tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post3046483821119175946..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet ApologeticsRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-70347536674814172642013-04-25T04:34:03.928-07:002013-04-25T04:34:03.928-07:00Good way of explaining, and nice post to get infor...Good way of explaining, and nice post to get information regarding my presentation subject, which i am going <br />to convey in school.<br /><br />Here is my weblog ... <a href="http://www.ikate.org/index.php?title=Usuario:MiaiiD99" rel="nofollow">http://www.goldenrat.com/An-introduction-to-essential-factors-of-modcloth-coupon/</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-86313813878277322942013-04-23T11:52:32.339-07:002013-04-23T11:52:32.339-07:00Thanks for the marvelous posting! I seriously enjo...Thanks for the marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you may be a <br />great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back very soon.<br />I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice holiday <br />weekend!<br /><br />Have a look at my web site - <a href="http://geosocial.herobo.com/index.php?do=/blog/7804/routine-clothes-for-plus-size-women/" rel="nofollow">Http://www.carehomesoftware.info</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-55325294599704467272013-04-18T16:49:27.835-07:002013-04-18T16:49:27.835-07:00Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post...Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post. Thanks for providing <br />these details.<br /><br />Also visit my web page <a href="http://wiki.axone.ru/index.php?title=Women_Of_All_Ages_Dress_Plus_Size_Clothing_Thoroughly" rel="nofollow">mouse click the up coming web site</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-57515288469790166472013-03-21T13:47:04.148-07:002013-03-21T13:47:04.148-07:00Hi, after reading this remarkable article
i am as...Hi, after reading this remarkable article <br />i am as well cheerful to share my know-how here with mates.<br /><br /><br />Also visit my web site <a href="http://worldwidemedinsurance.com/" rel="nofollow">colombian coffee beans</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-31017672884438265902013-02-15T06:31:49.846-08:002013-02-15T06:31:49.846-08:00Wow. Talk about cherry-picking. 3 lines out of ove...Wow. Talk about cherry-picking. 3 lines out of over 100. 3% of my post you elect to respond to, Rick.<br /><br /><i>A lie is a false statement. </i><br /><br />Actually, I'd say a lie is a *deliberate* false statement, to narrow it even further.<br /><br /><i> I have offered documented examples demonstrating Law's low regard for logical principles.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />That's not a demonstration, that's an assertion.<br /><br /><i>Because Imnotandrei has chosen to dig his heals in,</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>I have added another documented example.</i><br /><br />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<br /><br /><i>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.<br /></i><br /><br />This is evidence that Craig and Law disagree (surprise, surprise) -- not evidence that Law has a "low regard for logical principles." <br /><br /><i>Unlike Imnotandrei, I'm pointing out objective, documented facts in order to back up my claims. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i> All Imnotandrei has to offer is his own personal and slanderous opinion. </i><br /><br />Well, when you delete 97%+ of my argument from your response, that is certainly the impression you're trying to give.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-30849471642376586262013-02-15T04:44:37.406-08:002013-02-15T04:44:37.406-08:00BTW, Rick... Could you give your own understanding...BTW, Rick... Could you give your own understanding of the definition of "logic"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-58882336349162004622013-02-15T04:41:23.344-08:002013-02-15T04:41:23.344-08:00>And any person who thinks about the evidence p...<br />>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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)"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-SgDpyiKPc<br /><br />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. <br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-46443048002309070402013-02-14T09:16:03.788-08:002013-02-14T09:16:03.788-08:00any objective thinking person can see that he does...<br /><i> 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. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>The problem seems to be that Imnotandrei does not seem to be aware of why he is not an objective, thinking person.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>He has somehow pre-determined that I should be called a liar,</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>as have the other two secular atheists described in the above article.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>there is a spiritual dimension behind false slander and false accusations against believers.</i><br /><br />And had I committed false accusations against believers, you might have a point. But I have not.<br /><br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-41182110671045556552013-02-14T09:15:17.114-08:002013-02-14T09:15:17.114-08:00My interpretation of this quote is that Law does n...<br /><i>My interpretation of this quote is that Law does not hold a high view of logical principles:<br /><br />"The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM)"</i><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Risible.<br /><br /><i>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:<br /><br />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)<br /><br />http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=789401787668896822</i><br /><br />In other words, you put "favorite" in quotes even though it appears nowhere in his response, or your question.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In other words, just what I've been saying you were doing.<br /><br /><i>. 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. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />(continued)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-39027568555179725632013-02-14T09:14:47.588-08:002013-02-14T09:14:47.588-08:00Two things of note: In his response to me below, R...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. ;)<br /><br /><br /><i>No goal shifting. I am referring to the original context of the quote wherein Imnotandrei called me a liar.</i><br /><br />To quote:<br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />You conflated two things, and are now attempting to argue that one doesn't matter, because I was "ignoring the context."<br /><br />All I need to prove you are a liar, Rick, is to find you lying. And I have done so.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Well, since your Venn diagrams are just more of your cargo-cult logic, they don't help.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />All A are B,<br />No A are B,<br />Some A are B,<br /><br />so, anywhere those appear, by your own reasoning, logical argument is in use.<br /><br />And they're all over Stephen Law's works. Therefore:<br /><br />Premise: Rick accepts Venn Diagrams and their logical analogues as "using logical principles."<br />Premise: Logical statements with variables and quantifiers are logical analogues to Venn diagrams.<br />Premise: Stephen Law uses logical statements with variables and qualifiers.<br />Conclusion: Rick accepts that Stephen Law uses logical principles.<br /><br />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."<br /><br /><i>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?</i><br /><br />Citation, please; because I do dispute it, have disputed it, and will continue to dispute it. Saying this is, quite simply, lying.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(continued)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-26393350385353437582013-02-14T04:24:51.848-08:002013-02-14T04:24:51.848-08:00>Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissi...>Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissions, and logical flaws.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br /><br />>2) "Using logical principles", as I've said many, many times now, does not mean "using syllogisms." <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />My interpretation of this quote is that Law does not hold a high view of logical principles:<br /><br />"The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM)"<br /><br />Imnotandrei claims the previous quote does not reflect at all on Law's value of logic as a philosopher:<br /><br />No; Law doesn't have a high regard for *you*, Rick.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />3) Please cite why you're putting "favorite" in quotes<br /><br />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:<br /><br />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)<br /><br />http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=789401787668896822<br /><br />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. <br /> <br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-86975964977985492592013-02-13T20:02:12.495-08:002013-02-13T20:02:12.495-08:00And, because there's so much good stuff there,...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<br /><br />;)<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-21681656762188642792013-02-13T19:32:52.651-08:002013-02-13T19:32:52.651-08:00Oh, and since new information does exist, I refer ...Oh, and since new information does exist, I refer you here:<br /><br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/12/plantingas-evolutionary-argument.html#more<br /><br />And try and argue *that* doesn't contain logic at least as formal, if not more so, than anything you've ever managed.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-65337020008870716072013-02-13T06:42:50.279-08:002013-02-13T06:42:50.279-08:00Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissions,...Classic Rick Warden: Goalpost-shifting, omissions, and logical flaws.<br /><br />First, the logical flaws:<br /><br /><i>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.<br /></i><br /><br />This is wrong on so many levels it's funny:<br /><br />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."<br /><br />2) "Using logical principles", as I've said many, many times now, does not mean "using syllogisms." <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now, the goalpost-shifting:<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />As for the rest:<br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1346861464585#c8191375995617713452<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1346883916915#c7023678308767213335<br /><br />There are links to two. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />And, just to bring this full circle, you made the same argument here:<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947<br /><br />Where your logic was first shown to be invalid.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-32356097075798970922013-02-13T04:13:41.262-08:002013-02-13T04:13:41.262-08:00>Why a counter-argument of a logical point does...>Why a counter-argument of a logical point doesn't count as "using logic", I will never understand.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><br />P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.<br />P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of foundational precepts.<br />C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in testing the truth foundational precepts.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/worlds-top-atheists-dawkins-singer-and.html<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-5004557548818523742013-02-13T02:32:16.216-08:002013-02-13T02:32:16.216-08:00Also, Rick... Do you remember how I had to chase y...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-82048158658070174242013-02-12T23:07:33.292-08:002013-02-12T23:07:33.292-08:00Another thread: October 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM"C...Another thread: <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html?showComment=1318139471388#c161069680702033540" rel="nofollow">October 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM</a><i>"Can God suffer Rick?<br />Can God be hurt, or be deprived of anything?<br />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."</i><br />To which Rick offered the non-response<br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-61386106888007307372013-02-12T20:02:15.825-08:002013-02-12T20:02:15.825-08:00As for the comments which have been deemed "t...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.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-65354224159458392582013-02-12T20:00:30.147-08:002013-02-12T20:00:30.147-08:00Rick: This comment by Havok is a bald assertion an...<b>Rick: This comment by Havok is a bald assertion and a false one, that our free "choices...are still completely determined by God." </b><br />No Rick, that is what is entailed in a compatibalist conception of free will, which you endorsed.<br />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.<br /><br />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.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-91246807391706620702013-02-12T08:46:24.373-08:002013-02-12T08:46:24.373-08:00From your response to Anonymous:
Those comments a...From your response to Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>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</i><br /><br />And you have yet to respond at all to my rebuttal of your points. Clearly, by your own logic here:<br /><br /><i>Apparently, you are unable to as well, and unwilling to try.</i><br /><br />you are unable to rebut my points. Hence, your accusation of slander falls flat.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Let's see:<br /><br /><i>You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.</i><br /><br />You're going to get links, Rick, because of your blog's character limit. Go back and read.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html?showComment=1345129673565#c205026142935193489<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html?showComment=1345129329856#c2665538740883510324<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-faith-factor-in-placing-usa-first.html?showComment=1345044300273#c8334580582674030045<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-faith-factor-in-placing-usa-first.html?showComment=1344527177663#c8527488655388232616<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So: <br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html?showComment=1360167003453#c1154197915935345810<br /><br />Try and answer some of those and the comment after, Rick, if you're so sure of your correctness.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-5702582853917287122013-02-12T07:14:56.927-08:002013-02-12T07:14:56.927-08:00R:If you believe that PZ Myers is relevant to thos...R:If you believe that PZ Myers is relevant to those specific points, do explain how exactly that is so.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />R:Sorry, Havok, looks like the atheist Cavalry isn't up to the task of saving your face from your slanderous ways.<br /><br />I am sure that Havok can deal with you himself. We only pointed out some of your dishonesty and lies, Rick.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-15067161846315278522013-02-12T06:44:25.012-08:002013-02-12T06:44:25.012-08:00Imnotandrei,
>You also ignored multitudes of r...Imnotandrei,<br /><br />>You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.<br /><br />- 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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-35085976760717773392013-02-12T06:38:50.982-08:002013-02-12T06:38:50.982-08:00Anonymous,
>Yep, let us just ignore the two sm...Anonymous,<br /><br />>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)<br /><br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-9778777055407953152013-02-12T06:21:41.395-08:002013-02-12T06:21:41.395-08:00- Anonymous, it is true that I have generally chos...<i>- Anonymous, it is true that I have generally chosen to ignore slanderers. </i><br /><br />You also ignored multitudes of relevant points in threads posted by people *before* you decided they had "slandered" you.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-30518319153985646382013-02-12T05:53:51.713-08:002013-02-12T05:53:51.713-08:00Yep, let us just ignore the two small examples I h...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)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com