Forum Oscars

Hi Straggler, having a little Christmas Cheer?Just to recap where this began, Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 4, where I wrote: (bold for emphasis)There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the following posts, but it seems that the key claim -- that the logical, rational position based on the evidence available was agnosticism -- went largely uncontested.That the agnostic position is indeed the logical conclusion has now been demonstrated to be the case in If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?". thread, where a fairly complete summary can be found in Message 273, especially in the green area, and where it concludes with: This has not been refuted, certainly not by the likes of Straggler, so we see that this original claim - that the only logical position was the agnostic position - has withstood the test of time.Of course the biggest wailing was from my claim that atheists use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and curiously, one of the biggest wailers was (and still is) Straggler, who also stated: (color for reference)In logical (premise premise conclusion) format we have: I laugh every time I read this, for there is Straggler saying:The absence of evidence is evidence of absence ...... just as I said back at the beginning.In other words, what I said back at the beginning was all that needed to be said, about the agnostic position and about the absence of evidence issue, and it still holds true.Thus my nomination for the Oscar for the most pointless dragging the discussion out to endless lengths, goes to the one trying to ignore the obvious from the start: (1) the only logical position, based on the all the available objective empirical evidence, IS agnostic, and (2) that atheists DO claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence: including, amusingly, Straggler himself.So enjoy the season of Winter Solstice (at 9:47 a.m. on Monday, December 21, 2009, btw), and perhaps the new year will bring some degree of acknowledgment of this reality.One should leave mock lyrics to the pros, like Walt Kelly:http://www.pogopossum.com/deckus.htm

quote:

---

Deck us all with Boston Charlie,
Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
Nora's freezin' on the trolley,
Swaller dollar cauliflower alley-garoo!

---

Happy HolidaysEnjoy.

---

Oh don't be such a humorless gimp!! Blah blah blah.I couldn't let this pass. Because we all now agree. We agree that there is not, and never ever can be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. All claims are made in the context of objectively evidenced human history, culture and psychology. No claim ever operates in a complete vacuum of objective evidence. As I have been telling you for quite some time now. And as you have finally had to accept. Thus blowing your entire argument out of the water.If you really want to go through this yet again start yet another thread and I'll see you there. But I am guessing that now your "absence of evidence" misapprehension has been dealt with you probably won't.And if you reply to this post you have to do it in verse. Them's the seasonal rules!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Grammar

I'm stealing that! FUCKKKKKKKKKKWell, I guess we should all get ready for fancy banners and an over use of the word "misrepresentation."Someone mentioned a duel, I think this is the way to go - but with paintballs - and you guys can Deck the Halls with them, Fa la la la la, fa la la la. - Oni

I am honoured. You do know I only post here in the vain hope that I can supply you with material don't you? Prepare yourselves..... Actually I think we are done. But I have been wrong before.Back on the Oscars tip - Most impressive post formatting has to go to RAZ. As is obvious I only ever steal what he has already done. I'll be buggered if I could do all that flashing scrolling multimedia with knobs on stuff from scratch. I reckon a drunken sing-off I am off to nurse my hangover before my son wakes up and starts jumping all over me. Ouch!

I admit stealing many of lines from this site, your posts always have a few gems. Enjoy. I just got back from a show so my night is about to start. - Oni

Well how about a forum Oscar for the coveted award of most comedically quotable? As our resident pro you are disqualified from nomination. So my nomination goes to Dr Jones. For reasons that I think are obvious. But CS gets a mention too for some of his less intended gems.And while I am here another category to contemplate - Most challenging person to debate (I mean in a good "fearsome debator" way - not headbanging inducing idiocy). I think Rahvin and Rrhain both deserve a mention. I am actually a deeply conservative Christian rather than the wishy washy liberal atheist I portray myself as here. The only reason I pretend otherwise is so as to avoid debating either of these two I think Rrhain edges it as he seems intent on detailed fact based destruction rather than any form of conceptual consensus when he debates.

Those who always make me laugh in their posts:You
CS
RiverRat (right-wing nutjob humor)
xongsmith
cavediver
But, I must admit that the funniest poster, who also adds lots to the debate, is lyx2no.One of my favorite gems from the past that I remember was between Hyro and CS.From the "you're either, gay, straight or lying" thread, Hyro was trying to explain to Rahvin that eventually swinger couples fail, but there was a lot of talk about gay sex in that thread. CS catches a great line: Classic.In the same thread, Taz admits to me that he's not disgusted by man to man-ass sex, but that he was disgusted by my lifestyle of casual sex. The entire thread is hilarious to read. The only thing I don't like about Rrhain's debating style as that he's never clear as to where HE stands and what HE means. Most of his posts consist of a breakdown of what he thinks the person is saying, which he often misrepresents. Then a debate with him becomes more about what you're saying and what he's representing it as, than the actual topic.He'll write "are you saying that....." Then you have to spend an entire post explaining that you didn't mean that, which he then replies with another "are you saying that....." And round and round it goes. At least that's been my experience with him. That's why I often ignore his long redundant posts to me - one because they are boring to read, two because it's just a misrepresentation of what one is actually saying.You are hard to debate, but you at the very least try to understand what the person you are debating is saying, according to them (not your interpretation of it). Once you've comprehended their argument the best you can, you then proceed with the debate. Rrhain does not do this. He jumps in with what he thinks you are saying, which is so fuckn' frustrating to deal with.Rahvin however is a great debater - he often goes way long to make a simple point, but it's a great read most of the time.- Oni

Oh yeah. I forgot about him. Some very funny and completely random, but still on point, comments. Often hilarious. This springs to mind: Ho ho ho. Disgustingly jealous most likely. As am I BTW. I really do genuinely try. And then what I try to do is work my way down to the underlying unjustifiable assumptions that lie at the foundation of the position in question. The assumption that there is no relevant evidence at all, the assumption that a form of evidence is necessarily more reliable than guessing, the assumption that examples of a law being badly applied necessarily equate to a reason to abandon the law in question, etc. etc. etc. Whatever. But that kind of thing. I don't claim to be infallible at all. But that is honestly my approach to this stuff.Then I try to force the person in question to confront those assumptions and that's when things get feisty and the fun begins. Because whether I am right or wrong in my analysis nobody ever thinks that their position is based on unjustifiable assumptions. Yep. I hope Rahvin is blushing again.

Is it "ho ho ho" or "blah blah blah"?
for the season he says "bah humbug ... bah"
to address the salient issues,
as he does often refuse,
Straggler looks for places to go "ahah!"in this the season to be jolly,
to decorate with spruce, pine and holly,
one finds the time
to point out in rhyme
the source of his continuing follyhe concocts many meaningless phrases
as his argument goes through its phases
from logical fallacies
to silly tautologies
that he thinks cover all necessary baseshe trades one logical fallacy for the next
his argument happily place into text
proudly he claims "victory"
missing the point of the story
and as a result he is frequently vexed"There's no evidence for god/s" he proclaims,
"so I don't believe in god/s" he maintains.
But "there's never an absence"
"of all objective evidence"
because mushrooms grow in the woods when it rains.We all have our pet peeve
regarding the things we believe
but in is time for peace
hoping hostilities cease
Happy Holidays on this solstice eveEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : scanEdited by RAZD, : ...

---

Now that is more like it! I see you have had that sense of humour transplant you were so desperately in need of. And as such I will happily give that message a 5 rating. If only you had replied with that initially. Rather than your prior comedically challenged and tedious reply.Now I am split between continuing this little rhyme-off and starting a thread covering your mushroom growing misapprehensions.But I will probably settle for proposing a thread on the objectification of subjective experiences when the cricket ends and I am in need of some more entertainment.You really are so much more fun when you don't take yourself so darn seriously RAZ. You should do it more often.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, RAZD.What is that?It looks like it wants to be a limerick, but there's only passing homage to the proper meter, a shocking preponderance of slant rhymes, a total lack of interesting metaphysical imagery, and an air of dull informality that... okay, I'll stop.It's funny. And, Merry Christmas. But, my nomination for "Best Poet" goes to Dr Adequate.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You sound like my ex-wife. - Oni

I know this is probably overkill. But since when did that ever stop me here? I was listening to Public Enemy in the gym today and was "inspired". In my mind at least the following is being slammed down by the likes of Chuck D whilst Straggler in full old skool wigga regalia prances around with a giant pink unicorn symbol flailing on a chain around his neck. Kind of an atheithised caricature of Flavor Flav. "What entity is iiiiittttt?"If none of that makes any sense this will be utterly wasted on you. To those who it does make any sense at all to - Well if it entertains you half as much as it did me whilst I was thinking it up as I sweated on the treadmill then that is an unexpected bonus. FIGHT the Deist!
Put this on your playlist.
To the RAZ to the D - To the oh so wrong.
Now re-occurring in rap, rhyme and song.EvC Member RAZ to the D.
Llikes to talk about real-ity.
Perceptions this.
Subjective that.
Absence of evidence.
Kicked off this spat.Your train of thougt has left this station.
God is just a figment of your imagination.
Oh so full of mock indignation.
Likes to talk about misrepresentation.
But for the love of a non-empirical entity - Somebody change the frequen-cy!
Blah Blah - static - crackle and hiss.
Give that RAZDeality channel a miss.
Instead tune into reality FM with meee.
Kick back - and discover ration-a-lity.
Absence of Evidence? Never there can be.
Too much human history, culture and psychol-ogy.MC Strags is the Class A of rhyme.
Likes to diss deists, talk cricket - and discuss hate crime.
The best you got is shrooms growing in the rain?
But like those telepathic dogs I go straight to your brain.
Faith based opinionated agnostic?
Arguments about as effective as sucking on joss sticks!But I inject your world with reason. Your arguments lie tattered and lesioned. Santa socked it to you in the festive season. Pixies, bunnies and unicorns join in their legions. Call me a preudoskeptic? That's intellectual treason!One thread. Two threads. Three threads. Four?
"Oh FUCKKKKKK" says Oni.
Please no more!! FIGHT the Deist!
FIGHT the Deist!
Put this on your playlist.
To the RAZ to the D - To the oh so wrong
Now re-occurring in rap, rhyme and song.Num-erous contra-dictions. Evidential blindspots. Just some of RAZ's many afflictions.
Prehistoric fish, rare birds and Nessie.
Point out the flaws and things get messy.
Flashing scrolling demonstration of denial.
But like all the best medicine I don't come in no vial.
Gods and subjective evidence unrelated?
Don't make me laugh! Persistent lies - got me frustrated.
But for a while this was your line of attack.
Until flashy scrolly returned. To bite YOU on the ball sack!Lurkers and members of EvC forum
We here to entertain. Not here to bore em!
But sometimes it all gets too much.
Accused of lies, deceit and such.
RAZ get's shown up in the white and blue.
Watch the hissy fits, melodrama and wild accusations ensue.
He wants to talk bout maps and mountains.
But this is all over bar the shouting.Is he a deist? Is he not?
Keeps changing the scales to stop the rot.
Faith based agnostic with opinions.
Advocating god and his dominion.
But this is just another gap fill-er.
Is Catholic Scientist really agnostic towards mozza-rella?
Start another thread and your humiliation will be immense.
Still never faced up to the problems with Immaterial "Evidence"FIGHT the Deist!
FIGHT the Deist!
Put this on your playlist.
To the RAZ to the D - To the oh so wrong
Now re-occurring in rap, rhyme and song.
FIGHT the Deist!
FIGHT the Deist!
FIGHT the Deist!Fade to out......YeAhhhhhhhh BoooooooooyyyyyyyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZ, sorry dude, cuz I actually enjoyed your poem a lot. But, dude, you just got served!God damn, Straggler!!!!!! Sick lyrics! Seriously, no joke. You've got skills crack'a MC.POST OF THE YEAR, SIR- Oni

Word to the mutha!!