Fulfilling a promise

Me to commenter Kemanorel over at ERV:  It's probably a good thing that you didn't show up on my blog. But don't worry, I'll make an example of you there anyway.


So as to avoid turning my yes into a no, I here reproduce the conversation Kemanorel and I had, which began and ended with his childish playground taunts.  I know, an amazing surprise, given the level of discourse at which virtually every ERV posse-member operates...


45, ME:  Kemanorel,
If you're itching to talk evolution-y stuff with a fundy, feel free to drop by my blog. See ya.

47, Kemanorel:  I'll be glad to... but not on your blog. You have the conversation here, where I know you can't moderate the comments, and I know ERV won't moderate yours.

I highly doubt you have anything new. Evolution has evidence, you do not. You will undoubtedly either misrepresent the subject or show a complete lack of comprehension of it. You will use logical fallacies to try and make your arguments, and you will ignore it when I point those fallacies out.

So, fine, if you want, I'll do it here, in neutral territory, but not on your own blog where I'm sure eventually, when you're crushed under the weight of evidence for evolution, you would ban me and delete my comments so you and your readers can continue wallow in ignorance.

48, ME:
Ask anyone - I don't moderate comments on my blog. And I've already entertained dozens of commenters against me at a time here. My blog is plenty neutral. See you there, or not.


49, K: 

You won't see me, especially since I've seeing some of the other bullshit you're slinging here.

I won't bother for three reason. First, you've proven that you don't even understand high school level biology (you've shown to lack of understanding in several other posts I've seen now). I'd only be explaining things beyond your level of understanding anyways.

Second, I know you have no desire to listen to anyone. I'm sure I've heard all the arguments you'll make, and will ignore every bit of evidence I give in return.

Third, I'm done feeding the troll. I didn't know you were one. I learned. Go find hand-outs somewhere else.

Long story short, I won't waste my time. I'm a graduate student of the subject. I've done the required study and actually understand the subject. You obviously haven't. I might as well try explaining it to an insect... you have about the same amount of comprehension of what I'd be talking about.

50, ME: 
Not a fan of logical examination of your chosen field? Typical. Suit yourself.


51, K: 

I'm all for it, just won't do it on unfair ground (i.e. your personal site).

Logical examination from a person who's entire belief system is based on belief without evidence is so contradictory that it makes me wonder if you're not just the most elaborate Poe ever.

In any case, I'm sure you have nothing new and every argument you make was addressed by someone already, probably right here at ERV. What is really funny is that you also probably use a logical fallacy (i.e. argument from personal incredulity - "I don't see how that could happen, so that's not true") so you don't have to believe it, then try to argue against the evidence using logic.

This is what it comes down to. We have the evidence. We win. So, provide some actual verifiable evidence to support your argument, or just go away.

54, ME: 

on unfair ground (i.e. your personal site).

Waaah. I've done that many times, including here, and many times been moderated. I told you I don't mod comments. But you know, feel free to talk a big game in your home stadium.

Logical examination from a person who's entire belief system is based on belief without evidence

I would imagine YOU believe in the utility of evidence. Tommykey was right to say that I'll ask you to justify your belief that evidence is the best way to discover truth. What's your evidence for that?
Yes, precisely - you can't provide any evidence for it. So, logical examination from a person who's entire belief system is based on belief without evidence is contradictory. The funnier thing is that you don't realise it, which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).

55, K:

How about you look at nearly every device you use?

Science has produced everything you use in everyday life... cars, planes, cell phones, your computer. Your probable life span is triple what it would have been 100 years ago. That's science, not religion. That is proof that science works.

Religion has not provided a single advancement to humans.

And, I'll clairify right here because I know where you'll take that statement, I'm not saying people of faith never help advance anything.

Men of faith have used SCIENCE to advance humanity, some do good charity work, etc. But, no person has ever said, "Eureka! My diety just told me how [insert natural phenomena] works!" or "Amazing! I can make [insert new technology] and do this [insert awesome thing]."

Not once. Ever. Adancement never comes from religious revelation.

 The funnier thing is that you don't realise it, which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).

What's really funny is that you actually believe your own tripe. The scientific method has proven itself to work time and again. Religion continues to wallow in ignorance.

If you don't think evidence is the best way to advance and find out what's fact and what isn't, then please stop using the devices produced by science. Stop going to hospitals and just pray for healing.

Fucking hypocrite. Bashing the thing the produced the technology and the media you're bashing it through...

Seriously, I suggest you take advantage of medical technology, get an MRI of your brain, and get the tumor removed that's pressing on the cognitive center of your brain. That is the only possible explanation for the twisting of logic you think validates your views.

61, ME: 

How about you look at nearly every device you use?

OK, looking. Now what?
(You must be operating under the mistaken notion that Christianity thinks evidence is worthless. That is incorrect.)

Science has produced everything you use in everyday life

Um, no, PEOPLE and ROBOTS have.
Tell you what. Read this on the inherent fallacy in science and get back to me.

That's science, not religion.

Of course.

That is proof that science works.

Works in its limited bailiwick, sure. But not b/c naturalism is true. Actually, given that naturalism cannot answer the problem of induction or the problem of the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and given that Christianity gives us a world in which natural processes and laws are put in place by God, Who guarantees that the world will function that way until the End, and given that Christianity includes the natural as well as the supernatural and gives us parameters by which we can usually tell them apart, science depends on Christianity, not on naturalism.

some do good charity work

BTW, you can't use science to tell good from bad. You're appealing to something else here. My guess is that it's just your personal preferences, and that's no basis for any objective value judgment.

The scientific method has proven itself to work time and again

Actually, induction doesn't prove anything.

Fucking hypocrite

Ooooh, testy already. You're not brittle like Tyler, are you?

62, K:

 OK, looking. Now what? ... Um, no, PEOPLE and ROBOTS have.

Yeah... via SCIENCE. People didn't just go "AH HA!" and snap their fingers. They used the scientific method to design the thing that they (and robots) build. The robots also being designed the same way!

Nice dodge of the "adancement never comes from religious revelation" argument. I'm glad you agree.

 Tell you what. Read this on the inherent fallacy in science and get back to me.

You like making these sorts of arguments:

"This thing is somewhat true, therefore God."

The "therefore God" part doesn't logically follow.

BTW, you can't use science to tell good from bad. You're appealing to something else here. My guess is that it's just your personal preferences, and that's no basis for any objective value judgment.

Or maybe you lack reading comprehension...

I wasn't applying science to charity work. I was applying "advancing humanity" to charity work. I was also apply "advancing humanity" to science. "Advancing humanity" does NOT apply to religion. In fact, religion is a detriment to the advancement of humanity.

You could argue that they advanced civil/mechanical engineering with all the tourture devices they created... I wouldn't really call that advancement. More like barbarism.

Ooooh, testy already. You're not brittle like Tyler, are you? ... Tommy, if there's one thing I've learned about this place, it's to expect cheap playground tauting from the get-go.

I called you a hypocrite for your actions. I didn't make some childhood retort like "you're a poopy head."

Calling you a hypocrite is justified, and I backed it up by explaining why you shouldn't be using the fruits of science when you go around bashing it.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between an ad hominem (which is meant to distract from the argument), and a rational conclusion based on your actions.

Oh, so you're satisfied with "to a certain degree", are you? Neato. How does this solve the problem of induction?

There is no problem with induction. It's a valid form of proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_induction

I'm sorry you don't understand that either, and equate it to logical fallacies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Learn to use logic.

63, ME:

Yeah... via SCIENCE. People didn't just go "AH HA!" and snap their fingers.

Yes, never claimed otherwise. But you needed to be more specific.

Nice dodge of the "adancement never comes from religious revelation" argument

1) Prove that it never comes from religious revelation.
2) Why restrict knowledge, BTW, to materialistic, scientific knowledge? Other things are knowledge too, you know.

You like making these sorts of arguments:
"This thing is somewhat true, therefore God."

1) Um, what?
2) Nice dodge of the "science always commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent" argument. I'd love for you to deal with it.

I was applying "advancing humanity" to charity work.

You forgot where you said "GOOD charity work". I was calling into question your use of "good". Now please answer the question.

In fact, religion is a detriment to the advancement of humanity.

Please provide your standard for knowing what is progress, what is the goal toward which we are advancing, how we know it, who set the goal and when, and how you know advancing toward that goal is good.

You could argue that they advanced civil/mechanical engineering with all the tourture devices they created

An atheist REALLY should not get into a contest of body counts with a Christian. Seriously.

I called you a hypocrite for your actions. I didn't make some childhood retort like "you're a poopy head."

Actually, yes you did use a childish retort.
And what's hypocritical about it? Using a profane modifier doesn't increase the force of an empty argument.

There is no problem with induction. It's a valid form of proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_induction

Oooh, behold the power of WIKI!!!!!
How about you answer the problem, how science affirms the consequent.
Since you apparently didn't read the post to which I referred you, let me refer you here and then paste relevant portions from each here:

"Sufficient data"? Sufficient according to whom? Sufficient according to you? If so, then your standard is subjective, but you said that you depend on "objective evidence." What objective evidence defines that there is "sufficient data"?
So you trust "scientific experiment"? But I have shown in my books that the method of experimentation commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That is,
If X is true, then Y is true.
Y is true.
Therefore, X is true.
But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X. To repeat experiments is only to repeat this fallacious procedure over and over again.
As even the atheist Bertrand Russell admits:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

...the naturalistic worldview has a dire and unresolved epistemological weakness - the problem of induction. Related to that is the problem of sense perception. You don't know that your specific observations, of which you can make a few hundred on a given topic per year out of quintillions of actual events, reliably lead you to understand the universal, the way the world is. You ASSUME it. Similarly, you ASSUME that your senses accurately observe the outside world, then you ASSUME that the senses properly report that data to your brain, then you ASSUME that the data arrives correctly, then you ASSUME that your brain properly interprets the data, then you ASSUME that you then act properly on that data. But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
Further, you have no reason to think that the natural processes you think you observe around you are in operation everywhere. You have no reason to think they have always, or at least since a very long time ago, been in operation. You ASSUME these things are true, but you can't even start to prove it.

Also, please deal with the EAAN, which you didn't even discuss.

Peace,
Rhology

65, K:

 1) Prove that it never comes from religious revelation.

Fine. I'll qualify it. No advancement has yet to ever come from religious revelation.

Name a single advancement made by religion that was a benefit to humanity, and I'll never make this assertion ever again.

 2) Why restrict knowledge, BTW, to materialistic, scientific knowledge? Other things are knowledge too, you know.

I never said it was the only source. I only made the assertion that, to date, its the only source that's been proven to work. Religion has done no such thing, and has in fact only proven itself to be a detriment to humanity.

You like making these sorts of arguments:
"This thing is somewhat true, therefore God."

1) Um, what?

You have perpetuated multiple arguments that start with a true statement, then you say, "Therefore God exists."

Just like on the other post: "Intelligent being made life in a lab, therefore God had to make life in teh first place." You just did it here: "We can't trust our senses, therefore there is a God."

It's ridiculous.

2) Nice dodge of the "science always commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent" argument. I'd love for you to deal with it.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand science or the scientific method, but that's the only way you'll be able to understand why your argument is a fallacy.

 You forgot where you said "GOOD charity work". I was calling into question your use of "good". Now please answer the question.

Good charity work is something that provides a benefit to the person that needs help.

Bad charity work is doing something you think will help, but really doesn't do a damn thing: like sending Bibles to Haiti.

Please provide your standard for knowing what is progress, what is the goal toward which we are advancing, how we know it, who set the goal and when, and how you know advancing toward that goal is good.

What? Do you really need this spelled out for you?

Progress is anything that measurably improves on the current situation... like medicine increasing life expectancy. Car airbags increasing survival rates in car crashes...

You don't need a grand goal. You find one problem, and make it better. Metastatic melanoma has a survival rate of about 25% past 1 year... scientists made a new virus that increased survival to 58%. That's progress. That's an improvement.

Actually, yes you did use a childish retort.

Oh fuck off. You're only proving you're more of a hypocrite considering you said this before I called you a hypocrite the first time:

which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).

Are you really that quick to forget your own transgressions?

How about you answer the problem, how science affirms the consequent.
Since you apparently didn't read the post to which I referred you

I did answer. Induction is a proof. It's not a logical fallacy. Induction is NOT affirming the consequent. I'm sorry that you don't understand this either.

I'm done. I won't respond to you anymore on anything.

I have no interest in debating a topic for which they have no basis of knowledge to begin with. I have better things to do with my time.

67, ME: 

No advancement has yet to ever come from religious revelation.

So presumably you've examined them all.
Or you're too stubborn to admit that you pulled that universal negative out of your biased anal orifice.

Name a single advancement made by religion that was a benefit to humanity

The forgiveness of sin in Jesus' name.
(Why should I play your naturalistic game, which results in solipsism? I don't see why.)

I only made the assertion that, to date, its the only source that's been proven to work.

Which is an inductive conclusion. And therefore affirms the consequent. Which is a logical fallacy. Thanks!

You have perpetuated multiple arguments that start with a true statement, then you say, "Therefore God exists.

Quote me.

Just like on the other post: "Intelligent being made life in a lab, therefore God had to make life in teh first place." Y

Now that one is true. Unfortunately, I misled everyone by hastily misspeaking, and I have just corrected it in the other combox.
So, besides that one, which I've retracted, quote me.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand science or the scientific method, but that's the only way you'll be able to understand why your argument is a fallacy.

No response given, just a naked assertion. Fail noted.

Good charity work is something that provides a benefit to the person that needs help.

Please prove that you can objectively identify "benefit".
Please prove that "benefit" is objectively good. Don't assume it; prove it or else give it up.

Progress is anything that measurably improves on the current situation

Please prove that you can objectively identify "improve".
Please prove that "improve" is objectively good. Don't assume it; prove it or else give it up.

Car airbags increasing survival rates in car crashes...

Please prove that helping people survive is objectively good. Don't assume it; prove it or else give it up.
What all this means is that you're woefully unprepared for discussions of this nature. It's probably a good thing that you didn't show up on my blog. But don't worry, I'll make an example of you there anyway.

Actually, yes you did use a childish retort.
Oh fuck off.

Uh oh, you scored again.

which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).
Are you really that quick to forget your own transgressions?

Calling you intellectually dishonest is justified, and I backed it up by explaining why you shouldn't be using the fruits of science when you have no idea of the implications of the problem of induction.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between an ad hominem (which is meant to distract from the argument), and a rational conclusion based on your actions.

Induction is a proof. It's not a logical fallacy. Induction is NOT affirming the consequent

Ah, I didn't realise that naked assertions along the lines of "yeah HUH" is considered an "argument" where you come from.
Feel free to give a real argument sometime and we can talk. Until then, I'm just sort of giggling at your grandstanding. Turns out you DID need the advantage of a Darwinian blog.

Peace,
Rhology

68, K:

I'll make this quick...

 The forgiveness of sin in Jesus' name.

I ask for one single example, and that's the best you can do? An assertion that can't even be proven to have even happened?

There is absolutely no reason to pay any attention to religion at all as it provides no unique, tangible benefit.

Thanks.

70, ME: 
Kemanorel,
No interaction with what I've said. Just cheap mockery. Thanks yourself.


----


Kemanorel did not return.  One can only guess why, but it's of course instructive to see atheists' failure over and over again to back up their big talk and gratuitous Hitchensian assertions with real argumentation.  Did he ever even get past step 1?