Here's documented evidence of his "lies" to me and his reactions.
From: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID ... Popup=true
Stan wrote: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.
Debunkey Monkey wrote:
"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.
Stan wrote: Debunkey Monkey
We went through this long ago. The word "why" is an entreaty to give reasons.
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.
Stan wrote:D. Monkey:
I only tolerate charges of lying once. That sort of behavior gets itself removed. This conversation area is for adults.
Debunkey Monkey wrote: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
Stan wrote: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.
Debunkey Monkey wrote: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.
Debunkey Monkey wrote: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.
Stan wrote: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.
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.