Rosa's "Cognitive Dissonance" partial critique

1. Sacerdotus30 June 2012 07:58

   The fox's tactic is very similar to yours. You see my words on my blog, my challenges to your ideas and rationalize to offer ad hominem instead of working to counter argue my arguments. :)
   
   Moreover, you write:
   
   "Sacerdotus on my blog Do You Want To Convert An Atheist where he brags that he can easily provide the evidence required, then proceeds to make excuse for not doing so and abuses me for pointing out this failure. There is absolutely no way that Sacerdotus is ever going to admit that he has no evidence for his god and so could not meet the challenge posed in that blog. Clearly, that's someone else's failure, not his."
   
   This is far from the truth and is a Straw Man fallacy. A careful reading of my words will show that I never offered to do anything other than to tear apart your arguments.
   
   I commented on your blog:
   
   "Sacerdotus23 June 2012 09:50
   
   This is too easy to debunk. Stay tuned to my blog. I will debunk this post and the 2 links Rosa provided. :)"
   
   Notice that I wrote that I will debunk your post. I do not understand how you equate this with providing evidence for God. This is a lack of reading comprehension on your part not a failure on my part to provide evidence for God because no such offer was made.
   
   Also see my blog, it clearly shows my intention of destroying your arguments: http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html
   
   Moreover, you write:
   
   "However, absence of evidence is evidence (not proof but evidence) of absence where evidence is to be expected. For example, the absence of evidence for any wild elephants in England is normally taken by sane people as evidence of the absence of wild elephants in England. No sane individual would behave as though there are wild elephants in England despite this lack of evidence for them."
   
   This is an appeal to ignorance and false cause. You are not in every part of England and at every moment in time to make such a claim. Your "evidence" is based on a particular present moment where there were no wild elephants roaming. You therefore concluded that there are no wild elephants based on that spatial and temporal point of your observance.
   
   "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is what you're describing here with the elephant.
   
   A- There is an absence of wild elephants in England (supposed evidence).
   
   "After this, and therefore because of this," (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
   
   B -therefore it must be true that no wild elephants exist in England.
   
   It is interesting to note your use of "normally." This indicates that you are aware that there is a probable factor to the contrary of the non existence of wild elephants.

   ReplyDelete
2. 
   RosaRubicondior30 June 2012 10:38

   Thank you for a long-winded, rambling example of how you're handing the cognitive dissonance my blog set up in your mind, as did my blog telling you how you could convert an atheist, if only you had any evidence for you god. You've probably convinced yourself you've dismissed the points which are obviously embarrassing you.
   
   Readers can read your excuses for not being able to produce any evidence whilst insisting you have some, by following the link I provided in the above blog. It's a very good example of how superstitious people rationalise their need to believe their superstition is evidence-based and rational, with the fact that they haven't any evidence. So they are needing to be dishonest and tell lies even to themselves to defend their 'faith', showing us they know it's a lie. It is, of course, all the other person's fault.
   
   In fact, the inability to admit you could be wrong, even though you manifestly are, shows a lack of emotional maturity, and a lack of intellectual and moral integrity, as does the willingness to tell lies and employ other forms of deception, in complete contrast to the morals which you try to tell us your superstition gives you. As I said, you willingly ride rough-shot over the very 'faith you purport to defend in order to defend yourself, showing the world that your 'faith' is merely an excuse for your otherwise anti-social opinions, behaviour and attitudes, and not something you value for itself. It also gives you opportunities and access to vulnerable people which you would not otherwise have. Your faith has a mere utility value for what it excuse and facilitates.
   
   This explains the superficial paradox of so many priests and clerics being amongst the least moral of people and readily abusing the power their position gives them over credulous, gullible and vulnerable people, and why so many other clerics in high places see it as something which has to be covered up rather than exposed.
   
   Of course, cognitive dissonance will now force you into defending your co-religionists even though what they do is indefensible.

   Reply
   
   

   Replies
   

   
   

   1. 
      Sacerdotus1 July 2012 08:24

      Rosa, I know you cannot be serious with this comment. It is angry, childish and comes across as the infamous "I am rubber, you are glue" counter argument said among children. Most of the content on your blog IS Cognitive Dissonance to say the least; and I have demonstrated this time after time - granted if you did not delete my comments.
      
      
      Regarding evidence for God: Have you read my reply to your comment and as well as "No sky friend's" comment on my blog? I wrote:
      
      
      Sacerdotus June 25, 2012 12:35 AM
      This blog posting is not meant to provide evidence of anything but to comment on Rosa's blog. Evidence for God is in the works and is rather lengthy, stay tuned. :)
      (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html)
      
      
      Why are you being dishonest about your own blog posting? The blog I critiqued does not request evidence for God but states what YOU constitute as evidence. Anyone with competent reading comprehension skills would see that is the case. Readers here can see your literacy dilemma publicly. I fail to see why you would want your online persona to appear as delusional and illiterate. These are the opposites of what constitutes being rational. Nevertheless, suum cuique.
      
      
      Your accusations are false and quite frankly ridiculous. Any rational person would see that you are angry. You are angry because I took you to task and was victorious. The deletion of my comments which destroy your arguments demonstrates your attempt to save face.
      
      
      Moreover, I thank you for showing that you prefer relying on ad hominem defense mechanisms instead of attacking my points directly. Calling me names, acting with condescension and falsely accusing me of not providing evidence when your blog has no such request shows lack of integrity and intellectual confidence. The aforementioned does not give validity to your points nor make you correct. This behavior just shows that you do not have the intellectual skills to properly refute any counter arguments in a rational manner. That is indeed unfortunate.
      
      
      If you are going to comment on my comments here or even on my blog, please provide intelligible critiques, not insults or pseudo-psychological analyses. Do you honestly think you can psychoanalyze a person miles away, over the internet and without holding proper psychology credentials? You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop embarrassing yourself.