Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: JayJay, your "atheist ideology" bollocks is not only bollocks, bollocks that has been flushed down the toilet again and again, not only
boring bollocks to boot, but because you've been schooled again and again why it's bollocks, it's now dishonest and duplicitous bollocks as well.
According to you and your friends.
No, according to the
verifiable facts. Which several of us here have exerted effort to impart to you. Once again,
NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact
ISN'T an "ideology", it's the
very antithesis thereof, because
ideologies are based upon unsupported assertions treated as purportedly constitutng "axioms" which the world is purportedly required to conform to. Every
genuine ideology that has ever existed exhibits this feature. Indeed, I've exerted considerable effort pointing out the unsupported assertions lying at the heart of various ideologies in past posts, usually in order to demonstrate to assorted individuals with misconceptions about this, why I
don't subscribe thereto. But of course, you're not going to let inconvenient facts such as this get in the way of your manifest apologetic fabrications, are you JayJay?
Jayjay4547 wrote:But I hear you Cali
That's the
whole problem, JayJay, you'e
not listening when the
facts that I bring to the table happen not to genuflect before your own ideological presuppositions. Instead, you're continuing to peddle a blatant fabrication, one that has been
exposed as a blatant fabrication by reference to those facts. Namely:
Fact No 1: Atheism, in its
rigorous formulation, consists of
a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. IN short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Asking someone else to support their assertions with proper evidence, as opposed to the collapsed discoursive soufflés of fabrication, isn't an "ideology", it's the proper conduct of discourse.
Fact No. 2 : Every
genuine ideology that has ever existed, is based upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world, which the world purportedly must conform to.
Fact No 3: Since atheism doesn't erect any assertions of its own, but consists of
suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions, and a demand that said assertions be
tested to determine whether or not they're more substantial than the products of the television inside someone's head, then as a corollary of [1] and [2] above, atheism is
NOT an "ideology, but the very
antithesis thereof.
Now you've had these elementary facts presented to you time and again, JayJay, yet despite this, you persist in peddling this blatant fabrication of yours, and a s a corollary, that fabrication is now regarded here as
dishonest.
Plus, the people who are responsible for what you refer to, in typically mendacious fashion, as an "origin narrative", in a deliberate and manifest attempt to erect a fake "symmetry" between evidence-based science and assertion-laden doctrine, in order to hand-wave away the former, are not "atheists", but
scientists. Who present the relevant account
NOT because they're in the business of propping up doctrinal assertions, but because they're in the business of
testing assertions to destruction, and discarding those assertions failing said test. The account that scientists present for our origins is based upon
data, JayJay,
NOT ideological presuppositions, and this is another of those elementary facts you've been presented with time and again. Scientists have the fossils,
in large quantity, and they have the DNA evidence, again in
large quantity, and your attempt to suggest that they are operating on an "ideological" basis when they present the hypotheses that are
in accord with that data, is not merely a
wrong fabrication on your part, but a
duplicitous one. It's nothing more than the continued resurrection of that zombie canard known as the "assumptions" canard creationists love so much, because they have no evidence to support their own doctrinal assertions, and in order to prop up said assertions, have to misrepresent the valid science that
destroys those assertions. It's mendacity writ large, JayJay, and has
NO place in proper discourse.
Jayjay4547 wrote:you don’t like my posts and you don’t want to see any more of them.
Not even competent enough to be wrong.
What I want to see an end to, JayJay, is
not your posts full stop, but
instances of manifest and blatant discoursive duplicity, such as the one I've exposed above. In short, I and others here want to see an end to made up shit presented as purportedly constituting fact.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Your abusive way of putting that disinclines me to consent.
Once again, JayJay, I'll remind you of an operating principle at work here. Namely, the entirely proper scientific principle that
ideas are disposable entities. The procedure for determining when to dispose of an idea, and treat that idea as a
bad idea, simply consists of asking the question "is this idea in accord with previously established facts or relevant data?", and discarding ideas
failing to be thus in accord. As a corollary of this, another maxim applicable here, is the maxim,
bad ideas exist to be destroyed. If you don't like the subjection of bad ideas to invective, JayJay, the simple solution is
stop presenting them.
In case you hadn't worked out this elementary principle, no one is required to "respect" your ideas, simply because you assert them. Ideas
earn respect
when they survive appropriate critical test, and not before. The reason I heap invective upon your manifest fabrication, is because
said fabrication has manifestly FAILED critical test time and time again. Your continued clinging to this fabrication, and the treatment thereof as fact, despite said fabrication manifestly
being a fabrication even upon elementary examination of its correlation with the facts, apart from being absurd in the light of those facts, and dishonest upon repeat instances thereof
after those facts have been presented, is, if anything, a classic example itself of
genuine ideological presupposition at work.
Jayjay4547 wrote:It might occur to you that a creationist who posts on an atheist site might be actually courting abuse.
Not if his discoursive conduct is
honest. Funnily enough, we have someone fitting that bill right now posting here. Though he'll soon be robustly informed the moment he strays into duplicitous discoursive territory.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I must say though, I really dislike it.
Quite simply, tough shit. This isn't an apologetics forum, existing to pander to wishful thinking. The entire rationale of this forum consists of feeding bad ideas into the shredder where they belong. The simple solution, once again, consists of
not presenting bad ideas.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Once again, what part of "
NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact is
NOT a fucking ideology" do you either not understand, or wilfully refuse to understand for duplicitous apologetic purposes?
You have posted that sentence so many times, with different styles of emphasis but without any response acceptable to you, that it should have occurred to you that the sentence is question begging.
No it isn't, courtesy of the
facts I've just presented above. Learn them,. and why they apply here.
Jayjay4547 wrote: I’m confident that an ideology arises wherever some people share an important idea
Poppycock. An
ideology arises when
people treat unsupported assertions as fact, and base an entire dialectic upon this. If the assertions in question are supported by
evidence, then one ceases to have an
ideology, and instead one has
an evidence based theory. Learn the distinction.
Jayjay4547 wrote:(e.g. “There is no God”)and others oppose that idea.
Except that, oh wait, I'm on public record here as saying that I
don't assert this. Instead, I'm on record as stating that
I regard particular instances of the class of god-type entities as having been falsified, on the basis that they are constructed using assertions suffering from inconsistency, paradox and absurdity. On the other hand, the
universal question, that NO entity belonging to the class exists, is one I regard as
unanswered. Moreover, I'm on public record as having stated what I think is likely to happen, if any
genuine member of that class turns up and provides
evidence of its existence. You'll find that a good number of people here regard my public declarations on this matter as eminently sound. But of course, you've never bothered to go and find the
data on this matter, have you? Instead, you've simply assumed (supernaturalists all too frequently demonstrate that they
love their assumptions) that my opposition to your manifest canards, instead of being motivated by proper discoursive concerns, is purportedly the product of "ideological" biases of the very sort
you're manifesting. It isn't.
Indeed, the idea that any
genuine god type entity somehow necessarily conforms to the narrow, parochial and limited parameters erected by superstitious, pre-scientific authors of mythologies, is not only an ideology writ large itself, but an
absurd one. Indeed, I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's words on this subject, which are apposite here:
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
Indeed, by insisting that their gods conform to mythological assertions,
adherents of those mythologies are belittling their gods. Quite simply, if a god-type entity
does actually exist, mythologies and their assertions are nothing more than failed attempts by limited humans, humans even more limited by no fault of their own than ourselves, to try and make the cosmos comprehensible. Unfortunately, that's the entire problem with
prescriptive assertions, of the sort contained in mythologies: they are in the most mortal danger of all of being falsified, the moment the subjects of those assertions actually put in an appearance, and show what they're
really like. See, for example, a certain Mr B. Franklin, and his rather dangerous kite flying activities, and how they falsified assertions about the necessity of supernatural entities for lightning. Worse still,
prescriptive assertions have a habit of encouraging ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, and the preservation of bad ideas via the destruction of good humans, simply because those good humans don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Soon that ideology
Except that the "ideology" in this case is a manifest fabrication on your part.
Jayjay4547 wrote:takes on a life of its own and it parasitizes its adherent’s brains.
Oh, suddenly becoming a supporter of Dawkins' "meme" idea, are you?
I'll also note how embarrassing your above statement
should be for you, with respect to your own ideology and its effects.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: The only two possible reasons for you continuing to post this bollocks, are discoursive incompetence or discoursive duplicity, and many here are doubtless suspecting the latter, given how many times you've been schooled on this.
Another more likely explanation is that I’m on to a fascinating and important topic and loath to discard it when screeched at.
The
facts say otherwise. See above.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Now, are you going to cease and desist from posting this bollocks? Because the rest of us are bored shitless with your endless resurrection of this bollocks. Bollocks that is not only plain, flat wrong, but is so fulminatingly discoursively diseased bollocks, that it should have died from the ideological syphilis it was infected with long ago.
Sorry Cali, while I’m allowed I'm likely to continue until people stop posting things that seem to me to be wrong.
But you don't think it's apposite for others to apply the same principle to
your posts? Nice double standard there.
Jayjay4547 wrote:There are a few posts with real content I'm anxious to respond to ASAP.
Here's another one. Let's see what you have in response to this, shall we?
by 
