meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,
meester_bond
meester_bond

Part 11 of Problem of the 3 Os - David and Daniel

So when last we left Part 10 over at http://meester-bond.livejournal.com/16567.html , a thread largely targeted at how completely inane Daniel Wood had been instead got targeted with stuff not really relevant to the overall moral questions being asked by David Wolcott. As we've seen from the previous post, what we instead got bogged down in was irrelevant bullshit about how David essentially can't accept any secular-supporting source that disagrees with his presuppositions. In this part, we see exactly why this is the case.

We start off as Part 10 did, with David addressing only small part of the smackdown that was delivered.

David Wolcott:

The vagueness. I would kill for an example of stuff that contradicts each other


Harris says Jesus never existed. Erhman states emphatically that Jesus did. Which of your sources tells the truth, for those are two diametrically opposed views that CANNOT both be truth, under the logical standard of law of non-contradiction.

Care to start again with reality?


Me:

Ehrman never states a divine Jesus existed though and if you asked him he would agree with Harris's conclusion in that regard. Plus, if,you asked Ehrman, he'd also understand why Harris takes the position he does, because of the lack of contemporary evidence.

What other contradictions then? And notice how I responded with actual specifics when defending my position.


David Wolcott:

because of the lack of contemporary evidence.


Shows how little you know about Erhman. You do bother researching these things before posting them, right? Or do you just copy-pasta whatever uneducated mumbo-jumbo ironchariots and rationalwiki post without bothering to research it first?

Oh, and stop making assumptions and straw-man arguments. I never said Erhman believed in a divine Jesus. I just demonstrated that two of your sources stand in mutual-exclusive opposition to each other on a key factor and otherwise unresolvable factor.

Care to address why you don't have a problem with that?


At this point in the conversation, my compadre Jeff rightly pointed out that “To my knowledge, he (Ehrman) accepts the existence of a person named Jesus around whom Christianity was derived, but not the deistic character of magic and wonder portrayed in the bible.”, and I dropped a very quick line saying I agreed with him, as I only had my mobile phone on me at the time to make a comment. David continued like this...

It's been too long since I've read that; unfortunately, that was one quote I didn't save.

Accordingly, if it will make you happy, I will be fine dropping that claim. Jon already provided me another of his immediately, that proves he has never bothered to research any of this, nor his own sources. I will be more than happy to uphold that....


Then at long last, Daniel made his appearance. Much like David, he didn't address the topic either, doing another load of bogus questioning of any qualifications I had to criticise him and his God, ignoring of course the fact that I don't need to be a mechanic to notice when a car is completely fucked up and unable to be operational.

Daniel Wood:

Nice report JDM. I would encourage you to try to ask a university professor to evaluate your work in the proper field of study but I am afraid you would take me seriously and it may damage your emotional sensibilities when he trashes your report as being equivalent to a bad high school report full of bias.

So the alternative is to help you see the flaws for yourself.....

You conclude with this:


"Daniel and other theists like him are not interested in actual fairness. They want to promote a faux theories that deliberately take short cuts in order to indoctrinate itself into the gullible masses where religion can then go about stripping those individuals of their critical thinking skills, and learn to demonise and be intolerant and bigoted towards anyone who dares to hold their beliefs to the same critical scrutiny as everyone else."


Do you have scientific evidence for this conclusion? I will save you the time, no you do not have such scientific evidence. You mention philosophical justifications to promote your conclusion but you would deny theists the use of using philosophical justifications when you demand empirical evidence. Very revealing that you condemn the theists for not using a criteria that you are also incapable of using.

Normally I wouldn't really bother pointing out your self-contradiction so directly but allow me to ask you another question.... since your conclusion is not scientifically based and you reject the use of philosophy, how can your conclusion be anything but your own "faux theory that deliberately takes a short cut in order to indoctrinate itself into the gullible mass of the atheist religion as it strips away their critical thinking skills as it learns to demonize myself and other theists by being bigots towards anyone who dares to hold atheist superstitions to the same critical scrutiny as academia?"

Considering that I witnessed you deliberately misquoting other theists or quoting them out of context within this facebook forum and in your wonderful blog, how can your counterclaims be anything but fallacious? Shouldn't you learn what a theist actually says before you can begin to comment upon his words? I have seen no comprehension of theist words from you.

But.... perhaps if you contemplate some more.... ?


Un. Believable. He was picking up right from where he left off. For the moment, our priority was David, but it wasn't going to be long before I took on Daniel as well.

Me vs David:

Jon already provided me another of his immediately, that proves he has never bothered to research any of this, nor his own sources. I will be more than happy to uphold that....


No, David Wolcott, all of the resources I provided in terms of books are all books I own. It's simply the case that in terms of people like Harris (and also Dawkins), I haven't read their works for a while largely out of distaste for how they've behaved post-Elevatorgate. But I assure, I am perfectly familiar with Harris, I just got muddled a little bit. See again, unlike you I admit my weaknesses. And again, I've explained clearly why there isn't a contradiction between Harris and Ehrman. And unless you can give me a citation from when of Ehrman's books where he actually says that there is any kind of evidence dating from when Jesus actually would have lived in order to prove Jesus, I can safely say you're wrong on this one.

Also, please note, I am the only one who has provided any kind of sources in this thread. When I provided the other resources consisting of numerous websites and books, you dismissed them all mere seconds after I provided them. I refuse to believe that you have read all of the books that I suggested, and the fact that you dismissed them all in mere seconds also makes it clear that you didn't even do some Googling. And you still haven't addressed the most key point about how science when done properly eliminates bias as well as the general history of science relating to theology, namely [the stuff about the advantage of the scientific method regarding bias].

And of course, there's also the fact that I asked you upthread to "produce one not-biased source for YOUR claims and then JUSTIFY why it's not biased", which you still haven't done, so sources that are generally held in high esteem by mainstream scientists beats no sources at all. And also you didn't address the most neutral link I provided, namely: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47 . Now why can't you address all those, David?


Me vs Daniel:

Nice report JDM. I would encourage you to try to ask a university professor to evaluate your work in the proper field of study but I am afraid you would take me seriously and it may damage your emotional sensibilities when he trashes your report as being equivalent to a bad high school report full of bias.


My series of posts was essentially about the social sciences. I'm sorry, but you are the one throughout the exchanges insisting that the only kind of moral standard we can judge things on is when derived by God, or by religion. I would be more than happy to ask numerous university professors not only about the secular based morality vs religious based morality debate, but also about generally the nature of morality as depicted in the Bible and how we assess whether it is objectionable. If you can link me to a variety of university professors, I would be more than happy to engage them, just as I was more than happy to engage the person from Investigating Atheism who them promptly flunked out of the debate. Please include a healthy mix of atheist, theist, and middle-ground professors please.

Do you have scientific evidence for this conclusion? I will save you the time, no you do not have such scientific evidence. You mention philosophical justifications to promote your conclusion but you would deny theists the use of using philosophical justifications when you demand empirical evidence. Very revealing that you condemn the theists for not using a criteria that you are also incapable of using.


Sure I do have evidence. I have archived details of you and other people like Mike and Rick and Douglas J Bender and Lucki Candoff willing to go to any lengths to defend completely immoral and monstrous actions when they are sanctioned and/or condoned by your God. I have you spouting more slander against the reliability of secular methods of deriving morality. I have the very simple fact that even though no God claim has ever passed the most reliable method we have of discerning truth, a lot of theists still promote God claims as absolute truths. Speaking of which, you have still yet to provide a coherent alternative to science in terms of a method that discerns truth beyond vague appeals to philosophy while not getting specific about which ones, probably because of the data presented to you that shows that within philosophic academics the question of atheism vs theism is largely considered a settled question as in the studies we have showed to you, statistically six times more people within the philosophy profession directly accept atheism than those who directly accept theism, and atheism is also a more accepted hypothesis among philosophy and science academics than any other possible explanations COMBINED.

Normally I wouldn't really bother pointing out your self-contradiction so directly but allow me to ask you another question.... since your conclusion is not scientifically based and you reject the use of philosophy, how can your conclusion be anything but your own "faux theory that deliberately takes a short cut in order to indoctrinate itself into the gullible mass of the atheist religion as it strips away their critical thinking skills as it learns to demonize myself and other theists by being bigots towards anyone who dares to hold atheist superstitions to the same critical scrutiny as academia?"


I don't "reject the use of philosophy" - I consider some elements of philosophy, like those that are based on secular reasoning, to be considerably more reliable than others. And I used the social sciences as well as the science of deduction when producing the records of the Problem of the 3 Os saga. It's not my fault you never addressed my OP from that thread, nor for that matter is it my fault when you resorted to just throwing accusations and ad hominems around when I completely demolished your faulty ants to humans analogy as well as explaining even more clearly what secular morality means, not to mention the fact that I also clearly explained what a kangaroo court is and why my thread wasn't one. It's all there, documented in full clarity. And the unique feature of a religion is a belief in a supernatural agency, which is something that atheism does not have. Calling atheism is a superstition is like claiming that not believing 13 is an unlucky number or not believing walking under ladders is unlucky is a superstition. They're not, and neither is atheism. Atheism also doesn't have any rituals or devotional observance, and like I said it's only when you combine atheism with secularism viewpoints that you get any kind of moral viewpoints, but by itself it doesn't. Nor does atheism by itself make any claims about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, since atheism is simply the rejection of one claim - namely that about a God or Supernatural Agency existing. Not to mention of course the evident Tu Quoque fallacy inherent within such an accusation of course. And as mentioned above, the study on philosophy academics shows that most of them accept atheism, and the National Academy of Sciences put the number of atheist scientists at NINETY PERCENT. But you'll reject this because of your presuppositions.

Considering that I witnessed you deliberately misquoting other theists or quoting them out of context within this facebook forum and in your wonderful blog, how can your counterclaims be anything but fallacious? Shouldn't you learn what a theist actually says before you can begin to comment upon his words? I have seen no comprehension of theist words from you.


Slander, buddy. Either provide an explanation on what supposed "context" I'm missing, or zip it.


Daniel Wood:

A-->You don't have my views on the issue you claim to have, you have my responses to your rhetoric and your fallacies and your sophistry.

B-->You have archives of responses on questions based upon a poor methodology and you have not used ethical standards from the social sciences to engage in such interviews.

C-->I did not ask you to consult professors on how to engage on a research, I pointed out that your current output is flawed and pseudo-academic drivel.

If you can't understand this very issue, how can any of us trust your understanding of what you were told? You don't even have proper journalism with your interpretations of your archived recordings. Taking context out of the equation and making yourself sound rational by taking out your less rational comments while placing the more irrational sounding words of your opponent is pure intellectual dishonesty, bad journalism and definitely not worthy of a social science report...... High school may tolerate such papers, but not proper scholars who engage in rational methodologies, something not seen in your rant.

You are continuing in your fallacies; in fact, since you brought it up, I would recommend you follow your own advice of zipping it because there is more evidence that you are guilty of slander with your poor methodology than of my challenge to you to submit your poor work to the scrutiny of academic peer review. My objections would lose credibility if you found a recognized university to support your drivel. Until you gain credibility, my critique of your work is as justified as your work. But I submit that a proper analysis of your work and of my critique, your work would be found lacking in ethics, accuracy and proper methodology, and my critique points this out.


Me:

A - Oh yes I do. I have you responding to the issue with a faulty ants to humans analogy and also asking on what moral standards we can declare the actions in the Bible wrong, which I promptly destroyed, afterwards you engaged in nothing more than accusations that you haven't at all proven the merit of. I'm giving you one last chance to actually point out specifics about any "rhetoric, fallacies, and sophistry" I allegedly used, otherwise you lose, because debates are not won by throwing accusations with no certified proof behind them at your opponent. I have accused you of things, and backed it up. You haven't done the same.

B - Be specific about the methodology, and I have used secular philosophical understandings of morality quite clearly in such a way that if I were to present it to the considerably reliable academics I listed up thread, they would all agree with me, and they would class you as an idiot.

C - With no proof. As per your standard repertoire. Just vague nonsense as usual from you.


If you can't understand this very issue, how can any of us trust your understanding of what you were told? You don't even have proper journalism with your interpretations of your archived recordings. Taking context out of the equation and making yourself sound rational by taking out your less rational comments while placing the more irrational sounding words of your opponent is pure intellectual dishonesty, bad journalism and definitely not worthy of a social science report...... High school may tolerate such papers, but not proper scholars who engage in rational methodologies, something not seen in your rant.


And again, I asked you upthread to actually provide the "proper" context, and yet again you refuse to do so, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. I quoted your responses specifically to me in full. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. And quit with the Tu Quoque and Ad Hominem fallacies already. Either put up specifics and actually engage the argument, or I'm blocking you.

You are continuing in your fallacies; in fact, since you brought it up, I would recommend you follow your own advice of zipping it because there is more evidence that you are guilty of slander with your poor methodology than of my challenge to you to submit your poor work to the scrutiny of academic peer review. My objections would lose credibility if you found a recognized university to support your drivel. Until you gain credibility, my critique of your work is as justified as your work. But I submit that a proper analysis of your work and of my critique, your work would be found lacking in ethics, accuracy and proper methodology, and my critique points this out.


That's why I asked you to provide a list of university professors to contact. I have nothing to hide. You suggest I engage with people in academia? I'll do it gladly, under the condition that you do the same AND you share your correspondence with them with me via email. By allowing YOU to choose the university professors, I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt, and all I did was simply give you the perfectly reasonable request that we have a healthy mix of atheist, theist, and middle ground scholars for us to respectively contact. The reason I am not choosing the university professors and academics to contact is that I know damn well how solid my position is but you'd accuse me of being unfair, hence allowing the ball to be in your court in terms of choosing the academics. But in the face of that challenge, you once again run away from it, because you know damn well that you'd get ripped apart. Indeed, we've had people qualified in the social sciences, philosophy, and even fellow theists with qualifications illustrating to you how full of crap your positions are.

Oh, and since I've provided resources in the form of websites and books upthread and, well, you and David Wolcott HAVEN'T, I also challenge that you actually provide some resources of your own, otherwise the guy with a whole bunch of resources held in high esteem by actual credible scientists and philosophers within the mainstream beats the guy with no sources at all.


At this point, the guantlet had well and truly been laid down. Oh, Daniel would spend another couple of posts making excuses as to why he couldn't actually provide a response to the issues I had brought up, but from this point the clock was ticking. Daniel was running out of options, and it was well and truly only a matter of time before he'd end up having to actually clarify his position. Part 11, however, consists of me royally ripping David apart both on his claim about the evidence I was presenting, and his ass-backwards views on abortion.
Tags: problem of the 3 os
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 0 comments