Monday, March 8, 2010

WHAT can you do with a Bozo?


Well, predictably, Pastor Mike flushes all the answers I gave down his little mental toilet. His chief reason for doing so is embodied in what he calls “KISS”: Keep it simple, stupid’ - So like Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and most of those cretins on Faux News- we see he adheres to simpleton standards of debate and answers. No wonder that debate with him is impossible, his brain isn’t large to grasp nuance, subtle differences or complexity – thus faux simplicity serves his dubious purposes.

I don’t intend to go through all his incredible dreck, just select a few places for highlighting his scholastic inabilities:

1) He carps that I didn’t provide him any example of ever being wrong in my “adult” life. (I gave an example of a science fair project when I was 17). However, unlike Mikey, I regarded myself as an adult at 17. Able to think for myself and make most of my own decisions – such as where to attend university, how to secure the scholarship I needed, and also - getting the jobs I needed (at college) to earn extra $$$ for personal expenses. At the very least, 17 is on the cusp of adulthood, so his complaint ends up being as specious and hollow as his whole belief system

2) In respect of my answer to do with being a Roman Catholic at one time, Mikey is quick on the draw as usual to put this whole transition down as specious:

“You go from the pagan non-biblical cult of Catholicism , to atheism . I mean , SHEESH !! talk about jumping from the frying pan into the FIRE ! (pun INTENDED !"

Totally ignorant that the FIRST CHRISTIANS were Catholics, which Mikey’s Protestants broke off from. Obviously, this character can’t even follow Christian history, if he sincerely believes his little cult of evangelicals is original. What? He thinks they sprang from Zeus as from the top of Mt. Olympus? (His cult actually originated with a little known redneck named Rev. Josiah Strong around 1885-86).
But what can we expect? As for going “into the fire” – no pun, but HE needs to be reminded that’s where HE’S headed accorded to Catholic doctrine – since he’s renounced being in the state of sanctifying grace. At least let your son go to Loyola, Mike. Then maybe he can educate YOU on Catholicism and Christianity! Since no amount of my attempts manages to sink through to even the "skin" level of your neocortex (assuming you possess a neocortex). Oh wait! That's too many syllables for you to process - I forgot, "keep it simpleton-level"....

3) In respect to my response on the definitions of atheism – careful to separate the two forms (implicit and explicit) Mikey’s predictable response was that those were too complicated for his little brain.. As he writes:

“Here , Phil shows his intellectual dishonesty . The key word in my question was “EVER.” All he had to say was either , “yes” , “no” , or “I don’t know.”

But in truth it would have been “intellectual dishonesty” not to have articulated the answers carefully as I did – whether Mike’s impoverished and ravaged brain cells could grasp them or not. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ while it may have satiated Mikey’s forlorn and limited gray matter, would not have clarified ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to WHAT and in what context. For example, if I'd simply answered "Yes", I'd have deliberately conflated conviction, probability-based acceptance and knowledge. If I'd simply replied "No", I'd have conflated negative conviction, probability-based withholding of conviction and convictive indifference. With both forms of atheism then compacted (conveniently) into one, Mikey would "have at it" without having to think through more intelligent answers for each form. Saying ‘I don’t know’ would have been worse, since it might be construed as operational agnosticism. But we must have pity on poor Mikey who in recent months has deteriorated so much in brain capacity that the best he can manage is a lamentable catechresis based on a putative lack of "simplicity". (E.g. - "Please don't use such long words and sentences since they task my abilities!")

4)He insists I deliberately avoided another question, but in fact that was answered at least FIVE times before in three different blog responses going back to 2008. Since Mikey was too lazy to go find them, I will help him out in a brotherly way. He asks:

“If you , personally , claim that you simply “lack belief” in God (or “a god” , “supreme being” , “Creator” , etc ) , then is that not the same as saying that you do not KNOW , if in fact , there IS a “God” ? If not , WHY ?"


Well, to remind him, I had said I withheld belief (not “lacked belief” - which is different, but then it’s Mikey’s wont to irresponsibly interchange words and terms wherever he wishes) because – in terms of probabilities- it was not likely a god existed. (I plan to deal with this in much more detail in a coming blog entry). But in any case, my lack of knowledge devolves not on ME – my responsibility- but because god claimants like Mike haven’t provided anything.. At the very least in terms of epistemology, one is obliged to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the entity. Mike hasn’t even done this, so while he asks questions out of one side of his mouth, I can only conclude he isn’t serious about the answers, since he hasn’t provided the epistemological basis for his deity. Without that, I can’t be expected to inform him regarding the basis of my “not knowing” it! At the very minimum, HOW can I know WHICH God he wants me to acknowledge, if his refusal to give the n-s conditions means that no identification is adequate? Say, to distinguish his deity concept from Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Brahman, or Universal Mind, or any others. He is so profoundly ignorant he can't or won't see it's HIS duty to first make the ontological-epistemological basis of his God clear, before asking ME to clarify its knowledge acceptance!

Of course, he will reply here with ‘keep it simple, stupid’. The perennial motto of stupid simpletons.

4) His responses to my answers regarding faith and evidence are just plain supercilious and dopey. But what’s new? According to Mikey, I must – before doing anything- from getting a dental filling, to taking a plane trip, to getting a medical test- hound all involved to prove to me that they are capable of: doing dental fillings, piloting a jet plane, and conducting medical tests. I guess Mikey has so little confidence in his fellow man that he has the time to waste doing this, but I don’t. Having had a science education, I possess the abilities to parse experience where and when I encounter it. I don’t have to hound people to provide it in every area of life, nor must I substitute a superfluous “faith” (in the absence of them doing so). But hey, that’s Mikey! He is so brainwashed by his stupid cult religion, he can’t parse the difference between CONFIDENCE in one’s fellows, and FAITH. so if one possesses the first (by virtue of adequate education) one need not rely on the second.
But he can’t even properly define what an atheist is, so who’s surprised?

5) In respect to my answer to his question on why I didn’t exert the same energy protesting the Easter Bunny, Santa etc. - though I provided a comprehensive answer (based on none of their believers having real world consequences for the atheist), Mikey goes off the track – deflecting attention from what was given to his baloney:


“You just stated here that ,” The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus et al are all patently obvious fictions..” Gee , I thought that is ALSO what you have been saying about God – and Christianity in general . Is it NOT ? so here again , you not only reveal your contradictions , but your intellectual ignorance as well .”

Here, Mikey, now, now. I realize this stuff is complicated for that brain of yours, so let me spell it out. See, what I said is that the former don’t have the REAL WORLD consequences of God-belief, so that the “fictions” differ. Get it? IN the case of the Easter Bunny and Santa they are harmless fictions. In the case of the God of hyper-religious fools like yourself, the fiction is dangerous. Since it is YOUR lot responsible for the hell fire stories that put those two young girls in Barbados into a sanatarium It is YOUR lot that produces abortion clinic bombers, and murderers. And it is YOUR lot that want to restrict people’s rights.

So, in effect, it is YOUR toxic fiction of a GOD that you invest belief in that drives you and your believer ilk to insanity! Like the grandma in Colorado Springs that believed her “god” ordered her to hold her grand son submerged in boiling hot water.

So, in fact- it is YOU that exposes your colossal idiocy and ignorance by not being able to separate harmless fictions from the poisonous one of your fictious God- which is so real to you that your lot are prepared to not only burn kids to “save them” – but scare them into psychosis.

Mikey then blabs:

“The REAL reason you say this is because , despite what you claim – you ALL KNOW – in your heart of hearts , that there IS a GOD !!”

Nonsense! We “know” no such thing, and in fact, you’ve given us NO basis for any knowledge. Time after time you refuse to even give the minimal necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence, so WHY should WE take it seriously when you don’t? All we can do, logically, is infer you like to play word games, especially simple (simpleton?) word games.

And on that note I end this, rather than punish readers further by exposing Mikey’s whopping and astronomical ignorance (on human evolution ) to them – to the extent and degree this moron doesn’t even know or understand that Homo Habilis, Ardi, etc. were NOT apes. (But then for a guy whose motto is "keep it simple, stupid", what can you expect? Even a dirt farmer knows you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear!)

In the end, this shows Mike needs to further his education – by a LOT- before we can ever have a constructive or remotely meaningful exchange. (Beyond "keep it simple, stupid") I doubt his Bible College, given what I’ve seen so far, can deliver the goods.

6 comments:

manowar said...

Hey Copernicus, I just read pastor mike's post and your answer to it here. What's up with this guy? I mean he himself doesn't answer anything at all with a simple yes or no without going thru pages of bible passages that make no sense at all. He'll tell you to answer in a yes or no and keep it simple, but when you do that he gets on you for not explaining yourself to his satisfaction. I don't think he knows what it is he wants.

This self made pastor goes on the attack about everyone and ALL religions except his made-up one. I really think he's critically brain damaged or something. By reading some of his rants, I think he also believes he's some sort of "good-old-buddy", of Jesus or God himself. He thinks he has a direct hotline to God and is being somehow communicated to, by him.
"HEAR VOICES ANYONE". Doesn't he realize he's schizophrenic thinking like that?

These religious types that always claim God or Jesus is communicating with them are merely answering themselves with their own defective brains. Ther IS NO outside force of communication from a diety or anything else. It's just themselves. He really should get some professional help, possibly from professionals in de-programming of individuals of his type.

manowar said...

Hey Copernicus, I just read pastor mike's post and your answer to it here. What's up with this guy? I mean he himself doesn't answer anything at all with a simple yes or no without going thru pages of bible passages that make no sense at all. He'll tell you to answer in a yes or no and keep it simple, but when you do that he gets on you for not explaining yourself to his satisfaction. I don't think he knows what it is he wants.

This self made pastor goes on the attack about everyone and ALL religions except his made-up one. I really think he's critically brain damaged or something. By reading some of his rants, I think he also believes he's some sort of "good-old-buddy", of Jesus or God himself. He thinks he has a direct hotline to God and is being somehow communicated to, by him. "HEAR VOICES ANYONE"? Doesn't he realize he's schizophrenic thinking like that?

These religious types that always claim God or Jesus is communicating with them are merely answering themselves with their own defective brains. Ther IS NO outside force of communication from a diety or anything else. It's just themselves. He really should get some professional help, possibly from professionals in de-programming of individuals of his type.

Caleb Shay said...

Wow! I had no idea that this nut was THAT ignorant! In most countries of the world, hell...95% ...people are considered ADULTS at the age of 15 or earlier. In India many are married by age 13. To claim you weren't an adult at 17 (prolly only months before you had to get your draft card) is insane.

Then, to use the keep it simple, stupid bunk proves this guy is a moron. Because only morons need to keep it simple in extended discussions. What will this clown do if and when his bible college (sic) requires him to write out an analysis of the Q gospels? Probably burp up all his soup.

The bit about the Catholics being "pagan ritualists" is also choice, since as you pointed out HIS religion spun off from theirs! Can he be THAT dumb!?

Your responses to his complaints about atheism were spot on, since any and everyone knows that there are two types. I myself am the explicit variety but that's just me.

The bit about the faith in pilots and dentists (which I read from his stupid blog) almost had me in hysterics from laughing so hard. So....every time I fly now I have to have faith the plane will get off the ground? And when a dentist has a new implant ready or crown I have to hav "faith" it will fit?

WHAT IS HE A MORON?

I agree you cut him off early and didn't go into any of his jabbering about apes vs. early hominids. Does he not know that Ardi was a primitive HOMINID which is not the same as an APE?

Did your brother ever take an IQ test? Did he ever score over 80?

Just wondering!

Caleb Shay said...

What is your brother a blinkin' idiot? Most countries regard people as adults by the time they're 13. Indians get married by the age of 12. You were prolly only months from getting your first draft card, which meant being called to fight...like in 'Nam. And the idiot says you were not an adult?

His claim about Catholics being pagan ritualizers almost had me in convulsions on the floor. Is he serious? Doesn't this dope know that HIS religion came from Catholicism? I also understand the new Catholic doctrine is a much fiery and hotter Hell- about a trillion degrees - for all those who left the Church and became evangelicals that attack it. And HE thinks YOU went from frying pan into fire? HAW HAW HAW....HO HO!

Your nailing him about the atheism thing was also totally spot on. Any idiot knows you can't give a simple 'yes-no' answer to that. You did what you had to and explained the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. Problem is your bro is too dumb and dense (needing 'keep it simple stupid') to get it.

I also like what you said about the faith thing. I mean, what's he want ....to have faith a plane will get up off the ground every time you fly? Or your dentist will have the right size crown if you need one? You don't have faith in that stuff, you have confidence in the person's expertise whether pilot, dentist, doctor or whoever.

The bit about the necessary and sufficient conditions is prolly too advanced for this dude to get. But definitely, you're not obliged to say what you know or don't about his god until he gives those. If he's never given them he's making jest. He's not serious!

I was also glad you omitted all his ignorance about not knowing the difference between apes and primitive hominids, like Ardi. He really needs to go a a real school not a bible college. At least a place where people learn how to read and write something longer than two syllable words!

janidebar said...

"Keep it simple, stupid’ - So like Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and most of those cretins on Faux News- we see he adheres to simpleton standards of debate and answers. No wonder that debate with him is impossible"


That "KISS" thingie is the dumbest pile of crap I've ever heard. Actually, I think it originated with that bonehead Bill O'Reilly on FOX so your dumb bro probably watches it.

Imagine using the "KISS" scheme for serious political or sceintific discusssions. It wrongly assumes each and every issue or topic can be discussed in simple terms, which is totally false.

Issues like atheism differences, and how they apply to conviction are not simple, but complex aspects of philosophy. If all these were that simple, there'd be no need for philosophy. No philosophy degrees (or theology!) would ever be awarded and we'd all end up as bozos like Pastor here.

What Caleb said about Pastor's dopey take on needing faith to fly in a plane is also relevant. Only a total moron or a terrified wimpus needs that. If we fly on a regular or even part time basis we have implicit trust and confidence - realizing if the pilots (or airlines) were deficient to the point of requiring faith - they'd all go out of business.

Faith is useful only for people who lack the educational background to give the insight needed to inspire confidence. (Which I agree is probably a lot of people in this country.)

I would have got a good laugh seeing you take this moron down for calling Ardi and the other primitive hominids "apes", but I agree it was best not to waste any more time.

In fact, I wouldn't engage him any more period, until he gets either a higher IQ (not bloody likely) or goes back to school (high school?) for more education. It's obvious that debating him is brutal - more like a Rotweiler (you) ripping apart a dumb puppy. It's no contest.

Let him howl and screech his gibberish against atheists, no one is reading him anyway. He's like a madman screaming at his own voice in his own cell.

He's pathetic.

janidebar said...

By the way, just fyi, I see he's still using the childish definitions of terms given in Encarta (probably online) than going to a dictionary of Philosophy. It's no wonder this jerk can't get his words straight!

He writes in his last response (which I recommend you don't waste your time with):

"AGNOSTIC : “somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God …” ( SOURCE : Encarta World English Dictionary – emphasis mine .)

I refuse to believe you’re that dense "


Actually, HE's the one that's dense and super-dense because the definition is totally weak and incomplete. The full definition of agnosticism (which makes it possible to discuss it on more than bonehead O'Reilly terms) is that:

-
Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god but maintains the nature of god is unknowable. The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well.

The key point is that properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

Meanwhile, by generic def. the term atheist is relational. It cannot be non-relational. Only a term or def. grounded on the premise that knowledge is impossible (aka the agnostic) can be non-relational. The a-theist then is defined in terms of and in the context that the propostion 'God exists' is already made or circulating via theists. It is nonsense to call this term non-relational or interpret it as meaning it doesn't matter to the atheist whether god exists or not.

The problem with Mike's childish definition is that it's so loose it can apply to the agnostic THEIST too!

At the end of the day, your brother is simply unworthy of any engagement in serious debate. He is more a clown, a carny barker or entertainer (like O'Reilly) out for laughs at others' expense. You just have to read his blog for five minutes to see it's all about mockery, bluster, buffoonery and caricature (like the issues pertaining to Roman Catholics being "real" Christians, or whether you were an adult at 17.)

He is just a waste of time as I said before.