Forum Oscars

Herself, if I am not mistaken.(thanks all)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey Straggler, (B) Pragmatic believer: riVeRraT, truthlover, Phat
(C) Pragmatic disbeliever: Rrhain, Modulus
(D) Rampant atheist: CK/Charles Knight
(E) Open-minded skeptic: tie between Holmes and Ben
(F) A category on his own: Joe Meert
(G) The third side of the argument: Archer
(H) Horse rider (and dead horse flogger): Schraff
(I) Most missed: RobinRohanAnd a host of good posters hard to categorizeEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

So much for positive categories Is there an award for mis-understanding the argument and being proud of it? Or for jumping to the most false conclusions? (Both of these statements are wrong).Do you really want to drag your thread in that direction?I'd have to add to my list on Message 27:Briterican for most honest atheistRoxrcool for the best avatarBrian for the avatar that describes the debateMammuthus for must-read whenever he postsBest software developer = PercyEnjoy

---

glad of it, xongsmith. Yes, OS on a stick, along with all your files, means you can take your computer anywhere you have access to a machinePuppy Linux gets my oscar nomination for the best OS: simple and tight. loads into RAM for fast operation. Load from a read only CD and the OS is impervious to virus, trojans, etc, and just need to sweep your personal files.The wave of the future is a portable memory and tangential hardware used as hoc as necessary.Enjoy

---

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.

---

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, : ...

---

Hi Bluejay, felicitous festivals to you, Not all aabba verse is limerick, as you say, for there is a meter of insouciance involved in any good limerick Hope you'll enjoy the season of the winter solstice without strain or pain, and find cheer where it is best found.Enjoy.

---

When did anything stop you? Certainly
reasoned argument versus fallacy after fallacy
hasn't done the task.
It seems too much to ask
when logic's exposed your evidential inadequacybut adversity is not the spirit of the season
so let this end, to some folks' pleasin:
when it comes to rhyme
I've done the time
and I'll leave the argument to reason. Only for one who believes they can ignore reality and the several logical problems with their position/s. Curiously, the ability to rhyme does not mean one has the ability to make a cogent argument, or that one deals with the actual issues in the process.So you get an oscar for the longest pointless rhyme.Enjoy

---

Dear Straggler, basking in the glow of appreciation for your rap-ability, please: What we agree is that objective evidence exists, it just doesn't necessarily apply to your position, and you have to employ several logical fallacies in order to assume such connections.We all agree that there is mountains of objective evidence that mushrooms grow in the dark at night under a new moon when it rains - this just doesn't happen to show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, just that mushrooms grow in the dark at night under a new moon when it rains.We also agree that there is objective empirical evidence that shows certain details of certain maps to be inaccurate in those details (the early conceptions of gravity being such a case), but that these inaccuracies do not invalidate the terrain (mountains, etc) being portrayed, only the specific portrayals - and thus these too do not show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, just that the portrayals are not valid representations. Also falsified, (see previous for summary falsification) leaving you once again as a pseudoskeptic, employing logical fallacy after logical fallacy, attempting to support a position that is by definition and form logically invalid from the start.What you have is only possibility.You can sing and you can dance, but your personal opinion cannot change this reality, as, curiously, reality is unconcerned about your opinions, biases, preconceptions, and beliefs. Nor does reality need to be put into verse in order to falsify your position/s.I could say that your apparent inability to see\understand\recognize this simple set of facts earns you the blind-atheist oscar, and award of equal value to the blind-theist oscar (whatever? johnjohn10:10 etc?)Enjoy.

---

Oh boo hoo, Straggler. Tell me another sob story. Which, curiously is a straw man version of the real argument, the one that refutes your position because it is based on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and which you continue to ignore while making more pointless irrelevant posts. Yep, another amusing example of cognitive dissonance and dismissal of contradictory information. No, I find your position increasingly hilarious: all you are left with are quips, misquotes, and denial. Because you cannot see where and why you are wrong. Where and why the "objectively evidenced context of human history, culture/anthropology and psychology" does not support your position, except by your wishful thinking and pre-assumption that you are correct. Where and why it provides you with nothing more than a possibility of being correct. Which exemplifies your lack of understanding. Your position is faith based agnostic plus pseudoskeptic assumption of conclusions that contradicted by the logic analysis of your position.Not that you have not addressed the issue of the logical failures of your position, and all you have done is repeat your already falsified position/s. Calling it a "silly formula" is not debate, nor refutation, that is blind ideology.Nor have you been able to establish that you are anything but a pseudoskeptic. I'm working on one, but it's not for (about) you (sorry - I know you're so vain about your opinions).Enjoy.

---

Nice choice for a poster wannabe.
Enjoy.