Re: Sean: "I'm an immutabilist"

On Apr 25, 10:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:47 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:10 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:16 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

On Apr 24, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

A word of caution, Ray.

Before you (*ahem*) publish your paper, be sure to go through it with
an eye for elimination of any argument that takes the form --- "This
(notion, observation, hypothesis, theory etc.) is wrong because it
contradicts what I believe."

Since you use this rhetorically vacuous construction (in one disguise
or another) in most* of your posted arguments....

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to post at least one example?

....you may have to employ
the services of a qualified proof reader in order to find and remove
them as you clearly do not recognize your own use of the fallacy (or
do not recognize its invalidity).

What fallacy?

RLC

[Okay, my sample size is small. I read very few of your posts, but
your consistency in this endeavor is quite remarkable.]

What sample?

Please post an example, my curiosity is peaked.

Thanks in advance.

Ray

I wouldn't want your curiosity to go unrewarded. The following took me
about twenty minutes to cobble together:

-------------------------------
1) “The brain of the Darwinist is damaged. This is what happens when
nature is denied to reflect invisible Designer. Evolution makes a
person unintelligent, which is a main characteristic of so called
natural processes.”
(Translation: Because people believe in evolution – something I don’t
accept – they either must not be as smart as I am or their brains must
be defective in some way. In other words: Since it’s not possible that
I am wrong, (x) must be wrong because it contradicts me.)

Lucid people may actually believe something along these lines, Ray.
But for the most part they recognize the lunacy of expressing these
kinds of insecurity-laced arguments-from-infallibility out loud.

2) “And evolution is based on the exact opposite: naturalism (=
supernatural-God-Intelligence not involved). These basic facts prove
that Christian evolutionists are inexcusably stupid or evil.”
(Trans: Because evolution is based upon naturalism and I cannot be
wrong that naturalism explicitly denies non-natural intervention,
anyone who accepts any amount of naturalism – something I don’t accept
– must be malicious. In other words: Since it’s not possible that I am
wrong, (x) must be wrong because it contradicts me.)

Ray, are you able to understand that arguments of the form: since you
disagree with me you must be stupid or evil, have a rather spotty
track record as persuasive instruments?

3) “Could Mark be an Atheist attempting to misrepresent his enemies (=
Bible, Christianity)?”
(Trans: Because Mark cites interpretations of scripture with which I
disagree this must be an attempt at subversion. In other words: Since
it’s not possible that I am wrong, (x) must be wrong because it
contradicts me.)

Here we step into a huge issue for Ray: how everyone who interprets
anything in the Bible differently from he or Gene Scott either cannot
be a real Christian or is of nefarious intent.

4) “The concept of "Atheism" is understood to indicate "liars.”"
(Trans: Because those who lack belief in God – something I don’t
accept – are manifestly wrong, it must be the common wisdom that their
motives are suspect. In other words…well, you know.)

See comment #2.

5) “We are glad to be rejected by persons who think humans are apes,
and that apes morphed in humans.”
(Trans: The fact that someone believes humans are apes – something I
don’t accept – which must be false, confirms that I am right. In other
words…)

This is Ray’s infallibility argument in a bit less disguised form.
It’s actually quite humorous considering it says essentially – “I’m
happy that you disagree with me because it proves I’m right.” Ray, you
use this construction quite often. It’s stunning in its rhetorical
immaturity.

6) “Since we already know that Atheists reject the existence of God
despite the evidence, what's the point?”
(Trans: Why should I argue with you since you’ve already proven
yourself to be wrong by rejecting God – something I don’t accept. In
other words…)

Ray has used this one fairly often too. It comes in handy when he
wishes to evade rather than respond coherently.

7) “This comment, in context, says some Christians agree with
Atheists: no evidence exists supporting the existence of God. The
agreement is evidence that the Christians are not real Christians.”
(Trans: Because some who call themselves Christians agree with
atheists on certain points – something I don’t accept – they cannot be
Christians. In other words…)

Back to the true Christian bit again. This hubris is especially
delightful in the self-idolatry it expresses. Ray cannot conceive that
his interpretation of the Bible might be in error (as he are
infallible), thus heu are justified in calling into question the
motives and methods of millions of other individuals.

8) “When Atheists agree with Theists concerning the Bible then the
Atheists have misunderstood, or they are intentionally
misrepresenting.”
(See #2, #3, #4, #6)

The last two below (#9 and #10) are classic forms of the Ray
infallibility argument. Consider that this considers none of the
evidence presented by Ray’s opponent, nor does it require evidence on
Ray’s part. The “logic” here is very simple: “The fact that you
disagree with me is proof that I am right.”

9) “Since we know that you "Ernest Major" are a Atheist-Materialist
your support of Deity to originate evolution is disingenuous, having
an ulterior motive: attempting to confuse basic facts for the purpose
of deceiving naive Christian readers into accepting the same theory
that all Atheists accept, or to protect existing "Christian"
evolutionists from being seen as fools and buffoons for accepting the
same theory that Atheist-Materialist Richard Dawkins accepts.”
(Trans: Because you (E.M.) disagree with me, any argument you make in
support of science/religion compatibility – something I don’t accept –
proves that you must be of malign intent.)

What’s interesting here is that Ray even bothers to identify the
position of his manifestly wrong opponent. It would seem unnecessary
since virtually everyone exists in the class - “not-Ray,” and are thus
irrevocably consigned to the category - “not-right.”

10) “Since Boikat is a person who represents the Atheism agenda his
rejection of me to be a real Christian is the best evidence that I am
since the Atheism agenda would never recognize a real Christian. Case
in point: Judge Jones who accepted an award from an Atheist
organization in response to his anti-ID ruling. The fact proves Jones
is not a real Christian because Atheists would never approve of a real
Christian.”
(Trans: Because you (B.) take a position different from mine it is
invulnerable evidence that my position is correct.
Bonus trans: Because judge Jones believes it’s possible that some
atheists might not be evil – something I don’t accept – it is clear
that Jones cannot be a Christian. In other words: I am the only true
Christian.)

A rare twofer. Must have had your Wheaties that day, Ray.
-------------------------------

Note that I am not arguing that your positions are wrong, I'm just
suggesting that if you wish to craft a paper that will shift paradigms
and shake worlds it might be best to rid it of sophistry.

Despite what you may think of me, Ray, I don't think you are stupid or
evil. In fact I think it's likely you are quite intelligent.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason much of your "logic" follows
patterns that are, well, somewhat less than rigorous. In other words
you don't, or can't, think clearly. I have said before, and still
believe, that you should seek professional help.

You're welcome.

RLC

.

Quantcast