February 06, 2013

Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet Apologetics



 
For those who like to debate God's existence and to reason with unbelievers, "Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams" may be even more entertaining than "Sex, Lies and Video Tape" was in the 1990s. I don't like information censorship and comment screening, and this is how the adventure began in the first place. A common tact with regard to comment slander and Internet etiquette is to simply ignore this kind of abuse. While I do generally take this approach, once in a while I will throw in a summary of the person's actual documented comments to help set the record straight.
 
This past week, however, the slander level at my blog seemed to reach a crescendo with a comment poster from Russia calling me a liar from one post to the next for the duration of five consecutive blog article posts. He has joined the ranks of two other secular atheists who come to my blog to post false slander. I would like to outline the three false accusations against me and then offer a logical explanation as to why this occurs. I chose to use Venn diagrams because they are a simply means of demonstrating logical truths. 

A Templestream Trilogy: Three Adventures in Internet Apologetics

1. Anonymous and the mystery of overlapping word meanings.
2. Imnotandrei and the adventures of a philosophical contortionist.
3. Havok and the search for the home of the unsupported claim.
1. Anonymous and the mystery of overlapping word meanings.

Beginning January 21, 2013, after I posted a piece on the world's top atheists, blogger Anonymous claimed I was a liar: "So no call for infanticide, just statement that not all lifes are equal. As for the murder of old folks...On both accounts you have proven to be a liar, Rick" 

And, again, January 24th in the comments of the next post we find the same thing:

"Liar, nowhere does Singer state that infanticide is ok. On the contrary, let me post a quote from his FAQ page again..."

 I asked Anonymous, "Where does Singer ever claim that infanticide of "non-persons" is immoral?"

His answer? "I am not that interested in Singer s views in the first place and I am not going to read all his books in details and so on to try in a futile attempt to reason with you."

The debate rages:

R: I see. Call me a liar and then claim your own ignorance justifies your slander. 

A: I am calling you a liar at times your distortion of facts is obvious. Like the time you accuse Singer of promoting bestiality and infanticide.

R:define specifically which point or points you have a problem with.

A: Yes and I did point out to you what were your lies. Again, you lied about the fact that Singer promotes infanticide and bestiality. That is blatantly false. You also lied about him "dehumanizing" the concept of humanity.

It wasn't until January 25 that a main issue came to ight:

A: Liar. He does not promote infanticide. You dishonestly corrolate infanticide and euthanasia. That is not the same thing....Rick, do you know the difference between euthanasia and infanticide? Do you know the difference between murder and abortion?"

I offered a standard Webster's dictionary definition with the hopes that would help clear things up:

R: 1. infanticide: the killing of an infant

Does this general definition of infant killing offer any distinction between outright murder or "taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely"? No, it does not.

And, I asked anonymous, "Do you have any dictionary definitions that support your interpretation - that infanticide is always supposed to be considered murder?"

Anonymous did not have any answer to back up his point, instead he just launched into the use of capital letters, which, I suppose, is intended to make his conflated understanding of word defintions more convincing:

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFANTICIDE AND CHILD EUTHANASIA? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND ABORTION?" ...Those are yes or no questions, Rick."  

This thread then continues into the comments of a third article: 
  
A: Promoting infanticide and promoting the principles of euthanasia are two distinct things that you CANNOT USE AS SYNONYMS.

R: I have never used them as synonyms.
 


A: Then you acknowledge the fact you are a liar. Singer has never promoted infanticide.

And through January 27th, the slander continues...

A: Yes, and you are still a liar because you admitted you know the difference between infanticide and child euthanasia, but you still accuse Singer of the same thing.

Here I threaten the use of some formidable ramparts of logic... Yes, the dreaded Venn diagrams:

R: Do I need to make Venn diagrams or something so you can possibly understand that word definition have overlapping meaning without necessarily being synonyms?
  
By January 28, Anonymous still doesn't get it, but still insists that I am a dishonest liar:

R:You are conflating word usage and word context.

A: No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.
 


Then, out of the blue on February 2, Anonymous does a 180 turnaround and makes the follwoing statement:

A: This is getting tiresome, Rick. I already agreed with you that Singer does promote infanticide. What else do you need from me?

He offered a link with a Russian .ru ending that does not seem to work in the US

Instead of admitting that is was wrongful to slandering me for days, on February third he then attempts to shift the blame back on me for quoting Singer where he outlines how "infanticide" would be ethically "permissible"in order to make the greatest amount of happiness for others.

"Yes, you were and are still a liar. For the who-knows-which-time, it does not follow from your quotes that Singer promotes infanticide."

The quote in question was referenced from one of Singer's books:

“We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” (p.154 per Google Books version) 

Contrary to the claim of Anonymous, support for "permissible infanticide" based on considering "the effects of infanticide on others" is most definitely ethical support for infanticide. This is a very straightforward sentence. If it is not straightforward, before labeling me a liar, Anonymous has the burden of proof to offer some plausible manner in which this sentence could mean anything other than the straightforward meaning. In terms of slander, the onus is on the accuser to point out proof for serious accusations such as calling someone a liar. It is a basic maxim of law. In fact, in both God's law and Man's law, the onus of proof is on the accuser.

If Anonymous wishes to challenge the plain meaning of Singer's words, he needs to explain in what possible manner he is offering a different meaning, or how he may possibly be speaking in parables like Jesus, who often used sentences that had two overlapping metaphorical meanings. Since Singer's own quotes suggest that medical infanticide should be ethically and legally permissible, Singer is proposing that it should become a regular convention in society supported by the state. That would definitely qualify as a promotion from its existing status as completely illegal in any form.

The following Venn diagram outlines why Anonymous is wrong for continuously calling me a liar with regard to word meaning:

2. Imnotandrei and the adventures of a philosophical contortionist.
The blog poster Imnotandrei has made repetitive false and slanderous claims about me claim that are herein documented. One of the main problems is Imnotandrei's devotion to defending secular atheist public figures who are quite talented as philosophical contortionists but quite lacking in logical thought.

Out of the blue one day, Imnotandrei stated that one of my articles had been "discredited." And I had to challenge him for comments on end until he finally admitted that his comment was not true:

If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited. However, even in his admission of slander, he offers new unsubstantiated slander.
 
1. Imnotandrei made a false and slanderous claim that my article had been "discredited" and I had to continuous challenge him until he admitted this statement was an error. The article in question had not been discredited.

2. The word "discredited" suggests an article is not true and has been somehow disproved.

3. In his admission, Imnotandrei claims the article was "informally discredited", still suggesting it is not true, and, thus, he is still slandering me without offering any objective evidence to support his claim. What is actually meant by "informally discredited" is not clear. But the definition of propaganda would count as such in accordance with the definition of that word. Technically, these types of false statements could fall under the definition of libel: "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression."

"A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."
 
And then there's Imnotandrei's second case of spontaneous slander. Amazingly, after finally admitting that he made a false statement at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar.  Imnotanrei wrote "Hence, Rick, you're a liar." because he found a post where Law had used a little bit of logic in analyzing another philosopher's work. But I did not state that Law never uses logic. I stated that Law does not use demonstrable logic in his own arguments:

"You, AnonyRus, call me a liar and you have no example to back up your claim. Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments. Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises."(September 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM)

Therefore, Imnotandrei's claim that I am a "liar" is clearly false when taken in context. Law's favorite argument, The EGC, does not show any demonstrable use of logical consequence. It is an extremely long-winded argument and Law refuses to offer any kind of premises in conjunction with it. In defense of his calling me a "liar" Imnotandrei offered a link to a critique made by Law. Mentioning logical concepts in a critique of another philosopher's argument is not the same as demonstrating the use of logical principles in your own argument, hence, Imnotandre's knee jerk claim that I am a liar is unjustified and slanderous. 


That entire discussion had stemmed from another discussion in which I pointed out that top atheist apologists generally avoid logic like the plague.

Imnotrandei and others are incensed that I would make such a claim. However, the article points out the documented facts. Stephen Law is not even considered a top atheist apologist according to reviews by secular humanist websites. So he would be excluded from the group in question in the first place.  Additionally,  Law's blog comments consistently show an underlying disregard for logical principles. In a post of his, Stephen Law had claimed that he was "more impressed" by Dawkins' chapter in the God Delusion outlining his central argument after Law had read it for the second time. Later, however, when repeatedly asked to comment on the logic of the chapter, Law stated,

"I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed (which is not to say he doesn't do a fairly good job of dealing with some lines of objection - hence my "rather more impressed than was on first reading comment)."(October 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM)

I did not ask Law about the scientific validity of Dawkins' writings, rather, I specifically asked Law three times in the same thread here, here and here about the logic of Dawkins' argument. As was the case with his own EGC argument, Law did not seem to pick up on the importance of logical principles and logical consequence.

Likewise, I had asked Stephen Law three times to outline the premises and the logical syntax of his favorite argument:

1. "...what would you consider your strongest argument in favor of atheism? Can you present it here in a logical syntax? Can you offer it in a few premises and a conclusion?" (April 15, 2012 10:03 PM)

2. Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you outline the premises and conclusion of the EGC argument for atheism, as you understand them. (April 17, 2012 3:42 AM)

3. When I asked you what you consider the best logical argument for atheism, you stated, "I like the EGC". Can you please show the premises and conclusion of this argument, as you best understand them? (April 18, 2012 5:54 AM)

When he replied with regard to his own favorie argument, this was his answer:

  "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM)
 
In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles. Thus, Imnotandrei's knee-jerk claim that I am a "liar" is shown to be unsubstantiated based on these previous quotes
 
While Stephen Law may claim that his EGC argument is logically air tight, he has not demonstrated why there should be any sense of logical consequence in the long-winded presentation. Law claims that it would basically be impossible to present his argument in any kind of valid summarized form. He wrote, "Like many philosophical arguments, the EGC argument/challenge is fairly complex. Setting it out formally would require pages and pages. Condensing it to a few short bullet-point premises and conclusion inevitably produces a straw man." (October 1, 2012 at 8:12 AM)

In short, Law is basically saying, 'Trust me, it's logical, even though I haven't demonstrated why it should be considered to have any sense of logical consequence based upon specific premises in a specific syntax.'

And, if Law's argument is only valid in a lengthy narrative format, as he states, then why did he consider engaging in any (straw man) version I could find on the Internet to be a valid means of understanding his argument, as he had originally suggested? The fact is, Law's argument is based on a straw man argument, by focusing on only two aspects of God's nature and ignoring other critical aspects, as noted in another article, "Stephen Law: EGC Illusionist Debunked".

The Sound Reasoning Venn diagram helps to outline why a higher caliber of logic is found in demonstrating the use of logical principles in your arguments, not merely telling people to trust you that the logical consequence is 'in there somewhere' so don't worry about it.
 
3. Havok and the search for the home of the unsupported claim.

A blogger named Havok at one time seemed to be fairly civilized in his online debating, but one day he seemed to snap. All of a sudden, he began a diatribe of unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, "Rick, all of the supposed proofs you've posted have been flawed. The many of the flaws have been pointed out to you." However, he is still unable to validate his slander with any comments made prior to December 7, 2011, when the slander torrent began. In other words, if the article "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence" has a logical flaw or had been disproved by a valid and  relevant comment, then where is the comment quote that shows this is true? Havok has yet to provide it. In this case, no Venn diagram is necessary. Havok has not even entered the realm of discussable evidence. He prefers to carry on with purely manufactured lies and slander.

These three examples of Internet slander are actually supportive of biblical truth. Firstly, 2 Corinthians 4.4 offers, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."[NIV]. In all three of the examples there is a sense of denial. There is a refusal to admit certain plain, obvious and documented facts. A "blinded mind" is a mind unaware of the underlying nature of reality. Because these three Internet slanderers cling to a false view of reality, they must revert to a state of denial when their false worldview is challenged on a fundamental level.

The second support of biblical truth here is underlying sense of hatred. Luke 21.17 states, "All men will hate you because of me." The phrase "all men" refers to the world that is opposed to Christ. The act of falsely maligning a person is a hateful act. False witnesses slandered Christ throughout his ministry and as witnesses at the mock trial before his crucifixion. The name Satan means slanderer, and the second half of Revelation 12.10 outlines the Satanic nature of false slander against Christians: "For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."[NIV].

(updated 02/15/13)

Tags: Internet apologetics, Internet etiquette, Internet censorship, Internet slander, burden of proof is on accuser, satanic nature of slander,Venn diagrams in apologetics, definition of libel

Related:

Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion?

Stephen Law: EGC Illusionist Debunked

Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague

Recommended:

 

64 comments:

  1. Well, I see nothing else to do, but to repeat my answer you ignored for the hundred time:

    R:What? Where is that link please.

    http://templestream.blogspot.ru/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html?showComment=1359728135801

    If you claim that the link does not work, just change the domain ending to .com or whatever else you have on your blog. You should just know things like that. But since you are disfunctional as you are, I will just quote my post:

    "Rick, your reading disability is showing up again? Let me quote my previous post with capital letters at the important part as usual:

    "Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. He could have just be speaking about euthonasia. Only after reading the chapter "On taking a human life" from "Practical ethics" CAN I SAY THAT SINGER DOES ADVOCATE INFANTICIDE though in extremely rare cases.""


    R:Anonymous, you have spent days calling me a liar because I made the claim that he does promote it as an ethically valid option.

    Yes, you were and are still a liar. For the who-knows-which-time, it does not follow from your quotes that Singer promotes infanticide.

    R:This was after I had offered definitions of infanticide and shown a webclip from Singer's book where he point-blank promotes ethically permissible infanticide.

    Rick, you have a reading disability. I repeat myself: WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS SINGER MEANS YOU CANNOT CLAIM HE PROMOTES INFANTICIDE

    R:And, if you did make such a statement, why then have you continued to call me a liar for pointing out Singer's quotes reveal that he is in fact a proponent of infanticide?

    Because it just does not follow from the quotes you offered.

    R:Also, if you are in fact admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't an apology be in order for your wrongful slander against me on this issue?

    No, it would not. Again, it does not follow from the quotes you offered that Singer views infanticide as a viable option. You never provided an explanation what Singer meant by "permissable conditions". I found out about his stance from Singer s book in the chapter about taking a human life, not from your quotes taking out of context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Rick, you have a reading disability. I repeat myself: WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS SINGER MEANS YOU CANNOT CLAIM HE PROMOTES INFANTICIDE

      - Capital letters do not make your objections more logical.

      1. Apparently, the Venn diagram and standard definition of infanticide were not enough to help you understand that Singer does support infanticide and that this in no way is invalidated by the fact that he may or may not call it euthanasia.

      2. Singer's own quotes clearly use the word "infanticide" as ethically "permissible" on occasion. It does not matter if he spells out exactly how he conceives it to be ethically permissible because, the fact is, he has already plainly stated his opinion that it is so.

      It is quite clear that you are in a state of utter and complete denial with regard to these two points. You may not realize it, but your example is helping to underscore the truth of scripture:

      "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthains 4.4 (NIV)

      Delete
    2. R:Capital letters do not make your objections more logical

      That is the only way I know the helps you paying attention to what your opponent is saying.

      R:Apparently, the Venn diagram and standard definition of infanticide were not enough to help you understand that Singer does support infanticide and that this in no way is invalidated by the fact that he may or may not call it euthanasia

      Yes, and we have been there before. If you want to nitpick with words, then you are killer, Rick. You kill bacteria every day.

      R:It does not matter if he spells out exactly how he conceives it to be ethically permissible because, the fact is, he has already plainly stated his opinion that it is so.

      And you have proven at several occasions that you do not care about what is true or about what is the real opinion of the person you criticise. Your credibility rate is close to zero given the fact how often you take quotes out of context and misrepresent arguments.

      Just to show how dishonest you are child euthanasia can be called infanticide UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. However, you do not care what those specific conditions are, you just focus on one word.

      Delete
    3. Just to show how dishonest you are child euthanasia can be called infanticide UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. However, you do not care what those specific conditions are, you just focus on one word.

      Just remember, this is the Rick Warden who doesn't believe people should be put in jail for cannibalism. ;)

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      >If you want to nitpick with words, then you are killer, Rick. You kill bacteria every day.

      - Yes, I agree. And I especially want to kill bacteria under certain conditions, such as when people are sick around me.

      As noted in multiple referenced quotes, Peter Singer advocates the killing of human infants under certain circumstances, such as when the overall perceived happiness of "others" will be increased, as noted in a quote:

      "We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” (p.154 per Google Books version)"

      This is taken from a webclip at this link:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html

      If the plain meaning of the text is wrong, describe in what possible manner it is wrong. If the book itself contradicts the plain meaning of the text, show a quote. I am simply offering the plain meaning of the text, which is in complete harmony with other quotes of his, such as another one from an interview I had posted in a previous article with a link to the original source:

      "Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

      Original Princeton quote source:

      http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

      As far as human cannibalism is concerned, consuming dead crash victims in extenuating circumstances of human survival are quite different from the utilitarian desire for the greatest happiness of "others", such as parents who may desire to live a more convenient lifestyle.

      Delete
    5. Oh boy... Ground Hog day is still going on.

      R:Yes, I agree. And I especially want to kill bacteria under certain conditions, such as when people are sick around me.

      Ok, I guess you do not mind me calling you a mass killer. Do not feel disapointed if people around you would think you killed not bacteria, but human beings in this case. After all, you do not care about little details like that.

      R:If the plain meaning of the text is wrong, describe in what possible manner it is wrong.

      Rick, I have explained to you why it is wrong a thousand times. You are just unable to perceive an idea unless it is in capital letters. And even when it is written in capital letters you still are often unable to understand the text for some reason. Let me try again:

      WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT PERMISSBLE CONDITIONS SINGER MEANS YOU CANNOT CLAIM HE PROMOTES INFANTICIDE

      Read that sentance with capital letters, Rick. Is there anything you do not understand there? Are there any words you are unfamilliar with?

      R:I am simply offering the plain meaning of the text, which is in complete harmony with other quotes of his...

      And as it was pointed out to you, claiming that one life is less important than another, is not the same as claiming it is ok to kill it. Hence, that quote is completely irrelevant.

      R:...are quite different from the utilitarian desire for the greatest happiness of "others", such as parents who may desire to live a more convenient lifestyle.

      And you have failed at multiple occasions to explain what Singer understood as the "greater happiness" on multiple occasions.

      Delete
    6. P.S. Oh! And Imnotandrei has raised a valid point. By your logic, you promote cannibalism. After all, you do not think that a person who ate the corpse of another person to survive should go to jail. Not only you are a killer, but you are also promoting cannibalism. Shame on you, Rick.

      Delete
    7. Rick, are you also a promoter of torture (you believe in hell, and think it's just, right)?
      Are you a promoter of slavery (your god commanded it in ancient times, and it was right for him to do so, correct)?

      I wonder what other horrible things Rick "promotes"?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous,

      >P.S. Oh! And Imnotandrei has raised a valid point. By your logic, you promote cannibalism.

      - As I explained to Anne Vincent, if I was a surviving plane-crash victim in the arctic, I would not eat another person's body. I would prefer to simply die of starvation. For me personally, I do not consider it a moral decision.

      Having said that, under extenuating circumstances, I do not believe another person who does this should necessarily go to jail. This does not mean that I consider the practice of cannibalism moral or ethical. It means that I understand the general purpose of law and the difference between extenuating circumstances and conventional practices endorsed by the state.

      Peter Singer is endorsing a certain kind of medical killing that, by definition, would have to be endorsed by the state as a conventional practice in order to be legal and permissible.

      If you don't understand the differences between endorsed, conventional behavior by the state, for the ultimate goal of personal convenience, versus actions carried out under extremely rare and extenuating circumstances for purposes of survival, then no amount of time or words would probably be able to help, and I won't bother wasting any more time on this question with you.

      So, no, in these respects I am in no way promoting cannibalism in the manner that Singer is promoting infanticide, not even close.

      Delete
    9. Those are just details, Rick. If you do not care about the details of the stance of Singer, you should not care about the details of your own position to be consistent. Since we do not take into consideration the details and focus on dictionary proofs, it logically follows that you promote cannibalism.

      Delete
    10. >If you do not care about the details of the stance of Singer, you should not care about the details of your own position to be consistent.

      I never claimed that details were not important. I have offered clear straightforward quotes by Singer outlining the context in which his proposed institutionalized medical infanticide would be considered ethical in his view. You are the one who insists there is some mysterious content somewhere that will present Singer in a different light. The burden of proof is on you to present it if you wish to call me a liar. But you have presented no such proof whatsoever.

      Singer's quotes are referenced in reputable sources, such as his own books and Princeton's publications, as I have quoted in the following article:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html

      If you insist on continuing to claim that I am a liar under these circumstances, I see no reason to attempt to continue to try and dialogue with you any further. Just like Havock and Imnotandrei, you have demonstrated that you are unwilling or unable to carry on a civilized discourse.

      Delete
    11. R:I never claimed that details were not important. I have offered clear straightforward quotes by Singer outlining the context in which his proposed institutionalized medical infanticide would be considered ethical in his view.

      "As noted in multiple referenced quotes, Peter Singer advocates the killing of human infants under certain circumstances, such as when the overall perceived happiness of "others" will be increased" - are those not your own words, Rick?

      You NEVER offered an explanation what Singer understood as the "overall happiness". You completely ignored what permissable conditions he was speaking about.

      R:You are the one who insists there is some mysterious content somewhere that will present Singer in a different light.

      No, I do not claim that Singer does not view infanticide as viable choice. However, nowhere in the quotes you provided have you managed to show that. I had to do my own research to understand Singer s view on the subject.

      R:The burden of proof is on you to present it if you wish to call me a liar. But you have presented no such proof whatsoever.

      The ONLY remotely accurate quote you offered was the following: “We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.”

      However, you did not bother to look up what those STRICT CONDITIONS were. You just went on with bold assertions, without any backing up. Hence, I was justified in calling you a liar.

      Delete
    12. Let's see -- Stormbringer shows up, posts a drive-by, and leaves. Rick responds to only two of the people he accuses in his original post, and drops out of discussion; do you think it's time for Rick to put up another post and try and pretend this thread of discussion never happened? It's consistent with his M.O. to date.

      Oh! Wait, I've got it! He's trying to save himself typing, because now he'll just point here any time he wants to engage in the argument ad hominem!

      Delete
  2. The blog poster Imnotandrei made a false claim out of the blue, that one of my articles had been discredited. I had to pester him for comments on end until he finally admitted that he had simply made that comment up, that there was no evidence at all that the article in question had been disproved. He finally admitted his slander:

    I never admitted I "made that comment up". Nor, in fact, that there was 'no evidence at all'. I stated what you wrote below, very specifically.


    If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited

    I still believe anyone who read it with an open mind would declare it had been discredited.

    Also: the legal definition of slander tends to involve wilfullness; otherwise, simply making a mistake would qualify. I admitted an error; that's not slander.


    Yet, even though he admitted this at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar.

    Making an error regarding formal discrediting does not mean that you aren't a liar, Rick.

    I mistakenly said you were incorrect about A.
    I also said you lied about B.

    The two are logically unconnected. Cope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (con't from above)


    He claimed that Stephen Law embraces logical principles and so, in hindsight, a different article on weak atheist logic is supposedly a lie.

    Actually, that a specific claim in that article was a lie; please try and keep it straight. You were presented repeated evidence on the point, and chose to deliberately ignore it.

    Imnotandrei offered a link to a supposed example of Law using logical principles. However, it is not one of Law's own arguments, it is simply a critique of a theist's argument.

    Why a counter-argument of a logical point doesn't count as "using logic", I will never understand -- nor would any reasonable person who doesn't have an axe to grind.

    In a post of his, Stephen Law had claimed that he was "more impressed" by Dawkins' chapter in the God Delusion outlining his central argument after Law had read it for the second time. Later, however, when repeatedly asked to comment on the logic of the chapter, Law stated,"I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed..." I did not ask Law about the scientific validity of Dawkins' writings, rather, I specifically asked Law about Dawkins' logic. Apparently, Law did not notice the difference, or he simply ignored the question.

    Or you didn't understand the answer. Or, indeed, he ignored the question because you were being a disrespectful pest. Indeed, you frequently ignore the questions of people who you deem disrespectful; shall we then assume that you don't have answers to the questions? This is what you invite.

    When I asked Law to show me a summary of his favorite argument, his EGC argument, he stated, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM) In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles. Thus, Imnotandrei's knee-jerk claim that I am a "liar" is shown to be unsubstantiated based on this quote alone. But there is much more to mull over.

    Wrong. He didn't put it in the form you wanted; that's your problem, not his. You are continuing your pattern of behavior from before.

    While Stephen Law may claim that his EGC argument is logically air tight,

    Citation; he has offered it for discussion.

    And it is far tighter than any of the "logical" arguments you offer here on your blog.

    he has not demonstrated why there should be any sense of logical consequence in the long-winded presentation. Stephen Law seems to be more of a philosophical contortionist than one seriously interested in presenting sound logical arguments. Again, a simple Venn diagram on sound logical reasoning helps to outline why this is so.

    Your failure to comprehend his arguments isn't his problem, Rick. And that's what we have here; your failure presented as his failure.

    You appear to believe in what could almost be called cargo-cult logic; if you dress your reasoning up in the trappings of logic (Venn diagrams, syllogisms, etc.) it will become logical. As we've seen many times before, such as here:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347547971375#c1414134735751233224

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Why a counter-argument of a logical point doesn't count as "using logic", I will never understand.

      When a philosopher does not even bother to demonstrate the use of logical principles in his "favorite" argument, then there is no reason to believe the philosopher embraces logic.

      When I asked Law to show me a summary of his favorite argument, his EGC argument, he stated, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM) In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles.

      Imnotandrei and the other atheists at my blog seem to have a problem with understanding why their slander is unjust and unacceptable. The issue of Law's logic came up with regard to a claim that an argument in one of my articles is supposedly a lie:


      P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
      P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of foundational precepts.
      C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in testing the truth foundational precepts.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html

      In order to claim that this argument is a "lie" or a premise is a "lie" it would be necessary to demonstrate that a preponderance of "top atheist apologists" embrace the use of logical principles in their arguments.

      In a recent article, I listed the "top" atheists based on Google search volume. Stephen Law is not on the list of top atheists, while Dawkins, PZ Myers and Hitchens are on the list that is linked in that article.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/worlds-top-atheists-dawkins-singer-and.html

      Neither is Law on a list of the The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists provided there. Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens are on the list.

      The fact is, Law is not very popular and is not included on any top atheist lists, while other atheist apologists do regularly appear on such lists. So, which people would be more appropriate as examples of "top atheist apologists" in accordance with the secular articles I reference, Dawkins, PZ Myers, Harris and Hitchens, atheists who generally have not demonstrated the use of logical principles in any of their arguments.

      These two secular articles describing "top" atheists disqualify Law from being a candidate to refute my article. Imnotandrei has no justification for his slander in calling me a liar.

      Delete
    2. Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissions, and logical flaws.

      First, the logical flaws:

      When a philosopher does not even bother to demonstrate the use of logical principles in his "favorite" argument, then there is no reason to believe the philosopher embraces logic.


      This is wrong on so many levels it's funny:

      1) When he uses it elsewhere, yes there is -- and we see him using it elsewhere. Saying "It isn't in one place" does not demonstrate "It's nowhere."

      2) "Using logical principles", as I've said many, many times now, does not mean "using syllogisms."

      3) Please cite why you're putting "favorite" in quotes -- since you're the one who gets bent out of shape if people put anything about you in quotes you did not say verbatim.

      In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles.

      No; Law doesn't have a high regard for *you*, Rick. You essentially told him "Do it my way, or it doesn't count." And he has very good reason not to listen to you.

      Now, the goalpost-shifting:

      In a recent article, I listed the "top" atheists based on Google search volume. Stephen Law is not on the list of top atheists, while Dawkins, PZ Myers and Hitchens are on the list that is linked in that article.

      After months of waving arguments about Stephen Law about as evidence you were slandered, once those arguments start to fail, you switch to "And besides, he's not important enough. WHat's really important is over here."

      In order to claim that this argument is a "lie" or a premise is a "lie" it would be necessary to demonstrate that a preponderance of "top atheist apologists" embrace the use of logical principles in their arguments.

      Actually, I believe you'll find that that the argument was that the article was "discredited", which can simply mean "wrong". You were *lying* about Stephen Law not using logic, because you persisted in your statements after being provided enough evidence to convince someone neutral that he was using logic.

      You see, Rick, sometimes, you can just admit error; errors aren't lies until you're called on them and you double down. (More on this later.)

      As for the rest:
      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1346861464585#c8191375995617713452

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1346883916915#c7023678308767213335

      There are links to two.

      Your list of "top atheists" includes actors; are we to expect to hold them to high standards of rigor, when they don't join in the debate?

      And, just to bring this full circle, you made the same argument here:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947

      Where your logic was first shown to be invalid.

      So, since your defenses of your article rely on invalid logic and erroneous information, calling your article discredited and saying that you've been lying is quite justified.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and since new information does exist, I refer you here:

      http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/12/plantingas-evolutionary-argument.html#more

      And try and argue *that* doesn't contain logic at least as formal, if not more so, than anything you've ever managed.

      Delete
    4. And, because there's so much good stuff there, let us look at the form of logical argument known as the Socratic dialogue, here: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html#more

      ;)

      Delete
    5. >Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissions, and logical flaws.

      - No goal shifting. I am referring to the original context of the quote wherein Imnotandrei called me a liar. The fact that he ignored so many aspects of the initial context does not mean that I am goal shifting. It probably means that he did not really understand all the ramifications of his slander from the onset.


      >2) "Using logical principles", as I've said many, many times now, does not mean "using syllogisms."

      And I have also said many times that I am not necessarily referring to syllogisms. Apparently, both words and Venn diagrams are not enough for Imnotandrei to understand what it means to demonstrate the use of logical principles.

      Imnotandrei does not dispute that Law does not demonstrate the use of logic in his favorite EGC argument, but "he uses it elsewhere" - well, that is not very helpful, is it?

      My interpretation of this quote is that Law does not hold a high view of logical principles:

      "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM)"

      Imnotandrei claims the previous quote does not reflect at all on Law's value of logic as a philosopher:

      No; Law doesn't have a high regard for *you*, Rick.

      It is an objective fact, however, that the wording and syntax of an arguments is of extremely high importance. Therefore, Imnotandrei has been shown to be emotionally attached to an opinion that is not grounded in objective reality.

      3) Please cite why you're putting "favorite" in quotes

      I spent days asking Law to outline his favorite argument against God's existence. Just before his answer "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't." this is what I asked:

      1. "...what would you consider your strongest argument in favor of atheism? Can you present it here in a logical syntax? Can you offer it in a few premises and a conclusion?" (April 15, 2012 10:03 PM)

      http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=789401787668896822

      As I mentioned, Law is not even considered a "top" atheist apologists on any of the lists out there. So, he is not even qualified to be considered in the first place as a defense of Imnotandre's slander in the context of his initial statement. And, even if he is considered a valid example, any objective thinking person can see that he does not hold a high regard for logic, especially with regard to comments made about his favorite argument.

      The problem seems to be that Imnotandrei does not seem to be aware of why he is not an objective, thinking person. He has somehow pre-determined that I should be called a liar, as have the other two secular atheists described in the above article. He is an excellent example of the truth of scripture that offers the explanation that there is a spiritual dimension behind false slander and false accusations against believers.

      Delete
    6. Two things of note: In his response to me below, Rick first asserts that Stephen Law's use or lack thereof of logic is irrelevant to his main point. He then drops on the floor the evidence and arguments regarding his main point that I made in the post he's replying to, and focuses entirely on Stephen Law. ;)


      No goal shifting. I am referring to the original context of the quote wherein Imnotandrei called me a liar.

      To quote:
      "And, amazingly, even though he finally admitted his error, at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar."

      And in that context, whether Stephen Law was a "top atheist apologist" is irrelevant; I was accusing you of lying with regards to whether or not Law used logical principles.

      The fact that he ignored so many aspects of the initial context does not mean that I am goal shifting. It probably means that he did not really understand all the ramifications of his slander from the onset.

      You conflated two things, and are now attempting to argue that one doesn't matter, because I was "ignoring the context."

      All I need to prove you are a liar, Rick, is to find you lying. And I have done so.

      And I have also said many times that I am not necessarily referring to syllogisms. Apparently, both words and Venn diagrams are not enough for Imnotandrei to understand what it means to demonstrate the use of logical principles.

      Well, since your Venn diagrams are just more of your cargo-cult logic, they don't help.

      Though I guess we could say, to be fair, that you require syllogisms or Venn diagrams. Of course, a Venn diagram is just another way of representing statements of the form:

      All A are B,
      No A are B,
      Some A are B,

      so, anywhere those appear, by your own reasoning, logical argument is in use.

      And they're all over Stephen Law's works. Therefore:

      Premise: Rick accepts Venn Diagrams and their logical analogues as "using logical principles."
      Premise: Logical statements with variables and quantifiers are logical analogues to Venn diagrams.
      Premise: Stephen Law uses logical statements with variables and qualifiers.
      Conclusion: Rick accepts that Stephen Law uses logical principles.

      So; want to try and remove some of the tarnish from your reputation? Admit the above is true, and perhaps we can see about moving you from "habitual liar" to merely "has trouble following an argument, and digs in rather than admit an error."

      Imnotandrei does not dispute that Law does not demonstrate the use of logic in his favorite EGC argument, but "he uses it elsewhere" - well, that is not very helpful, is it?

      Citation, please; because I do dispute it, have disputed it, and will continue to dispute it. Saying this is, quite simply, lying.

      I'm sure you'll come back with "He said X, which implies Y, which I interpret as meaning he doesn't dispute it." And I will tell you that your interpretation is wrong, and repeating it is lying.

      (continued)

      Delete

    7. My interpretation of this quote is that Law does not hold a high view of logical principles:

      "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM)"


      THat's your subjective interpretation, and it is at most as valid as the interpretation "Stephen Law think Rick Warden is a timewasting pest who can't follow a logical argument -- or chooses not to -- when presented in anything other than the form he wants."

      It is an objective fact, however, that the wording and syntax of an arguments is of extremely high importance. Therefore, Imnotandrei has been shown to be emotionally attached to an opinion that is not grounded in objective reality.

      This is truly the pot calling the napkin black. You start this thread of discussion with your opinion of what Stephen Law said -- and at the end accuse me of being emotionally attached to an opinion that's not grounded in "objective reality."

      You are the one, Rick, who repeatedly and predictably goes to any length -- omission, goal-post shifting, abandonding threads -- to admit to an error in a position. What is that but being "emotionally attached to an opinion that is not grounded in objective reality."

      You, who argued so vehemently that zoning laws aren't constitutional, but people-per-square-foot laws are, are accusing someone else of emotional attachment to an opinion not grounded in reality?

      Risible.

      I spent days asking Law to outline his favorite argument against God's existence. Just before his answer "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't." this is what I asked:

      1. "...what would you consider your strongest argument in favor of atheism? Can you present it here in a logical syntax? Can you offer it in a few premises and a conclusion?" (April 15, 2012 10:03 PM)

      http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=789401787668896822


      In other words, you put "favorite" in quotes even though it appears nowhere in his response, or your question.

      Meanwhile, you're badgering him to put his argument in *your* chosen form -- and when he doesn't? Funny; you don't engage with the argument, you accuse him of not using logic.

      In other words, just what I've been saying you were doing.

      . So, he is not even qualified to be considered in the first place as a defense of Imnotandre's slander in the context of his initial statement.

      You're the one who linked the two together, in the boilerplate you've been spamming your own blog with in your efforts not to engage with my points.

      (continued)

      Delete

    8. any objective thinking person can see that he does not hold a high regard for logic, especially with regard to comments made about his favorite argument.

      And any person who thinks about the evidence posted here can see that the above statement is a combination of lies, assaults on Law's character, and misrepresentations.

      The problem seems to be that Imnotandrei does not seem to be aware of why he is not an objective, thinking person.

      And, Ladies and Gentlemen, the argument ad hominem; which Rick used to specifically ask people not to use -- until he started posting his boilerplate against me, whereupon he removed the request, perhaps realizing his hypocrisy.

      He has somehow pre-determined that I should be called a liar,

      No, Rick; I came onto your blog looking for a debate. The actions you've taken in the time that I've been reading your blog determined that you were a liar. When someone is repeatedly called out on points of fact, logical errors, and misrepresentations, and rather than admitting error, doubles down on their defense, that's willful disregard for the truth. That's lying.

      as have the other two secular atheists described in the above article.

      Speaking of misrepresentations; Rick, I have repeatedly told you that my religion is my own private business. You do not know my religious views. And yet, you feel free to ascribe them to me, again and again. This is, once more, willful disregard for the truth.

      there is a spiritual dimension behind false slander and false accusations against believers.

      And had I committed false accusations against believers, you might have a point. But I have not.


      Delete

    9. >And any person who thinks about the evidence posted here can see that the above statement is a combination of lies, assaults on Law's character, and misrepresentations.

      A lie is a false statement. I have offered documented examples demonstrating Law's low regard for logical principles. Because Imnotandrei has chosen to dig his heals in, I have added another documented example.

      I specifically asked Law three times in the same thread if he considered the logic of the God Delusion argument to be valid. Dawkins had summarized his argument with a list of premises and a conclusion. The three links to my questions are now noted in the above article.

      As was the case with his own EGC argument, Law did not seem to pick up on the importance of logical principles and logical consequence, as noted in his answer:

      "I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed (which is not to say he doesn't do a fairly good job of dealing with some lines of objection - hence my "rather more impressed than was on first reading comment)."(October 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM)"

      Unlike Law, WL Craig was able to plainly state that the God Delusion offers no sense of logical consequence whatsoever from its premises to its conclusion.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-SgDpyiKPc

      Unlike Imnotandrei, I'm pointing out objective, documented facts in order to back up my claims. All Imnotandrei has to offer is his own personal and slanderous opinion.

      Delete
    10. BTW, Rick... Could you give your own understanding of the definition of "logic"?

      Delete
    11. Wow. Talk about cherry-picking. 3 lines out of over 100. 3% of my post you elect to respond to, Rick.

      A lie is a false statement.

      Actually, I'd say a lie is a *deliberate* false statement, to narrow it even further.

      I have offered documented examples demonstrating Law's low regard for logical principles.

      Nompe. You've offered, again and again, the same few quotes from Law that you claim "demonstrate" his low regard; you ignore evidence to the contrary, alternate interpretations, etc.

      That's not a demonstration, that's an assertion.

      Because Imnotandrei has chosen to dig his heals in,

      1) That's "heels", for future reference, and 2) You, accusing me, of "digging my heels in", is truly hilarious. Anyone who goes back and looks at any thread where you and I debate will see who is digging in their heels and defending blindly.

      I have added another documented example.

      Perhaps you'd care to respond to my documented example, here: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html?showComment=1360812772651#c2168165676218864279

      Unlike Law, WL Craig was able to plainly state that the God Delusion offers no sense of logical consequence whatsoever from its premises to its conclusion.


      This is evidence that Craig and Law disagree (surprise, surprise) -- not evidence that Law has a "low regard for logical principles."

      Unlike Imnotandrei, I'm pointing out objective, documented facts in order to back up my claims.

      I've been giving quotes from Law, and pointing out that your *facts* (the quotes) do not support your *claims*. If you're going to argue (as you are) that a professional philosopher of some account has a "low regard for logical principles", you're going to need to provide a lot more evidence than "He doesn't answer me the way I want when I ask him questions", which is all you have right now.

      All Imnotandrei has to offer is his own personal and slanderous opinion.

      Well, when you delete 97%+ of my argument from your response, that is certainly the impression you're trying to give.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: None such link has ever been provided.
      This is utter garbage Rick. Look back on the "Identity" comment thread - there's a number of comment from me, towards the end, where I point to previous comments which have outstanding questions.

      In fact, after I made the claim that your claims had been shown to fail, and you made a big deal about me providing evidence of it, I went back to the blog posts that I have been engaged in, and reiterated the outstanding problems, provided links to previous comments which had not been addressed, and generally gave you what you had demanded.
      Here is a comment which links to previous comments on the "Identity" post.
      Because of the strange manner in which you've set up your commenting, that link will probably fail (as the comments are not all loaded to begin with).
      However, if you load all of the comments, and search for my comment from "May 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM", you will find it.

      Since you hate lying so much Rick, perhaps you ought to cease your unsubstantiated lies and slander about other people, and accept the substantiated and truthful claims about you.

      EDIT: The comment link was incorrect.

      Delete
    2. And some more.
      Your comment accusing me of slander appeared on December 7 2011.
      On the Identity post, there is a comment from me on December 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM pointing out problems with that post, as per requested.
      There was another comment on December 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM further pointing out the issues.

      You've been lying about this "unsubstantiated slander" for over a year Rick.

      Why do you claim to aim for truth, and yet lie about other people?

      Delete
    3. Havok says, "Look back on the "Identity" comment thread - there's a number of comment from me, towards the end, where I point to previous comments which have outstanding questions."

      1. His slander began December 7, 2011.

      2. The comment he refers to is from after this, May 17, 2012:

      "Hey Rick. 
Still waiting for you to address my concerns about quantum mechanics, logic, mathematics and coordinate systems, among other things.

Since you're currently pasting a childing "spam filter" reply at least in part due to me calling you out for failing to address these critiques of your position, I figured I'd try to get you to turn your attention to this issues, since you have ignored them for quite some time now :-)"

      3. But the comment does not mention any specific questions not answered.

      4. The "questions" Havok is referring to are a mystery. What are they? They are most likely comments such as, "This link refutes you..." a common ploy of Havock.

      5. So, if the article has been disproved, where is the specific proof? Still none.


      Delete
    4. Rick, you'll notice the "still waiting" part of my comment - it was months after your initial accusation, and I was trying to remind you of the outstanding issues, since you insisted on behaving childishly.

      You'll also notice that there are 2 links to previous comment, one of which is from December 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, in response to your accusations of slander, justifying my claims.

      There also a comment from September 19, 2011 at 5:27 PM, which has no response.
      Plus a comment at January 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM, which does date after your accusations of slander, but which you have failed to adequately address - your argument concerning coordinate systems is ridiculous!

      Then, just for a bit of fun, we have a comment from October 9, 2011 at 9:41 PM on your Moral Argument, which went unaddressed.

      It is time consuming to have to chase up all of the critiques of your arguments that you have failed to address.

      Apparently you demand to be spoon fed.

      Delete
    5. Oh, then there's this comment regarding the incoherence of your conception of god, which ramsins unaddressed. It too dates after the beginning of your false accusations of slander, but helps to establish a pattern of behaviour.

      And this comment from the same thread, where I exposed you actually slandering and lying about Dawkins, and which lead you to cease responding to any of my points, including those which had been pointed out to you prior as being unresolved.

      So we have evidence of you, Rick, avoiding answering questions, engaging in the spreading of falsehoods and lies to further your ideological beliefs, and then throwing a childish tantrum when you're repeatedly called out for your dishonest behaviour.

      I think I could provide links from basically every single discussion I've participated in, where you have behaved in this fashion, and I'm confident that the other people you're smearing on this blog post could do the same.

      Delete
    6. And I'll note he's still not responding to me at all, even though he calls me out directly. Rather proving my point about how he's unjustly maligning Stephen Law for not responding to him in his preferred fashion. ;)

      Delete
    7. Notice the depths of depravity to which Havock has fallen.

      There are still no actual quotes of relevant points that I supposedly failed to "adequately address" in his view. Many people post comments at blogs that are redundant or not close to being relevant to the topic at hand. This is why the statement in my article is qualified:

      "In other words, if the article "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence" has a logical flaw or had been disproved by a valid and relevant comment, then where is the comment quote that shows this is true? Havock has yet to provide it.

      Instead offering evidence to back up his slander, amazingly, Havock now (Feb 6) attempts to put the burden on me to disprove what does not actually exist!:

      "It is time consuming to have to chase up all of the critiques of your arguments that you have failed to address. Apparently you demand to be spoon fed."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html?showComment=1360204816754#c4088560621693628025

      Summary

      1. Havock slanders, stating I failed to answer relevant questions.

      2. He cannot show evidence of one supposed relevant question that I supposedly did not adequately address.

      3. Now Havock demands that I find such questions that do not exist.

      You just can't make this stuff up! The darkened mind is, well, just so darkened. More evidence of God and the truth of the Bible.

      Delete
    8. Rick, as anyone can see, I provided links to actual comments, which you have failed to respond to.

      Since you're allergic to going back and reading things from the past, I'll post the problems right here:

      1. Your understanding of quantum mechanics relies upon an ignorant understanding of a specific interpretation (namely, the Copenhagen interpretation). There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics. They as well as a deeped understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation would show that your points do not stand.
      2. Your points about NDE's requires that we accept them as veridical, whereas modern scientific investigation has shown that we can stimulate the brain and induce these experiences, thereby showing that they can be completely neurological in character. This, coupled with the difficulties inherent in substance dualism (problems of interaction, breaking conservation laws, etc), and the fact that the experiences contain physical details (the NDE repose contain "visual" and "auditory" parts, which are physical in nature, which are difficult to explain on dualism) means that your claims regarding NDE's show nothing other than that people have experiences, and those experiences are neurological.
      3. Your understanding of logic is naive at best. You believe that there is a single "logic", but fail to understand that there are different logical systems which are applicable for different things. Your interpretation requires that there be a single "logic", which is neither conventional nor operational in nature. This is a claim that you have failed to justify.
      4. You made a statement claiming that the single origin point in a cartesian coordinate system is evidence for your god. You failed to understand that the location of the origin is arbitrary and can be moved through the use of translations. The single origin is a result of the construction of the planar geometry, and is not "special" in the way you required.
      5. You made reference to free will being of the compatibalist variety, but have also appealed to the free will defence of the Problem of Evil. You failed to understand that the FWD requires libertarian free will, and is therefore unavailable to you, being a compatibalist.

      I could go on, but that will do for the time being. I'll post this comment on the identity thread, though I doubt you'll respond.

      Delete
    9. So Rick, now that I've provided evidence that your accusations of slander were false, and have enumerate some of the many outstanding questions waiting for a response, I hope you'll retract your accusations and apologise for making false statements about me for the past 12+ months.

      Delete
    10. >Rick, as anyone can see, I provided links to actual comments, which you have failed to respond to.

      - There seems to be severe and continuous reading comprehension issues with the blog comment poster known as Havock. I distinctly remember posting the following just this morning:

      "There are still no actual quotes of relevant points that I supposedly failed to "adequately address"

      And what is the response? Actual quotes from previous comments? No.

      But this:

      "Rick, as anyone can see, I provided links to actual comments.."

      and this:

      "I'll post the problems right here"

      So, still no actual quotes of supposed relevant comments I supposedly failed to adequately address. Yawn. Still no justification for Havock's slander. Now, what was that actual quote of Havock's?

      "Rick, all of the supposed proofs you've posted have been flawed. The many of the flaws have been pointed out to you."

      If these terrible flaws had been pointed out to me so long ago, then where are the actual quotes of these alleged criticisms? Hmmm. As anyone can see, there is nothing here to see. Move along, people. Don't waste your time with Havock. It's not worth it.

      Delete
    11. Out of idle curiosity, why are you misspelling Havok's username?

      Delete
    12. January 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM"Rick, it would help if you linked to something dealing with the "Many-Worlds" Quantum mechanics rather than what he is trying (and failing) to undermine, which is various multi-verse hypothesis."

      January 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM"All of these transformations have the effect of relocating the origin point relative to the other points of interest, and yet the relationship between the points is maintained."

      September 19, 2011 at 5:27 PM"Therefore, while compatibalism implies that our choices and decisions are meaningful for us, they are still completely determined by God."

      December 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM"The article I gave a link to demonstrates that the different parts of experiences reported (including in your claims) can be explained naturalistically."

      Delete
    13. December 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM"As for Plantinga, there are a number of critiques of his free-will defence, so I wouldn't claim victory just yet. There is also the evidential problem of free will, which needs to be dealt with (along with all the other difficulties with trying to demonstrate the existence of God)."

      Delete
    14. If you notice Havok's specific quotes on February 11, 2013, two of them are immediately disqualified because of their dates.

      Havok began his torrent of slander December 7, 2011 at a different blog post. This is when Havok had declared that I had failed to answer valid and relevant criticisms of my arguments for God's existence. Therefore, as I have been attempting to explain to Havok, comments made after that date to not qualify as support for his slander.

      Let's consider the remaining two comments:

      "(September 19, 2011 at 5:27 PM) Therefore, while compatibalism implies that our choices and decisions are meaningful for us, they are still completely determined by God."

      This comment by Havok is a bald assertion and a false one, that our free "choices...are still completely determined by God." This comment is neither presented in scripture nor is it a logical necessity. My comment on December 6, prior to Havok's slander tirade, had addressed this point:

      1. As I quoted, Wikipedia states, "Most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted."

      2. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense (the one most philosophers accept as being sound) states the following:

      "As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."

      Havok in no way described why he believes that free "choices...are still completely determined by God."- He simply made an assertion. As a nobody who is not even confident enough to use his own name in blog comments, bald assertions by Havok are hardly a challenge to logical arguments and quotes by Alvin Plantinga, who most philosophers respect as a relevant thinker.

      Instead of addressing the actual quotes and logical arguments by Plantinga, Havok chose to post a generalized stab:

      "As for Plantinga, there are a number of critiques of his free-will defence, so I wouldn't claim victory just yet. There is also the evidential problem of free will, which needs to be dealt with (along with all the other difficulties with trying to demonstrate the existence of God)."

      Does this generalized comment challenge the specific quote I presented by Plantinga with any specific reasoning or questions? No, it does not.

      Thus, Havok has failed to provide any support for his slander, claiming that I failed to adequately address specific valid and relevant criticisms.

      If any other atheists wish to run to Havok's defense and point out how I supposedly failed to address Havok's points, do jump in.

      Delete
    15. Funny how you needed the precise links to the quotes of Havok to even make an attempt to respond to them...

      I could show numerous points you just ignored, but you will just going to ignore everything relevant like always. I remember well enough how you accused Havok of flip-floping, taking some of his words out of context. Despite dozens of times me citing the full context you refused to acknowledge your own lies, Rick. Or how you distorted and still distort the words of Myers that "nothing should be held sacred". Again and again you just ignored criticism over and over again. I see no need to waste my efforts in search of your delusional threads just so you would end up ignoring them.

      I might do it to help expose the true colors of Rick Warden to someone new to his blog, but his lies are usually self-evident. Furthermore, not many people even bother with Rick s blog in the first place. Though, Havok might be willing to humor our amoral friend in his quest to denial...

      P.S. Almost every one debating you for a long period of time came to the conclusion that you are a liar or a self-delusional person, Rick. Is that a coincidence?

      Delete
    16. >I could show numerous points you just ignored, but you will just going to ignore everything relevant like always.

      - Anonymous, it is true that I have generally chosen to ignore slanderers. Note that when I offer an opportunity for the expressed purpose of justifying the slanderous comments, no valid evidence is actually offered. Thank you for helping to underscore the truth of my claims and my stance with regard to slander at my blog.

      Delete
    17. Yep, let us just ignore the two small examples I have offered in my post above and the numerous independent people theist and atheist alike that came to the same conclusion. 8)

      Delete
    18. - Anonymous, it is true that I have generally chosen to ignore slanderers.

      You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.

      And as for "no valid evidence", I notice you haven't even responded to my rebuttal; so much effort spent in chopping dates with Havok -- it makes me wonder why you avoid me so assiduously, all the while claiming "no evidence offered."

      I suspect it's because you lack a rebuttal, and your only option to maintain your delusion that everyone that's called you a liar is somehow "slandering" you is to do that.

      Hm. Perhaps you're not a liar. Perhaps you're sufficiently detached from reality that you don't *see* things that contradict you, thus allowing you to blithely claim "no valid evidence is actually offered."

      Delete
    19. Anonymous,

      >Yep, let us just ignore the two small examples I have offered in my post above and the numerous independent people theist and atheist alike that came to the same conclusion. 8)

      Those comments above that you have just posted have nothing whatsoever to the points I specifically called out as slander for you Havok and Imnotandrei in the above article. If you believe that PZ Myers is relevant to those specific points, do explain how exactly that is so.

      Delete
    20. Imnotandrei,

      >You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.

      - Well, so far, Havok has not been able to point out one of the "multitudes of relevant points" from one article, though he has tried to. Apparently, you are unable to as well, and unwilling to try. Sorry, Havok, looks like the atheist Cavalry isn't up to the task of saving your face from your slanderous ways.

      Delete
    21. R:If you believe that PZ Myers is relevant to those specific points, do explain how exactly that is so.

      It is relevant to your accusations of being a liar, which you claim is slander. In both examples you ignored objections and repeated the same false nonsense at multiple occasions.

      R:Sorry, Havok, looks like the atheist Cavalry isn't up to the task of saving your face from your slanderous ways.

      I am sure that Havok can deal with you himself. We only pointed out some of your dishonesty and lies, Rick.

      P.S. It was pointed out a dozen of times before, but I need to remind your thick skull with capital letters as always that imnotandrei IS NOT AN ATHEIST. Do not think that people disagree with you just because they are atheists.

      Delete
    22. From your response to Anonymous:

      Those comments above that you have just posted have nothing whatsoever to the points I specifically called out as slander for you Havok and Imnotandrei in the above article

      And you have yet to respond at all to my rebuttal of your points. Clearly, by your own logic here:

      Apparently, you are unable to as well, and unwilling to try.

      you are unable to rebut my points. Hence, your accusation of slander falls flat.

      I'm just holding you to the same standard you try and hold other people to, Rick; and you come nowhere close to meeting it.

      Let's see:

      You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.

      You're going to get links, Rick, because of your blog's character limit. Go back and read.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html?showComment=1345129673565#c205026142935193489

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html?showComment=1345129329856#c2665538740883510324

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-faith-factor-in-placing-usa-first.html?showComment=1345044300273#c8334580582674030045

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-faith-factor-in-placing-usa-first.html?showComment=1344527177663#c8527488655388232616

      Two threads, both from before you decided I was "slandering" you, covering just my own articles with unanswered points. Not even touching on your dodging around Michael Salman -- you never did answer why "People per square foot" was constitutional, while Phoenix' zoning laws weren't, for example.

      So:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html?showComment=1360167003453#c1154197915935345810

      Try and answer some of those and the comment after, Rick, if you're so sure of your correctness.

      Delete
    23. Rick: This comment by Havok is a bald assertion and a false one, that our free "choices...are still completely determined by God."
      No Rick, that is what is entailed in a compatibalist conception of free will, which you endorsed.
      And as I noted, Plantinga's FWD is not open to you either, as it relies upon a libertarian, incompatibalist conception fo free will being true.

      So we see that Rick is simply unable to keep his points straight, and will use any argument he thinks helps his position, even if the argument is premised upon something he has already rejected.

      Delete
    24. As for the comments which have been deemed "too late" by Rick, a cursory examination would show that they were parts of conversations which commenced prior to Rick's "cut off date", contain points which were not addressed by Rick at any stage, and are therefore appropriate at showing Rick's inability to respond to various points, as well as demonstrating the pattern of behaviour which Rick has wrongly accused me of slander for pointing out.

      Delete
    25. Another thread: October 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM"Can God suffer Rick?
      Can God be hurt, or be deprived of anything?
      The answer to both is no, therefore I see no reason to think that God can suffer. Since Jesus was supposed to be God, Jesus could not have actually suffered."

      To which Rick offered the non-response
      "I asked you to explain why Jesus could not have suffered and all you have done is repeated the same answer. You have given absolutely no answer as to why."

      Delete
    26. Also, Rick... Do you remember how I had to chase you from one thread to another so you would admit the difference between fascism anf nazism? I had to spend weeks before you did take my point into consideration. So at least we have one case where you you acknowledged being wrong about ignoring a person.

      Delete
  5. Never mind the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth. You're still a liar. They said so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'd care to look at some of the supporting evidence, logic, etc. presented by those who don't trust Rick, why don't you offer an opinion on that?

      Instead of just blatant assertion. Each of the three people spoken about here have responded; interestingly enough, Rick has only responded to one of us -- now, he may well not have seen Havok's, so we'll see what he says.

      But all of us have presented our evidence and logic. Care to comment?

      Delete
    2. Strombringer: Never mind the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth.
      Rick rarely does bother with " the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth". His beliefs trump everything else
      From what I've read from you, you seem to be cut from the same cloth.

      Strombringer: You're still a liar. They said so.
      He's a liar because we have demonstrated his dishonesty and lack of regard for " the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth".

      If you cared about "the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth", you'd probably want to ensure your knowledge of the situation was adequate before making a comment in support of Rick.

      Delete
    3. Bob,

      >Never mind the truth, supporting evidence, logic and so forth. You're still a liar. They said so.

      - Yes, indeed, Bob, if they say it is so, then, absolutely, it must be true! After all, it's three against two. We are outnumbered in this thread, Bob, so we must be wrong! Or, is it perhaps Vladimir Lenin's logic we overlooked:

      "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

      That seems to be the MO of Anonymous, to make false claims over and over: "You are a liar, you are a liar, you are a liar..." And if its meant to be really convincing, everything will be in capital letters. :-)

      Delete
    4. I have already explained to you several times why I sometimes use capital letters. Do you have any other suggestions on how can I make you pay attention to my arguments without capital letters?

      As for the quote you are using, these are the words of Goebbels and not Lenin. And you are the one that is following his propaganda lessons to the letter

      Delete
    5. Yes, indeed, Bob, if they say it is so, then, absolutely, it must be true! After all, it's three against two.

      Well, wow; an acknowledgement that I exist, other than as a straw-man in your head. Now, perhaps, you'll try replying to the points I made in my defense.

      Or are you going to continue engaging in the same behavior, save worse, towards me that you so decry and use as evidence of bad faith from Myers and Law?

      Remember -- Myers didn't discuss you until after you attacked him; Law the same. While here, you're attacking me, and then ignoring my retorts. By your own reasoning, as established many times before, you must be afraid of me, and hiding something; or perhaps you just don't use logic and civilized debate?

      Delete
  6. I hope that the inclement weather in your part of the country isn't causing you too much trouble, Rick; good luck and be well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi, after reading this remarkable article
    i am as well cheerful to share my know-how here with mates.


    Also visit my web site colombian coffee beans

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post. Thanks for providing
    these details.

    Also visit my web page mouse click the up coming web site

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for the marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you may be a
    great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back very soon.
    I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice holiday
    weekend!

    Have a look at my web site - Http://www.carehomesoftware.info

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good way of explaining, and nice post to get information regarding my presentation subject, which i am going
    to convey in school.

    Here is my weblog ... http://www.goldenrat.com/An-introduction-to-essential-factors-of-modcloth-coupon/

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!