ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Lessons in Rhetoric: Atheist edition

This atheist - sorry, "gnostic atheist" - decided to insert himself into the conversation following my observation that Richard Dawkins demonstrably does not know what "evidence" is:
Sapien @VernacularSwag
@voxday @RichardDawkins Stop talking. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive terms. 90% of self-described atheists are agnostic

Vox Day @voxday
There is considerable evidence for God. You like definitions: look up "evidence".

Sapien @VernacularSwag
LOL. Name one piece of evidence. You now are taking the affirmative

Vox Day @voxday
You're laughing because you're stupid. Again, look up "evidence".

Sapien @VernacularSwag
I'm not the one pointing to invisible arguments for my position.

Vox Day @voxday
Neither am I. You don't know what evidence is. Your arguments are hopelessly wrong.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
What the actual fuck

Sapien @VernacularSwag
You're refusing to even have the discussion so how do you even know what my argument is

Sapien @VernacularSwag
You claim there is evidence for god yet refuse to provide an example and I'm the stupid one

Sapien @VernacularSwag
Go look it up for yourself, I'm done arguing against your ignorance

Sapien @VernacularSwag
you said considerable amount so surely it should be easy to provide just one

Vox Day @voxday
It is. But I know the Atheist Dance. You're too intellectually short for the ride.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
Try me

Vox Day @voxday
No. The train is fine. Stop talking.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
It's much easier to win argument that never happens isn't it

Vox Day @voxday
What the actual fuck? Stop talking. The train is still fine.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
What the hell is this train you keep talking about lol

Vox Day @voxday
The train that is fine.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
...are you okay?

Vox Day @voxday
Yes. So is the train.

Sapien @VernacularSwag
Are you just saying random things to derail the convo now or what?

Vox Day @voxday
The train is not derailed. I already told you it is fine. Stop worrying about the train.
Needless to say, he's doing a wonderful job proving my observation about the high degree of correlation between atheists and what used to be called "Asperger's Syndrome". I suppose now we could simply call it "atheism". Or, if they prefer, "gnostic atheism".

It's certainly interesting to see that eight years after the New Atheists burst onto the scene waving the bloody flag of atheism, even Richard Dawkins is now publicly claiming that he is merely an "agnostic" and atheists are insisting that "atheism" merely means "personal disbelief in the existence of God" and certainly not any positive claim that God does not exist.

NB: as an additional discrediting flourish, directly quote their little rhetorical jabs once they've used them. If you don't overdo it, it serves to underline their disinterest in genuine dialectic.

Labels: ,

241 Comments:

1 – 200 of 241 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Stingray November 22, 2015 8:11 AM  

Aren't these guys supposed to be the intellectually curious ones? This is why they come across as so stupid. How long does it take to change tabs on his phone to just double check the definition of "evidence"?

To not take 10 seconds to check your idea to even begin an argument is telling.

This is a major thing that being at Vox Popoli has taught me over the years. My assumptions are usually wrong. Take the few seconds to double check the dictionary. You'll learn a lot.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 8:16 AM  

Thank you for the laugh this morning. It reminds me of someone trying to engage in conversation with a crazy street vagrant who is standing on a corner talking to themselves.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 22, 2015 8:18 AM  

I laughed at the "derailed" pun.

PA

Blogger Rigel Kent November 22, 2015 8:39 AM  

Speaking as an agnostic, yes atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive terms.

Atheist=There is no God.

Agnostic=I don't know if there is a God.

How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive.

Blogger Lovekraft November 22, 2015 8:40 AM  

I could just imagine this little dweeb's head spinning with "i can't evens".

Blogger Salt November 22, 2015 8:41 AM  

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive terms

That's not what atheists have told me. When pressed as to whether their disbelief system allowed for any chance of God's existence I was emphatically told, "No." Of course they used terms like invisible sky-daddy, unicorn, tooth fairy, and predictably genuflected at the alter of evidentiary science.

Yes, the train is fine.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 8:44 AM  

The train is fine.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 8:46 AM  

atheists are insisting that "atheism" merely means "personal disbelief in the existence of God"

Re-read the post.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 22, 2015 8:53 AM  

I was wrong I had predicted that feminism would be the left's sub cult to falter before atheism, but I see now that atheism is headed down the tubes while feminism is still useful for at least a little longer.

I can't wait till a campus mooslim activist has the atheists safe spaced out the door.

Atheism once had some use as political rhetoric, well them days is done.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 8:54 AM  


How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive.


That's the point. Atheists have been so roundly defeated that they are backing away from their aggressive, positive claims, so much so that they are publicly embracing a much more modest definition for themselves.

Of course, we all know that they haven't changed their minds or their attitudes, they've just learned to zip it in public.

Anonymous Stickwick November 22, 2015 8:55 AM  

Stingray: Aren't these guys supposed to be the intellectually curious ones? This is why they come across as so stupid.

They are the least curious people in the world. I've encountered rocks in my garden that are more curious about alternative points of view than some of these hardline atheists.

I've had the exact same encounters with atheists on Twitter as Vox. Every time I post something about atheism, the stupidest ones leap in with their usual pointed little rhetorical jabs. Thanks to the lessons I've learned here, they're now surprised when they get a stinging jab in response. The fun part is when you get one to say, "Well, that's not very Christian of you." They've obviously had encounters with Christians before, and experience tells them to expect you to be Ned Flanders (thanks, Nate) and meet their aggressive hostility with timidity and prayers. They're certainly not expecting a counter-strike.

I had a go-around with a particularly hostile atheist on FB recently, where the guy got so angry with me, he called me a very nasty name, and then sarcastically said, "Now be a good little christian and forgive me and pray for my soul." He was stunned when I told him that Christians are not required to forgive the unrepentant, and that I wasn't going to care more about his salvation than he does. I also said something about his lacking a certain male body part. Oddly, he was much nicer to me after that.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet November 22, 2015 8:57 AM  

It's interesting to see him unconsciously adopt your metaphor and continue to use it without even knowing what it is.

Very impressionable.

Anonymous Manuel O'Kelly Davis November 22, 2015 9:03 AM  

The train is a "funny always", Mike.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar November 22, 2015 9:05 AM  

These people remind me of those pastafarians that say they worship a flying spaghetti monster and put a spaghetti strainer on their heads. Yeah that's so funny. I'm so embarrassed about believing in higher life forms than mankind when you put a spaghetti strainer on your head. That kind of snark certainly functions as well as a reasoned argument if you have a cabbage for a head doesn't it?

Blogger Robert Coble November 22, 2015 9:09 AM  

I am in awe of your rhetorical skills. I've always tried to counter the demand for "evidence" by demonstrating that the actual demand is for PHYSICAL evidence of a specific kind. Having just been schooled (again) in the necessity to precisely define all terms, I find that "evidence" has more than sufficient meaning to cover the existence of God.

Thank you!

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 9:14 AM  

I can't see reference to "gnostic atheism". Are you sure you didn't typo "agnostic"? Because "gnostic atheism" would be an order of magnitude stupider than "agnostic atheism".

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 9:19 AM  

For example, contrary (actually, exact opposite) to what people seem to widely believe, the disagreement between Gnostics and Christians was not whether or not Jesus was God, but rather whether or not Jesus was in any sense a man. Rather, Gnostics believed Jesus was nothing BUT God. They denied his humanity, not his divinity.

Gnostics believe MORE supernatural things than Christians, not less.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 9:20 AM  

I can't see reference to "gnostic atheism". Are you sure you didn't typo "agnostic"?

Absolutely. I did not include all the tweets. When I asked him what would be the correct way to refer to someone who says God does not exist, if "atheist" is incorrect, he said "gnostic atheist", "strong atheist", or "positive atheist" would all be acceptable.

I didn't see any point in showing him that his response was ridiculous. I was just curious to know what he would say.

OpenID elijahrhodes November 22, 2015 9:21 AM  

Atheism is an expression of the desire for moral autonomy. Atheists want to be unconstrained from from the demands of an objective moral law. They want to be their own God with no accountability except to their own desires. It’s a rebellion against the very thing that elevates us beyond being mere animals. The Bible would call this the sin of Pride.

Anonymous Godfrey November 22, 2015 9:21 AM  

I've written it before, but I have to state it again. Our host is a very funny guy. He could have had a career in comedy. I could see him doing a traveling one man show. Am I wrong here? Am I the only one who laughs when reading comedic gold like this? Does he even know how funny he is?

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 9:24 AM  

Ok, so he just used it as a historically ignorant antonym of agnostic. It isn't so bad then as I thought.

OpenID elijahrhodes November 22, 2015 9:25 AM  

Nihilism is the logical endpoint of Atheism. Most atheist are not amoral beings, so they recoil from Nihilism and the despair that it produces, thus must compromise the very thing they most prize: Reason.

Blogger Atomic Agent 13 November 22, 2015 9:29 AM  

That was hilarious. I think he actually looked it up and thought "shit, he's right". For fun you could have thrown him a bone and said that what he meant was 'empirical evidence' and let him make a further fool of himself. See how long his arguments turn into sophomoric cynicism.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 9:33 AM  

Does he even know how funny he is?

Yes! My sense of humor is sadly unappreciated.

For example, I had a HILARIOUS response to something in mind recently. It would probably offend everyone and seriously disrupt a number of personal relationships, but it was freaking hilarious. Screamingly funny but also genuinely hurtful. So, I ran it by Spacebunny.

"Yeah, don't do that," was her advice.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 9:34 AM  

It's still kind of like:
-I'm a trinitarian Muslim
-Wat?
-Yeah, I believe all three branches are right; Shi'a, Sunni and Druze

Anonymous Godfrey November 22, 2015 9:39 AM  

@ 21

Well stated.

It's been my observation that it is often the case that those who don't believe in a God in heaven believe in the possibility of a man-made heaven on Earth. I'll leave it to you to decide which notion is the more absurd.

Blogger James Dixon November 22, 2015 9:43 AM  

> How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive.

They can't. But then most atheists seem to agree with Humpty Dumpty about the usage of words.

Which brings to mind that I'm still amused by Asher's befuddlement at that reference, lo these many moons ago.

Blogger ScuzzaMan November 22, 2015 9:46 AM  

@24

That reminds me of a Valentine's Day some years ago. I worked for the German subsidiary of a Swiss company, and the day before Valentine's we had an office outing to a local restaurant with the German and Swiss bosses.

The conversation soon turned to the gifts we'd purchased for our wives and etc. Most of them were pretty much as you'd expect. I told them I had bought my wife Swiss gold, certified by the Swiss government at 99.999%, in a nice presentation package and so forth. I showed them the package.

They thought it was odd and asked me why I bought such a thing.

The instant answer, on the tip of my tongue, was that I thought she might as well have her grandfather's fillings back. Of course this would have horrified and offended everyone at the table, so I couldn't say it, even though I knew my half-Kiwi, half-Polish Jew wife would bust a gut laughing.

But I have to say, it cost me a lot to literally bite my cheek, smile, and say nothing.

I feel your pain.

Anonymous Godfrey November 22, 2015 9:51 AM  

@24

I can relate. I know from first hand experience that a husband's sense of humor is often sadly - and often unjustly - underappreciated by his wife.

Rest assured that your sense of humor doesn't go unappreciated by this reader. At times you're like the Don Rickles of the internet. And I consider Don Rickles hilarious.

Blogger James Dixon November 22, 2015 9:53 AM  

> ...even though I knew my half-Kiwi, half-Polish Jew wife would bust a gut laughing.

I hope you shared it with her in private later. :)

Blogger Joshua Sinistar November 22, 2015 9:54 AM  

Atheism is practiced by two major brands of Evil. Satanists and Communists. Satanists obviously just hate God, but Communists see religion as an adversary to their Almighty State. The Supreme Court cannot overrule God so god must be removed from the Courts and the Minds of the People. Without God, you only have "human" rights, given to you by humans and therefore removable by a set of unelected overlords or trannies pretending to have judgement.
Humanism is the replacement for religion by these "rational" science fetishists. To them God is replaced by Nature or Mother Nature or Gaia the Earth Mother usually a Goddess maternal figure that fits well with their Nanny State politics. Any holes in their fake Genesis theory can be ignored by obfuscation or superintelligent aliens that built ancient objects like the Great Pyramid or helped mankind evolve by visiting in the distant past. They also have a fake Garden of Eden, except instead of Adam and Eve, they have naked savages that live in Harmony with Nature and see the environment as belonging to everyone. None of it is true, but Truth hurts, and they are all way too sissy for pain cause its not fair. Hard work is for suckers, lets all get it for free and write bad poetry and smoke pot, is basically their "philosophy" for life.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 9:56 AM  

Did'ja all see the one the other day; some idiot tweeted that you hadn't read Dawkins if you called it sophomoric.

Vox replied not only had he read it but he wrote the book on it and then dropped TIA on the dude. Crickets.

Have to say though; keep your day job Vox.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 22, 2015 9:56 AM  

My suspicion is that he didn't know what Gnostic actually means. Atheists really aren't that well read in general and treasure their ignorance of theology in particular.

Blogger ScuzzaMan November 22, 2015 9:59 AM  

@James Dixon

Certainly. She loved it. As Vox said once, she noted it is a pity that few people understand the idea of becoming progressively more polite the less you like someone...

Anonymous Stickwick November 22, 2015 10:01 AM  

Markku: It's still kind of like:
-I'm a trinitarian Muslim
-Wat?
-Yeah, I believe all three branches are right; Shi'a, Sunni and Druze


And, yet, atheists can be remarkably obtuse when Christians use similar (but more apt) rhetorical devices. I called one guy an evangelical atheist, because he was making it his personal life's mission to strip religion from the face of the earth, and he blustered about how atheists can't be evangelical, that's a religious thing, blah blah blah.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 22, 2015 10:03 AM  

They constantly cherry pick holy scripture all the time to make their point.

Well known for instance. Childhood's End by A.C. Clarke.

Karellian the Alien Overlord of Earth gifts humanity with a Way-Back TV that "proves" All religion is false.

Our own John C. Wright destroyed this one brilliantly.

The smugness and dishonesty of the passage is breathtaking, not to mention the naive optimism (if you are an atheist) or blockheaded arrogance (if you are a theist).

Let us pause for a moment to admire four of the more amusing shortfalls, shall we?

First, there is only one religion under attack here, and it is misleading to pretend any religion but one is in the crosshairs. Like far too many an atheist writings, this passage is not atheist, merely antichristian. There is only one religion that has a messiah who claims divinity. It is twice a thousand years old, which just so happening to be the age mentioned in the passage.

Note that it is the religious writings of “the world” that “any rational mind” can see cannot all simultaneously be true. Obviously the author means the sacred ideas and dogmas, and is using the word ‘writings’ as a synodoche. Why the emphasis on writings, that is to say, on Bible(s)? There is only one God whose word has been written into officially recognized sacred books: and that is the God of Abraham. The Buddhists have no central authority, no Magisterium, to decide which books are in and out of an official canon. I am not saying pagans do not have holy books: I am saying it is a metaphor particular to the religions of Abraham to refer to holy doctrines by referring to holy books, because we emphasize our books as testament. Clarke is not referring to the Kojiki nor to the Shahnameh nor to the Mahabharata.

Second, there is only one (or two, depending on whether you think Christianity is a religion in its own right, or merely a heresy of the Jews) religion whose holy book makes disprovable historical claims about observable events in history.

Turning the Wayback machine onto the image of the Prophet (peace be on him) would show a man seated on a mountain and writing the Koran, and this would prove or disprove nothing, unless you think the divine inspiration he claimed dictated to him was something the Wayback machine could see. Can the instrument pick up thought-waves sent by Archangel Gabriel? Turning the Wayback Machine to the events in the Bhagavad Ghita, we see the supreme hero Arjuna in his chariot, listening to the teachings of his charioteer, Krishna. Turning the Wayback machine to the Awakened One, the Buddha, would show a man seated in a deer park, teaching his disciples. Turning the Wayback Machine to Confucius or Lao Tzu would also show you a man writing a book.

Hmmm. What is the one religion which is centered, not solely on a teaching, but on an event, not on a man writing a book, but on a man hanging on a tree on Golgotha at Passover, emerging from a Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher at the Feast of Firstfruits, ascending from Mount Olivet the Sabbath before the Feast of Weeks, all this not in a mythic otherworld, but at a specific spot you can find on a map, and at a specific date you can find on a calendar? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?


Blogger Cail Corishev November 22, 2015 10:10 AM  

How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive.

True, but it's a typical asspie atheist move. It's not enough for him not to believe in God, the way I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and go on with his life. He has to invent his own special brand of extra-insightful atheism, so it needs an ironic-sounding name that will confuse the superstitious rubes. The fact that we think those terms are contradictory just shows we're not capable of his level of perception.

Blogger Nathan Bissonette November 22, 2015 10:11 AM  

It might have been funny to say "There is evidence - eyewitness accounts" and have him say "Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, only physical evidence counts" so you could trot out the Shroud of Turin.

No, you're right. No evidence would persuade him. Better your way.

Anonymous FriarBob November 22, 2015 10:22 AM  

Joshua Sinistar mentioning humanism reminds me of one of the fathers of the movement, Neitzche. I was told once that his infamous "god is dead" quote had a caveat attached to it, but when I tried to look this up I found zero evidence of this and lots of repetition of the original and worse. The caveat I was told he attached was that he had said that "if Christians [of his day] were what God intended, then God is dead."

Does anyone here know if he actually ever said/wrote anything even halfway similar, or was the person who asserted that talking out of his anus?

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 10:23 AM  

No, you're right. No evidence would persuade him.

Of course not. Jesus predicted it. Dawkins confirmed it. There is no reason to offer them dialectic, except to strip their pseudo-dialectic and force them to openly utilize rhetoric.

Blogger Ghost November 22, 2015 10:26 AM  

I love the "what do you mean by the train?!" thing. It's funny, because I too did not understand the reference when I first saw you make it on twitter. But, seeing as how I was ALREADY ON THE INTERNET I just entered "the train is fine" in the old google machine and bada bing.

You can lead an autistic atheist to logic but you can't make them think.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 22, 2015 10:31 AM  

No, you're right. No evidence would persuade him.

Ultimately they are attempting to conclusively prove a negative. Since that is their goal there is in fact, no dialectic to engage with in the first place.

Anonymous Farnswords November 22, 2015 10:31 AM  

Yes! My sense of humor is sadly unappreciated.

For example, I had a HILARIOUS response to something in mind recently. It would probably offend everyone and seriously disrupt a number of personal relationships, but it was freaking hilarious. Screamingly funny but also genuinely hurtful. So, I ran it by Spacebunny.

"Yeah, don't do that," was her advice.


This is Christian marriage at its finest. Wives keep us from burning things to the ground for fun; we keep them from going emotionally off the rails.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 22, 2015 10:36 AM  

I love these rhetoric school posts. I also love how VD gets the guys hamster wheel rolling, then hops off as it picks up speed.

Blogger Michael Maier November 22, 2015 10:38 AM  

4. Rigel Kent November 22, 2015 8:39 AM
Speaking as an agnostic, yes atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive terms.

Atheist=There is no God.

Agnostic=I don't know if there is a God.

How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive.


Speaking as a former agnostic, I concur. Very nearly every "hard line" atheist I've encountered online is a liar and coward. I have had some change their mind and say "we just cannot know" and I 100% sympathize with that POV, having been there myself. But, again, that's "agnostic".

The ones that double-down and double-talk have always annoyed me. Plus, they lie and say "I'm NOT anti-God, but I know there isn't one and you're an evil idiot if you think otherwise."

But it is very amusing to notice how they're backing down these days. I don't know that Vox can take all the credit, but he's sure convinced me to dispatch with the niceness in trying to convince them of any damned thing.

It's a total waste of time.

Jesus didn't mince words when facing evil persons. "Sons of vipers" comes to mind. And anyone trying to turn folks away from Him is doing Satan's work.

Blogger guest November 22, 2015 10:38 AM  

Atheists continue to argue that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And yet, get any Detroit Cop alone and ask him about the biggest problem facing cops, and they will tell you that it is the lack of eyewitnesses who are willing to come forward. I gave up a long time ago in hoping that atheists are capable of simple logic.

Blogger Geoff November 22, 2015 10:39 AM  

More evidence that VD is hilarious:

The Archbishop of Canturbury's statement about the Paris attacks making him doubt God are genuinely shocking. I assumed he was an atheist.

Blogger guest November 22, 2015 10:46 AM  

Atheists continue to argue that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And yet, get any Detroit Cop alone and ask him about the biggest problem facing cops, and they will tell you that it is the lack of eyewitnesses who are willing to come forward. I gave up a long time ago in hoping that atheists are capable of simple logic.

Anonymous Godfrey November 22, 2015 10:49 AM  

@ 47

The Archbishop of Canterbury must have skipped Christian theology 101 during seminary. You know... the part about the fallen world, evil, the fallen nature of man, free will, sin, etc.

Blogger Nate November 22, 2015 10:56 AM  

NO brook... it was a very lucky day for the train. If it had hit something bigger like a rock it could've been.... ... dented.

Anonymous Godfrey November 22, 2015 10:57 AM  

@47

All this horror and death. It's as if we live in a fallen world and mankind was in need of a savior. Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury should investigate Christianity. He doesn't seem to know much at all about it.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 11:00 AM  

There was a time that any given seven year old kid understood Christianity better than archpansy of Canterbury.

Anonymous Vera S November 22, 2015 11:03 AM  

His mistake was not asserting that while their is evidence for god(s), it isn't very good.

Anonymous VFM #0202 November 22, 2015 11:04 AM  

There is no alter of evidentiary science! Even to suggest such a thing is libelous. You'll be hearing from my shysters.

And no, you can't see my raw data, I already know you disagree, why would I let you see my data?
The raw data doesn't even exist, anymore (and if you believe nothing else I've ever published, believe that) -- so how could you prove it was altered? Hah! It's peer-reviewed Science, bitches!
-- Every Warmist, Ever.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 22, 2015 11:05 AM  

The Archbishop of Canturbury's statement about the Paris attacks making him doubt God are genuinely shocking. I assumed he was an atheist.

I'm ninety percent certain the new Pope is.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 22, 2015 11:07 AM  

@54 VFM #0202
-- Every Warmist, Ever.
---

Those guys are the worst.

It's settled science, you religious neanderthal!

*scientists come out against it*

They're stupid! Besides, 4 out of 5 scientists believe in Global Warming. It's settled science!

*tries to SJW them out of the field*

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 11:13 AM  

His mistake was not asserting that while their is evidence for god(s), it isn't very good.

But they won't do that. Because a) it's ineffective rhetoric and b) opens the door to an actual analysis of the evidence. Worse, it might lead to c) a comparative analysis of the evidence for God versus the evidence for things in which the atheist believes.

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 22, 2015 11:20 AM  

OT

VD, I found you a new chair
http://cdn-2.thejameslist.com/data/images/24039145_source.jpg

Blogger Danby November 22, 2015 11:20 AM  

Back in the 70s, i formulated the opinion that "Agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions." The New Atheists have changed that to "Atheists are just dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic Agnostics."

Looks like I'll have to add "coward" to the description.

Blogger wrf3 November 22, 2015 11:21 AM  

Cataline S. @42: Please put this to rest. Some negatives can be proved, just like some positives can be proved. One of the most famous negatives of the last several hundred years was proven about 10 years ago by Andrew Wiles.

In fact, we can prove that some things can't be proved. IMO, the existence/non-existence of God falls into this last category. Put the proof of this won't fit in a comment box.

Anonymous Howard the Duck November 22, 2015 11:22 AM  

"How can those two be anything but mutually exclusive."

The way I've heard it, they use "atheist" to refer to belief and "agnostic" to refer to knowledge. They "believe" there is no God, but don't "know" that God doesn't exist. A fairly honest position to take.

As a side note, Vox comes off more aspie than the atheist in that exchange with the train bit.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 11:25 AM  

The way I've heard it, they use "atheist" to refer to belief and "agnostic" to refer to knowledge. They "believe" there is no God, but don't "know" that God doesn't exist. A fairly honest position to take.

It isn't even remotely honest. Because a) it is a false distinction and b) it isn't actually their position.

Blogger Ron November 22, 2015 11:33 AM  

@VD My wife read your comment about humor and wanted to know why I was running things past Spacebunny. Then she's realized you posted it and wanted to know if you picked up something I said and were quoting me.

I can't tell you how many times she's seen "that look" and begged me to keep it to myself or pass it by her first.

Blogger Ron November 22, 2015 11:36 AM  

On a similar note my father used to be on TV and ladies would comment that he must be a real joy and keep my mother laughing all the time. Her response, "Oh, yeah, he's *hilarious*."

A prophet is not appreciated in his own country.

Blogger Desiderius November 22, 2015 11:46 AM  

"You now are taking the affirmative"

This is where he gives up the game.

Blogger darrenl November 22, 2015 11:57 AM  

I got to plead ignorance. What's the whole "the train is fine" thing. I must have missed a post here or something or are not up to date with the cool kids here ;P

OpenID iparallax November 22, 2015 12:04 PM  

OT: Scott Adams (Dilbert author) discovers David Futrelle

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133725223091/pathetic-outragism

Blogger GJ November 22, 2015 12:07 PM  

The way I've heard it, they use "atheist" to refer to belief and "agnostic" to refer to knowledge. They "believe" there is no God, but don't "know" that God doesn't exist. A fairly honest position to take.
It could possibly be consistent, but it won't work for the average New Atheist: if their belief is not knowledge, it is either not justified or not true, which is hardly tenable with their pretense of being rational thinkers and habit of rubbishing the religious for having unjustified beliefs.

Blogger Jon M November 22, 2015 12:13 PM  

Darrenl, Half the reason we are laughing at the OP is that the atheist was too stupid and lazy to take the 10 seconds to Google the train for himself. Don't be that guy.

Blogger darrenl November 22, 2015 12:20 PM  

@Jon M...I usually don't laugh at atheists because they're stupid and lazy. Usually is it's because what they say is genuinely funny.

That said...that video is a good one. Thanks

Anonymous Bill Ding November 22, 2015 12:24 PM  

Vox for the uninitiated how has atheism been roundly defeated?

Blogger Joshua Sinistar November 22, 2015 12:25 PM  

These rationalist have huge holes in their perception based on their own dogmas in humanism which basically is a false religion or cult. Their claims of skepticism magically disappear when a tenet of humanism is involved. Evolution has no evidence but they insist it has been conclusively proven, and their adherence to Global Warming after over a decade of no warming at all shows their claims of rationality and skepticism are as false as their rhetoric against religion. To have faith in things you cannot see is not merely religion. One cannot see atoms but people assume they must exist. You cannot see the particles in fire or electricity that causes it but certainly there must be some basic component involved that cannot be seen. Assumptions based on ignorance and lack of evidence are done in science constantly and are definitely not only involved in religion.

Blogger GJ November 22, 2015 12:27 PM  

Atheist: I'm also agnostic! I believe there is no God, but I don't know whether that is true.

Theist: So you have an unjustified belief about God. Your faith is most admirable.

Anonymous Vera S November 22, 2015 12:32 PM  

I think one can honestly claim agnosticism (I Don't know) and stay unchallengeable by the believer and non believer.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 12:40 PM  

Vox for the uninitiated how has atheism been roundly defeated?

Intellectually. The New Atheists attempted to launch a broadside against religion in general and Christianity in particular, but their arguments have been resoundingly rebutted by a variety of theists and Christians. How often do you see the Red State argument or the Religion Causes War argument or the Ultimate 747 argument anymore?

You don't, because they were all torn apart and shown wanting. So, it's back to Russell's Teapot.

Blogger Jon M November 22, 2015 12:43 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger JWM November 22, 2015 12:44 PM  

Few atheists really want to engage in a discussion on the existence of God. Mostly they want to "win an argument" against a Christian. The atheist argument always begins, "Nothing you can say will prove *to my satisfaction*..." The ever moving goalpost is installed at the outset. In this case I always give the atheist the pleasure of his little victory. I tell him, "If nothing I can say will prove my point, then I guess you win." Shake the dust off your shoes, and move on.

JWM (VFM#404)

Blogger Joshua Sinistar November 22, 2015 12:44 PM  

Having skepticism about the existence or nature of God does not preclude being a Christian. Many Christians have crises of Faith during their lives and you cannot always attest to the complete accuracy of scriptures as they are based on eyewitness testimonies of flawed mortals and been translated and edited many times before it is read. However, having Faith in higher powers that must exist for the idea the mankind is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement is obviously ludicrous allows you to know that after you die there is someone or something more than what is lost. The thermodynamic law that no energy can ever be created or destroyed but merely changes form insists that you will go or be somewhere after you die. Those that believe all to life is biological have yet to explain all the functions of the brain and mind that cannot be mapped to neurons and defy physical explanation.

Blogger Zaklog the Great November 22, 2015 12:47 PM  

Okay, could someone please explain the meaning of "the train is fine" to me. I assume it has some kind of context, but I have not seen this.

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 22, 2015 12:50 PM  

@ 79 Google it

Anonymous Trimegistus November 22, 2015 12:57 PM  

I'm an unbeliever, and I have come to realize over the past decade or so that Atheism is a cult. It's as doctrinaire and bigoted as the most extreme caricature of any religion. Its adherents are startlingly narrow-minded (for all their self-congratulation about being open-minded and skeptical), and they are shockingly ignorant.

In the past I've mentioned how grating I find atheists' ignorance of Christianity and other religions (I am genuinely convinced that most of them get their historical and theological knowledge from Cracked Photoplasty articles.) But it's also astounding how ignorant they are of the things they claim to prize: science, mathematics, and logic.

Their science knowledge is mostly of the "I Fucking Love Science" variety, with little to no real understanding of anything. Math beyond simple arithmetic is a mystery to them; consequently none of them understand statistics and thus don't get any of the statistics-based sciences (like biology, public health, etc.).

They are atheists for the same reason they are Progressives: the Smart and Cool People on TV say that being atheist and leftist is Smart and Cool, and these Aspergery nitwits desperately want to be Smart and Cool. So they parrot Dawkins and Colbert and are puzzled when people in the real world don't react the way a carefully-selected and coached studio audience behaves.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) November 22, 2015 12:59 PM  

They "believe" there is no God, but don't "know" that God doesn't exist.
That's like saying "I am not at the beach, well, I might be at the beach."

Anonymous Daniel November 22, 2015 1:00 PM  

@Vox,

Out of interest what do you consider evidence for God to be?* I ask this because you've mentioned in the past that you don't find the logical arguments for God's existence very convincing, a point on which - at least as regards to ones like the PSR Cosmological Argument** and sophisticated modal versions of the Ontological Argument - I needs must beg to differ.

Of course Dawkins and his ilk have shown themselves to be chronically incapable of understanding philosophical theology so there's little point in raising it in conversation with them.

*Yet Russell's Teapot gibe was specifically targeted at those who believe in God's existence despite their admitting their having no evidence for doing so. The old socialist Earl didn't think there were any strong reasons for God's existence but expected any self-respecting theist to claim there were.

**A little dialogue comes to mind:

Atheist: we demand rational explanations, you're an irrational idiot, science is finding explanations et cetera et cetera

Theist: so you are claiming that every being and every state there must be a reason for its being the case?

Atheist: not at all, that's absolute superstitious bigotry: things just are so - stop asking questions!

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 1:04 PM  

@ 79 Google it

Yes class please do your own work.

Blogger wrf3 November 22, 2015 1:06 PM  

Trimegistus @81: it isn't the herd instinct that is the main reason why they are atheists, although that can certainly be a contributing factor.

Several weeks ago I watched someone put a leash on a sheep. The sheep didn't like it. Humans have this to a much greater degree: our brains are wired to reject and resist external control (real external control, not something like astrology where the adherent reads into it whatever they actually want.)

God is the ultimate external control, which we reject until it moves within us.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 1:09 PM  

Out of interest what do you consider evidence for God to be?

All of the various documentary, testimonial, scientific, and historical evidence that exists. I'm not concerned with evidence, myself. I'm concerned with predictive models, and that's where I find Christianity to be the most compelling.

It explains evil, which I have witnessed, experienced, and committed. Nothing else does.

Anonymous Daniel November 22, 2015 1:15 PM  

@Vox,

Would you go with the Dostoevsky line that the existence of objective Evil implies something beyond the natural order as available on Materialism and is thus incompatible with it? This is how I took your aside about Wolfe on Pain.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 22, 2015 1:24 PM  

Well said #81

Blogger Desiderius November 22, 2015 1:30 PM  

"It explains evil, which I have witnessed, experienced, and committed. Nothing else does."

Manfully said.

It offers not only diagnosis, but also cure.

Blogger Desiderius November 22, 2015 1:33 PM  

"You now are taking the affirmative"

To which one could rightfully say, "Damn straight I am! Why is it that you fear to do likewise?"

Not coincidentally, "I am" is the Name He gave for Himself to Moses.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau November 22, 2015 1:37 PM  

As Abraham said to the rich man in Hell when he asked to have Lazarus sent to his living brothers, 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Blogger Horn of the Mark November 22, 2015 1:40 PM  

Most atheists aren't prepared to hear their convictions challenged as a form of mental sterilization. How many atheists do they know with more than two children? Practically none; most never bother reproducing. Religiously "unaffiliated" has a fertility rate of no better than 1.7 worldwide, and within this group, atheists are certainly even lower. If replacement level is 2.1, who will make up the difference? Who breeds the most in the most secular countries? Traditional Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.

Rob them off their source of pride. Tell them their arguments and evidence don't matter because their kind will die out in a century or so. Really? You say neanderthals had a lot of advantages over homo sapiens? Wow, good for them, huh?

Blogger Doom November 22, 2015 1:58 PM  

I think I wrote an article just a couple of years ago claiming that there is no such thing as atheism. Good to see they got the memo. Now, finally, I see how Reagan actually probably did finish off the former Soviet Union. He didn't aim at it, or think it would happen, he just pointed and the thing fell. It's amazing what happens when people are told the truth in such a way as to not be able to defend it, even in their own minds. Don't debate, if they are truly wrong. Just call them on it and don't back down. You, me, others. Don't play their game or follow their false leads.

Blogger S1AL November 22, 2015 2:04 PM  

I think that the train meme is going to become my go-to response for people advocating Socialism. Can't believe I never saw that one before.

Blogger Rabbi B November 22, 2015 2:19 PM  

"I think that the train meme is going to become my go-to response for people advocating Socialism. Can't believe I never saw that one before."

Here's another version.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 2:51 PM  

I had a very similar exchange with some atheists yesterday, except that I didn't toy with him very long about his ignorance of the meaning of "evidence." There is unquestionably something seriously mentally off with these people.

They then inevitably attempt to move the goal-posts from demanding "evidence" to demanding "proof," which is a much higher standard than they hold science to. After pointing this out, full meltdown typically ensues.

Blogger natschuster November 22, 2015 3:01 PM  

I've always been jealous of the simple, blind faith that atheists have in science. They just know that science will answer all the questions someday despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 3:01 PM  

...a comparative analysis of the evidence for God versus the evidence for things in which the atheist believes.

Another highly entertaining line of attack. Atheists love science, and their first line of attack is something to the effect that there is no scientific evidence of God.

However, that claim is not exactly true. The Bible provides some excellent examples of what happens to those who reject God, and as we replicate those conditions with our own societies, we see results that in many cases are far worse than those predicted in the Bible.

The experiment that atheists believe should succeed -- setting up a secular society that, if not a utopia, functions far better than religious societies -- consistently fails.

Science itself invalidates the atheist belief system.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 3:07 PM  

A couple of decades ago they could have at least rebutted with, "But Sweden!"

Oops.

Anonymous Bz November 22, 2015 3:11 PM  

The Archbishop of Canterbury ought to resign. "But what about me pension?"

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 3:19 PM  

Is the point of this that Vox is autistic?

Ah. Look up “evidence.”
Look up “evidence.” Ah.
No. The train is fine. Stop talking.
No. Stop Talking. The Train is fine.
Ah. The Train is fine.

Anonymous Henry II November 22, 2015 3:36 PM  

The Archbishop of Canterbury ought to resign. "But what about me pension?"

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

Anonymous Susan November 22, 2015 3:36 PM  

Google is your friend @101.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 3:45 PM  

Is the point of this that Vox is autistic?

Ooh, he challenges Vox to a rhetorical battle of wits!

This will be as interesting as Ronda Rousey vs. Floyd Mayweather.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 3:54 PM  

Susan,
Google what?
“The train is fine”?
I assume this is a reference to the Onion skit?
I already knew that when I made my comment.
What was the point of Vox referencing it?
To accentuate that he was already acting autistic before he mentioned the train being fine?

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus (#144) November 22, 2015 4:00 PM  

"Another highly entertaining line of attack. Atheists love science, and their first line of attack is something to the effect that there is no scientific evidence of God."

Seen this many times, and then watched them go apoplectic when I bring up arguments from Schroeder or Ross. Lack of "testable predictions" indeed.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 4:05 PM  

"Is the point of this that Vox is autistic?"

You still haven't looked up "evidence" have you?

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 4:08 PM  

"Seen this many times, and then watched them go apoplectic when I bring up arguments from Schroeder or Ross."

I'm not familiar with those, but I usually find that by the time I've had an idea, lots of other people have had it before. Quite often someone with a Greek sounding name.

Blogger praetorian November 22, 2015 4:08 PM  

It explains evil, which I have witnessed, experienced, and committed. Nothing else does.

Maybe a slightly different way of putting that is: your choices are The Grand Inquisitor or Christ. No cheating, brights.

Blogger Jon M November 22, 2015 4:12 PM  

Harold, you are familiar with the point of the sketch, but can't figure how how the train fits into the context of the coversation. Yet you cling to the notion you are the smartest person in the room. You are nothing if not consistent.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 4:13 PM  

Markku,
On what do you base your appraisal of my prospects in a battle of wits with Vox?

Noah B #120,
As it happens I did look up “evidence”, out of curiosity.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 4:19 PM  

"Is Vox autistic?" he asks, as he chases him around the internet demanding acceptable responses to his questions.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 4:24 PM  

Jon M,
Why don’t you explain it to me?

Blogger Rabbi B November 22, 2015 4:37 PM  

Harold,

What part of the "The train is fine" are you struggling with? I mean, the train IS fine. Which train, you might be asking yourself . . . the train that is fine.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 4:42 PM  

Dave,
“Chases him around the internet.” What?

Jon M,
Here is how the conversation fits the skit.
In the skit the important thing is that a man has died, but to the autistic man the important thing is that the train is fine.
In the conversation the important thing is what the person meant by “evidence” in the context of the conversation, but to Vox the important thing is the dictionary definition.

“Yet you cling to the notion you are the smartest person in the room.” What gave you this idea?

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 4:53 PM  

The train is fly.

Blogger CM November 22, 2015 4:57 PM  

In the conversation the important thing is what the person meant by “evidence” in the context of the conversation, but to Vox the important thing is the dictionary definition.

The important thing is that the one using words knows what those words actually mean.

Saying "evidence" but meaning "proof" makes you a liar and sower of chaos and confusion.

Anonymous Slowpoke November 22, 2015 5:01 PM  

@115
Are you Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum?

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 5:07 PM  

“The important thing is that the one using words knows what those words actually mean.”

Sure, if you’re autistic.

“Saying "evidence" but meaning "proof" makes you a liar and sower of chaos and confusion.”

He didn’t mean “proof.”

Anonymous Wyrd November 22, 2015 5:10 PM  

@Dark Ninja Steve

The train is fly.

We want the funk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImI78s638hQ

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 5:22 PM  

@119 Harold

Wait, I know this one! This is the part where the goal posts are moved and you change your handle to Humpty Dumpty.

Thanks James Dixon!

Anonymous The Kurgan November 22, 2015 5:24 PM  


"Yeah, don't do that," was her advice.


See Vox, this is why I say, like me, you should embrace your borderline Asperger's.
It's not a handicap. It's the next stage in human evolution. Not even kidding. Nature is a bitch, so she creates a 1000 blind frogs just to get the one that has telescopic vision. Ditto the increase in overall autism to create a few more advanced prototypes. Hopefully our kids being v2.0 will be better at overcoming the sea of stupidity that surrounds us.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 5:25 PM  

Wyrd - Word.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 5:28 PM  

On what do you base your appraisal of my prospects in a battle of wits with Vox?

How do you know what my appraisal is? That sounds like a misogynistic assumption. Are you misogynistic?

Anonymous Wyrd November 22, 2015 5:30 PM  

The Big Big Train is fine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdSZCvS-qQg

Blogger rumpole5 November 22, 2015 5:32 PM  

If there is no transcendent source for one's values, then how does one determine what heaven is? And by what right doors he foist his notion onto others?

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 5:33 PM  

Dave,
I suppose I may have given the impression that I was one and the same as “Sapien” when I didn’t object to Noah B #120’s “still”. I am not. I have never heard of him.

Slowpoke,
Does that answer your question. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Rusty Fife,
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Markku,
Am I misogynistic? Only with regards to women who are in a fighting ring instead of a kitchen.

Blogger JimR November 22, 2015 5:34 PM  

re: The shroud of Turin.

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 5:37 PM  

OT @Markku - has the epub for 4GW Handbook been released? I sent request for epub to CH email.

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 5:42 PM  

@127 Harold

Refer to @27 and Lewis Carroll
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 5:44 PM  

Dave: When did you send it? I couldn't find such an email, not in spam either. In general, it's currently Amazon-exclusive for KU-related reasons, but we do have the epub. If you send us the Amazon receipt, we'll send you the epub file. If you have done so, then try emailing Vox directly with the link in the upper left-hand corner here.

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 5:45 PM  

@127 Harold

Which is it, who is the Master?

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 5:47 PM  

Am I misogynistic? Only with regards to women who are in a fighting ring instead of a kitchen.

I see. Perhaps you indeed are one of us, and genuinely don't understand it, instead of trying to make Vox lose frame.

When you say "the train is fine", you are pretending to be the train operator, and treat the aspie-out that lead to it as the reporter having asked about the train.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 5:52 PM  

@ Harold - I suppose I may have given the impression that I was one and the same as “Sapien” when I didn’t object to Noah B #120’s “still”. I am not. I have never heard of him.

Ah that's unfortunate in one sense, not for you obviously, but most of us were looking forward to a continuation of the twitter, ah, discussion.

Can I suggest you pick up a copy of Vox's book SJWs Always Lie if you haven't already. Would explain some of Vox's rhetoric.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 5:54 PM  

Thanks Rusty Fife,
The important thing is mutual understanding. Not an austistic insistence on some dictionary definition when it any non-autistic person knows what is meant.

Blogger Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 November 22, 2015 5:55 PM  

I have an embarrassing confession... I do not know from whence the train comments came from. I'm heartened and convinced that it is in fact fine however. ILK should know this and a VFM well... like I said it's embarrassing to be the one doofus in the class that doesn't understand what the teacher is talking about. I therefore raise my hand and ask "What was the genesis of this train which we all know and accept to be fine?"

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 5:57 PM  

@135 Harold

How can anyone know what is meant, if it is not the common definition?

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 5:59 PM  

@Markku

Do you want me to resend request to an email address from you that you sent me previously on another issue or Vox? No rush but I would like the epubfile were told would be available.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 6:00 PM  

Just send the email to books (at) castaliahouse (dot) com

If we don't receive it, we'll try something else.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 22, 2015 6:06 PM  

@Remo

It comes from this video - The Train Is Fine

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 6:09 PM  

Ok Markku just sent email. Thanks

Blogger wrf3 November 22, 2015 6:12 PM  

Markku @133. Wrong train, Markku. Vox is punking all of you. This train.

It isn't about stressing the wrong thing (which is certainly an Aspie quality) but, rather, not knowing the meaning of words you're using. Like "evidence" and "train".

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 6:14 PM  

Dave, got the email. We'll handle it shortly.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 6:33 PM  

Rust Fife,
How do the people who write the dictionary know what is meant?
Do you think Vox didn’t know what sort of thing Sapien was asking for when he asked for “evidence”?

Blogger Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 November 22, 2015 6:33 PM  

Thank you fellow minions for the education - and of course thank GOD the train is fine!

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 6:34 PM  

Remo - That is a bad confession to make, and you should feel bad.

Luckily, Uncle Steve is here for you.

Like most Voxisms, there is both an esoteric and exoteric component to his train talk.

The exoteric story is here, where your Dark Lord and mine toys with a Swedish cuck in the manner of a bored cat that has discovered a sparrow with a broken wing. As is his nefariously whimsical wont.

But as all true vile faceless minions should know, the Supreme Dark Lord didn't get to command more than four centuries of fanatical were-wargs, wendigos, razor-smiled shadowmen, abominable snowcreatures, tentacled nightmare-things, and Steve without being subtle.

There are wheels within wheels, turtles atop turtles, and five dimensional pyramids with great flaming laser eyes contained within his magnificently cruel pronouncements.

The Darkest Lord himself made reference in this very blog to his tendency towards lighthearted jest, but trust me when I say his drollery would freeze the blood of mere mortal men. A simulated example, sanitised so as not to terrify any pregnant ladies reading into giving birth to an elephant man or a Scalzi, may be found here.

So, the train.

Well, have you ever heard the legend of the Polar Express? That magical choo-choo that takes good and deserving children to see Santy Claus?

It's exactly like that isn't.

You see, there is another train. A train that glides eerily where its most sinister sire pleases it to, requiring neither track nor any living driver.

A train that no man, born of woman, may look apon without his synapses bursting afire with cold madness.

A train which gathers minions and snowflakes and rabbits alike, whether they will alight on it or not.

It has only one, final destination, and that is the courtyard of Castello Malevoxo, where it is always midnight and the branches of the dead trees that ring that uncanny place seem to whisper mockingly and incessantly even when there isn't a breath of wind.

For the loyal minions, this is a place of feasting and oaths and carousing and ferocious battle hymns.

But for the snowflakes and the rabbits and the SJW's, well, His Evilness has an entirely different form of sport in mind.

Anonymous Wyrd November 22, 2015 6:48 PM  

But Dark Ninja Steve, what about Ozzy's train:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsNMnp2LyZE

His train does not at all look fine.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 6:50 PM  

Do you think Vox didn’t know what sort of thing Sapien was asking for when he asked for “evidence”?

You're probably new, so you don't know what Vox means by "the atheist dance". It's about changing definitions when the debate is not going their way, and denying that such a change has been made. Originally it referred to the fact that they blame Christianity for all war-related deaths based on nothing else but the monarch/leader professing Christianity, but for similar deaths caused by atheists (Stalin and Mao being the prime examples) they claim that the deaths cannot be attributed to atheism because they didn't specifically kill in the name of atheism.

We have seen this too many times with regards to the word "evidence". They use that word in their opening gambit in order to sound reasonable, but then reject all presented evidence with arguments that only make sense if the word was "proof" instead. Since this person had not given Vox much hope for expecting intellectual honesty based on prior (unquoted) discussion, he chose to just beat him up with rhetoric. There was adequate reason to believe it would play out the same way as dozens of times before.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 6:55 PM  

Wyrd - The Dark Lord's train is not affiliated with Ozzy's crazy train or Seanan McGuire's gravy train.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 6:56 PM  

How about Toto's Gypsy Train?

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 6:57 PM  

@144 Harold

Precision in language is the sign of a precise mind. In your physics classes you will recall the difference between 'weight' and 'mass'.

If one were to try to discuss Science! while being imprecise in using those words, you would create much confusion.

However while speaking rhetorically, the same precision in language is not necessary.

By not sticking to precision in language, it is a signal that the individual is not trying to create mutual understanding. Instead, they are using rhetoric.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 6:58 PM  

The important thing is that the train kept a-rollin' so it must be fine.

Anonymous Wyrd November 22, 2015 7:04 PM  

Well, train, train, take me on out of this town
Train, train, Lord, take me on out of this town
Well, that woman I'm in love with, Lord, she's Memphis bound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBP15lRprPs

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 7:12 PM  

@144 Harold

As to dictionary definitions; don't summon The Nate by suggesting that Webster is superior to Oxford. Donald Trump is a clear indication those Yankees can't speak intelligable English.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 22, 2015 7:23 PM  

Markku - Toto's Gypsy Train?

I don't know if His Darkness takes a personal interest in Toto's Gypsy Train, but I understand his ringtone is a panpipe cover of the chorus from "Africa".

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 7:23 PM  

Toto heh heh

Stevil, I hereby request the Dark Lord place your train treatise from above in a suitable permanent location on this blog for all to see or you know maybe a link to it or a small notation if it pleases the Dark Lord.

Anonymous The Kurgan November 22, 2015 7:30 PM  

Having skepticism about the existence or nature of God does not preclude being a Christian.
You must be an acolyte of the Archbishop of Canterbury . That is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time.

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 7:50 PM  

Markku,
Your explanation of what is intended by saying “the train is fine” is what I originally thought.

What I don’t understand is this:

“Needless to say, he's doing a wonderful job proving my observation about the high degree of correlation between atheists and what used to be called "Asperger's Syndrome”.”

How? Vox is the only one who sounds Aspergery.

“You're probably new, so you don't know what Vox means by "the atheist dance”.”
Not so much new as I only read Vox’s blog on selected topics. But, yes, I didn’t know what he meant by “the athiest dance”. Thanks for the explanation.

“We have seen this too many times with regards to the word "evidence". They use that word in their opening gambit in order to sound reasonable, but then reject all presented evidence with arguments that only make sense if the word was "proof" instead. Since this person had not given Vox much hope for expecting intellectual honesty based on prior (unquoted) discussion…”

Well, that makes what Vox said make more sense, but it doesn’t explain why he thinks Sapien came off as ’spergy.

“… he chose to just beat him up with rhetoric.”

He didn’t beat him up at all, he just bemused him.

Blogger Dave November 22, 2015 8:02 PM  

Harold, I'm curious if you have read SJWs Always Lie? If not, any particular reason?

Blogger wrf3 November 22, 2015 8:08 PM  

The Archbishop of Canterbury did not doubt God's existence -- he doubted God's presence, as in, "where are you in all this?" The Archbishop then related, "He said, 'in the middle of it' and also in answer from Psalm 56...".

You know, kind of like someone who once said, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?.

Blogger VD November 22, 2015 8:09 PM  

He didn’t beat him up at all, he just bemused him.

Yes, that's precisely why Sapien tweeted something like 50 times unprovoked before I amped it up. He was "bemused". You clearly don't understand how rhetoric works.

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 22, 2015 8:10 PM  

@11 I've encountered rocks in my garden that are more curious about alternative points of view than some of these hardline atheists.

You mean they're not interested in re-hearing and re-rejecting YOUR point of view.  American society is saturated with theism.  Most theists are exactly as close-minded about other theologies as you accuse atheists of being, but you don't see the hypocrisy.

As for what Vox did here?  He refused to cite any evidence, he changed the subject to the definition of "evidence".  It's trivial to find the defintion of "evidence", which in this context is "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."  Vox cited exactly none.

If Vox was actually interested in giving @VernacularSwag something to chew on, he could have thrown him a URL or three to something that argues his case.  Who knows, he might have made a conversion.  Instead he changed the subject, went straight to silly rhetoric, and culminated with the train in-joke.  What @VernacularSwag is going to get out of this is "even prominent theists are idiots who retreat into incomprehensible babble when challenged for evidence".

Sometimes you make Thordaddy look good.

@19 Atheists want to be unconstrained from from the demands of an objective moral law.

What "objective moral law" is that?  How do you derive it, and from what source?  If that source is an old book, what do you say to e.g. the Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus who have their own old books and derive different "objective" moral laws from them?  Hell, Christians can't even agree on what "objective" moral laws derive from the SAME book!  How do you "objectively" confirm a revelation?

And you wonder why those who've walked away from your churches are not interested in coming back....

@26 There's plenty of evidence that handing power to moral busybodies, whether SJWs or any others, is the fast lane to dystopia.  Atheism at least tries to head that off.

@31 Atheism is practiced by two major brands of Evil. Satanists and Communists. Satanists obviously just hate God

I'm shocked but never surprised at the total lack of reasoning ability so many theists show.  Satanists are supposed to "hate God" that they don't believe exists?  WTF?

Seriously, do you read your own words?  Consider Vishnu.  Do you hate Vishnu?  Of course not; Vishnu doesn't exist.  Neither do Loki or Hera.  You don't waste any time even thinking about them unless you're trying to make a point to someone.  That's how atheists are about your diety too.  Satanists are obsessed; in other words, believers.  They are opposites.

Without God, you only have "human" rights, given to you by humans

As opposed to e.g. the "rights" enjoyed under shari'a or any of its Christian analogues like Puritanism.  Hint, people rebelled against that too.

People are going to screw up, that's a given.  People in authority can do more damage with their screwups.  Not letting authorities claiming the aegis of God exercise much power limits the damage they can do.

@38 The Shroud of Turin is a 13th or 14th-century fake, proven both by carbon-dating and the nature of the image on it, which is much taller than contemporary people.

@40 There is no reason to offer them dialectic

Unless you're, like, trying to convince them or lurkers that you actually have an argument instead of just a bludgeon.

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 22, 2015 8:13 PM  

@46 Atheists continue to argue that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And yet, get any Detroit Cop alone and ask him about the biggest problem facing cops, and they will tell you that it is the lack of eyewitnesses who are willing to come forward.

False dichotomy.  Eyewitness evidence IS highly unreliable, but it can be used to get other evidence.  Cops with the name of a perp can use that to get warrants, find weapons, etc.

@56 @72 Explain the 30°C difference between earth's average surface temperature and its equilibrium blackbody temperature based on insolation and albedo.

@57 Why didn't you cite some?

@78 The thermodynamic law that no energy can ever be created or destroyed but merely changes form insists that you will go or be somewhere after you die.

Written by someone who never took thermo.  When you've burnt the wood, there's no "ghost" of the tree remaining.  When you've sent your radio signal into the dummy load, the only thing that remains of your message is heat; it has no "afterlife".

@81 it's also astounding how ignorant they are of the things they claim to prize: science, mathematics, and logic.

You mean, like the astounding ignorance exhibited here about earth's greenhouse effect?

Math beyond simple arithmetic is a mystery to them

You mean, like "skeptics" here who can't even work the blackbody radiation equation?

They are atheists for the same reason they are Progressives

Bah.  I was saying that there was no "progress" in Progressivism back when I was in college and got full exposure to their insanity.  I'm an atheist because I was expose to theism too, and couldn't take its insanity either.

@86 Epicycles were a pretty good predictor of planetary motions, too.  You confuse "useful" with "correct"; that does not follow.  Even highly useful and accurate things can be wrong.

@97 Science doesn't guarantee answers.  It's a method of quality control against effects like wishful thinking.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 8:13 PM  

@38 The Shroud of Turin is a 13th or 14th-century fake, proven both by carbon-dating and the nature of the image on it, which is much taller than contemporary people.

Not so. It was found that the threads used for carbon dating were taken from a patch that was done in the Middle Ages to repair damage in the shroud. No new dating has been done after that, to samples that are known to be original.

Anonymous Anonymous Something November 22, 2015 8:15 PM  

One of my reasons for disbelief in the conventional Christian God specifically is that omnipotence is logically incoherent.

And yes, I'll happily grant that the average atheist (especially the average atheist eager to get into a fight with you on Twitter) is a moron who can't even articulate his beliefs properly, let alone defend them. (I'll also happily grant that Dawkins is a useless commie who deserves a large share of the blame for the decline of the West.)

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 8:17 PM  

omnipotence is logically incoherent

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "all power". So, God can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. It says nothing about God's ability to provide a yes-answer to all logically incoherent questions that start with the words "can God..."

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 22, 2015 8:18 PM  

@164 So you're saying that the Church deliberately confounded the results of the test by providing a faulty sample?  The patch is, IIUC, distinct from the rest of the shroud so it could not have been a mistake.

I'm betting on a post-hoc excuse.  It's the human thing to do, to reject evidence that debunks a cherished belief.  You know, like what SJWs do about e.g. Black crime statistics?

Blogger Markku November 22, 2015 8:20 PM  

So you're saying that the Church deliberately confounded the results of the test by providing a faulty sample?

No. They didn't know it at the time. But it was found in medieval records. The patch was very competent, the threads were interweaved with original threads.

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 8:21 PM  

@163 Mr. Rational

I think the Nords were the only ones who got the Second Law correct. In the end is the battle of Ragnorak, and the Ice Giants win. They predicted the Heat Death.

Blogger Danby November 22, 2015 8:37 PM  

The atheist argument always begins, "Nothing you can say will prove *to my satisfaction*..." The ever moving goalpost is installed at the outset. In this case I always give the atheist the pleasure of his little victory. I tell him, "If nothing I can say will prove my point, then I guess you win."

"I guess every religion has its unquestionable dogmas, even yours."

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 8:45 PM  

VD
“Yes, that's precisely why Sapien tweeted something like 50 times unprovoked before I amped it up.“
When did that happen? Are you talking about the five consecutive responses quoted above? Is that a chronological sequence? I looked on twitter and all the coversation was pretty much back and forth.

“He was "bemused".”
He was bemused. "I think I broke him, Jim." He tweeted quoting the tweet “The train is not derailed. I already told you it is fine. Stop worrying about the train.”

First you refuse to even offer him an argument then you sound like you’ve cracked and start going on about trains. Who wouldn’t be bemused.

“You clearly don't understand how rhetoric works.”
Is it for the purpose of entertaining people and convincing them their opposition are crackpots?

VD,
Did you see Michel Houellebecq in the NYT mentioned direct democracy: “The discredit that applies to all political parties today isn’t just huge; it is legitimate. And it seems to me, it really seems to me, that the only solution still available to us now is to move gently toward the only form of real democracy: I mean, direct democracy.” The idea seems to be growing.

Blogger Desiderius November 22, 2015 8:53 PM  

"How? Vox is the only one who sounds Aspergery."

Vox merely returned bad faith for bad faith. Basic human reaction. Google tit-for-tat.

Sapien was befuddled by Vox's basic human reaction, hence Aspergery.

Blogger Rusty Fife November 22, 2015 9:03 PM  

@171 Harold

Why then did he not correct himself from using the term 'evidence' to 'proof' if that was what he meant?

If Sapien was looking for an argument, why should he have a problem negotiating the terms first?

It's like challenging someone to a duel. One shouldn't show up with sabers if the weapons weren't agreed first. You might end up facing a sniper rifle at 800yds.

Anonymous Trimegistus November 22, 2015 9:03 PM  

Since these are replies to things I posted, I'll field 'em:

(T) "@81 it's also astounding how ignorant they are of the things they claim to prize: science, mathematics, and logic."

(Mr. R.) "You mean, like the astounding ignorance exhibited here about earth's greenhouse effect?"

Non sequitur. I never claimed that believers have perfect knowledge of all subjects. Therefore ignorance of one subject proves nothing. Also, you are asserting this "ignorance" based only on assertion. Purely rhetorical, which means I can respond: WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE?

(me) "Math beyond simple arithmetic is a mystery to them"

(Mr. R) "You mean, like "skeptics" here who can't even work the blackbody radiation equation?"

Unproven. Show your work or GTFO. You dispute what is said but show no evidence of your own, nor do you give us any indication that you can do the math yourself. Plus, once again, lack of math aptitude here doesn't prove that most self-proclaimed atheists are not as bad or worse at math. So, I must ask a second time, Mr. Rational: WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE?

(me) "They are atheists for the same reason they are Progressives"

(Mr. R.) "Bah. I was saying that there was no "progress" in Progressivism back when I was in college and got full exposure to their insanity. I'm an atheist because I was expose to theism too, and couldn't take its insanity either."

So Mr. R. admits that most of what I was saying is true. Why, then, is he arguing with me? Evidently Mr. R. is here merely to sling insults at the believers he so despises (along with black people). Of course, since I began by pointing out that I am myself an unbeliever, Mr. R. is responding to what I said by insulting someone else, probably with darker skin. Not very good proof of being rational, and certainly evidence against much intelligence inside his head.

Why do you hate black people, Mr. "Rational"?

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 9:38 PM  

Desiderius,
“Vox merely returned bad faith for bad faith.”
Since we don’t have the entire conversation we can’t see who initiated the bad faith, but Vox is the one engaging in bad faith argumentation in the quoted conversation.

Rusty Fife,
He didn’t mean “proof.” He probably meant something like “information not easily explained other than indicating the existence of God.”

Anonymous Harold November 22, 2015 10:00 PM  

Dave,
No, I haven’t read SJWAL I haven’t bought a non-fiction book for over a decade and I haven’t, yet, gone out of my way to make an exception. If I had bought it I probably wouldn’t have read it yet. There is something about buying books as opposed to getting them out from the (university) library, or even downloading them, that makes me never get around to reading them.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic November 22, 2015 10:05 PM  

Funniest troll I've seen in ages. And I read a lot of trolling. Was laughing very loud.

Blogger James Dixon November 22, 2015 10:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon November 22, 2015 11:02 PM  

> The important thing is mutual understanding. Not an austistic insistence on some dictionary definition when it any non-autistic person knows what is meant.

Harold, any one who says you can be both an atheist and an agnostic either doesn't know what is meant or is deliberately misusing the words.

Anyone who says there is no evidence for God either doesn't know what evidence means, is lying, or is a complete idiot.

> Do you think Vox didn’t know what sort of thing Sapien was asking for when he asked for “evidence”?

Even if he did, why should he humor him by allowing him to misuse the word? You seem to think Vox is only interested in convincing the other poster. That's not the case, especially since Vox knows by the nature of his arguments that he can't be convinced.

> You see, there is another train. A train that glides eerily where its most sinister sire pleases it to, requiring neither track nor any living driver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyRZTAmcW7c

> The important thing is that the train kept a-rollin' so it must be fine.

All night long.

> He didn’t mean “proof.” He probably meant something like “information not easily explained other than indicating the existence of God.”

Well, you're sort of right. He didn't actually mean proof. But not for the reason you think.

If Vox had provided the information you think he wanted, he'd simply have demanded ever more exacting evidence. And if Vox proceeded to perform a miracle right in front of him (virtually speaking) in God's name, he'd still manage to find a way to deny it. You seem to think we haven't seen this played out lots of times before.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 22, 2015 11:20 PM  

Atheist | Agnostic | Theist

Pick one.

And they say they're logical...

Blogger Were-Puppy November 22, 2015 11:34 PM  

I waited up all night for news of a Snickers wrapper, but they kept talking about a dead guy and a stupid train.

Blogger bob k. mando November 23, 2015 12:45 AM  

all i know is, the train runs fine on a confederate railroad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfXs0m32A8E

Blogger Desiderius November 23, 2015 1:07 AM  

Harold,

There are 7 separate instances of bad faith in Sapien's first three tweets.

Of course atheism itself is the quintessence of bad faith, so that was seven more than strictly necessary.

You are either not-very-high functioning Asperger's yourself, or are also arguing in bad faith.

Next.

Anonymous Anonymous Something November 23, 2015 1:09 AM  

Blaine is a pain, but we have to take the train…

Anonymous Slowpoke November 23, 2015 1:46 AM  

@Harold:

James Dixon wrote:
"If Vox had provided the information you think he wanted, he'd simply have demanded ever more exacting evidence. And if Vox proceeded to perform a miracle right in front of him (virtually speaking) in God's name, he'd still manage to find a way to deny it. You seem to think we haven't seen this played out lots of times before."

See the funny thing is that this is more evidence. This is exactly as The Master said in the parable of the Lazarus and the Rich Man(Luke 16:19). Jesus predicted this action and these moving the goal posts. The atheist is just like the Rich Man. If God raised a dead man to life through Vox they would still not believe; and it has nothing to do with evidence or science! it has to do with their pride and rebellion.

Further irony for you. Your arguing implies and assumes that there is some right and truth. Right and truth are evidence for God.

Now that I have wasted some dialectic on you; for some more useful rhetoric. You will respond just like James Dixon predicted and argue that these evidences have been answered by better argument. You won't accept that they're here and easy to find. But that won't be moving the Goal Posts or anything like that. And we should all Join the Taliban so we'd be happy whenever soldiers die.

Blogger Tobias Templo November 23, 2015 1:52 AM  

Is this Mr. Rational for real?

I mean, Vishnu being compare to Loki and Hera. Then immediately jumping to the biblical God as if it is even comparable at all.

The old lame line of argument: Greek or Norse myth then jump to real world religions like it is even comparable.

No wonder typical atheists immediately go "not based on their atheism" when Mao and Stalin are being used to show their kind as much much more dangerous.

Blogger R Beisert November 23, 2015 2:04 AM  

The train line is gold, but I think South Park just gave us another great one:

"Does he(she/it/that thing) know he's an ad?"

[Following link goes to Comedy Central website, where the appropriate clip is hosted via Hulu]

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/1g6zpq/does-she-know#source=ff4daa77-43e0-4601-8fd6-21ea1daf9c19&position=1&sort=airdate

Anonymous Harold November 23, 2015 2:20 AM  

James Dixon,
“any one who says you can be both an atheist and an agnostic either doesn't know what is meant or is deliberately misusing the words.”

from my dictionary:
Athiest: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

These are not mutually exclusive. I don’t think he was deliberately misusing words I think he genuinely considers the definition of “athiest” to encompass mere lack of belief in God’s existence rather than necessitating the belief in God’s non-existence. It may not be what is commonly meant, but my dictionary agrees with him.

“Even if he did, why should he humor him by allowing him to misuse the word?”

He should have if he didn’t want to come across like a ‘sperg.

“You seem to think Vox is only interested in convincing the other poster. That's not the case, especially since Vox knows by the nature of his arguments that he can't be convinced.“

I don‘t think that at all. He obviously wasn’t trying to convince the other poster.

“If Vox had provided the information you think he wanted, he'd simply have demanded ever more exacting evidence. And if Vox proceeded to perform a miracle right in front of him (virtually speaking) in God's name, he'd still manage to find a way to deny it. You seem to think we haven't seen this played out lots of times before.”

All that may be so but that doesn’t mean Vox didn’t come across as the greater ‘sperg.


Desiderius,
Everything you said was nonsense.


Lets change things up for a fresh perspective:

Alice: There is considerable evidence for racial equality. You like definitions: look up "evidence".

Bob: LOL. Name one piece of evidence. You now are taking the affirmative

Alice: You're laughing because you're stupid. Again, look up "evidence".

Bob: I'm not the one pointing to invisible arguments for my position.

Alice: Neither am I. You don't know what evidence is. Your arguments are hopelessly wrong.

Bob: What the actual fuck

Bob: You're refusing to even have the discussion so how do you even know what my argument is

Bob: You claim there is evidence for racial equality yet refuse to provide an example and I'm the stupid one

Bob: Go look it up for yourself, I'm done arguing against your ignorance

Bob: you said considerable amount so surely it should be easy to provide just one

Alice: It is. But I know the Racist Dance. You're too intellectually short for the ride.

Bob: Try me

Alice: No. The grass is fine. Stop talking.

Bob: It's much easier to win argument that never happens isn't it

Alice: What the actual fuck? Stop talking. The grass is still fine.

Bob: What the hell is this grass you keep talking about lol

Alice: The grass that is fine.

Bob: ...are you okay?

Alice: Yes. So is the grass.

Bob: Are you just saying random things to derail the convo now or what?


If I read this conversation I wouldn’t think Bob came across as a ‘spergy, would you?

Blogger Markku November 23, 2015 2:34 AM  

You are omitting the fact that Alice was not talking to Bob, nor did have any interest in talking with Bob.

Blogger Markku November 23, 2015 2:35 AM  

So, Alice slapped Bob around until Bob went away. Mission accomplished.

Blogger Desiderius November 23, 2015 2:35 AM  

"Everything you said was nonsense."

You don't know the half of it. All Aboard!

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength."

Blogger Daniel November 23, 2015 3:19 AM  

These dummies get hit by the train and the train is always fine. SJWs always ricochet.

Anonymous Harold November 23, 2015 3:55 AM  

Markku,
If Alice didn’t want to talk to Bob she could have just not talked to Bob.

Blogger Markku November 23, 2015 4:57 AM  

If Alice didn’t want to talk to Bob she could have just not talked to Bob.

Did you miss the part about the fifty messages? That strategy wasn't working. This strategy observably did. If you read SJWSAL, you'd understand why.

Anonymous Harold November 23, 2015 5:24 AM  

“Did you miss the part about the fifty messages? That strategy wasn't working. This strategy observably did. If you read SJWSAL, you'd understand why.”

I don’t know how twitter works but surely if you don’t want to be bothered by someone you don’t have to be.

Also, what 50 messages? I can’t find them.
https://twitter.com/VernacularSwag/with_replies
It’s all back and forth. I think 50 was hyperbole.

Amusingly, I did see this conversation:


The Man with No Name: Also, I do like Dawkins, despite some of his arguments. He has his redeeming qualities

Sapien: I honestly think he's just really autistic sometimes, no joke. Like he has asbergers

The Man with No Name: Probably.

Blogger Markku November 23, 2015 5:32 AM  

Also, what 50 messages? I can’t find them.
https://twitter.com/VernacularSwag/with_replies
It’s all back and forth. I think 50 was hyperbole.


I'm guessing you didn't notice the view conversation and show more in conversation buttons. I didn't count them, but 50 looks right to me.

And if you think running away or putting fingers in your ears is a superior strategy to shutting someone up, then you REALLY need to read SJWAL.

Anonymous Harold November 23, 2015 5:45 AM  

“I'm guessing you didn't notice the view conversation and show more in conversation buttons. I didn't count them, but 50 looks right to me.”

I clicked on some of those. Like I said, the conversations are all back and forth. I don’t see where he was making multiple replies to Vox without Vox replying to him.

It might be good to shut up SJWs but if you read his retweets he is obviously not a SJW.

AJ: The only proper response to censorship demands is parody.

Brandon Darby: All you have is "Shaun King claims." We have his family saying he's white, his birth cert, and police report.

Milo Yiannopoulos: No link to Breitbart. But terrorist Goldberg did write for… THE DAILY KOS. It’s in the link YOU just tweeted

These are some things he has retweeted. Doesn’t sound like the sort of person who needs to be shut up.

Blogger Markku November 23, 2015 5:58 AM  

It might be good to shut up SJWs but if you read his retweets he is obviously not a SJW.

It is purely incidental that it's in a book about SJWs, but what everyone is referring to is Vox's description of the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and when it is appropriate to use the one and when the other.

But as I haven't read through the entire discussion, and don't have the time nor energy to do it now, I'll cease from commenting on it if/until I have. As I am currently merely assuming that I would come to the conclusion that the person was not a "dialectical" but I haven't made sure for myself.

Blogger VD November 23, 2015 6:11 AM  

When did that happen? Are you talking about the five consecutive responses quoted above? Is that a chronological sequence? I looked on twitter and all the coversation was pretty much back and forth.

You are either being disingenuous or thick. The "conversation" literally began with a demand to "stop talking". The amping happened when I first mentioned the train.

Is it for the purpose of entertaining people and convincing them their opposition are crackpots?

You can't even bother to read a book that contains most of the information you purport to be seeking. Why do you think I should waste any time at all explaining things to you? I'm not going to educate everyone on the subject one at a time.

Anonymous Harold November 23, 2015 6:24 AM  

VD,
“Yes, that's precisely why Sapien tweeted something like 50 times *unprovoked* before I amped it up.“

When did that happen? Maybe I am thick. What do you mean by “unprovoked”?

“You can't even bother to read a book that contains most of the information you purport to be seeking.”

I was ribbing you, not seeking information.

1 – 200 of 241 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts