tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post2461349182601448264..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Restating the Positions of his Blog D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-75937372259407247622013-05-06T03:44:49.278-04:002013-05-06T03:44:49.278-04:00You're cracking me up when you take a moral po...You're cracking me up when you take a moral position. Are you appealing to a moral law here? Or is it merely an temporary opinion? What makes your "opinion" more valid than others?<br /><br />Once again, <a href="http://bit.ly/assmorals" rel="nofollow">bit.ly/assmorals</a>D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-60864343990821361432013-05-05T03:18:17.126-04:002013-05-05T03:18:17.126-04:00Dan...you'd better have another look at your f...Dan...you'd better have another look at your <a href="http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/grief-at-ultimate-loss-to-atheoleftist.html" rel="nofollow">friend Stan</a>:<br /><br /><i>"the leftist, progressive, secular Reds (i.e. AtheoLeftists); the Whites of traditional religious America; the Browns emanating from the third world Americas; and the Blacks of Feral America."</i><br /><br /><i>"The American Reds and Whites contain people of all races, including Hispanic and African American. However the Browns and Blacks seem to be exclusive. The Browns are already agitating via La Raza. The Blacks are already at war with the Browns and with themselves."</i>Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-35077358151690176652013-02-09T02:36:43.913-05:002013-02-09T02:36:43.913-05:00I Stubled upon this blog and read a few of the pos...I Stubled upon this blog and read a few of the posts. And I have to say this guy really sucks and debunking athiests in fact the only thing the blogger seems to do is spout political BS and personal opinion. I suggest you do research from here on it may surprise you. Especially since we all know the bible is full of crap.SinSpreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02503596070641577053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-1666789444832094922013-01-29T20:30:26.627-05:002013-01-29T20:30:26.627-05:00I reject your assertion of fallacy :7
So DAN.... ...I reject your assertion of fallacy :7<br /><br />So DAN.... are you using a 'fallacy of redefinition' when you assert the meaning of the words (noises homo-sapiens make) 'Truth', 'Certainty' and 'knowledge' in your 'presup' BS?<br /><br /><br />Also, my logical position of 'Occam’s razor' is one that rejects all assumption and assertions, wether they are superstitions or not.<br /><br />My position of 'Atheist/ism' is following the same logic.<br /><br />Assumptions just make a ass out of you and me (ass-u-me)<br />:7<br /><br /><br /><br />Do I get a prize for my answer? <br />I would like a T-shirt that says:<br /><br />"I caused cognitive dissonance on Debunking Atheists"<br /><br />With the picture of the newspaper reading pony on the back<br /><br />:)<br /><br /><br /><br />FYI <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperstitionANTZILLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588266412434898900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74204113587426113122013-01-27T15:41:18.278-05:002013-01-27T15:41:18.278-05:00Logic missed
Only because following it represents ...<b>Logic missed</b><br />Only because following it represents the path of failure for your ideas, Dan.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52593903884980956192013-01-26T18:55:57.999-05:002013-01-26T18:55:57.999-05:00Nope. He has it right. Unproven inivisible magic...Nope. He has it right. Unproven inivisible magical beings such as "god" and "angels" and demons, etc? <br /><br />Yeah. Just a different superstition than the others.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-84806765748738882562013-01-25T04:05:28.635-05:002013-01-25T04:05:28.635-05:00fallacy of redefinition - FTW? Logic missed.fallacy of redefinition - FTW? Logic missed.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-60030587040401015832013-01-25T00:16:05.893-05:002013-01-25T00:16:05.893-05:00Atheism def. - the rejection of asserted superstit...Atheism def. - the rejection of asserted superstitions.<br /><br />Logic used - occam's razorANTZILLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588266412434898900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37470426477424761812013-01-19T15:06:18.969-05:002013-01-19T15:06:18.969-05:00I think you are being too kind to Dan, and that th...I think you are being too kind to Dan, and that the reality ist that his brain has snapped. Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42393585220969095962013-01-19T13:53:26.664-05:002013-01-19T13:53:26.664-05:00Alex:
I will grant Dan the benefit and assum...Alex:<br /><br /> I will grant Dan the benefit and assume he did not recognize it as a throwaway comment. However, I do not think him so stupid as to believe that a wish that something would happen is the same as a threat to bring it about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70324066655986751452013-01-19T08:09:17.221-05:002013-01-19T08:09:17.221-05:00Dan is also ignoring the fact that my comment was ...Dan is also ignoring the fact that my comment was clearly throw away. The entire exchange went like this - <br /><br />Dan: "You make me desire a banhammer in Blogger. :7)"<br /><br />Alex: And you make me desire social services coming to your house to rescue your kids, but what are ya gonna do?<br /><br />CLEARLY a throwaway comment. But then, why should I be surprised that Dan doesn't understand context?Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-8140460684455065652013-01-18T23:46:26.390-05:002013-01-18T23:46:26.390-05:00Dan:
I was addressing Alex. You can go run ...Dan:<br /><br /> I was addressing Alex. You can go run and hide if you like. Besides, you are quite aware that even when Wordpress decides your comments are spam, I rescue them from the spam folder. Your comments <i>are</i> there for all to see. I'm sorry Wordpress has sent your comments to spam (mostly because it means more effort on my part -- although sometimes I think Wordpress has a point.)<br /> Alex did not threaten to call CPS for your children. He did say that he thought they would be better off if someone did. But CPS generally requires some verifiable abuse; and they don't consider being a fundamentalist christian to count. Besides, as I recall, he is in Great Britain somewhere and couldn't call CPS on you anyway.<br /> "Who is LYING now."<br /> You are. Alex was gone for a while. And I don't recall that he said he wouldn't ever be back, just that he was taking a break.<br /> In any event, if you want to answer Alex's questions, you can do so here, or you can do so at my blog. But I won't be holding my breath.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-76388769621311223032013-01-18T23:27:23.743-05:002013-01-18T23:27:23.743-05:00Yea, go over where comments are thrown into spam. ...Yea, go over where comments are thrown into spam. Goodbye. D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48624618251248513162013-01-18T23:25:00.599-05:002013-01-18T23:25:00.599-05:00Alex, you threatened to call protective service to...Alex, you threatened to call protective service to come for my children. I closed comments for the first time EVER at this blog because of you bringing my kids into the conversation. A line crossed. OBVIOUSLY you do not have any, otherwise you would not make such such threats.<br /><br />I thought you said you were going away for 6 more months? Who is LYING now.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9639952976249838562013-01-18T22:39:34.537-05:002013-01-18T22:39:34.537-05:00I think that what Dan is saying is that denying hi...I <b>think</b> that what Dan is saying is that denying his god is somehow logically the same as denying oneself. Therefore it's the same as denying your children. He's done that before but I forget the reasoning behind it.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78855021592497956032013-01-18T21:25:21.639-05:002013-01-18T21:25:21.639-05:00 "As Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now ... "As Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now closed the comments on the previous thread, I have to reply here - "<br /> Nonsense, Alex, I have opened a thread on my own blog specifically to address the very issues Dan is running away from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12928626371730994762013-01-18T17:35:04.879-05:002013-01-18T17:35:04.879-05:00As Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now closed the ...As Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now closed the comments on the previous thread, I have to reply here - <br /><br />Dan's reply before locking the thread was so vile and off beam that I had to respond<br /><br />"">>rather a 'dork' than a deluded, self deceiving moron who knowingly lies to his children...again, as I said before, none of your damned business. <br /><br />Yes, you claim I lie to my children, and I am sure I have at one point in their lives although I cannot think of anything."<br /><br />When did you last tell them evolution wasn't true, or that your particular version of your particular god existed? That's when you last lied to them.<br /><br />"But more importantly, IF you did have children, you deny their existence ALSO!!! Either that or you're incredibly ashamed of them. Sad really."<br /><br />What. The. FUCK.<br /><br />How is telling you that my family situation being none of your business the same as DENYING the EXISTENCE of children??? You FUCKING DIRT BAG Dan, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself.<br /><br />"Bringing my children up and threatening their livelihood is beyond low, but exposes you as a person, so I tolerate it."<br /><br />Again - WHAT. THE. FUCK. When have I EVER 'threatened [the] livelihood' of you children?? That's a pretty extreme allegation there, Dick Dan. All I've done is point out that your lies to them now will almost certainly end up biting you in the arse later in life. <br /><br />"Denying that you have children, or refusal to talk about yours, after threatening mine, is an entire category of low that all are here to see."<br /><br />You brain is broken if you think that what you have described matches reality in any way at all. I'm starting to think that you're not only entirely devoid of faith (as pvblivs so rightly claims) but that you're also on the verge of a nervous breakdown.<br /><br />As I see it you have two issues to apologise about here - <br /><br />1. I have never in the recent conversation made a statement either positive or negative about whether or not I have children (and have explicitly stated the reality of my situation elsewhere) - so how you extrapolate that into denying the existence of anyone is entirely beyond me.<br /><br />2. I have never ever 'threatened' your children - that is a grotesque and jawdroppingly offensive accusation, and one that you need to fucking retract.<br /><br />Dan, you've plumbed new depths here.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45996723177109264482013-01-09T08:02:46.305-05:002013-01-09T08:02:46.305-05:00Or in any place on that guy's blog, really. A...Or in any place on that guy's blog, really. Again, see the SFN links.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-85082784648217767842013-01-09T00:12:54.091-05:002013-01-09T00:12:54.091-05:00Billy Craig and Dinesh D'Souza are very well v...Billy Craig and Dinesh D'Souza are very well versed in logic and fallacy, which disturbs me when they knowingly and willfully argue fallaciously.Gnardudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12190777578496104143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23531790475406382572013-01-08T23:18:48.817-05:002013-01-08T23:18:48.817-05:00I was raised in a secular environment. As an adult...I was raised in a secular environment. As an adult, through the internet and the Jehovah's Witness' visits to my doorstep, I was exposed to some of the many religions of the world. I haven't bought into any of them. What was I supposed to prove again?Gnardudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12190777578496104143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22369245244977905152013-01-07T21:18:30.023-05:002013-01-07T21:18:30.023-05:00Ah, "misrepresentations" about others? ...Ah, "misrepresentations" about others? Here then is a misrepresentation that Stan did to me (besides the stuff in his comment here):<br /><br />In our "debate" Stan said that I claimed that I spoke for all atheists. I never made that claim. I outright rejected that claim. Stan kept on insisting that I made that claim.<br /><br />I invite anyone to bloody find where I claimed to speak for all atheists in that debate. See the SFN link in my earlier post.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25363144988700152442013-01-07T20:18:52.149-05:002013-01-07T20:18:52.149-05:00I forgot: In the Rational wiki post about atheism...I forgot: In the Rational wiki post about atheism that's in my previous comment they also talk about <i>morality</i>.<br /><br />I'll also point out that Stan has no problems ascribing motives to atheists yet he takes umbrage when I dare to use xianity's own <b>bible</b> as evidence of what motivates <b>them</b>.<br /><br />Stan also refuses to say just what <b>his</b> views are; he just blasts away at atheism no matter how bullshit his claims are. Not only a proven liar (see above comment), but a coward.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23873636059493262362013-01-07T19:27:36.869-05:002013-01-07T19:27:36.869-05:00Stan
Hmm. I just dropped by here out of curiosity....<b>Stan</b><br /><i>Hmm. I just dropped by here out of curiosity. I see that Reynold has not changed a bit, still misinterpreting and then arguing his misinterpretation as the only possible one.<br /><br />Reynold, you have no idea what I think about the Bible;...</i><br />You said it was fictional. Whatever. <br /><br /><i>...what you wish to argue is your false reading and noncomprehension, and taken out of context, too. False arguments and your inability to admit your errors was what got you booted from my blog.</i><br />I was booted from there? Meh. As for your claims, let those who read the debate between us decide.<br /><br />When it comes to "misrepresentations", let's see your post right here:<br /><br /><b>Lie 1:</b><br /><i>It is so typical of Atheist attacks to denigrate without any specifics. This is obviously because they hate what they read, but can't deny it.</i><br />In various atheist blogs, to give one quick, easy place for you to look, they do give specific reasons as to why they don't like theism. <br /><br />And none of it has to do with your claim <a href="http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86094" rel="nofollow">here</a>. (FSTDT link so you can read actual atheist responses to your statement, which the site itself links to).<br /><br />Some examples of why atheists don't like theism:<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/30/wait-i-thought-they-believed-i/" rel="nofollow">PZ Myers hates that apologists are for genocide</a><br /><br /><a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-murphy-oconnor-atheists.html" rel="nofollow">Catholic cardinal said that atheists are "not fully human"</a>.<br /><br />No one would like being constantly demonized as you do to atheists on your blog, Stan. No one, not even Vox Day comes close to your level of bigotry.<br /><br /><br /><b>Lie 2:</b><br /><i> Atheists don't want to talk about the void that is Atheism, the void that is Atheist morality, the void that is Atheist philosophy.</i><br />Oh? Atheist philosophy is a "void"? Tell that to <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca/search/label/atheism" rel="nofollow">this philosopher</a>. Just look on the labels on the side and see just how much of a "void" there is in atheist philosophy by how many tags/posts there are dealing with it.<br /><br /><b>Lie 3:</b><br /><i>Atheists don't want to talk about the void that is atheism,...</i><br />Atheists don't want to talk about atheism? In our <a href="http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15151" rel="nofollow">debate</a>" I gave <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted" rel="nofollow">links</a> to where atheists <b>do</b> talk about atheism. Really, all you have to do is open your eyes and LOOK, there are atheist blogs and forums all over the place on the net.<br /><br /><b>Lie 4:</b><br /><i>...the void that is Atheist morality...</i><br />And no...atheist morality is <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/01/mutable-morality-not-subjective-morality-moral-pluralism-not-moral-relativism/" rel="nofollow">not a void</a>.<br /><br />Again, check out Stephen Law's site for the labels on the left hand side such as:<br /><b> morality depends on religion? (8)<br /><br />morality depends on religion? "moral argument for god" (1) </b><br />where he talks about how no "god" is necessary for morality.<br /><br />4 lies by you, Stan.<br /><br />Stan has zero interest in "analyzing" atheism, he just wants to demonize it. <br /><br />For example: no matter that I brought up 3 studies that show that atheists are sometimes more generous than "theists", Stan ignored those and instead focussed on ONE study (by Barna, a religious group) that said otherwise.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74614232368136301862013-01-07T10:49:29.341-05:002013-01-07T10:49:29.341-05:00Stan:
Interestingly, Mike did not say your p...Stan:<br /><br /> Interestingly, Mike did not say your position (which you don't really identify) was ridiculous. He said that the straw-man you present of your "opponent" is ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-91940962523699618842013-01-07T07:08:21.614-05:002013-01-07T07:08:21.614-05:00Stan said...
freddies-dead, your interpretation l...Stan said...<br /><br /><i>freddies-dead, your interpretation leaves out the key words, presumably to allow you to have an argument against your false reading, not the actual statement.</i><br /><br />I left out nothing.<br /><br /><i>The key words are ...acknowledge"as a threat".</i><br /><br />And I dealt with those words. Christians use Hell "as a threat" and I can acknowledge them doing so whilst at the same time feeling that the threat itself has no actual basis in reality.<br /><br /><i>If you don't believe in hell, then it cannot be a threat, it is an empty concept like vampires, witches and Evil, none of which exist in the Atheist concept of the universe.</i><br /><br />Rubbish. Of course it's a threat. The whole idea is for those that do not believe as certain Christians do to fear going to the Hell those Christians claim exists. It's the intent that makes it a threat. That atheists find the threat unpersuasive does not change that intent.<br /><br /><i>No Christian can condemn anyone to hell, only the (non-existent) God could do that: no threat there.</i><br /><br />Non sequitur, I never claimed any Christians could. It's still a threat though. Believe as the Christian does or spend an eternity in torment. The intent is quite clear.<br /><br /><i>But you are right, the threat of hell has no effect on people who are materialists to the core.</i><br /><br />So you concede it's a threat. Thank you.<br /><br /><i>When Atheists die, they are worm fodder because they are material only, with no non-material component, nothing other than molecules and heat.<br /><br />Given that, what does it matter what Atheists think? Even Charles Darwin acknowledged that inconsistency in Atheist thinking processes.<br /><br />Stan</i><br /><br />Do you have a citation for that claim about Darwin?freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.com