I am not sure what this topic is to be.
I am going to reproduce some seven or eight posts from the Moderation complaints thread, because one thing it is about is how jar gets away with egregious illogic and few seem to recognize it and nobody calls him on it from the evo side, which leaves creos and the ever-neutral robinrohan right but called wrong over and over again. In this case what brought it to attention was admin action which -- perhaps inadvertently, but the effect remained uncorrected -- supported jar in his outrageous illogic and labeled his opponents as off topic when they were completely on topic and had answered him with exactitude. In this case it was robinrohan who had delivered the perfect rejoinder, truly a coup de grace, but as so often happens, nobody noticed. Jar simply repeated and embellished his ridiculous excuse for logic after the admin interruption, and others who joined in to answer him were also ignored, so jar's senseless argument stood as if it made sense, and the whole thing just fizzled out as so often happens. Victory for chaos.
The topic may also be about the thread that this occurred on --
What evidence would absolutely prove there is no Creator -- but really I see no point in rehashing it though I know it will get rehashed. The lines are drawn, the arguments have been made. The problem is that there are no standards. Who wins a debate at evc is purely a subjective matter. When such ridiculous illogic as jar's is passed over as if it were logical the game is hopeless. And I know from how the moderation thread went that it is going to continue hopeless.
So why complain? I don't know. Anger that this could happen at all, that supposedly bright people are so stupid. Perhaps hope that I must be wrong about that, that somebody here will recognize what I'm saying for a change. In fact this latter hope is probably a lot of what keeps me posting. Of course it sounds arrogant: I know I'm right. Well, I do know I'm right about this.
So here are all the posts from the Mod thread and I'll answer them and let the usual melee begin under whatever title works.
Faith writes:
on the Moderation complaints thread:AdminAsgara writes:
Robin's issue seems to be
this post in a totally different thread from a week ago.
I inadvertently replied to robin instead of a general reply, but it was a regular ol' "lets stay on topic" message. The thread had begun to revolve around what's "wrong" with theistic evolution and jar's beliefs instead of the topic of "What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator"
I won't judge whether asgara simply misdirected her general admin warning about being off topic, though I myself see only very occasional driftings from the topic over the previous couple of pages of posts; and I would also agree that Robin should have brought his complaint here at the time instead of at this later point from a different thread, if only because it makes it hard to track the real issue, but since it was finally made here, it should be recognized that he is completely right, and his getting no response here has finally provoked me to give one.
His post to jar was right on topic and in fact it was the best answer I've seen, in fact perhaps The Definitive Answer to jar's ridiculous endlessly repeated claim that the fact that he and others believe both in God and evolution proves Robin's contention wrong that the two are incompatible.
NOTE JAR'S ARGUMENT CAREFULLY PLEASE: What he and others believe proves it's right to believe it, proves it true. You'd all be rolling on the floor gasping for breath with hilarity if a creationist had said something that stupid. I've been amazed over and over that other evos here haven't taken jar on about that absurd statement.
I may have answered it myself and some other creationists (jar loves to repeat it), and I know Robin has answered it before too, all to the point, and all ignored as usual, and now when Robin has answered it to perfection he gets an Admin warning and again no support from anybody {abe: except a few creationists, who don't count} for his definitive rebuttal, and jar actually goes on in
Message 219 and beyond to repeat his ridiculous illogic, again without anybody's pointing out the absurdity of it. He lays it out in all its absurd perfection in #219 and NO EVO CALLS HIM ON IT? All jar does is assert it and claim it is correct, and accuse others of "babble" and "assertion" when he is the one who is making no sense, and NOBODY calls him on it but Robin and a few creationists WHO ARE IGNORED.
AGAIN HIS LOGIC: He believes in evolution and God; some others believe in evolution and God; therefore it is proved that evolution and God are compatible.
Is anybody yet willing to acknowledge the illogic of jar's excuse for an argument and his blatant display of it as if it were the reverse? And his bullying and his accusations of others of his own errors? Hey, evos, acquit yourselves with the reason and reasonableness you all think is so abundant on the evo side of this debate, prove your intelligence and acknowledge the sheer stupidity of jar's claim to have defeated the thread's premise with his logic, and the precision of Robin's exposure of his illogic.
Otherwise this one incident alone shows up the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the evo side of the evc debate.
Oh, and let me predict that jar will answer with his usual bullying tactics (that's all he ever has for an argument), with an "LOL" or two, an accusation of "mere assertion" or "lack of support" {which has become typical evc bullying in general} or the like, and that no evo or evo admin will have the guts or the brains to call him on what he's doing.
OK, let me copy out
Robin's rejoinder to jar from the original thread:
jar writes:
One that has been refuted numerous times. I'm sorry robin, but the fact that I accept the TOE and also believe in GOD, the Christian GOD refutes your assertions.
RR writes:
That's like saying, because I believe the sky is green, your argument that the sky is blue is thereby refuted.
This is in fact the perfect succinct answer to jar. There have been many good answers, and there are more answers on that thread in the next few posts too, but this characterizes his illogic exactly. There are many ways it could be stated, such as:
quote:
Because I believe fairies don't exist, your argument that fairies exist is thereby refuted. Or even: Because I believe that fairies exist, your argument that fairies don't exist is thereby refuted.
Jar is actually claiming that what he believes -- MERELY WHAT HE BELIEVES, nothing else, just his belief -- along with others who believe it, refutes an opponent's contrary belief. He claims this AGGRESSIVELY. He trumpets it. He puts it in syllogistic form. He says his opponents are merely asserting and not proving, but he is the one who is asserting, a false syllogism yet. The Emperor's New Clothes. That I have to keep proving the nonsense of this logic, and that it goes unacknowledged, is some kind of insanity I don't even have a name for.
I didn't ask that Mod. It's not a question. Since they didn't, they either can't recognize illogic or they don't want to step on jar's toes, no matter how ridiculously aggressive he is about it.
Mod writes:
I didn't answer any points raised by RR and jar because frankly I'm bored of it. RR bases his logic on his own conception of God. A version of God that jar doesn't believe in (Apparantly RR's conception of God can't do things for the greater good). Indeed, RR logic is that the existence of animals disproves God
Message 49.
This is off topic in this context. If you want to rehash the argument on this thread, fine, but I won't take it up here. The subject is not RR's logic, it is jar's, and the fact that jar has repeated it over and over, even presenting it in logical form as if it made sense when it doesn't. It's utterly ridiculous that this isn't recognized. I can't believe you all are that stupid. Open your eyes.
Mod writes:
For the most part though, I am trying to figure out why you are posting this in here. Are you asking that jar is moderated because you don't think his belief is logical? That sets a dangerous precedent doesn't it? Your topic seems jarcentric (and like a bit of an excuse to take a quick pop at jar's beliefs...again), but the only part that discusses moderation is the concern about Asgara's topic reminder post.
What kind of moderation procedure are wanting to discuss?
Faith writes:
http://< !--UB
EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
I suppose I'd have posted it on the original thread but it was closed, and the moderation issue is that asgara simply claimed to have mistakenly misaddressed her admin warning when the real issue was that in so doing she gave jar's illogic admin support and robin's beautiful exposure of his illogic got relegated to an off topic post. Another admin complaint is that jar's illogic should many times in the past have been called by admins since no evos call him on it. All that ever happens is that creos point out his illogic and are bullied as usual as if they were wrong when they are right. Robin is no creo but in this case his argument was perfection itself. Admins are tacitly supporting the most flagrantly unfair and obtuse arguments by evos. And jar's being an admin himself does tend to make one wonder why he escapes admin rebukes on the many many occasions it seems to me he has deserved it.
I just got mad that there is such rampant unfairness here.
I will simply reiterate that I'm mad. Not that it does any good. And perhaps I should be sad instead at such a failure of intellect.
The only open issue as I'm saying is that there seems to be either a complete inability of the evos here to recognize or a complete lack of guts to make an issue of jar's egregious violation of logic. If that makes a thread topic, then let's open this one and have at it.
That would also be the same violation of logic, as all you are doing is giving jar's illogic in a different form. An oxymoron is a violation of logic, and people certainly may believe things that violate logic, may believe in contradictory things. That is in fact RR's argument, that Jar and others who believe in both evolution and God are believing in a self-contradiction. That is his point. You can't answer it by pointing to the people who believe it. You can only answer it by proving that it is not self-contradictory.
Your general point is correct - belief that God exists is not evidence that God exists. But I don't see that your point is relevant to the particular messages you mentioned.
Well, you should now. But at least you acknowledged the logical point. Sort of. Though you didn't have a very firm grasp on it and lost it.
Being wrong about something -- if he was, and I don't recall the discussion at the moment -- is not the same thing as a violation of logic. And while I've considered him wrong about many things, I've never seen RR violate logic.
You think RR's argument was perfection? If that is the case, then you are not a Christian - since believing God can do apparantly nasty things for the Greater Good is not logical according to rr's argument (see
Message 16). Perhaps I should moderate you on your logic skills too? I should probably ban everybody on the entire forum and finally myself for that matter.
You are now being utterly illogical yourself at the very least. Yes RR's argument characterizing jar's illogic was perfection -- Succinct and exact. This has nothing to do with RR's arguments, which I think you are most likely mischaracterizing, but again, if you want to hassle them out here, please bring them up again on the thread as it progresses. Meanwhile, here you are simply distracting from the point: jar's illogic. And doing some kind of tit for tat, or whatever -- I really don't know what you are doing. Jar's illogic about how his belief supposedly proves a contrary belief wrong remains illogic and RR showed it for what it is.
Let me also remind you that we have two anti-evo Admins, and had you not turned it down, you could also have been one.
I shouldn't have specified evo admins, but I haven't noticed that the anti-evo admins grasp this point either. nwr sort of did, but then it turns out he really didn't.
Here's your thread jar, so you can continue to trumpet your blatant illogic and have everybody believing it's logical. Gorgeous new robes the Emperor has. Enjoy.
I bet that was fun, calling me an old goat!
Faith, whilst you know I agree with you and respect you without end I'm going to point out something to you from an angle which might make clearer to you why things might be the way they are.
Thanks iano, but I think I've done the job right well.
(and Jar, please don't take this a some kind of slight... yet - read on. You may disagree but this is the way I see it and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be so)
Faith. Do some basic analysis of Jars posting pattern. Look up topics for Jar and follow his progress (especially through a couple of God threads). Its typically a couple of lines per post no matter how far into the thread you go. There is no long drawn out discussion and points gone into in depth. Surface skimming pot shots - not in-depth, long drawn out debate. I'll grant that quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality but if you look at the history of Potm's then you will see that the best points (as understood here) tend to involve medium to long posts. Not three liners.
But iano, my dear Christian brother, I don't think this is relevant. Have you understood my point here? Do you not see the essential illogic in that particular argument of jar's and how RR nailed it?
Thus it is unreasonable (on both yourself and Jar) to suppose that he will satisfy your requirement of him (explain himself and expose his viewpoint to critique - for there is insufficient material to work with) or that you will satisfy his requirement (you aren't content with short on detail attempts at conclusion)
I don't *expect* jar to satisfy my requirement. I merely hope against hope that somebody else here might see it. And I don't *expect* that either.
If I look at your posts I can trace my way through your argument - whatever it may be. Click on "Topics for Faith" and I can go back quite a ways or forward quite a ways (nigh on all the time). I am able to follow from whence the argument has come and to where it has gone. Not so Jar. Short answers that don't have root backwards from the point of entry or forward from the point of entry.
Jar is (like Charles Knight before him) a sniper at work. There is a role for this input. It helps to know that you can be tackled on any word or idea that you post and it helps to keep your arguement tighter. Sniping is almost a pseudo-admin role in that respect. But don't take it as mainstream in depth, point on point debate. It cannot do what it is not designed to do.
I think that it is here that the nub of the issue lies. You are both trying to accomplish different things and might do better to understand each others core aim in considering the others approach.
Thats my view anyway
Well, thanks for your view, and with all due respect I hope, I don't think this is the issue at all. I think you too have missed the essential point, which is the PARTICULAR logic jar employed in that PARTICULAR argument, and how RR (and others at various times) called him on it but NOBODY NOTICES.
===================================================================
You know, I think I'm beginning to realize that EvC is the Twilight Zone. Wonderland, yes, I've said that before, Lalaland, whatever. Up is really down, logic is really illogic, good is bad etc etc etc.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2006 07:05 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2006 07:19 PM
™ Version 4.2