Arrogance of Elitism

I notice this at EvC occasionally, usually amongst evolutionist atheists, though not all of them ofcourse.Basically, you are a welcome debater if you have the following attitude;The Creationist says;" Dear atheist, I know you are the scientific one, and I am just a poor, pathetic, unknowledgeable little git who doesn't know the difference between his arse and his elbow. If I verily will sacrifice a bull to your overlarge ego, and agree with your every scientific whim, then please doest not slaughter me before my peers. "The Atheist responds;" Thou foolish creationist, uneducated, with no pride that swelleth the head, verily I will treat thee with respect if you sacrifice a bull to my omniscience at Lake Darwin. And if thou pretendeth to have the useage of thine brain for even a moment, in the delusion that you can actually think like me, then I will smite thee asunder and leave thee in the road-side, as yet another foolish, teenage, under-educated twurp that you are. So be good little fool, as your arguments have been blown apart since the beginning of time, even though I don't even know what you know, or how you think. "Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Then we have the friends join in on the game, in this unspoken consensus that only atheists verily rule all thought." Why Mr Boffin, did thou hearest what that petulant ignoramus did call me during light up time at Darwin Lake.
He did pretend to have full function of his brain and pronounced some sort of knowledge showing that he could think. Quick, lable the bugger a pseudo-thinker and make his eyes water, by having Boffin, 2, 3 and 4 refute him in the same prevailing tongue. "" Mr Boffin, I heard the little shit, he actually dared to say something to me, as if he could teach me a thing! Slaughter that twurp immediately, take no bulls for repentance, make him a laughing stick, let's drown him under ad hominem force before his kind up and take my lovely little free-thinking world where I make the rules, and Dawkins is held still sway in sainthood-status. "

Fair point, I agree. I have witnessed them also.mikey is testing the naughty-waters. However, one thing that does prevail is the misconception that the atheist is an educated person, who is informed totally, bordering on omniscience, and - at no stage is it possible to, after being atheist, become a theist.At this site I have witnessed it. When someone says they used to be atheist, the response is that "no true atheist would become theist, knowing what atheists know".LoL.From now on, only comedic or silly responses similar to the OP, allowed!!

Exactly.Even worse is spontaneous generation. As far as I am concerned, the claim of abiogenesis is equal to stating that a rock can sprout feelers.

Poisoning the well is illogical.A person's knowledge of a subject is irrelevant to an argument, according to logic.In the battle between evolution and creation for example, you can have an expert scientist versus a man off the street, and if the argument is over the truth then the man on the street can win, if he is more logical and perceptive.When it comes to information about evolution, the expert will know more, but this is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the truth-value of evolution.Example; an expert in Harry Potter, who can recite nay information on it, versus a man who only knows the name, "Harry Potter". Does this mean that the expert is correct, that Harry Potter isn't fiction?Not at all.Really guys, if you are so smart, please show some evidence because at the moment, mikey is yet again doing a number on you.

An example of logic for readers; Whereas the Big Bang theory can still be regarded as incredulous, by a Theist who certainly does know what the theory says.Evidence for theories in itself is not that important because of the fallacy of exclusivity.This means that one impressive falsifying evidence can trump a thousand pieces of evidence.So one falsifying evidence of the Big Bang could come to pass in a year or two, like it did for steady state.THIS IS WHY we don't place our faith in theories. For GENUINE logical reasons!

The "Buz" problem is not new, and I have observed it for many years. Newcomers like bluejay and others will not know, but your arguments about Buz's lack of understanding aren't new.The real problem isn't his knowledge or lack of it. Why? Because when I became atheist evolutionist at this very site, I was, all of a sudden, an expert who made exceptional points.The core problem here is INFACT, disagreement.Here is a man who will not change his position, no matter how many times you expound your own.So you have to ask yourself; "Just why should I expect a person of equal rights to change their beliefs anyway, unless I am a perfect omniscient being?"Listen, I have blasted away loads of atheists at forums. Trust me, there are lots who know close to zero and merely jump on the bandwagon of popular theories, having done no work themselves.Honestly - lose the, "Buz doesn't understand" argument. If anything, it just reveals what this very topic is about.If you were a YEC Bluejay - understand why someone else is having experienced the conviction they once had. Is it so hard to understand, that we disagree with one another?

You are arguing with logic itself now - which states, in any notation found, that a person's knowledge is not relevant to the claim.You are now under strawman, by claiming I am stating that; I KNOW false premisses lead to false conclusions.That isn't what I said. A persons education are not his "premisses". You didn't understand what I said it seems.And infact an argument WITH false premisses CAN HAVE A TRUE CONCLUSION.Example;Pigs are disgusting
I hate pigsTherefore pigs are animals.This is why I told you of the fallacy of ad logicam.This suggests you haven't learnt what it means yet.

Audiatur et altera pars.Jumping to conclusions about me AGAIN, Straggler?Do you know what the fallacy of exclusivity is? I infact only state that I don't place my faith in theories. What would it look like now if a scientist placed his faith in steady state and spontaneous generations, such as maggots coming onto dead bodies from nothingness?Those theories, accepted once, now seem almost silly to modern scientists. I only employ that I would rather place faith in facts. Time for me to remain silent, as you seem to be getting into the ad hominem stages. I am not interested in mud-throwing. I allow sin against me, but will not tolerate sin against you.

It's a fact that it works. (Although mine hardly does at times.)Hey Straggler, seriously though - I only doubt theories for specific reasons. With evolution for example, I accept most of it. I accept natural selection.As for macro-evolution, I find the claim that it happened is merely a statement, as the fossils themselves are not fully predictable.I would say that the fallacy of composition is relevant to macro-evolution because processes of irrelevant magnitude, such as a bacteria flagellum, are not equivalent to the full claim of the ToE, which states that every single design in the fossils, and in present species, evolved with NS + mutation.The facts, (that I have seen), show mutations to be beneficial, but not as an added information, and mostly NOT beneficial, showing either less limbs (designs) or diseases and deformity.I am truly open to any other facts that will show me an, ADDED, BENEFICIAL, UNPRECEDENTED design, or part of a new design.But evolution, as one theory, is a possibility I consider seriously.

Why does such an obviously superior rational being feel the need for such statements? Can we remain rational and friendly? I would prefer it.I am not out to get you. Calm down, take a stress pill and think things over. It is not my fault that Informed Theists exist, and that they annoy you in this manner, for being so able to produce a can of whoop-ass on yo' baba,.

I don't really place my faith in those theories, because ofcourse they work. Sophisticated theories are EXPECTED to work, but that doesn't mean they are true, except for in the computer.I don't jump off of a cliff because of the theory of gravity, I don't jump off because I know I will go "splat" at the bottome. JUST AS CAVEMEN wouldn't jump off a cliff BEFORE the theory of gravity existed!There have been computer programs that simulate the ToE. Logically, this doesn't prove the ToE actually happened, it just means that it will work on a computer program, and it therefore a clever human invention.

I haven't read "all" of Buz's posts, as his topics get quite big because of the come-backs. I will admitt ignorance compared to your experience, as you seemingly partake in debates with him a lot.I still say this is fundamentally a belief-based argument, though.Atheists and theists naturally become heated.I do take your post as relevant however, because you are a more content-based, rational poster. I am more against the ones with big mouths and little knowledge themselves, who simply jump on the bandwagon.We have the right to remain believers. I remember Shraff once, said she would never respond to me again simply because I wouldn't become atheist, and agree. I found that odd.

This is my last post. Apologies to any comebacks, I will not be on the website for awhile. I make mistakes too.But my position here is that I generally stick to the facts, because of what I have learnt over a period of time, regarding certain subjects.ID is essentially DONE. Whereas evolution "occurs" ceaselessly, so the comparison you made deserves more thought.There are "facts" which are self-evidently explained by an intelligence. Even panspermia is an intelligence-based idea.I do not "choose" facts that I see such as DNA information, etc, and MATTER having more properties than the sum of it. (organisms)Bye for now.

In other words; "mike, you corrected my error of saying that false premisses mean the conclusion is false, and I don't know how that relates to ad logicam."If it is false philosophy, then ad logicam will not mean that conflating two arguments is fallacious because one might have different premisses.Again, this kind of information must be proved to not exist at any sites which discusses formal fallacies for your claim of pseudo-intellectualism to have any credence.I am afraid I am not able to insult you as my beliefs dictate that I am not to sin against you even if you insult me.Some advice: Your posts seem to be a bit hyper. You jump from pillar to post in a bid to attack the person rather than dealing with the information. There are no need for allusions or insults. We merely disagree. This has no baring on how clever I am as I never stated I was clever. Infact I am not clever in many areas and subjects.