Debating Atheism With Arcoon Effox

[Rumblestiltskin]

Edit: Figure'd I'd just say this here...I get you're new to the site and that the formatting can be kind of weird if you're not familiar with it, so I'd suggest that an easier way for you to respond is a numerical-based format, where you quote the whole text, put a number next to what you're responding to, and then have your entire response at the bottom with the corresponding number. 1aphy did a similar format earlier in the thread for a bit of reference. I know it might be a bit confusing as we're all more long winded than their conversation was, but it'd save you from possibly cutting up your own responses as I think you did in this post. Just thought it'd be a helpful tip.

Stan just Stan

Oh yes. the standard "you're refuted, we just won't tell you what the refutation is" scam.

.....You're missing a key word in his response to you...and that was "strawman"...that already implies WHY the argument is refuted....it's because it's NOT HIS ******** POSITION. I feel like you should be familiar enough with what "strawman" means since you are CONSTANTLY making them.

Quote:

That's the same scam as

No...on all levels. Not a "scam." Not the "same."

Quote:

"I'm not convinced and I'm not gonna tell anyone why, BUT they are crud for showing up here and making an issue of my non-response" scam.

You sure do like putting words in people's mouths, don't you...

Quote:

Tromping on non-Atheists when you cannot provide either logic or evidence for your own worldview

Maybe if you stopped telling him what you think his worldview is he could clue you in to what he actually believes and what actually does inform his worldview.

Quote:

True elites do not require snark;

No one requires snark...Conversations are just more fun when it's there.

Quote:

You are projecting your own behaviors here; I have said no such thing.

Oh ******** me...the irony is too palpable...

Quote:

My position is purely that if Atheism has any value intellectually, then Atheists would present their intellectual case.

And we appreciate your opinion, but it is wholly unwarranted. The term "atheism" is an umbrella term, just as the term "theism" is. They refer to people who have a wide variety of degrees to which they either believe god claims or do not believe god claims. Telling someone who just doesn't believe, but makes no claim that a god doesn't exist, that they now have to defend a position that isn't theirs would be like us making you defend the idea that the Greek pantheon exists. We're not going to make you defend a position that isn't yours...how about you do the same...

Quote:

Like you, they hedge with untestable, unbelievable claims: "I am unconvinced; you must convince me; I will not tell you what it would take in terms of standards of proof; you just must hand me stuff to crap on".

How could any of us tell you what standards of evidence you'd have to meet for an unfalsifiable claim about an entity you can barely explain in any sort of logical way? But even then, the very least you'd have to do is come up with an argument that does not rely on a logical fallacy...and thus far, of all the claims I've heard, none have been able to do this. Now, do you have any evidence, or are you just in the business of complaining about people not accepting your piss poor arguments...

Quote:

You are exhibiting an attempted deception that wouldn't fool a 2 year old.

Ah, and here's more hypocrisy.

Quote:

BTW, that is the same fallacy you use in attempting to redefine Atheism as defined as having no beliefs. No one believes that; no one.

First off, that's not what people have been saying. It's not "has no beliefs"...it's "lacks a god belief" or "does not have a god belief"...which is simply stating that they just aren't making a claim about god's existence or non-existence, which is applicable under the very definition of atheism.

Secondly, using the actual statement we've been saying, I believe it. Arcoon believes it. Most of the atheists on here who have said that you are not representing what they believe believe it. A lot of us have already told you that what you are saying does not represent us. So, which is more likely....that we are all lying to you, or that you are mistaken? Note: that's not me making a logical argument...that's me just asking you a point blank question...are you really that delusional to think that all these people are lying to you?

Quote:

No meat to your rejection? Is this your standard response, then? Just responding with garbage snark?

You post absolute bullshit. You've been called out on your bullshit. You still refuse to hear anyone out....You're lucky you're getting ANY sort of reasonable response. I mean, hell...I'm half-tempted to only respond to you with dank memes, cause its getting clear that pointing out why your arguments are s**t only for you to keep making them is about as productive as talking to a wall...

Quote:

We can keep this up until you actually produce something that is not pure condescension,

Pro-tip: If you want to have any sort of discussion, here's my advice...stop throwing out strawmen. Respond to what you've been given...let's, for once, get past the whole "but what is atheism really" topic, as we've told you our stance on the matter, and let's get into why you think we should believe in a god. Give us YOUR evidence for a god. THAT is at least a more worthwhile discussion than this conspiracy theory riddled bullshit you've been spouting.

Quote:

Oh, I get it; YOU are the victim here, right? Sorry that doesn't scan. I've read you're stuff; your arrogance is unmatched by anyone else I've seen here in my short time.

He wasn't claiming to be the victim (although, there's plenty of evidence for him to claim it, but, regardless)...he was explaining that Sarlo isn't the victim SHE is claiming to be. She is the instigator in all of this...and you are just a white-knight...jumping in to "protect" someone from owning up to their own s**t-stirring. There are plenty of theists who come into this forum who don't get the same treatment that Sarlo does...because they aren't s**t-stirrers.

Quote:

Nope. Further, here's your ridiculous claim, right out in daylight. The fact is this:
Quote:

Don't ******** care about webster's definition or your argument from authority. You can just easily google "atheism" and the first thing listed is this definition: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Now...why should we take YOUR CHERRY PICKED DEFINITION over what we are telling you actually reflects our stance on the subject. Even if you want to argue something as stupid as "well, then, you're not really atheists" whatever, who cares....we've said we aren't convinced....we've given you opportunity to convince us. Stop ******** tap dancing and get to a relevant ******** point.

Quote:

WHO is redefining Atheism to suit his own argument?

............................YOU.... YOU are the one attaching YOUR ideas of what WE should believe and we have CONSTANTLY told you that it IS NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE. Now, MOVE THE ******** ON TO AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT...

Quote:

but I don't use 50 line high cartoons for emphasis either.

Maybe you should, just because maybe one of those will have something worth talking about...

Quote:

Did you write that with a straight face? Now you claimed to be merely "unconvinced", right? Before you were completely without any beliefs, but now you believe that all arguments are "unconvincing", right?

Cutting out all the nonsense where you ramble on after clearly not understanding the point (a consistent thing with you, I've noticed), Because he is unconvinced, he persists in not having a belief...ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. AS IN, he does not make the claim that god does exist because he has not been convinced by an argument for god's existence, and he does not claim that god does not exist, because he has not been convinced of an argument for god's non-existence. I kid you not...if anyone came in here claiming that god did not exist...we would call them out on that, because how could you make that kind of definitive claim...HENCE why he's not changing his stance anywhere, and your failure to understand that remains just that...your failure.

Quote:

Fallacy: Red Herring.

Oh my stars and garters.... Tell me, please, do you just walk by a mirror and start freaking out because someone else is in your house...because that is clearly the level to how much you lack self-awareness...

Quote:

Either Atheism has principles, standards, refutations, logical argumentation, internal consistency and proper grounding, or it does not. If it does not, then it is empty of rational meaning.

Dat false dichotomy though...

Quote:

I'll return to comment on the rest later.

Oh honey....I think you've said enough....

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

OK. So you are saying that the entire site is comprised of Atheists who choose to project 1) that their own principles cannot be discussed because they say so (Circular), 2) that only their preferred definition of Atheism is correct, the definition intended for those who are ignorant of theism (Equivocation: Definition), 3) anyone who challenges that sort of logical malfeasance is worthy only of ridicule, snark (Ad Hominem: Abusive; bullying), and certainly no reasoning or reasons for the Atheist being unconvinced and thus rejecting theist propositions (refusal to engage).

This sort of rationalization is perfect for allowing immunity from personal worldview analysis by virtue of claiming that anyone requesting knowledge of the Atheist's reasons or reasoning is out-of-bounds merely due to the false barriers that the Atheist has created to protect himself while he predates on theists who choose not to erect such intellectual barriers.

The "snark is fun" meme is indicative of several possibilities. 1) elitist aggression; 2) elitist tribal signalling; 3) inability to respond with substance; 4) emotional stall-out; 5) rank immaturity. If you disagree, then go ahead and justify it as an intellectual tool, rather than weaponized rhetoric.

Cursing is exactly the same thing, except that it additionally indicates a paucity of vocabulary and expressive capacity.

Now if it is the case that you and Arcoon persist that you will not reveal any clandestine intellectual principles, reasoning or standards for use in your "being convinced", then it is obvious that there will be nothing left to this discussion other than snark-because-it's-fun.

The obvious conclusion then must be that the threshold for "being convinced" is not found in the realm of rational analysis (since no rational tools, processes or deductions are provided or even claimed), and rather the entire process of "being convinced" is purely and completely in the emotional realm. That being the case, it is no wonder that there is such vehement refusal to discuss it, and such irrational justifications are necessary for barring the door to it.

So let me know if you intend to release your intellectual principles, reasoning, or standards for being convinced. Otherwise there is nothing left to discuss, because you have shut the door to your closet and bolted it securely to protect whatever is inside, if anything, from being seen by outsiders.
(Btw, that is one of the processes of a cult).

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Stan just Stan

Now if it is the case that you and Arcoon persist that you will not reveal any clandestine intellectual principles, reasoning or standards for use in your "being convinced", then it is obvious that there will be nothing left to this discussion other than snark-because-it's-fun.

|
|
|
V

Rumblestiltskin

Give us YOUR evidence for a god. THAT is at least a more worthwhile discussion than this conspiracy theory riddled bullshit you've been spouting.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Lucky~9~Lives

Stan just Stan

Now if it is the case that you and Arcoon persist that you will not reveal any clandestine intellectual principles, reasoning or standards for use in your "being convinced", then it is obvious that there will be nothing left to this discussion other than snark-because-it's-fun.

|
|
|
V

Rumblestiltskin

Give us YOUR evidence for a god. THAT is at least a more worthwhile discussion than this conspiracy theory riddled bullshit you've been spouting.

The subject is Atheism, and that has morphed into Atheism: it's definition, it's lack of support from intellectual principles, reasoning, or standards; it's threshold principles for "being convinced". The demand that we discuss theism instead of Atheism is a deflection, a divergence from the actual topic. I.e., a classic Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy.

Of course you do not find the analytical approach to your own worldview "worthwhile". You'd likely rather tear aggressively into the Other's worldview and ignore the rational basis for your own, right? So far, no one, including yourself, has given any rational basis for being "unconvinced". Instead of rational discussion, you label it "conspiracy theory bullshit" and that is your entire case, isn't it. By attaching a phony snark label, you actually believe that you have neutralized the subject, but guess again.

If Atheists have any rational basis for their worldview, they (you) would present it, wouldn't they (you). They (you) would be proud to do so, one would think, because it would be a superior intellectual accomplishment and would achieve significant acclimation. They and you have never done so, and here all of you certainly are persistent in the continuation of not doing so.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

Stan just Stan

Now if it is the case that you and Arcoon persist that you will not reveal any clandestine intellectual principles, reasoning or standards for use in your "being convinced", then it is obvious that there will be nothing left to this discussion other than snark-because-it's-fun.

|
|
|
V

Rumblestiltskin

Give us YOUR evidence for a god. THAT is at least a more worthwhile discussion than this conspiracy theory riddled bullshit you've been spouting.

The subject is Atheism, and that has morphed into Atheism: it's definition, it's lack of support from intellectual principles, reasoning, or standards; it's threshold principles for "being convinced".

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Lucky~9~Lives

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

What kind and nature of evidence is necessary and sufficient to present in order to overcome the rejection threshold for being convincing?

Btw, thanks for the straight answer.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Stan just Stan

OK. So you are saying that

Not what I said. Not what anyone else said.

Quote:

The "snark is fun" meme is indicative of several possibilities.

And none of the ones you listed were why I, at the very least, do it. In fact, the reason I do it is in the "meme" itself.....BECAUSE ITS FUN. Oh, and because

Quote:

Cursing is exactly the same thing, except that it additionally indicates a paucity of vocabulary and expressive capacity.

It's funny that I always hear this argument from people who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Maybe put down the thesaurus, knock it off with the red herrings, and stick to the god damn point, hm?

Quote:

Now if it is the case that you and Arcoon persist that you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

As much as you claim we're running from a discussion, you sure are doing ******** all to move it forward yourself. We've already told you that what you are presenting is not our position. We've already told you our position. I, specifically, have already provided you with a starting point to a further discussion, that being your justification for your beliefs....and you keep dodging that point. Unlike you, we're actually asking for YOUR position BEFORE we get into a discussion...

Now, I get that your shitty tactic is to try to keep the focus on the other person because your beliefs have no justification, but you're wasting everyone's time by just continuing this circular thread. Get to a point...and I know this is a bit hypocritical to say, but be concise. At least when I drone on, its on an actual point. Your droning on due to your inability to understand the point is going to lead me to start drinking...

[Rumblestiltskin]

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

What kind and nature of evidence is necessary and sufficient to present in order to overcome the rejection threshold for being convincing?

Btw, thanks for the straight answer.

How about you start with where I said you should when I told you something similar...an argument that doesn't rely on logical fallacies...it's the very least you would need to convince anyone.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Rumblestiltskin

We've already told you that what you are presenting is not our position. We've already told you our position. I, specifically, have already provided you with a starting point to a further discussion, that being your justification for your beliefs....and you keep dodging that point. Unlike you, we're actually asking for YOUR position BEFORE we get into a discussion...

OK, then. You joined a discussion on Atheism, where I presented both the topic: Atheism, and the position being discussed: Atheism. I asked for your position, as an Atheist (well, I asked Arcoon, but anyway...). You have finally admitted, I think, unless you deny what appears to be an admission to being unconvinced. So now you refuse to produce the intellectual principles by which you set your threshold for "being convinced". And you come back with, how can I say this? ...a furious shuck and jive demanding to discuss something else, and not your standards for judging inputs for their "convinceabilty".

---insert your own cartoon here, I know those are important to you ---

This certainly denotes a deep seated fear, doesn't it. You may judge the Other without revealing the standards that the Other must meet in order to be valid in your personal estimation. That, of course, leads to completely non-rational goal post shifting, except that there are no goal posts at your end of the field, and you refuse to say where they are, maybe they're "non-material", eh? Completely rigged for your own protection, due to fear of discovery of the type of rule-free domain you inhabit, one might presume.

So as expected you are stalled out. Completely You have no recourse other than these two choices: 1) reveal your intellectual standards which you use for judgment of the Other, or 2) pretend not to have any and berate those who insist on knowing the standards before opening the collar to the rhetorical fangs which you actually think are meaningful to anyone who is not you.

Your presumptive elitism has turned the corner into a ragged blind alley at this point. So lots more images and cussing are definitely called for. Those are always impressive in discussions of rational principles. Maybe an entire response of nothing but images masturbating. Yes, I can see that coming.

Now let's get back to Atheism: What are your intellectual standards for judgment which you place on the Other?

Oh, and I've tried to use smaller words for you; you're welcome.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Stan just Stan

OK, then. You joined a discussion on Atheism, where I presented both the topic: Atheism, and the position being discussed: Atheism. I asked for your position, as an Atheist (well, I asked Arcoon, but anyway...). You have finally admitted, I think, unless you deny what appears to be an admission to being unconvinced. So now you refuse to produce the intellectual principles by which you set your threshold for "being convinced".

I've ******** told you THREE TIMES NOW that you can START by making an argument that doesn't appeal to a logical fallacy.

Quote:

And you come back with, how can I say this?

Where? ******** where? Where have I ever asked you "how can you say this" ? I ******** haven't. Do not put words in my mouth. Quit telling me to defend a position that isn't mine. If you want a discussion, the bar has already been set: present a ******** argument already!

Quote:

...a furious shuck and jive demanding to discuss something else,

Dude...dude...get in close, cause I want to you get a good look at what I'm about to tell you......

QUIT BEING A ******** HYPOCRITE. This entire thread of yours is YOU demanding us to defend a position that isn't ours, and when we state our opinion, and put the ball SQUARELY in your court to provide ANYTHING of substance...you come back with "but what about y'all though?"

Quote:

and not your standards for judging inputs for their "convinceabilty".

I've given you a BASIC starting point...an argument that does not necessitate a logical fallacy. Do you have one, or are you going to keep banging that drum, drum banger....

Quote:

---insert your own cartoon here, I know those are important to you ---

I've taken more enjoyment in finding memes to post than responding to your idiotic a**...

Quote:

This certainly denotes a deep seated fear, doesn't it.

Bro, bro.....WHO would be scared of you? YOU ARE A JOKE. For all your complaints about "no intellectual discussion" all you've shown is that you are a complete ******** idiot. You can't even get past the basic level of a discussion because no one wants to stick to the ridiculous script you've devised in your head.

Quote:

You may judge the Other without revealing the standards that the Other must meet in order to be valid in your personal estimation.

PRESENT A ******** ARGUMENT THAT DOES NOT NECESSITATE A LOGICAL FALLACY! FOR ******** SAKE, I'VE SAID IT REPEATEDLY. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS, YOU BUFFOON...

Quote:

That, of course, leads to completely non-rational goal post shifting,

Quote:

except that there are no goal posts at your end of the field,

Quote:

and you refuse to say where they are, maybe they're "non-material", eh?

Quote:

Completely rigged for your own protection,

Quote:

due to fear of discovery of the type of rule-free domain you inhabit, one might presume.

Quote:

So as expected you are stalled out.

Quote:

Completely You have no recourse other than these two choices:

Quote:

1) reveal your intellectual standards which you use for judgment of the Other, or 2) pretend not to have any and berate those who insist on knowing the standards before opening the collar to the rhetorical fangs which you actually think are meaningful to anyone who is not you.

Or, I could, as I've done, point out why your arguments are flawed (your starting point was for me to defend a position that wasn't mine), explain what my position is, give YOU a starting point for that discussion...and then watch as you tap dance....again...So....want to actually discuss anything, or are you just all about that projection at this point, sport?

Quote:

Your presumptive elitism

The only elite anything I desire is 1337 memes...

Quote:

So lots more images and cussing are definitely called for.

Then that's what the ******** you'll get...

Quote:

Those are always impressive in discussions of rational principles.

You fail at the very basics of discussion. You try to make your opponents arguments for them, and then won't let the discussion any farther unless they stick to your script. You are pathetic. You are a joke....but you know what's not a joke....THESE DANK AF MEMES!

Quote:

Maybe an entire response of nothing but images masturbating. Yes, I can see that coming.

Quote:

Now let's get back to Atheism: What are your intellectual standards for judgment which you place on the Other?

You repeating the question doesn't invalidate the fact that I've ALREADY ******** ANSWERED IT....

Quote:

Oh, and I've tried to use smaller words for you; you're welcome,

Oh, you can use all the "big" words you want. It'll just take longer to read and still reach the conclusion that you're an idiot.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Rumblestiltskin

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

What kind and nature of evidence is necessary and sufficient to present in order to overcome the rejection threshold for being convincing?

Btw, thanks for the straight answer.

How about you start with where I said you should when I told you something similar...an argument that doesn't rely on logical fallacies...it's the very least you would need to convince anyone.

I see that you have no qualms in bulling your way in and running right over the top of Lucky~9~Lives, as an apparent show to assert your dominance here.

So. "evidence" in this medium means argument(s). And when you call out "fallacy", that word "means just what you want it to mean, no more and no less", right? And not what the fallacy documents say it means, because that would mean that you would have to respond cogently - sorry - um, with some actual meaning to your own fallacies, rather than with cartoons and really fast soft shoe routines in the gutter. I have declared a subject for this thread, and that subject according to you is a Straw Man. Here again is the subject: Atheism. So Atheism is a Straw Man in your universe? Having intellectual principles for analyzing inputs is a Straw Man? Informing the Other of what standards will be used in judging arguments is a Straw Man? Well, not on planet Earth. But maybe on this thread, where cartoons and smack talk are used exclusively rather than reasoning.

And of course it is unfair not to let you change the subject away from the obviously uncomfortable area of the rationality of your worldview. But see, it's the worldview of Atheism which is the actual topic here. And demanding that the whole subject be changed is a blatant RED HERRING, isn't it? Sure. Of course it is.

And when you are called out for your own obvious logic fallacies, you respond with nastiness and cartoons, because that's all you have. Admit it. Go ahead. You will not respond with cogent - um, meaningful answers, you will merely throw accusations, cartoons, and fun-gutter-talk rather than any intellectual engagement, as your history here shows.

But I do understand. You really are in a blind alley, and it's all you've got.

But I suppose it's worth a shot, anyway. Have at it.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Rumblestiltskin

Rumblestiltskin

Stan just Stan

OK, then. You joined a discussion on Atheism, where I presented both the topic: Atheism, and the position being discussed: Atheism. I asked for your position, as an Atheist (well, I asked Arcoon, but anyway...). You have finally admitted, I think, unless you deny what appears to be an admission to being unconvinced. So now you refuse to produce the intellectual principles by which you set your threshold for "being convinced".

QUIT BEING A ******** HYPOCRITE. This entire thread of yours is YOU demanding us to defend a position that isn't ours, and when we state our opinion, and put the ball SQUARELY in your court to provide ANYTHING of substance...you come back with "but what about y'all though?"

Yes. Yes. Pretty much what I expected: hyperventilation in the pursuit of keeping the secrecy of your principles, standards and rational thresholds for passing judgments on the worldview of the Other, and furious at having to dodge so much incoming flak for it.

Good. Now that that is concretely established, we find that there is no possibility of civil, rational communication with you. I put the spit shield up in advance, because I suspected that you would react this way due to being cornered so badly.

But it should be obvious to anyone passing this way that you are incapable of passing any cogent - um, sorry, rational judgment whatsoever, because you have no - NO - intellectual standards at all. Why even the concept of having such standards is a Straw Man, right? When you attack some theist, it will always be their fault because they very stupidly did not pass your non-existing standards. So of course they deserve your full rage at their stupidity, their rank idiocy, viewed from your tower of presumed but unprovable superior intellect - oh, and morality too, probably. The conclusion you draw is that they are idiots. And that's the entire process: everyone not you is an idiot. Or at least anyone who challenges you, or has anything to say other than the dogma of the site. Idiots. No more to say. And that is a view into the Atheist VOID.

But there's also this: your presupposed and self-endowed super intellect has no intellectual grounding (Atheism removes that). An intellect with no grounding, one that falsely uses fallacy accusations which in no manner apply, one that aspires to dominate a site which is decorated with dolls playing dress-up and within which the Lord of the Flies mentality rampages freely - such people are seen as emotional disasters, with only destruction on their minds. Never construction. Just destruction.

Don't bother with the Tu Quoque hairball you are on the verge of coughing up. It's meaningless. Know why? It's false and of course it is without any actual intellectual value.

But go ahead with the dozens of cartoons which amuse you, and every pejorative, um, cuss word you can summon; certainly you need the entertainment by now.

Oops, apparently, assuming that you speak through pictograms, you're out.

Well, well. That didn't take long, did it?

This one commenter is out. So let's summarize:
1. He joined a thread to discuss Atheism.
2. We established that the only acceptable definition of Atheism at this site is being "unconvinced".
3. When asked for the standards of judgment that set the threshold for being convinced, he responded with two demands: first, that the argument being presented to him had fallacies so he would not respond until he was presented an argument without fallacy. In actuality no argument was presented at all, except in attempting to discern the root of the local definition of Atheism (the question, is there a creating deity, yes or no, was declared a fallacy). The starting point was asking for justification for Atheism. That was declared a Straw Man , because they wanted to talk about theism, which is not the subject. Subsequently everything I said was adjudged similarly. The second demand was to change the subject from Atheism to theism.
4. When asked for the standards again (many times), the fury level of this person rose significantly.
5. Apparently he has now dropped out, without any precise, meaningful definition of the rejection threshold.

Conclusion:
This one person refuses to reveal any actual standards for judging arguments made by the Other, except to mention the non-specific fallacies. That would be reasonable except that this person also defines away or more commonly just ignores his own fallacies; in adddition he claims fallacies are used against him, which are not fallacies and are equivocations which are not related to the actual fallacies he claims, but use the names of actual fallacies. He has made significant numbers of demonstrable fallacies himself, and responds only with the desire to end his life as expressed in cartoons.

There are other Atheists here as well, and if the claim of having the same standard definition for Atheism by all commenters is correct, then they all must have the same requirement: they must "be convinced". But that is not a specification, and it is used as a dodge. So I'll stick around for awhile and see if any of them chooses to elaborate on the exact requirements for surmounting the threshold of "being convinced by the arguments of the Other". It's obvious that just being "fallacy" -free is not a real answer, because of the readiness to use Equivocation at every turn which appears to be common on this site, and like the definition of Atheism, the threshold definition would likely - but not necessarily - be subjected to Equivocation as well.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Stan just Stan

Rumblestiltskin

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

What kind and nature of evidence is necessary and sufficient to present in order to overcome the rejection threshold for being convincing?

Btw, thanks for the straight answer.

How about you start with where I said you should when I told you something similar...an argument that doesn't rely on logical fallacies...it's the very least you would need to convince anyone.

I see that you have no qualms in bulling your way in and running right over the top of Lucky~9~Lives, as an apparent show to assert your dominance here.

It's a public forum. Anyone can respond to any post that they can see...like how I saw where you were being dishonest about no one "giving you a straight answer" even though I had pointed out something similar earlier. THAT is why I responded, you dolt.

Quote:

So. "evidence" in this medium means argument(s).

No. An argument would just be a starting point. I'd consider it "evidence" if it's both valid and sound.

Quote:

And when you call out "fallacy", that word "means just what you want it to mean, no more and no less", right?

No, it means an argument that is neither valid and/or sound.

Quote:

And not what the fallacy documents say it means, because that would mean that you would have to respond cogently - sorry - um, with some actual meaning to your own fallacies, rather than with cartoons and really fast soft shoe routines in the gutter.

The amount of images I post is in direct correlation with how pointless your constant posturing is...if all you're going to do is dodge the subject and bring up irrelevant nonsense like my language, the memes, your word salad, and all the other bullshit you've been spouting, then what good would it do me to respond to you in a serious manner... Now, you going to get a point here so-- nope, it looks like you're just going to go on a pointless diatribe.

Quote:

I have declared a subject for this thread,

To which was responded to, found wanting, and I'm now waiting for you to provide ANYTHING of substance to that discussion...

Quote:

and that subject according to you is a Straw Man.

No...I've said that what YOU want others and I to defend is a straw man. For ******** sake, man....just stop stalling and get to a ******** point. You're just making yourself look like a bigger idiot.

Quote:

Here again is the subject: Atheism. So Atheism is a Straw Man in your universe?

No.

Quote:

Having intellectual principles for analyzing inputs is a Straw Man?

No....

Quote:

Informing the Other of what standards will be used in judging arguments is a Straw Man?

.....No...

Quote:

Well, not on planet Earth.

You can stop this at any time...you're only hurting yourself...

Quote:

But maybe on this thread, where cartoons and smack talk are used exclusively rather than reasoning.

You've failed at the very basics of a rational discussion...why the ******** should I take you seriously?

Quote:

And of course it is unfair not to let you change the subject away from the obviously uncomfortable area of the rationality of your worldview.

Atheism isn't a ******** worldview, in and of itself. If the person's a hard atheist, sure, cause then they have an actual belief (that god does not exist), but a non-belief cannot inform your worldview...so your objection, while noted, is pointless, as it doesn't apply to me, nor to the people you've been talking to who have point blank told you that that is not their belief.

But even then, I am LITERALLY asking for you to give ANY argument that you deem worthy enough to justify why I should accept your claims about god. You have the ball in YOUR court. I am letting YOU take the reigns on this one....so how the ******** do you have the gall to say that I am the one trying to change the subject. You haven't been on the subject since we stated our stance....all you've done since then is ramble on about pointless s**t because "well, that's not what I think your stance should be"...

Quote:

But see, it's the worldview of Atheism which is the actual topic here.

And it's been explained to you why that's a preposterous statement.

Quote:

And demanding that the whole subject be changed is a blatant RED HERRING, isn't it? Sure. Of course it is.

Okay, then stop changing the subject. Provide your argument for god already.

Quote:

And when you are called out for your own obvious logic fallacies,

Oh my god you're still going on with this.....GET TO THE POINT!

Quote:

you respond with nastiness and cartoons,

If you weren't a joke, I'd take you seriously. You are a joke, so I do not take you seriously. Simple, no?

Quote:

because that's all you have. Admit it. Go ahead.

I have provided you with opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to move the conversation into a more productive state....and instead, you ramble on about the style in which I post for like 4 ******** pages. Provide me with anything worth responding to seriously, and I'll actually do so. Continue with your current nonsense, and, well, let's just say I've got plenty in the "snark" and "memes" tanks to respond with...

Quote:

You will not respond with cogent - um, meaningful answers,

Probably not...because your content is pathetically bad for reasons already addressed, and I'm still waiting for that argument for god you still refuse to show. It's almost like you're afraid to post it. If you're as "logical" as you claim to be, then surely I won't be able to refute it, right? So come on, sport...lay it on me.

Quote:

you will merely throw accusations,

As if you haven't? The majority of your responses are "you know what's wrong with you..." followed by a gaggle of irrelevant points.

Quote:

cartoons,

Ha! Gotcha ********. I haven't posted an image this entire post...



.............Aw s**t...

Quote:

and fun-gutter-talk

What can I say? You're boring and dumb as ******** got to do something to entertain myself.

Quote:

rather than any intellectual engagement, as your history here shows.

My history WITH YOU, yes...because you are a pathetic joke of an individual. I've given you the chance, repeatedly, to have a reasonable discourse....and you're still harping on about all this other bullshit. Now, will you be getting to an actual discussion anytime soon, or are you going to b***h about memes some more?

Quote:

But I do understand.

Somehow, I don't think you do.

Quote:

You really are in a blind alley, and it's all you've got.

Holy s**t, it's like I'm psychic! You clearly DON'T understand. I've already told you my stance on atheism...now, do you have anything worth responding to seriously or not?

Quote:

But I suppose it's worth a shot, anyway. Have at it.

Have at what? I am still waiting on YOU to present an argument. So....PRESENT ONE!

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

Basically, its threshold principles for "being convinced" contain - at a minimum - having evidence presented.

What kind and nature of evidence is necessary and sufficient to present in order to overcome the rejection threshold for being convincing?

Btw, thanks for the straight answer.

Typically, evidence that doesn't (also) support a mutually exclusive claim that makes fewer assumptions.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Stan just Stan

Yes. Yes. Pretty much what I expected: hyperventilation

...................................................................................................................typing in caps....does not necessarily indicate what my breathing is like....you moron....

Quote:

Good. Now that that is concretely established,

The only thing established is how painfully incompetent you are.

Quote:

we find that there is no possibility of civil, rational communication with you

There was a possibility. There still is. Provide an argument for your god that you believe will convince me. I've already stated my bare minimum...don't rely on a logical fallacy. So do you have it, or are you just going to keep posturing....judging by the remaining length of your post, I think I know which one you'll choose...

Quote:

. I put the spit shield up in advance,

Quote:

because I suspected that you would react this way due to being cornered so badly.

I'm not cornered, you dumb mother ********. I'm waiting for you to give me your argument. Why are you so afraid to do so?

Quote:

But it should be obvious to anyone passing this way

Oh, trust me...the truth of this thread is obvious....it's painfully obvious, and it's what I suspected the moment Sarlo started running her mouth. You're an idiot.

Quote:

that you are incapable of passing any cogent - um, sorry, rational judgment whatsoever, because you have no - NO - intellectual standards at all.

Still waiting on that argument you keep refusing to give me...

Quote:

Why even the concept of having such standards is a Straw Man, right?

No...you telling me what you think my stance on the matter is a straw man. You'd know this if you actually knew what you were talking about (tip: you don't).

Quote:

When you attack some theist, it will always be their fault because they very stupidly did not pass your non-existing standards.

Nope...the reason I respond to ANYONE with a differing view to challenge their claim is because they have presented a poor argument for it...If they can't defend their claims, that's on them, chief...

Quote:

So of course they deserve your full rage

Quote:

at their stupidity, their rank idiocy, viewed from your tower of presumed but unprovable superior intellect - oh, and morality too, probably.

Correction: their argument. You're one of the few people I've bothered even going into personal attacks on because you were hyped up as this super intellectual, and yet, for all the big talk you like to do, the actual meaning behind your words denotes a strong odor of bullshit. It's like you pretend like using big words makes you smarter...they don't...you're still an idiot.

Quote:

The conclusion you draw is that they are idiots.

No, no...it's just you.

Quote:

And that's the entire process: everyone not you is an idiot.

My calling you an idiot is not me claiming that I'm smarter than EVERYONE...you've made terrible arguments, and when you were called out on them, you started dodging the points being made as if no one immediately sees right through it.

Quote:

Or at least anyone who challenges you,

Oh, trust me...you're not a challenge...

Quote:

or has anything to say other than the dogma of the site.

You've been on this site for less than a week. I don't think you have a full grasp of what this site is, despite what Sarlo probably told you.

Quote:

Idiots. No more to say. And that is a view into the Atheist VOID.

The only void around here is you a-void-ing the fact that I've already asked you to present an argument while you prattle on endlessly about other people. And yes, I realize that pun was painful, but hey....you deserve it.

Quote:

But there's also this:

You're still going to keep talking about me, aren't you? Yep...I mean, I've already told you my stance, given you my perspective, and given you fair opportunity to do the same, but you're still on about "me." I thought this topic was about atheism....

Quote:

your presupposed and self-endowed super intellect has no intellectual grounding (Atheism removes that).

I've talked to and have seen enough dumb atheists to know that my intelligence is not related to my lack of a belief in god claims...so, you gonna move on now? No...okay, keep rambling while someone goes and finds your pills for you, grandpa...

Quote:

An intellect with no grounding, one that falsely uses fallacy accusations which in no manner apply,

The only ones I've called you out on were your straw man at the start (as it IS a straw man as you've built up an imaginary opponent's position and argued that instead of the positions that were provided for you) and one I called you out on a false dichotomy...cause you set up only two possibilities, and ignored the idea that there would be an outcome you didn't think of... Both of these phrases I used correctly...I know because I actually know what they mean. You clearly don't.

Besides, if I had used them wrong, Lucky probably would have called me out. He does that, regardless of who makes the argument.

Quote:

one that aspires to dominate a site which is decorated with dolls playing dress-up and within which the Lord of the Flies mentality rampages freely - such people are seen as emotional disasters, with only destruction on their minds. Never construction. Just destruction.

......b***h, I'm barely even in this forum. The only reason I'm here now is because I happened to check back here because there was a topic that was of actual interest to me, and I saw a nonsense thread that I responded to as well...this just so happened to coincide with Sarlo's hype train for you, and so here we are. So, yeah...don't know how I'm trying to "dominate" this site when I'm barely even in here...

Quote:

Don't bother with the Tu Quoque hairball

Okay, so you acknowledge that you're being a hypocrite...glad we could at least agree on that...

Quote:

you are on the verge of coughing up.

Actually, I wasn't. I don't know how you act on your little blog, nor do I care. See, that's the difference between us...I'm just waiting for you to get to the actual discussion...I don't need to ramble on endlessly about the style in which you post...because I'm not stalling...

Quote:

It's meaningless. Know why?

Because we both know you'll never post an argument for god because then you'd have to watch as your beliefs are torn to shreds so you'll continue on demanding people defend a position that isn't theirs and bitching about how they respond to you because you have absolutely nothing else? Yeah, I knew that from the moment I asked you to present an argument. Now, what was it you wanted me to do again? Defend atheism? Atheism is just a response to god claims...same as theism. They both have differing degrees to how they are accepted or not, so claiming that someone as a worldview based on is like saying I have a worldview based on my not being an eagle or some s**t. The things you DO believe make up your worldview. So telling me to defend something I don't agree with is meaningless. Can you get that through your head, or is that too far off your script for you to understand?

Quote:

It's false and of course it is without any actual intellectual value.

Okay, so now you're denying being a hypocrite...this thread serves as demonstrable evidence to that statement. You, sir (and I use that term VERY loosely here), ARE a hypocrite....in the points where I called you out on it.

Quote:

But go ahead with the dozens of cartoons which amuse you, and every pejorative, um, cuss word you can summon;

Did you actually have to think of the word "cuss word" or did you just run out of synonyms in your thesaurus? Again, your "extensive" vocabulary does not impress me, as the content of your claims is garbage.

Quote:

certainly you need the entertainment by now.

Of course. You're still rambling on about me instead of responding to my actual points or presenting any argument I've asked for. You're boring me to tears, man...