Being banned from a blog; check

[Hugo]

Apparently, Stan from http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/ does not like being called a liar, even when he does lie, and does not like when we tell him that he does not understand what we tell him, even when he does not understand... In other words, if you point out mistakes to him, and add a bit of teasing/poking here and there, that gets you ban.

Congrats to us iNinja... I guess?

Ironically, this comes after iNinja pointed out interesting stats about philosophers leaning towards Atheism, and after I pointed several times that Stan generalizes Atheists to the point of labeling them all as 'pedophilia supporters' or 'people who cannot be trusted'. That was my own personal reason for not being as civil as before on his blog...

Here's the list I posted on his blog concerning his bigotry and that he never corrected. Does it mean he agrees that it was an accurate description of what he thinks of Atheists? I would not know... but it shows the incredible disdain he has for people who simply have different answers for some philosophical questions.

By slightly changing the words, in order to put them in the form of a list, we get that according to you Atheists are...

- Intolerant of religious people
- Taking over the US Government
- Assault religious values (right or wrong)
- Control the media
- Do not have a good sense of ethics
- Pretend to be tautologically good
- Untrustworthy for a potential relationship; not trusted by anyone
- Lack principles of integrity
- Engaging in derision and ridicule instead of debates
- Sue anyone and everyone and threaten to financially destroy those who disagree with them
- Part of organizations that threaten individuals and smaller organizations with destruction
- Favor self-indulgence over responsible ethics
- Obtusely ignorant of fallacies in general
- Think they are the smartest thing in the universe
- Have only one standard of behavior: the law.
- Change laws to allow all sorts of behaviors.
- Condone pedophilia.
- Dangerous enablers of a lack of ethics
- Submit the entire culture to ideological bullying
- See alternative thinking as unacceptable
- Caused culture to be irrational

I guess it's no surprise then that someone like him would moderate comments and ban people who insist that he lies and misunderstands them...

[EDIT] Typos and wording...

[Hugo]

@Zilch
(that was still opened on my computer; since it got censored over there, might as well copy/paste it there)

What I find fascinating is that, not only are you correct to say that no one denies that there is order in this universe, but there is also no reason to pretend that a god would like it that way better than another. If one posits an infinite god capable of pretty much anything, why restrict the god's ability by saying that the universe 'must' be ordered because of a god, and/or 'must' be made by a god because it is ordered...?

Your second point is also correct and tells more about theists that make such claims rather than the atheists they want to prove wrong, I believe. It appears impossible for them to imagine that an atheist can find meaning and purpose in his/her life, as well as some strong unchanging values and principles that serve as a guide. They thus fall into a sort of disdain for atheist that Stan, for example, expresses quite clearly on his blog. Thankfully, he is not the norm nor a leader.

In other words, is it just me or the main arguments of theists who try to "debunk" atheism fall into generalization that have no value? Why don't I feel the need to do the same the other way around? I simply don't recall saying anything like "all theists are...", and thankfully, the theists I meet as friends in real life never generalize like that either.

[IntellectualNinja]

Oh good! I was banned. I caught him lying red handed. I even had evidence he lied and he couldn't back it up. And when I pointed it out to him, he got so huffy and puffy. It was quite the show.

I take it he didn't like that I pointed out he was treating personal anecdotes like logical arguments which is disingenuous.

EDIT: In case people are wondering, he made up a quote. So it was easy to check to see if PZ Myers actually said it or not.

[IntellectualNinja]

Here's documented evidence of his "lies" to me and his reactions.

From: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID ... Popup=true

Blogger Stan said...

"Isn't is a little disingenuous to take what are clearly supposed to be personal anecdotes and scrutinize them as if they were logical arguments (which they are not)? I thought this blog would try to uphold the values of reasonable analysis it says it supports. "

When a noted Atheist blogger asks for your "reason to be an Atheist", and you don't give reasons, you give anecdotes, then you have failed to provide that which was asked for.

I see no reason to conclude that the Atheist "reasons" are anything else than Atheist reasons. It seems to me that attempting to make excuses for them is a method for trying to downplay their content as being representative. I think that this should be seen as demeaning to those who gave their reasons; it presumes that they did not follow instructions, and that can be interpreted several different ways.

But I see no objective reason other than that to deny the validity of what Atheists write about themselves, especially en masse, and in the company of other like minded Atheists. Unless, of course, one thinks that they are more emotional than rational.

"When a noted Atheist blogger asks for your "reason to be an Atheist", and you don't give reasons, you give anecdotes, then you have failed to provide that which was asked for."

Oh Stan, lying doesn't become you. You just made up a quote. I took the time to find PZ's blog entry where he asks people to write essays entitled "Why I am an Atheist," and not once did he say to give "reason[s] to be an atheist."

In fact, PZ never even mentions the word, "reason," which you keep repeating.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... bmissions/

He mentions the whole idea was inspired by a book of prose: nothing to do with logical reasoning. In other words, he was clearly asking for personal experiences.

The blogger here seems to have good intentions, but like I said, it's disingenuous to to pretend personal anecdotes are trying to be logical arguments.

Debunkey Monkey
We went through this long ago. The word "why" is an entreaty to give reasons.

why,conj
1. the cause, reason, or purpose for which [that is ~ you did it].
Merriam Webster Dictionary, New Edition; 2004.

PZ asked "why". What they have done is give their reasons.

And your assessment of their mere anecdotes as not being actual reasons is without any merit other than your attempt to apply skeptical doubt without any corresponding evidence in support for it. Your are merely casting doubt without corresponding evidence for supporting that doubt, very close to Radical Skepticism. Is that a close assessment of your debunking methodology?

The fact that their reasons tend to be emotional and not based in logic or rationality must seriously grate. But facts are not optional.

D. Monkey:
I only tolerate charges of lying once. That sort of behavior gets itself removed. This conversation area is for adults.

Stan, if you don't like being called a liar, you shouldn't make up quotes. The fact is, intentionally or not, you lied. Learn from your mistakes, and don't attack the messenger, so to speak.

And please don't play word games. PZ was clearly asking for personal anecdotes as opposed to just logical proofs of atheism. The first thing he mentions is that the whole contest is based off of a book that shares the personal experiences of atheists through letters. This is not an opinion, it is clearly stated.

Now skip ahead... http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID ... Popup=true

debunky said,
"I already explained in another thread that these are personal anecdotes, not logical arguments for atheism. You're being disingenuous."

And I explained the fallacy in your "explanation", which you are ignoring here. The most reasonable reason for the lack of logical reasoning is that they have none to offer. Your excuse-making is without any proof other than your statement, which is merely your opinion, not fact.

My excuse-making without proof? Do you even comprehend what prose looks like versus a logical argument? I posted this in another thread, but PZ asked specifically for prose, not logical arguments. The whole contest was based on a book he read detailing atheist letters.

I'm not making an excuse, I'm calling you and Martin out as being disingenuous. But whatever, lying for Jesus isn't anything new.

As a matter of fact, Stan, it was you I linked to the original post by PZ when I caught you making up fake quotes.

No proof when I presented to you PZ's original post weeks ago? Tsk tsk... Stan, you really need to start telling the truth.

....

Hugo and D. Monkey will not be allowed to comment here any longer. This blog doesn't tolerate name calling and accusations such as have been going on the past few days. Civil discourse does not tolerate such.

I do seriously regret having to do this, since there seemed to be hope there for awhile; but while I was gone, the true colors shined through and it was not pretty.

There is more on this in the post today.

I welcome any and all who wish to make a logical, rational case for their position... so long as there is no denigration involved. Ridicule and Ad Hominem are indicative of rational failure.

Regretfully,
Stan

As you can see, Stan clearly lied and got caught. I never called him any names. As a matter of fact, I was very lenient on him when I called him out on his lies. I didn't get up on his case; I just sort of joked around about it.

[IntellectualNinja]

Just in case Stan gets all delete-happy, here are screenshots of the two comment sections:

http://i.imgur.com/hizO2.png

http://i.imgur.com/SdPAc.png

Your thoughts?

[Hugo]

Here's documented evidence of his "lies" to me and his reactions.
...

Thanks! I followed all these but since there were so many posts, I was going to go back and take a look. You save me a lot of time and did a good job at summarizing Stan's dishonesty.

As you can see, Stan clearly lied and got caught. I never called him any names. As a matter of fact, I was very lenient on him when I called him out on his lies. I didn't get up on his case; I just sort of joked around about it.

Oh oh, I realized why he blames me (and not you IN) for name calling. He got annoyed by this comment that I wrote... when I was drunk after a crazy Christmas party, lol!
Look at the time on the post, it says 4:34AM and I believe this is central time because it was more like 5:34 for me.
That's hilarious; I knew I had written a comment but I thought I was smart enough to just write in a Word document since it was late and I usually pay attention to what I write on his blog since he gets side-track easily. Apparently I did post it!

Stan,

I went through your comments and my reactions were pretty much constant throughout the reading. It went like this: NO, that is NOT what I mean; you really DON'T understand what I mean.

In other words, there is no point expressing what I actually think in such long comments because you are incapable of keeping tract. You don't understand the way I think and you get lost along the way. You are incapable of analyzing my position.

Therefore, I am forced to take the "kiddy" approach. In other words, I have to do as if I was speaking with a creationist who believes strongly that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that all "kinds" of animals were names by Adam. It is not exactly the same since you are not that stupid, but from my perspective, the analogy fits pretty well.

I will thus focus on one little thing, that you addressed with these few words:

Is the following statement true or false?

It is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.

This statement cannot be true because it contradicts itself: if there is no absolute truth, then the statement is false; if there is absolute truth, the statement is false. In all cases the statement is false, and I can know that to be true. This is a standard paradox which exhibits internal contradiction. And I can know that it is a paradox with certainty.

It cannot be the case that there is absolutely no absolute truth; so if there is truth, how can we know it? That is the question which is fatal to Materialism, unless it is ignored. Radical Skepticism is the acceptance of the paradox, above, as the Skeptic fights the possibility of absolute truth by denialism, and urges that everyone ignore the possibility. Without any hope of proving his case, the skeptic claims that there is no absolute truth.

Did you even read my comment?

I told you that I believe THERE IS SOME ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I told you, I EXIST as a body is an absolute truth.

If I deny that my body exists, then I allow the possibility that Radical Skepticism is true.

I DONT!!!!!!!

but... YOU DO!!!!

It is the most ironic I have ever seen in my life. I am not kidding.

So please, focus on these concepts. Do you agree, yes or no, that your body exists? AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, do you believe that to be absolutely true or not?

Just to be clear, since you keep avoiding the actual question. Are you sure that you are NOT a brain in vat? Are you sure that you are not connected to a Matrix?

Oh well, at least that made me laugh, a lot!

[IntellectualNinja]

Under the circumstances, that was a charming little non-sequitor, not some terrible or mean insult. It happens all the time, even the most formal of discussions. It's ridiculous you would get banned for that.

[Vagon]

I cannot win perfectly civilised argument, therefore ban.

[Hugo]

Under the circumstances, that was a charming little non-sequitor, not some terrible or mean insult. It happens all the time, even the most formal of discussions. It's ridiculous you would get banned for that.

I agree that's what make it even funnier and thanks for saying it was charming , but if there is one thing that he is honest about though it is complete intolerance of ad hominem, from either "side", since he let a comment go through as an example of something that he would not tolerate, and it was calling atheists 'drama queens'... I mean... who cares?

I cannot win perfectly civilised argument, therefore ban.

That's not a valid syllogism, all you do is mock using sarcasm, you are thus forbidden from using the word 'therefore'. Why are you being so irrational?

[Vagon]

That's not a valid syllogism, all you do is mock using sarcasm, you are thus forbidden from using the word 'therefore'. Why are you being so irrational?

*bans self*