Dealing with a Troll and Arguing Over Word Meaning

As atheists, our lack of knowledge on something;

is not something the believers then get to use as their proof of anything.

“Like your lack of knowledge that science has never proven anything? Or your lack of knowledge that you’re more religious than the pope?” – Troll

My response, Want are you referring to? I am not religious. So, WHAT are you talking about?
HOW do you claim to know this? And WHY is your claim to evidence valid and justified?

Person to the Troll, “Sir, your unintelligible nonsense belies your total delusion.”

Person-2 to the Troll, “Lack of knowledge in anything means you are looking for the answer not inventing an answer to put in place of the unknown which is what religion does. Religion speculates an answer whereas science coorelates an answer based on factual evidence. How is not being religious more religious? Is being more sober being more drunk then? Nonsense.”

“Person-2, It’s always nice to destroy religious atheists with science, it’s a hobby of mine. It’s super easy because you guys just always assume to be smarter, which is your Achilles heel and makes your faith accept all sorts of nonsense.” – Troll

Person-3 to the Troll, “What a stupid fucking thing to say.”

Person-2 to the Troll, “Except to ” destroy” atheism would require you to have proof of any god or gods in theological claims since that is what atheism pertains to lol. You use science to destroy atheism the same way a leper gives a massage not too well. Maybe you should find something productive to do with your time apart from doing futile, frivolous and mindless behavior. Religious atheists is an oxymoron but you are an actual moron. So what do you think atheists have ” faith” in specifically?”

Person-4 to the Troll, “Destroy Atheist religion with science” that’s rich???? nice try though!”

Person-2 to Person-4, “He’ll destroy atheism with science the same way he’ll drown a fish in water. He’ll destroy atheism with science like installing a peep hole on a screen door. He will destroy atheism with science like he’ll throw a bird off a cliff. lol “

Person-5 to the Troll, “Science knows enough to allow smart phones and moon landings. not doing too bad in my opionion.”

“Person-2, My belief is a non-belief actually, prove to me that you exist. Opps, you can’t. Weird how you can’t even perform the task you require of others. Bonkers. You guys are SO smart. LOL” – Troll

Person-2 to the Troll, “Do you have a lack of sentience? I do have a drivers license lol. If you are interacting with me then you just put your foot in your mouth dumbass. lol You must be one of those special people that has their own little bus.”

Person-6 to Person-2, “Hes a troll. I have dealt with his type before.”

Person-6 to the Troll, “I’m normally a nice and polite guy but fuck you.”

Person-2 to Person-6, “He sucks at that, so he only trolls himself. lol”

Person-7 to the Troll, “Like your lack of knowledge about how the scientific method works? Go back to school, boy.”

Person-8 to the Troll, “What the fucking fuck are you babbling about? Holy (and wholly) shit, you come off as sophomoric.”

Person-9, “Guys, don’t feed the troll.”

“Person-9,Don’t be afraid dude, just because I upend your flimsy arguments, doesn’t mean that I will bite. It’s LOL funny how you guys can’t take or resolve the way you act toward others all the time. ????????????????????????????“ – Troll

“Person-7, Yeah, I have a background working in the scientific field which is why I can crush your impotent arguments. Let’s start here, show me something good that science has proven and I will concede. Surely this won’t be hard for someone with your massive intellect ????????????????????????????????????????????“ – Troll

Person-7 to the Troll, “As what, a janitor? A lab tech? ???????????? The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 on this planet. Throw yourself off a 30 m tall building and disprove it, xolopitli.”

“Person-7, I was part of a 5 man engineering team at a start up, we revolutionized the treatment of Brain aneurysms and our company just sold for a couple hundred million. Ok, now back to showing everyone that you have no idea what you’re talking about because you lack even fundamental understanding of the scientific method. Here’s a team of scientists who wrote an article to help religious nuts like yourself who’s lives are ruled by myths. forbes.com-Scientific Proof Is A Myth“ – Troll

Person-7 to the Troll, “Who said I’m religious, you moron?! ????????????
Goddamn, for someone so “successful”, you’re dumber than dog shit. Do you assume that everyone is religious, or just on Sundays?”

Person-10, “Yikes, thanks though, i’m glad I was able to realize this asshole is on my other account and unfriend his ass.”

My response to the Troll, “Science investigates all natural phenomena. And scientists approach these investigations in all sorts of ways. Some depend on experiments, some on observational studies. Some lead to dead ends, some to unexpected discoveries. Some result in a technological advance, and some cast doubt on an established theory. But despite all that diversity, the aim of science remains unchanged — to build more accurate and powerful natural explanations of how the universe works — and that requires testing ideas with evidence to build scientific arguments. These arguments form the core of science. In this case, the term argument refers not to a disagreement between two people, but to an evidence-based line of reasoning — so scientific arguments are more like the closing argument in a court case (a logical description of what we think and why we think it) than they are like the fights you may have had with siblings. Scientific arguments involve three components: the idea (a hypothesis or theory), the expectations generated by that idea (frequently called predictions), and the actual observations relevant to those expectations (the evidence). These components are always related in the same logical way: 1.. What would we expect to see if this idea were true (i.e., what is our expected observation)? 2. What do we actually observe? 3. Do our expectations match our observations?” https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_01

Person-11 to the Troll, “The Forbes article is a good one. Of course, what we see from people like you is the common religious argument about ”truth” with ”proof” substituted in a rather weaselly way. It is also a variation of the common theist argument that tries to use the great strength of science — that everything is subject to revision when new data is found — as somehow an argument against it. It’s dishonest both philosophically & scientifically, but then that is not unexpected. From the article. It would be interesting to see someone apply this to a god-thing: ’In order to come up with a model capable of predicting what will happen under a variety of conditions, we need to understand a few things. What we’re capable of measuring, and to what precision. What’s been measured thus far, under specific initial conditions. What laws hold for these phenomena, i.e., what observed relationships exist between specific quantities. And what the limits are for the things we presently know. If you understand these things, you have the right ingredients to formulate a scientific theory: a framework for explaining what we already know happens as well as predicting what will happen under new, untested circumstances.”

“Person-11, If pointing out that the members of your Church cannot properly identify the methods with which they base the foundations of their world view is weasel-y, I would suggest that you reflect that I am only acting toward you plebs in the same way you act towards others. Being unable to defend your faith against your own tactics is. . .priceless.” – Troll

“Damien, Indeed you sound very pious sir when you write out your myths to us. Peace be with you.” – Troll

“Person-7, You said it, also, you calling me dumb, while not able to properly identify your own behavior is ????????????????????????????????. I identify religious people by their behavior, like this denomination here. ????“ – Troll

Person-11 to the Troll, “You do have a bit of a problem with language, do you not? But then your convoluted & rather desperate re-definitions are amusing, so please continue, sir.”

My response to the Troll, “Science is not a myth it’s an investigation process of relating to evidence. I see you seem to want to misunderstand evidence or the logic to grasp its effective analysis.”

Person-7 to the Troll, “Okay, so you don’t know how religion works, either. You through grasping at straws, or are you gonna continue looking like a dumb-ass?
Nice projection you got going on. You’re wrong. But continue. Please do tell us, what denomination am I? I mean, you’re such a fucking expert, right? Do thrill us with your…acumen.”

My response to Person-7, He is just a troll in his nonsense statements. Rambling logical fallacies like equivocation: “the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth.” He is acting as if the word “religion” has only one use and applying it here as if it fits. Thus it is being used as a red hearing as well to avoid real arguments.

My response to the Troll, “What do you mean by the term religion? What do you mean by religious behavior? (Ontology Questions) Here is the meaning of religion.

My response to the Troll, “You state religion is being displayed here are you also referring to your behavior? Would you state religion is being displayed in your faith in the Forbes magazine article? You state that you identify religious people by their behavior, but by what authority of definition or fixed criteria are you employing in this claim of expertise? You state you don’t like proselytizing yet are you not here on my personal page doing just that? Please explain this behavior you are doing on my page?

“Damien, The best way to describe it is to say that human beings reflexively turn everything into an in group, out group, beware the others religious experience. I don’t think all Atheists are religious, but certainly as anyone can observe religion seems to sprout up out of nowhere in humanity. It was bound to happen to those who identify as Atheist. Where there is bigotry there is a core belief that the in group > the out group. Notice that your acolytes view themselves as keepers of the “truth of science.” N E Way, that’s it, when I see the religious Atheism going down, I come around and do this to your arguments. https://youtu.be/XDFkDZ4HW3k“ – Troll

Person-12 to the Troll, “I would be thrilled to hear about your last success! Damien, he’s definitely confused!”

Person-7 “I notice he never answered my question. Huh.”

My response to the Troll, Saying “human beings reflexively turn everything into an in group, out group” does answer my question on religion nor does that claim turn it into a valid claim of religion definition with which to label anything. So, again, please address a valid definition for the term religion? You stared, “religion seems to sprout up out of nowhere in humanity? without a valid definition of your term, so what do you mean by religion that is valid for use?. “In group and out group” are relating to sociology and social psychology not a valid definition for religion. Please provide a valid definition? Moreover, what do you mean by religious atheism and how are you validating this term? How are you not exhibiting expressed in-group and out-group behavior on this post? As in this behavior:

My response to the Troll, You state, you have a background working in the scientific field, please offer a good explanation that fully defines what science is and what it does? You stated, “You guys are SO smart. LOL” how is this not exhibiting expressed in-group and out-group behavior? or this picture stating you are the smartest, it sounds like you exhibiting expressed in-group and out-group behavior? Why would someone need to prove a belief? If one wants to have others consider the justification of belief in a belief then they hold the burden of proof.

My response to the Troll, “Here is a little on the sociology and social psychology of expressed in-group and out-group behavior. An in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age, or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.” –Ingroups_and_outgroups

My response to the Troll, You stated, It’s always nice to destroy religious atheists with science, it’s a hobby of mine. It’s super easy because you guys just always assume to be smarter, which is your Achilles heel and makes your faith accept all sorts of nonsense.” Please explain how this is not exhibiting expressed in-group and out-group behavior?

Person-7 “Not to mention intellectually dishonest. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. In this case the pigeon shat on the chessboard, thinking it won.”

Person-13 “An understanding of science isn’t necessary to be an atheist. Most people are atheists because of the lack of evidence to support the idea of a god. Until anyone has evidence for a god, asserting that there is one is a fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification).

My response, “Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Person-14 to me, “our lack of knowledge “? I think we atheists have plenty of knowledge that gods don’t exist. Stop pretending to be an atheist. We won’t “convert” to theism just because you offer a lame argument.”

My response to Person-14, I am referring to the argument from ignorance fallacy that religious people constantly make that is we don’t know something, then their god is real. Like if we don’t know what came before the big bang then they can claim a god which they can’t. I am not pretending to be an atheist. Lol

Person-14 to me, “The god of the gaps argument”

Person-15 to me, ” Most atheists admit that we don’t have all the answers, but all religious people claim. God is always the answer.”

Person-16 to the Troll, “Science has never proven anything huh?? You’re not a scientist Gabriel Olsen..but you just proved you’re an idiot!!!”

Person-13 to me, “Exactamente. The assertion there is a god simply because there is a concept for god is a reification. It’s like trying to calculate with infinity. You can’t because infinity isn’t a number…. Damien Marie AtHope You handled it well….”

My response to Person-13, Thanks, In disagreements, I don’t fight to win. I am mainly striving to understand or change the thinking people have, so they then can better see the reason I am offering. I want people to think, then think some more. lol

Person-13 to me, “I know. But at some point we all have to realize that some people are just going to dig their heels in even more and project like this guy did with the assertion that trusting science requires “faith” because of emotional commitments…”. He was also playing pretty fast and loose with the word ‘faith’. In the article he linked to, the word ‘faith’ is closer to meaning tentative trust rather than believing in contradiction of evidence otherwise. His argument is premised on an equivocation fallacy.

My response to Person-13, We cannot help everyone, though I made him think if not he would easily answer all my questions thoughtfully, he never really tried and now he realizes it and I don’t require him to change I already did what I wanted I made him think.

Person-13 to me, “You are much more optimistic than I….”

My response to Person-13, I believe in the power of reason, as I was not an atheist until 35. I appeal to their reason as a helpful counselor, mentor, or teacher that would see their possible frustration as a thing in them, not truly a thing meant for me. I know we cannot change things with more of the same. I think of my goal, which is to help others and doing that I can better control my feelings. I do get angry often but I strive to not express that in my behavior. I wish to be a friend to the world. It has been a life’s work, years of counseling and self-improvement. I now see the value of kindness. To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.

“LOL you guys really suck at debate and logic. Here’s an Atheist to explain it to you zoink. https://www.google.com/…/atheism-is-irrational” – Troll

My response to the Troll, You just stated “LOL you guys really suck at debate and logic. Here’s an Atheist to explain it to you zoink.” So is this yet more proof that you are intellectually dishonest and expressed toxic in-group and out-group behavior?

My response to the Troll, Why do you keep dishonoring your intellectual character acting this way? Do you really not value Intellectual honesty? “We have a moral duty, to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression.” https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

Person-13 to me, “Damien, I don’t know bro. Most of the guys who hit others with the self-congratulatory “lols” seem to be master debaters….”

My response to the Troll, No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.

My response to the Troll, What do you mean by the term god? And why do you believe your proposed god claim has the accuracy to available evidence as well as sound reason and a valid justification to be entertained as a plausible claim?

My response to Person-13, It’s his only defense mechanism to avoid assessing his dishonoring of his intellectual character or acknowledging his complete lack of real arguments or honest debate tactics.

———————————————————————————————-

Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY)

“WHAT are you talking about?” Ontology philosophy

“HOW do you claim to know this?” Epistemology philosophy

And “WHY is your claim to evidence valid and justified?” Axiology philosophy

“The Hammer of Truth” is my folk name for the Methodological use of Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.”

Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.

“The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology”

Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.

Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.

Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge/Jury assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

Taking down god assertions in 123

1. What is a goD? (an ontology question)

2. How can one claim to know anything about a god? (an epistemology question)

3. How valid, good or worthy is a claim that one knows anything about a god? (an axiological question)

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naive realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology: Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability *being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status,often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

Dealing with a Troll and Arguing Over Word Meaning

As atheists, our lack of knowledge on something;

is not something the believers then get to use as their proof of anything.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest