Re: Question for Ray Martinez


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1181101378.971061.289030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 5, 7:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jun
4, 6:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip of points not addressed]

Ray, the issue is that it does not matter whether I would disagree
with the Scotts if they actually presented facts and good arguments.
What matters is whether they've made up their "facts"

We know the person who wrote the above opinion is an Atheist-
evolutionist because the comment presupposes that scholars who oppose
evolution do not have facts, good arguments and are liars. Since all
Atheist-evolutionists slander all scholars who oppose evolution this
way we could only wonder what the point is?

No, it does not presuppose that. It presupposes that there are at
least some creationists who do not have facts or good arguments (it
does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: they might
in principle believe their own falsehoods and bad arguments). So let
me sketch out my argument step by step.


You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty. Now you deny
what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist. Presupposition explained.
Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
wonder why it has not been produced?

We are glad that your kind disapproves of Dr. Scott, logically, it
means he threatens your theory and worldview, hence, again, the
presupposition is explained.

I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
(judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
support their position.


This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists,
don't you agree, or are you unable to be objective?


An "atheist-evolutionist" will disagree with such bad creationists.
He may also disagree with intelligent, honest, and knowledgeable
creationists, if any such exist, but that is a side issue.


Entire comment is subterfuge for the following phrase: "if any such
exist" referring to "knowledgeable creationists" = predictable belief
of a evolutionist. Since the writer of the comment is an evolutionist
and since he has assumed a Theist scholar in an equally predictable
and insulting manner, once again, what is the point, since we already
know that evolutionists reject all opposing Theists?


Therefore, you cannot assume that, simply because an "atheist
evolutionist" disagrees with and criticizes a creationist, that the
creationist cannot be a bad (dishonest, stupid, ignorant)
creationist.

This is a demand that an Atheist-evolutionist should be able to smear
Theist scholars that threaten his theory without fear that their
status as an Atheist-evolutionist be exposed.

Since all evolutionists practice the same against anyone who opposes
their theory the demand is downright ridiculous: "eye for eye, tooth
for tooth" is the Biblical way.

The answer is no, we will always point out invective directed at
Theist scholars if it is by an Atheist because it makes sense. On the
other hand, we recognize the fact that the invective exists in the
first place because of the perceived threat to your theory and
worldview and lack of ANY evidence to justify the invective since it
is always communicated by assumption and presupposition in the
phraseology.

Furthermore, you cannot thereby assume that a
creationist who is being criticized by an "atheist evolutionist" is
being "slandered;" he may be represented quite honestly and
accurately.


Moreover, you cannot assume that a evolutionist who is being
criticized by a creationist is being slandered; he may be representing
the evolutionist quite accurately.


You regard Dr. Gene Scott as the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th
century, perhaps the greatest expert on both theology and science who
ever lived. Unless someone has, unbeknownst to me, conferred
infallibility on you, your opinion of Dr. Scott does not make him a
great scholar or expert or even honest. Nor have you presented
anything beyond your own opinion (and his own opinion, to be sure, but
if I don't know if his opinions can be trusted, how can I trust his
opinion on whether he can be trusted?) to support your assessment of
him. The arguments you offer, which I presume you learned from Dr.
Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly
sane, so what inference ought a reasonable person draw (tentatively,
to be sure) about your mentor? And please note, as indicated in the
argument above, that my low opinion of your arguments does not show
that you are right.


When we remember that the person who has written the above slander,
which is presupposed true in every phrase, is a Atheist-evolutionist
and that I am a Creationist and that Dr. Scott is known by him to have
claimed to refuted his precious theory, the insults are instantly
explained and entirely predictable when these basic facts are pointed
out. Was the opinion expressed of this Atheist concerning Theists ever
in doubt or a surprise?

Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?



As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?


Everyone who is sane has a low opinion of Hitler, what is the point?


I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
perceived to be true by the evolutionist.

Now, I recall that you earlier took the position (regarding, IIRC,
your libels against Dana Tweedy, but I may be thinking of your libels
against someone else) that an honest person would never reply to false
and defamatory attacks against him.

Does the fact that you and Dana are evolutionists and that I am a
Creationist have anything to do with making up a libel charge against
me?

Yes, I have said that decent persons would never reply to obvious
enraged slander. Sometimes decent persons out of righteous anger make
the mistake and reply (like I have done too) but my point was that as
a GENERAL POLICY it is best to let the slander artist "have the last
word" because response gives validity to what the perp knows is
false.

By that standard, I suppose, it
follows that evolutionists would not attack Dr. Scott's and your
arguments if they were lousy and dishonest.
Of course, you yourself
often and indignantly defend Dr. Scott and yourself, which implies
either that our attacks on the two of you are truthful and logical, or
that you do not believe your own rules about defending oneself against
libel.

Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal. But if
the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
caused the rage. For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
Pastor Scott presently. He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
slander her because my arguments have so affected him. I have not and
I will not answer him a word. The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well. In
reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
most devasting blow against his theory. Dana is the one person who
perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
and become a full time howler. I will continue to post knowing his
rage is caused by the facts of my logic. Since I have, for the most
part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
is out of control lashing out at her to get at me. We know that the
test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
(= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).

Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?


From "in which case" on I do not understand your point.

Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
scholar or a real Theist.

Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
(or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").


In other words you cannot refute.

Since you are a Atheist-evolutionist and Dr. Scott is not, but a
scholar who has produced devastating facts against your theory your
opinion of him is entirely predictable and welcomed since the approval
of your kind would make him like you - a deluded moron unconscious of
that fact.


or whether their
arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
that threaten anything.

The remainder of the comment says the exact opposite of the logic
argued above. This means that this evolutionist is genuinely confused.

I think your conclusion that I have contradicted myself shows that you
are confused, perhaps genuinely, although your confusions seem oddly
tactically useful to you.


Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, guess what?


The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
Atheist."

The logic of the evolutionist says that one's motives for disagreeing
with something tell you nothing about the merits of one's arguments.
Suppose an atheist disagrees with Gene Scott merely because Gene Scott
believed in a god (Dr. Scott himself, by all appearances). That does
not mean that Dr. Scott's arguments against evolution were worth the
paper they were scrawled on, or that the atheist's arguments were bad
or wrong. You have to look at the actual facts and arguments, not
just the religious positions of the advocates.


Straw man since our exchanges began in the specific context of you
insulting Dr. Scott by supposition phraseology. Now you are acting
like your insults were based on facts and arguments.


Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.

Gullible little buffoon, aren't you?

If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
evolutionist is confused. If I do not receive a reply then we have
just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
scholars who oppose their theory?

Ray, another point of logic: the fact that I don't assume all
creationists are liars, scoundrels, and idiots does not mean that I
assume that *no* creationists are liars, scoundrels, and buffoons.
I'm sure you're lying about the bridge in New York, not because you're
a creationist, but because you're a proven liar and fool.


Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, that means I am
the exact opposite of a liar and fool. Your approval would mean that I
was a liar and fool since you are a person who promotes the lies of
evolutionary theory.

I am very pleased that the last "Creationist Loon Census" topic by
evolutionists that I was voted Chief Loon (= logically means I am the
brightest and most sane).


And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of
logic"
to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.

Denial by contentless assertion.

Yes, that's what you do.

The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
logic.

Again, why waste time with "worldview status" when there are actual
facts and arguments relevant to evolution and creation to be
considered?


Question presupposes that I refuse to address facts, when in reality,
I am exposing the predictable biased rants of an Atheist against
Theists; there were no facts being discussed.

Anytime you want to argue facts I am most game.


Says you, who never discusss facts. You are only interested in the heart and
soul of your opponents, but have zero insight into your own dark soul.


I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?

We're perfectly willing to discuss the evidence for your views,
assuming you have any.


Likewise.

The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
persons who believe in evolution.

Mote. Eye. Beam.

-- [snip of points not addressed]



Ray

-- Steven J.

Ray




.

Loading