Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Haywood I

Haywood  12 days ago
Theists like Sacerdotus don't really believe that they can argue god 
successfully with atheists. He understands full well that gods and 
leprechauns can't be proven or disproven. His goal, as with all 
apologists, is to convince believers that their beliefs are not just 
foolish superstitions held without evidence. He makes no effort at 
convincing people who are capable of applying critical thought to the 
Look at Sacerdotus' "debate" with Rosa Rubicondior for evidence of this:
It's not about serious debate, it's about drawing traffic to a blog 
where he can claim victory with arguments that would get him an F in 
Philosophy 101. He knows that, but he hopes his readers don't. He's 
probably right.
  • Avatar
    Sacerdotus  11 days ago  parent
    Why do you presume to know what I believe and don't believe? I would not engage Atheists if I were not confident that God can be proven. Atheism is at a disadvantage because it has to face the dilemma of proving a negative. I make every effort to convince anyone who is serious about listening and not interested in silly polemics and childish games.
    Rosa Rubicondior is an example. Thank you for mentioning this. I have read her blog and commented on her errors citing evidence numerous times, she instead offers ad hominem, deletes my comment and pretends that she is the right. She will of course deny this if asked. That is why I take screen shots of her blog to show as evidence because she is manipulative and disingenuous.
    The stalling, lies and ad hominem were equally disturbing and laughable. I was expecting her to do this based on my experience with her on her own blog. She only wants to be heard and disregards anyone who offers her a counter argument. Nevertheless, everything is documented, not just by me, but others as well. She made a complete fool of herself publicly and this has harmed her reputation. Haywood mentions drawing traffic because I am sure he saw the numbers of followers rise on my twitter after Rosa's failure to provide an opening statement and therefore losing the debate. 
    Haywood speaks out of ignorance because he is loyal to her. If only he would be a man about this, see things in the objective and see reality for what it is, he will give witness that it was Rosa who was playing games and not I.http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com...
    Even Haywood has presented himself as an inquirer to me only to become rude and condescending when I actually answered him directly and he did not expect that. Why these people do this is a question for psychologists. It seems to be a personality disorder that seeks self worth in the eyes of others of the same ideology.
    • Avatar
      Haywood  11 days ago  parent
      "Atheism is at a disadvantage because it has to face the dilemma of proving a negative."
      This is an example of what I'm saying; you are not engaging in serious debate. You are pretending that you are having a debate with a strong/positive atheist. In all my time debating religion on the internet, I have only encountered 2 strong atheists; both were clueless. You can insist on defining atheist as "one who has positive knowledge that no gods exist" but no atheist I know uses that definition. Those of us who self identify as atheists mean what my dictionary says: "one who disbelieves the existence of a god."
      You talk about Rosa ignoring evidence she is wrong? This is a blog post explaining why you are arguing a straw man of atheism, and you're still arguing the straw man. I think you know full well the difference between agnostic and atheist, and why almost all atheists (including myself) are both. An impartial observer would see the truth of your "debate": you both failed to meet the other's challenge. You did claim you could meet hers. Did she ever claim she could meet yours? Regardless of whether god exists, yours is impossible. I can "prove" leprechauns that way.
      Rosa plays games with you because you are an easy target, and you are an easy target because you keep claiming you can do what no one in history has ever done: prove god. I presume that you don't believe you can prove god because you never offer the proof.
      When asked for your proof, you instead ask your opponent to prove god doesn't exist, and then claim your intellectual superiority and declare yourself the victor. This may play well among your followers, but not among rational people. I doubt it plays that well among them, either.
      • Avatar
        Sacerdotus  9 days ago  parent
        This is what I mean. Atheists have a confusion of what the word "Atheism" means. See my response to Andrew for more details.
        The definition you're using implies rejection. IF you "disbelieve" in something, that means you are aware of it and just don't believe it. For example, Let's say I'm told: 'Hey Sacerdotus, I saw King Kong on the Empire state building.' I will reply, 'no, you're lying. I don't BELIEVE you.' I would say this because I am aware of the "king kong" franchise, but also know that this is a fictitious creature from a movie and that it cannot be on the Empire State building outside of a movie format.
        The definition you use is the one I and Andrew argued about on Facebook. I said Atheism is a rejection and he said it is not. In reality, Atheists are Agnostics. If one is a true Atheist sticking to the origin of the word, then one is 100% sure there is no God and does not accept God. Saying, "I'm not sure or I disbelieve" is not Atheism. That is Agnosticism and Apisteuo. You even admit that Atheists are "both." Therein lies the confusion among the Atheist community.
        This is why during the debate I was waiting for Rosa's opening statement. I do not know where she stands. Is she convinced there is no God at all? Is she not sure? or Does she just not accept God for whatever reason. She failed at doing this and we could not continue.
        The strawman is not mine. If Atheists come to me with all kinds of different ideas regarding Atheism, how is that my fault? This is why I questioned Atheism as an Atheist. The position does not hold its own weight. How could I go around campus, talk to students, visit Christian/Catholic/Muslim clubs and question them until they got annoyed, yet I could not offer reason for my view that there is no, cannot be, never was a God? How could I be "for Reason" without having a reason? 
        The rules were clear on my blog. She accepted and then began a charade of petulant behavior. 
        I was arguing FOR the existence of God and assumed she was arguing for the non-existence of God based on the fact that she calls herself an Atheist. However, she never was clear on what premise she stands. 
        Leprechauns have a human origin. They are easy to debunk. God is a transcendent being who appears in every culture that has existed on Earth under many different names and with many different attributes. Leprechauns (the concept) only appear in the Irish/UK lands. Moreover, they are creatures and were never attributed to being the primal cause of all there is. 
        Rosa played games because she was trying to get out of the debate. That is why I taunted her and she and her friends went into panic/ad hominem mode. 
        On her blog months ago I asked her for non-third party evidence for evolution and she merely deleted the comment where I made the request. I did this to play Philosopher/Skeptic with her. She claims religious people blindly accept concepts, yet she does the same with science. I am a science student and we are taught to always be skeptical even of science. If we accept evolution etc as infallible, then we will never learn. This is why I questioned Rosa where she gets her "evidence" from. You and I know that Rosa has never witnessed evolution, nor has worked in any facility that studies fossils and the like. She relies on third party sources for her knowledge. She has never handled any evidence for evolution and merely trusts educators on the matter. 
        Many have proved God, not only in Christianity but in other faiths. The problem is that some just don't accept it. They want God to actually materialize before them and this cannot be done by any mortal unless God actually does decide to appear on His own accord. When asking for evidence for God, one must be realistic. Just like when one asks for evidence of atoms, dinosaurs and evolution, one must be realistic that the evidence does not actually show the aforementioned directly. We cannot see atoms nor hold them. We might have fossils but cannot present a real living dinosaur. No one can see evolution because no one can live millions of years to see the transitional states of organisms. Now can we discredit the aforementioned just because they cannot be presented directly? No, of course not. 
        The debate was meant to show the proof. I wanted to get Rosa's arguments and destroy them with the proof. Had I just written down proof one after another, it would not make sense. I would be blogging, not debating. I never claimed intellectual superiority, I merely stated that these Atheists are not confident in their intellect to debate me.
        You see on my blog how I freely answer atheists. I even answered this post here and linked it to Andrew. I am not afraid. Why can't Rosa do this? All she does is write blogs and expect you to take her writing as facts that cannot be questioned. When questioned, she deletes comments and blocks on twitter only to then go and trash the person afterwards.
        • Avatar
          Haywood  9 days ago  parent
          Sacerdotus: disbelieve: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.http://dictionary.reference.co...
          I disbelieve reports of King Kong, gods, and your claim to dictate that "atheism" means other than what I and every other atheist means by it.
          You are arguing against a position no one holds, and you are doing it for display. Why do you suppose there would exist a word for a person who knows your god exists, but denies it, even though he knows the god will torture him for a squillion years for the denial? This is not a serious claim.
          Your intentional misunderstanding of the term "atheism" allows you to claim to your followers that you can beat any atheist in debate. You can do no such thing. You can come to a sort of a draw with any positive atheist, because both of you claim to prove something you can't. The positive atheist can't prove their claim because it's logically impossible to prove. Your theist claim is logically possible to prove, but you can't do it because you lack evidence. Not much of a draw.
          Theists are so anxious to divide the world into people who believe in their god and people who "aren't sure" so they can claim no one is really against them. Regardless of that semantic ploy, the real division is between people who believe in gods (theists) and people who don't (atheists).
          No one has proved gods. If they have, please submit the proof, along with an explanation of why philosophers and scientists are atheist at much higher rates than the general population. I guess they (like me) just haven't seen this proof yet.
          "When asking for evidence for God, one must be realistic."
          Only if we accept the claim that God not only exists, but wants to reward people who believe in him without evidence. Atoms and fossils are not intelligent agents that can show themselves if they choose. If an actual personal god existed, it seems more likely that we would all know about him because he wouldn't hide and communicate only through unreliable testimony and ancient books full of nonsense and contradiction.
          All apologetic arguments point to deism, which is much closer to atheism than Catholicism. If deism is proved correct to both of us, I will say, "OK, I guess I was wrong about that bit." Your whole life will change.
          " I never claimed intellectual superiority, I merely stated that these 
          Atheists are not confident in their intellect to debate me."
          Actually, you did, and the condescension and arrogance weren't flattering:
          "none of you are up to par in academia to be a challenge to me."https://twitter.com/Sacerdotus...
          No one wants to debate you because you try to assign the proposition they will argue. Debate is pointless, because most atheists disbelieve because of a lack of evidence. Theists/atheist debate is about burden of proof shifting, because there's nothing else to debate. You can't prove your case and we have nothing to prove.
          I contend that it is you who lacks the confidence to have an honest debate, which is why you try to dictate the terms and even the proposition that your opponent must argue.
          • Avatar
            Sacerdotus  8 days ago  parent
            Ok, Haywood, you and Andrew need to debate that definition. If you see my original discussion with him, I used "rejection" and he said Atheism is not a rejection. Dictionaries will give definitions based on how particular localities use the word.
            One must look at the default original meaning of the word. That is what I provided. You are showing strawman and completely misunderstood my previous post. Please reread it and see that I never made that claim. I define Atheism as it is in its original form, not colloquial definitions imposed on it. Moreover, whether positive or negative, Atheism is still a position that cannot be defended. It is based on presumption.
            What evidence do you that of this "dividing ploy" which you speak of? Christians are only interested in spreading the Gospel. Atheists are usually the ones who engage them in a hateful manner. We do not have "God rallies" that put down Atheists and mock them. We do not have "Faith/reason rallies" that attempt to present our reasoning and solely the intellectual one. We do not waste money on billboards calling Atheism a "myth." We do not waste money taking Atheists to court for attempting to remove prayer/religion from the public square. It is the Atheist movement that does this.
            Atheism is not a concern for us. It was there during the early Church years and it will be there until the end. We engage it just to show how silly it is, but most Atheists eventually come to believe in God. Recently, Leah Libresco announced her conversion to Catholicism leaving her Atheist friends in dismay. Ironically it was "morality" that lead her to God. With me it was science and philosophy.
            There comes a time when the gift of Faith is opened by the Atheist's intellect. They begin to realize that existence cannot be possible from an unconscious agent which uses mathematical probability to create a harmony of order and disorder in a manner that allows for consciousness to develop in hominids.
            People for centuries have proved God, yet some refuse to accept it. Just like the theories of evolution and the big bang have been proven and are still rejected by a small minority. This is polemical man's problem, not the proof's. Objectivity is needed when confronting evidence of any sort. This is why court systems weed out possible jurors based on objectivity. If jurors are allowed who are subjective or have their mind made up on what verdict to give, then the person on trial will NOT get a fair trial.
            This is where you and other Atheists/Agnostics on twitter have trouble with. You approach me and others in a subjective manner using a filter to protect your already made up mind. Had I been like this a few years ago, I would be an Atheist today. As a young college guy, I was naturally rebellious (still am) and questioned everything (still do). I was objective (still am). This objectivity allowed for my mind to grasp any evidence I gathered and analyze it without filters.
            The "majority of philosophers and scientists" are Atheists claim is an exaggerated claim. See:http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com...
            Remember, philosophers and scientists are not ministers, priests or evangelists per se. They did not pursue their respective careers to promote any religion. If they do this, then they are being subjective and using a filter as I said of Atheists. Scientists and Philosophers need to be objective in order to be useful in their respective fields.
            God will present Himself to whoever He wishes. I nor the Pope have control of this. For some reason, God prefers using the harder "doesn't make sense" way to do His will. Yes, it would be nice if God appeared to everyone, but will that really help? Humanity messed up, not Him. We need to seek Him, not Him seek us. It is like if you have a woman that you love to death. You did something that upset her and she left. She didn't move on with another guy, she just left to get away. Do you think she will come back to you, or do YOU have to make the effort to get her attention? One can use this scenario with God and human beings. This is what the story of Adam and Eve describes. Human beings had it all, God gave them choice. They decided to "do it their way" so God left them go, but still kept His eye on them, so to speak. The human race is basically a rebellious teenager who thinks his/her parents are wrong and oppressing him/her. Eventually humanity will reach adulthood.
            The only way to experience God is through prayer and meditation. The prayer must be sincere, not confrontational or demanding.
            Regarding my "up to par" tweet. I was merely taunting Atheists to see if anyone would debate. Twitter feeds are flooded with all kinds of anti-God anti-religious rhetoric. Atheists there hide behind their hashtags, but when someone confronts them they back away or resort to ad hominem. Just take a look at the many tweets I get attacking me. Why? It makes no sense. These are grow up people acting like child bullies.
            The way to get the attention of arrogant emotionally immature people like this is to taunt them. I did the same with Rosa and it worked. She immediately unblocked me and got aggressive. Notice what I wrote: "none of you are up to par in academia to be a challenge to me.:)" I used the word academia, not intelligent. I ended the tweet with a 'smilicon' showing I was "joking/taunting."
            I never assigned any proposition. This was why I was waiting for Rosa to post her opening statement. In it she would say what she is arguing for and how. That was all I asked. There was no need for her to feel apprehension.
            Do you really think I lack confidence? I have 2 blogs. I have Atheists on me like bees on honey and I take on them each without hesitation. :) Ask Andrew.
            • Avatar
              Haywood  8 days ago  parent
              Sacerdotus: "One must look at the default original meaning of the word."
              "Nice" originally meant "stupid." One must ignore the current meaning and pretend any user of "nice" means "stupid." Is this an example of your superior debating skills?
              Please provide evidence of the following claims you make: 
              1. god has been proven
              2. most atheists become theists
              3. philosophers and scientists aren't majority atheist (which I didn't actually claim; I said they were atheists at far greater rates than general population) but:
              [93% of NAS atheist: http://www.stephenjaygould.org... and 
              78.1% of philosophers non-believers:http://commonsenseatheism.com/... ]
              4. Andrew and I use different definitions of "atheism" (just because we tell you you're wrong in different ways doesn't mean we disagree.)
              Please post the evidence here. It's bad enough to have to read your word salad comments, I'm not going to dig through your blog to find it.
              The evidence of the "dividing ploy" is the repeated insistence by you and others to define atheism to mean what you want it to, ignoring dictionaries, philosophers and atheists. The rest of your 3rd paragraph does not contain a single sentence that's true.
              Your definition of "subjective" seems to be "starting from a neutral position", and "objective" is "assuming a god must exist." Is that from the original middle English? Clearly not from the current definitions. Maybe you just have it backwards?
              Faith is belief without evidence, so rational atheists will never have it. They might cease to be rational (become senile and be preyed upon by theists like Antony Flew), or they might be people like you or Leah Libresco, who I've never heard of, and don't know to be rational. Way more people convert to rational atheism than from it. Education can do that.
              Your "god as a man spurned" analogy is a poor one. A better one would be "it's like your 6 year old does something wrong at the zoo and won't apologize, so you leave her there and drive home to wait for the apology."
              "The way to get the attention of arrogant emotionally immature people like this is to taunt them."
              I'll just leave that there with no response. It must be a Christian rule.
              If you had confidence in your argument, you would present it, instead of taunting people like a child while calling them childish, and trying to dictate the terms of debate.
              • Avatar
                Sacerdotus  3 days ago  parent
                Haywood: Yes, but 'nice' is a description of someone or something, not a subjective social phenomena One cannot make any correlations with 'nice' and 'atheism.' It would be like trying to link 'hot' with 'democrat.' Your reasoning here is flawed.
                In the book,"Science vs Religion - What Scientists Really Think" (which is more up to date than the links you provided) nearly 2,000 scientists were approached and the conclusion was reached that not all were atheists. A large portion were theists, the others were Apatheists who did not focus on religious tenets personally but try to bridge faith and science in order to better society. A small minority were apprehensive and hostile towards religion.
                This is the answer to one of your questions. As for proof of God, of course no scientist will ever claim this. As for the realm of science, there are countless studies on Physics showing proof of God. One such example is the BVG theorem. Moreover, Atheists have the lowest retention rate of any religious group, studies have shown.
                I am not posting anything here. That is why I have my blogs. If you wish to read it, go to my blog. Why have a blog when I am posting on others? Does that make sense?
                The definitions I used are current and I even provided links to them in the original post. Atheism has nothing to do with "disbelief." When I say subjective, I mean that Atheists will analyze evidence through the filter of Atheism instead of being objective and setting aside personal views.
                What Atheists do is like what a Creationist does when analyzing data on Evolution. He/she filters that data through the filter of a fundamentalist view of Genesis.
                Faith is not belief without evidence. To a believer, evidence means something different. Evidence is not a laboratory test. Evidence is the effect grace has on the lives of believers. Leah Libresco is a well known, or was a well know Atheist. She participated in the "Reason rally" in March and is a very popular blogger. Her blogs are worth reading and are much more informative and accurate than Rosa Rubicondior's which serve as bait for fundamentalists and ignorant Atheists. 
                Libresco is a graduate from Yale. Rosa's academic credentials are questionable.
                Just because you misunderstood the analogy does not make it poor. What is poor is your take on it. God did not spurn anyone. He merely allowed humanity to live under free will and at the same time presented Himself to those who were open to Him. He did so to open the world for salvation for those who seek it.
                I wanted present my argument during the debate. It is not my fault Rosa bowed out. She immediately began posting victory tweets so I taunted her and showed her lies.
                I won't post anything anywhere else but on my blog because my blogs are protected by license. This is one of the reasons why I request that Atheists debate me there.
                • Avatar
                  Haywood  3 days ago  parent
                  Sacerdotus: Your initial point was that "atheism" can't mean what it currently means, but only what it used to mean. Now you seem to be claiming that descriptive words mean what they currently mean, but words that describe social phenomena mean not what they currently mean, but what their etymology indicates they used to mean. Can you provide me with a comprehensive list of which types of words mean what the speaker or the majority of people intend, and which words can mean only what the original meaning was?
                  I linked data that showed most scientists do not believe in god. Instead of even attempting to refute or address, you claimed that not all scientists are atheists. Your claims about statistics on atheists converting to theism are simply that, your claims. BVG is not evidence for Yahweh in any way, shape or form.
                  "Atheism has nothing to do with 'disbelief.'"
                  The dictionary disagrees with you. You and the dictionary will have to debate the issue, or agree to disagree.
                  Your claims on the "filter of atheism" are based on your misrepresentation of what atheism is. You claim it's "insistence there can't be a god" as opposed to its real meaning of "disbelief in gods". I disbelieve everything for which there's no evidence, as you do (with your one exception). So atheists run evidence through the filter of disbelieving things which lack evidence? OK, since that filters out nothing, as opposed to running things through the filter of belief that the Bible/Christianity/Catholic dogma cannot be contradicted, which filters out many things.
                  Are you actually claiming you had heard of Leah Libresco before she came out as a theist? I had not. And are you claiming that showing up at the Reason Rally makes her well known?
                  I did not misunderstand your analogy, I identified a flaw in it. Your analogy used peers (a misbehaving man and a woman) to represent the relationship between man and God and rationalize God's behavior toward man after sin. I corrected it to a better analogy; the relationship between a misbehaving child and her parent.
                  Your posts here show that you are lacking in either logic or honesty. I can't say which.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (759) God (406) Atheism (343) Jesus (342) Bible (310) Jesus Christ (286) Pope Francis (230) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (192) Science (152) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Gay (78) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Physics (53) Liturgy (52) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (44) Christmas (43) New York City (41) Psychology (41) Holy Eucharist (36) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (31) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Health (22) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Theology (19) Christ (18) Death (18) Apologetics (17) Astrophysics (17) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) academia (9) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) CUNY (7) Cognitive Psychology (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Holy Trinity (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)