspect you're projecting, there.
But if you like, I can gather and post them in a single place.
*
Anna:
Your problem you know is that you're just a bad loser and anyone can
see that clearly who takes the trouble to read these threads and to
note how you stalk me everywhere with every single comment I make on
every video every day, and even the fact that you have to post 10
replies to every 1 post I make relects your insecurity and the
weakness of your position, assuming you actually have one which I
seriously doubt, and go get empirical evidence for doubt or chuck that
out too.
*
CAF:
What, exactly, did I lose, Anna?
As explained, you have not answered any questions nor provided any
evidence. You duck questions, quote authorities, ignore rebuttal and
refutation, and then claim that the other person is a loser.
I don't stalk you on every video, Anna. You happen to troll video
channels to which I listen.
And if I have to reply multiple times to single posts, it's because it
works to expose your superficiality. I've already answered all of
these points, Anna.
Anna, I don't assume that you are open-minded or mature enough to
truly consider what you post and why there are problems with it.
In fact, I am thoroughly convinced that all of this is because you had
a bad relationship of some sort with an atheists and now you want to
punish all atheists.
Still, you do provide a service. In replying to you and refuting you,
you help me demonstrate the shallow thinking typical of religious
people who pretend to be intellectuals.
If my position is weak, you need to demonstrate that by honest
rebuttal, not by assertion.
If I reject evidence, present evidence (and not quotes from others -
which only, at best, reflect their beliefs on such matters and are not
evidence). If I reject it without good cause, you can explain that, at
that time, and we can all see if there's anything to your assertion.
Make a case, Anna. So far, all you've done is make a fool of
yourself.
Here's what we should do, Anna:
If you are so convinced that your arguments are sound and the problem
is that I am buzzing around like an angry bee who lost an argument,
let's have that debate.
Google Groups, Debating YouTube Theists.
If you are right, think how much easier it will be to show that in a
debate thread that is much easier to maintain and read through. You
can post as much as you need to make your case. I can rebut.
You don't seem to want to do that.
This is significantly over-simplified for the purposes of a relatively
short documentary, Anna, but here's a bit of what we know about
"Jesus" today:
watch?v=kUBqgucLXzk
watch?v=xAPIngDjJVo&feature=channel
Robert Price and the late Alan Dundes are well-established scholars in
the field, Anna. Why don't you quote them?
*
Anna:
Look Foster, in the last five pages you've made OVER FORTY COMMENTS
also telling everyone how many degrees you've got and other irrelevant
nonsense so there's obviously something wrong somewhere and it's your
end, and I suggest you forget your qualifications and just try to be
clear, concise, relevant and truthful because I've no intentions of
following you round in circles here. You're absolutely hopeless.
*
CAF:
Yes, Anna, sometimes it takes more than a stray quote or a single, 500
word message to respond, adequately, to complext issues.
Now you can whimper and whine about the number of posts and claim that
they are irrelevant, but you simply demonstrate, further, your shallow
thought processes.
It was explained that you are lying when you claim that I demand of
you "absolute proof." Though challenged, you cannot provide a single
post in which that was asked.
I mention the credentials for two reasons. First, they establish some
degree of credibility. I have them. You don't. Second, they are used
as an example for what you have been charged with, several times. I
have doctoral credentials in theology and history. I am, by
definition, an expert.
But you'd never quote me, would you? Why is that, Anna? You do seem to
like quoting other experts.
Let's understand, Anna, that as a modern scholar in the field who
happens to disagree with you, you'd never quote me. Let's also
understand that, even if you were to work up the courage to do do, I'm
alive and I'm right here, so I can evaluate whether or not you are
quoting me correctly or truly representing my thoughts on the matter.
And before you whimper and whine, Anna, about my apparent arrogance
for posting such things, let me tell you, there's little more humbling
than going for a doctorate, because we build on those who came before
us.
Sometimes we do that by building on finding what was wrong with the
things said or found by those who came before us.
So my citation of the credentials was certainly topical and useful to
illustrate my point. You don't like that point, so you'll dismiss it.
There's no surprise, there.
So what is wrong on my end, Anna? I've asked for specific evidence and
you have none.
You've danced a very great deal, and it takes quite a few messages,
I'll admit, to be sure to cover, so that the rebuttal is useful and
convincing.
You rely on quotes. I rely on explanations.
No one is asking you to follow anyone around in circles, Anna, except
for the circles that you create while trying to avoid answering direct
questions and challenges.
Where is your evidence?
*
Anna:
43 posts in 6 pages without actually saying anything must be some kind
of record even for an unbeliever. You ask questions, receive answers
and then cynically deny they're answers, same way as you as demand
evidence, receive it and then deny receiving it, then you invent your
own demented account of exchanges and set yourself up as judge, and
all of this in the hope that nobody will bother checking back through
your jungle of useless posts to see what really happened. So pathetic.
*
CAF:
Anna, it doesn't bother me a bit that readers see your posts, as well.
You make a fine advertisement for atheism. You are a superficial
thinker, at best, and a childish egoist, at worst.
I'll decide what my hope is, Anna, and my hope is that people will
read what we both have posted and see that there's nothing to your
arguments.
And if my posts are not truthful, please point out, for all of us,
anything specific that I have lied about.
Be sure to quote the specific lie.
*
outnumber hers. She did so, again, today. Here is a thread in which
that came up before.
*
CAF:
No one is asking you to follow anyone around in circles, Anna, except
for the circles that you create while trying to avoid answering direct
questions and challenges.
Where is your evidence?
*
Anna:
43 posts in 6 pages without actually saying anything must be some kind
of record even for an unbeliever. You ask questions, receive answers
and then cynically deny they're answers, same way as you as demand
evidence, receive it and then deny receiving it, then you invent your
own demented account of exchanges and set yourself up as judge, and
all of this in the hope that nobody will bother checking back through
your jungle of useless posts to see what really happened. So
pathetic.
*
CAF:
I've already explained this, Anna. Posting explanatory commentary is
far more substantive than the sorts of behaviors that you exhibit, and
if substance is a problem for you, well, that's not surprising.
You do not answer questions. Where is the evidence for your claims? If
quotes from experts that apparently support your beliefs are valid,
why are quotes from experts that disagree with you not valid? Where do
we "look up" what you call "REALITY?" These are just a few of the
questions.
You have failed to answer them all, Anna.
Now, either you are a liar or you are delusional. I suspect that it's
a little bit of both.
What evidence have you posted? You've posted quotes. You've claimed
that they are evidence.
I have refuted you. You are wrong.
I don't have a problem with people checking back through the posts,
Anna. I suspect you're projecting, there.
But if you like, I can gather and post them in a single place.
*
Anna:
Your problem you know is that you're just a bad loser and anyone can
see that clearly who takes the trouble to read these threads and to
note how you stalk me everywhere with every single comment I make on
every video every day, and even the fact that you have to post 10
replies to every 1 post I make relects your insecurity and the
weakness of your position, assuming you actually have one which I
seriously doubt, and go get empirical evidence for doubt or chuck that
out too.
*
CAF:
What, exactly, did I lose, Anna?
As explained, you have not answered any questions nor provided any
evidence. You duck questions, quote authorities, ignore rebuttal and
refutation, and then claim that the other person is a loser.
I don't stalk you on every video, Anna. You happen to troll video
channels to which I listen.
And if I have to reply multiple times to single posts, it's because it
works to expose your superficiality. I've already answered all of
these points, Anna.
Anna, I don't assume that you are open-minded or mature enough to
truly consider what you post and why there are problems with it.
In fact, I am thoroughly convinced that all of this is because you had
a bad relationship of some sort with an atheists and now you want to
punish all atheists.
Still, you do provide a service. In replying to you and refuting you,
you help me demonstrate the shallow thinking typical of religious
people who pretend to be intellectuals.
If my position is weak, you need to demonstrate that by honest
rebuttal, not by assertion.
If I reject evidence, present evidence (and not quotes from others -
which only, at best, reflect their beliefs on such matters and are not
evidence). If I reject it without good cause, you can explain that, at
that time, and we can all see if there's anything to your assertion.
Make a case, Anna. So far, all you've done is make a fool of
yourself.
Here's what we should do, Anna:
If you are so convinced that your arguments are sound and the problem
is that I am buzzing around like an angry bee who lost an argument,
let's have that debate.
Google Groups, Debating YouTube Theists.
If you are right, think how much easier it will be to show that in a
debate thread that is much easier to maintain and read through. You
can post as much as you need to make your case. I can rebut.
You don't seem to want to do that.
This is significantly over-simplified for the purposes of a relatively
short documentary, Anna, but here's a bit of what we know about
"Jesus" today:
watch?v=kUBqgucLXzk
watch?v=xAPIngDjJVo&feature=channel
Robert Price and the late Alan Dundes are well-established scholars in
the field, Anna. Why don't you quote them?
*
Anna:
Look Foster, in the last five pages you've made OVER FORTY COMMENTS
also telling everyone how many degrees you've got and other irrelevant
nonsense so there's obviously something wrong somewhere and it's your
end, and I suggest you forget your qualifications and just try to be
clear, concise, relevant and truthful because I've no intentions of
following you round in circles here. You're absolutely hopeless.
*
CAF:
Yes, Anna, sometimes it takes more than a stray quote or a single, 500
word message to respond, adequately, to complext issues.
Now you can whimper and whine about the number of posts and claim that
they are irrelevant, but you simply demonstrate, further, your shallow
thought processes.
It was explained that you are lying when you claim that I demand of
you "absolute proof." Though challenged, you cannot provide a single
post in which that was asked.
I mention the credentials for two reasons. First, they establish some
degree of credibility. I have them. You don't. Second, they are used
as an example for what you have been charged with, several times. I
have doctoral credentials in theology and history. I am, by
definition, an expert.
But you'd never quote me, would you? Why is that, Anna? You do seem to
like quoting other experts.
Let's understand, Anna, that as a modern scholar in the field who
happens to disagree with you, you'd never quote me. Let's also
understand that, even if you were to work up the courage to do do, I'm
alive and I'm right here, so I can evaluate whether or not you are
quoting me correctly or truly representing my thoughts on the matter.
And before you whimper and whine, Anna, about my apparent arrogance
for posting such things, let me tell you, there's little more humbling
than going for a doctorate, because we build on those who came before
us.
Sometimes we do that by building on finding what was wrong with the
things said or found by those who came before us.
So my citation of the credentials was certainly topical and useful to
illustrate my point. You don't like that point, so you'll dismiss it.
There's no surprise, there.
So what is wrong on my end, Anna? I've asked for specific evidence and
you have none.
You've danced a very great deal, and it takes quite a few messages,
I'll admit, to be sure to cover, so that the rebuttal is useful and
convincing.
You rely on quotes. I rely on explanations.
No one is asking you to follow anyone around in circles, Anna, except
for the circles that you create while trying to avoid answering direct
questions and challenges.
Where is your evidence?
*
Anna:
43 posts in 6 pages without actually saying anything must be some kind
of record even for an unbeliever. You ask questions, receive answers
and then cynically deny they're answers, same way as you as demand
evidence, receive it and then deny receiving it, then you invent your
own demented account of exchanges and set yourself up as judge, and
all of this in the hope that nobody will bother checking back through
your jungle of useless posts to see what really happened. So pathetic.
*
CAF:
Anna, it doesn't bother me a bit that readers see your posts, as well.
You make a fine advertisement for atheism. You are a superficial
thinker, at best, and a childish egoist, at worst.
I'll decide what my hope is, Anna, and my hope is that people will
read what we both have posted and see that there's nothing to your
arguments.
And if my posts are not truthful, please point out, for all of us,
anything specific that I have lied about.
Be sure to quote the specific lie.
*
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 16, 2009, 10:53:26 AM1/16/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
In this thread, Anna and I "debate" her claims that Jesus existed.
*
Anna:
[Presumably quoting me]: how does a quote from a "great
mind," ......Jesus?
Even the greatest religious sceptics didn't doubt Christ's existence,
so John Stuart Mill (estimated IQ 200) was even stunned by Christ's
moral and ethical purity and Mill said,
"About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal
originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank
of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast."
And if you're still not convinced that Jesus was a REAL person who
REALLY lived, here's another genius for you,
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of
Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with
such life." Albert Einstein
"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the
Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the
Nazarene." Albert Einstein
*
CAF:
No, Anna, I am not convinced that Jesus was a real person who actually
lived and was described in the Gospels.
That Jesus may have existed as one of many preachers in the regions is
likely, and had his legend inflated over time. That's not uncommon
among those kinds of situations.
That Jesus was an extension of the Mithra and Horus myths is also very
likely.
Your quoting fallacy may continue, but I see you still don't have any
evidence.
Guess what will convince me, Anna: You got it...evidence will convince
me.
You don't have any of that. All you have are quotes from people with
whom you happen to agree, embellished, of course, by claims of
"estimated IQ."
I have two doctorates, Anna, both from well-known universities and one
in theology.
I did not start that ThD program an atheist. That happened during the
study of these "great minds," among others.
Jesus is a myth. Why won't you quote me as "evidence?"
[Editorial note: We did not get into the misappropriation of
Einstein, this time, but had in the past, and I'll add that Einstein
was a great mind, but he had no credentials in religion, theology, or
the Bible. I do. Therefore, if there is an argument between Einstein
and me - though there isn't - I'm the expert. Funny how Anna never
quotes guys like me.]
Anna, I appreciate that you feel embarrassed for me, but I don't share
your feeling.
I haven't lost anything because, in general, I have merely challenged
you to provide evidence or some sense of intellectual justification
for the things you argue.
You have been found wanting on all counts, so if you want to make
empty boasts that others who challenge you behave as if they've lost
(to you, of course - this is all about your ego), be my guest.
Discerning readers won't be fooled.
*
Anna:
[Presumably quoting me]: how does a quote from a "great
mind," ......Jesus?
Even the greatest religious sceptics didn't doubt Christ's existence,
so John Stuart Mill (estimated IQ 200) was even stunned by Christ's
moral and ethical purity and Mill said,
"About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal
originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank
of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast."
And if you're still not convinced that Jesus was a REAL person who
REALLY lived, here's another genius for you,
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of
Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with
such life." Albert Einstein
"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the
Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the
Nazarene." Albert Einstein
*
CAF:
No, Anna, I am not convinced that Jesus was a real person who actually
lived and was described in the Gospels.
That Jesus may have existed as one of many preachers in the regions is
likely, and had his legend inflated over time. That's not uncommon
among those kinds of situations.
That Jesus was an extension of the Mithra and Horus myths is also very
likely.
Your quoting fallacy may continue, but I see you still don't have any
evidence.
Guess what will convince me, Anna: You got it...evidence will convince
me.
You don't have any of that. All you have are quotes from people with
whom you happen to agree, embellished, of course, by claims of
"estimated IQ."
I have two doctorates, Anna, both from well-known universities and one
in theology.
I did not start that ThD program an atheist. That happened during the
study of these "great minds," among others.
Jesus is a myth. Why won't you quote me as "evidence?"
[Editorial note: We did not get into the misappropriation of
Einstein, this time, but had in the past, and I'll add that Einstein
was a great mind, but he had no credentials in religion, theology, or
the Bible. I do. Therefore, if there is an argument between Einstein
and me - though there isn't - I'm the expert. Funny how Anna never
quotes guys like me.]
Anna, I appreciate that you feel embarrassed for me, but I don't share
your feeling.
I haven't lost anything because, in general, I have merely challenged
you to provide evidence or some sense of intellectual justification
for the things you argue.
You have been found wanting on all counts, so if you want to make
empty boasts that others who challenge you behave as if they've lost
(to you, of course - this is all about your ego), be my guest.
Discerning readers won't be fooled.
chris.fo...@gmail.com
Jan 19, 2009, 11:12:09 AM1/19/09
to Debating.YouTube.Theists
More grist for the mill...AnnaAgainstAtheists, today, January 19,
2009:
Anna:
Guncriminal and others
I wrote, "Atheism is the position where those holding that position
believe that no such position even exists which kind of positions them
pretty badly I'd say. Now I'd call that delusional."
EXPLANATION
1. "Atheism is the position". What position?
"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a
position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being,
and a code of ethics." (US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals)
EXPLANATION [Continued]
2. "Those holding that position". Who?
Answer: self professed atheists.
3. "believe that that no such position exists". Why? Because atheists
argue that they simply LACK BELIEFS and therefore don't actually have
a position.
4. "positions them pretty badly". Why? Because they deny holding a
position whereas they do and this in the face of lawcourt denials.
5. "DELUSIONAL" ? I'd have thought this was obvious.
So yes, delusional atheism.
CAF:
The 7th Court did, indeed, take the position that atheism is a "school
of thought," but it is not a belief nor a belief system, Anna.
Atheists lack a belief in God. Outside of that, there is no clergy
(except those designated by, ironically enough, religious people!), no
liturgy, no holy books (again, except as decided by religious people)
and, aside from societies of like mind, no leadership or priest
class.
Anna:
The owner of the channel [YokeUp] seems to be a very nice and
reasonable man and I don't see him deleting my comments since they're
relevant and clean. My point remains that dishonest and vile people
have been stalking me and eliminating my comments from view even
though they're expressed cleanly and relevantly so the problem's
definitely your end (atheists).
CAF:
Let's also be understanding: The owner of this channel is YouTube.
None of us owns anything, here.
As it is, and as I have written, elsewhere, you may find YokeUp to be
more or less than what you believe on first read, as he is a
notoriuously irrational theist. Then again, you two might just get
along great because of that.
And, as we've pointed out, over and over, again, your comments are not
a problem for atheists because they are easily answered and refuted.
You have no evidence for your claims, Anna, and we have provided a
perfectly reasonable explanation. As usual, you prefer to play the
martyr and make up wild, paranoid tales.
I would have little doubt that there are some who mark your comments
as spam, of course, but that appears to be because your comments are
repetitive and demonstrably nonsensical. That's one definition of
"spam." I have discouraged the practice, but we can only control our
own posting.
Anna:
In your dreams. You do nothing but prance around hallucinating about
what you think you've done, what you think you're doing and what you
think you'll do and all WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING anything (other than
spamming and sockpuppeting) or addressing any issues as everyone who
isn't a fanatical atheist can plainly see and as my mailbox regularly
proves. Your sole purpose here seems to be to atheistically censor my
freedom of expression.
CAF:
No dreams, Anna. I have utterly and completly demolished every
argument you have presented, so far, and your only response has been
to repeat them and run to other video comment sections, to troll again
the same irrational and superficial arguments.
And who are the sock puppets, Anna? Making accusations seems to be
very easy for you. Where is your evidence?
Hallucinating, Anna? I don't believe that there is some great sky-
daddy watching over me. You do. Who's hallucinating?
It's par for the course for you to deny that your statements have been
addressed, but they clearly have, demonstrating your delusional nature
and your narcissistic, juvenile behavior.
I'm not interested in what's in your mailbox, Anna, more am I in any
claims about it. It's not like you are especially honest with us,
after all.
You are, and have been free to express yourself, Anna. Others are
likewise free to do the same. But freedom of expression carries with
it certain responsibilities, and there is no place on Earth in which
such freedoms are without some restrictions. YouTube, for example has
some explicit limits on such freedoms.
It's easy for you to play the martyr, Anna, and it's unfortunate that
some are giving you the opportunity to do so. I prefer debate. But
you've run from that, too.
The fact is, Anna, that once your comments are addressed and exposed
for the superficial nonsense that they are, you run to troll another
video comment section. Usually, it's an atheist comment section, and
it does seem that atheists are tired of such things. Like you, they'd
like to go about their business without such interference, but you
have taken it upon yourself to enter into a crusade of sorts against
them, as your very user name attests.
But you would suppress their freedoms, as well, by engaging in your
repetitious trolling. It is clear that you have nothing to say that is
of any merit. Your "evidence" for anything seems to be to quote
someone, even though we've explained, many times, that quotes aren't
evidence.
You simply are not wise enough, educated enough, or knowledgable
enough to make a dispassionate, intelligent judgment. That much has
been made clear by your whining, hate-filled diatribes against
atheists, who have been called everything that you think you can get
away with but, in no case have you dealt with specific arguments and
rebuttals.
You were offered the opportunity to discuss and debate these things in
a forum far more suited to such things than YouTube comment areas
(though certainly having its own, unfortunate, limitations), but you
refused.
But you don't want debate, Anna. That doesn't interest you, does it?
What you want to be able to do is make assertions and you expect that
everyone will believe them and accept them.
Those who do not are "nitwits," "dunderheads," and so on.
You present yourself as some level of pious and holy but, really,
you're just like the religious of Jesus's day, according to your own
scriptures, and Jesus reserved his harshest words for people like
you.
Anna, with what "right heart and mind" should we read Matthew
7:14-23?
By the way, Anna, even as we must acknowledge that there is freeom of
expression and you should be allowed it, it is also to invoke freedom
of expression if someone decides that your argument are repetitious
nonsense and so they get marked down or marked as spam.
That, too, is a form of expression that is free to everyone.
Never thought of THAT, did you?
Of course, you didn't.
*
2009:
Anna:
Guncriminal and others
I wrote, "Atheism is the position where those holding that position
believe that no such position even exists which kind of positions them
pretty badly I'd say. Now I'd call that delusional."
EXPLANATION
1. "Atheism is the position". What position?
"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a
position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being,
and a code of ethics." (US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals)
EXPLANATION [Continued]
2. "Those holding that position". Who?
Answer: self professed atheists.
3. "believe that that no such position exists". Why? Because atheists
argue that they simply LACK BELIEFS and therefore don't actually have
a position.
4. "positions them pretty badly". Why? Because they deny holding a
position whereas they do and this in the face of lawcourt denials.
5. "DELUSIONAL" ? I'd have thought this was obvious.
So yes, delusional atheism.
CAF:
The 7th Court did, indeed, take the position that atheism is a "school
of thought," but it is not a belief nor a belief system, Anna.
Atheists lack a belief in God. Outside of that, there is no clergy
(except those designated by, ironically enough, religious people!), no
liturgy, no holy books (again, except as decided by religious people)
and, aside from societies of like mind, no leadership or priest
class.
Anna:
The owner of the channel [YokeUp] seems to be a very nice and
reasonable man and I don't see him deleting my comments since they're
relevant and clean. My point remains that dishonest and vile people
have been stalking me and eliminating my comments from view even
though they're expressed cleanly and relevantly so the problem's
definitely your end (atheists).
CAF:
Let's also be understanding: The owner of this channel is YouTube.
None of us owns anything, here.
As it is, and as I have written, elsewhere, you may find YokeUp to be
more or less than what you believe on first read, as he is a
notoriuously irrational theist. Then again, you two might just get
along great because of that.
And, as we've pointed out, over and over, again, your comments are not
a problem for atheists because they are easily answered and refuted.
You have no evidence for your claims, Anna, and we have provided a
perfectly reasonable explanation. As usual, you prefer to play the
martyr and make up wild, paranoid tales.
I would have little doubt that there are some who mark your comments
as spam, of course, but that appears to be because your comments are
repetitive and demonstrably nonsensical. That's one definition of
"spam." I have discouraged the practice, but we can only control our
own posting.
Anna:
In your dreams. You do nothing but prance around hallucinating about
what you think you've done, what you think you're doing and what you
think you'll do and all WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING anything (other than
spamming and sockpuppeting) or addressing any issues as everyone who
isn't a fanatical atheist can plainly see and as my mailbox regularly
proves. Your sole purpose here seems to be to atheistically censor my
freedom of expression.
CAF:
No dreams, Anna. I have utterly and completly demolished every
argument you have presented, so far, and your only response has been
to repeat them and run to other video comment sections, to troll again
the same irrational and superficial arguments.
And who are the sock puppets, Anna? Making accusations seems to be
very easy for you. Where is your evidence?
Hallucinating, Anna? I don't believe that there is some great sky-
daddy watching over me. You do. Who's hallucinating?
It's par for the course for you to deny that your statements have been
addressed, but they clearly have, demonstrating your delusional nature
and your narcissistic, juvenile behavior.
I'm not interested in what's in your mailbox, Anna, more am I in any
claims about it. It's not like you are especially honest with us,
after all.
You are, and have been free to express yourself, Anna. Others are
likewise free to do the same. But freedom of expression carries with
it certain responsibilities, and there is no place on Earth in which
such freedoms are without some restrictions. YouTube, for example has
some explicit limits on such freedoms.
It's easy for you to play the martyr, Anna, and it's unfortunate that
some are giving you the opportunity to do so. I prefer debate. But
you've run from that, too.
The fact is, Anna, that once your comments are addressed and exposed
for the superficial nonsense that they are, you run to troll another
video comment section. Usually, it's an atheist comment section, and
it does seem that atheists are tired of such things. Like you, they'd
like to go about their business without such interference, but you
have taken it upon yourself to enter into a crusade of sorts against
them, as your very user name attests.
But you would suppress their freedoms, as well, by engaging in your
repetitious trolling. It is clear that you have nothing to say that is
of any merit. Your "evidence" for anything seems to be to quote
someone, even though we've explained, many times, that quotes aren't
evidence.
You simply are not wise enough, educated enough, or knowledgable
enough to make a dispassionate, intelligent judgment. That much has
been made clear by your whining, hate-filled diatribes against
atheists, who have been called everything that you think you can get
away with but, in no case have you dealt with specific arguments and
rebuttals.
You were offered the opportunity to discuss and debate these things in
a forum far more suited to such things than YouTube comment areas
(though certainly having its own, unfortunate, limitations), but you
refused.
But you don't want debate, Anna. That doesn't interest you, does it?
What you want to be able to do is make assertions and you expect that
everyone will believe them and accept them.
Those who do not are "nitwits," "dunderheads," and so on.
You present yourself as some level of pious and holy but, really,
you're just like the religious of Jesus's day, according to your own
scriptures, and Jesus reserved his harshest words for people like
you.
Anna, with what "right heart and mind" should we read Matthew
7:14-23?
By the way, Anna, even as we must acknowledge that there is freeom of
expression and you should be allowed it, it is also to invoke freedom
of expression if someone decides that your argument are repetitious
nonsense and so they get marked down or marked as spam.
That, too, is a form of expression that is free to everyone.
Never thought of THAT, did you?
Of course, you didn't.
*
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages