My Blog List

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

I have heard from Justin, see the previous blog. I want to answer him very simply to show tactics.
1-He claims to have not blocked me. The fact is that I was on his friend list and then removed. He admits it because he turned around and accepted my new friendship request.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/878207/why_wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source.html
2- He claims to have given me all the information and I have ignored it. I have read his "facts" that he presented from atheist websites and wack jobs. He then uses Wikipidia to try to prove his points when no credited university will allow their students to use Wikipidia. He then adds his thread from Wikipidia. Here is the first part of that thread from Wikipidia.
CONFIRMATION BIAS
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses whether or not it is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Now that he has interjected Wikipidia's explanation of Confirmation Bias, he believe that this means something. I encourage everyone to read this and then follow the footnotes etc..... and a whole new vision appears. Justin is describing himself....... and just about anyone else on the planet. These are his "facts".
As I have said many times how atheist love to twist and turn facts, and all the thing that magicians call mirror tricks. This also falls under Confirmation Bias.
3-The next part is classic attack. He calls me
You're a profoundly deluded idiot and until you actually start being honest and admitting that these things have already been explained to you in detail, with references, including fucking journals from theological seminaries etc, I'm not going to bother repeating myself anymore. I've been repeating these things over and over for weeks and you just keep lying about it and pretending you haven't been presented with a wealth of evidence PURELY BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO YOUR DELUSION.

Aside from the name calling and being called a lier, he calls his atheist websites and Wikipidia a wealth of evidence. He also love to use theologians against christian with manipulation on his part and then use his confirmation bias to confirm his wealth of evidence.
4- He repeats his denial of blockage. When raising my children I could always tell when they were lying. Most parents are aware of this as we also did it as kids.
If you repeat a lie enough times, maybe it will become the truth. If you are caught in a lie, yell, scream, and sometimes even swear to try to convince others that you are not lying. You can also tell your parents, "you just don't understand". Then finish it up by saying that everyone who disagrees with you are delusional.

5- He calms down realizing his errors and trys to laugh it off as a joke.

I personally don't like using these"wealth of evidence." They are most times bias towards one side or the other. I could quote the bible, an excepted source of information, but that would be bias. This would also lead to everyone's different interpretation of the Bible. We can also manipulate science but Justin has already called this "Confirmation Bias" and is moronic. His rules of discussion comes back to bite him. Once again we are back to basics, the first word, the Bible. With that in place come the interpretation of the Bible which would fall back under Confirmation bias and that puts us back at stage one. What is missing? Faith, faith, and faith. You have it or you don't.
Justin also like to condense all people who are Christians together in one neat little ball. All the extremes are put in one ball and called fanatics or weirdos.
That's like judging all atheist by one definition, you just can't do that.
In conclusion I feel that God is trying to work in Justins heart and I'll keep praying for him. Am I bias towards my faith? Guilty as charged. I just know that the burden of proof is not on the Christian, but on the ones who wish to tear us down.

6 comments:

JStressman said...

Shall I print a screenshot of my inbox?

You're insane Don. As I'm currently pointing out on Facebook.

I have 1 friend request in my gamil inbox from you on July 27th, which I accepted the following day. I never blocked you prior to, or after that day. Never blocked you at all.

As for Wikipedia, we've been over that a number of times as well... about how we're not writing dissertations here, and how the burden of proof for all these things is on you anyway.. but you ignore THAT point about the burden of proof as well, which is why I repeatedly point out your intentional dishonesty.

I've quoted other sources to you as well to illustrate my points, such as the Westminster Theological Seminary papers, but you ignore those as well because you won't acknowledge ANY source, REGARDLESS of what it is if it is contrary to what you wish to believe.

Tell me Don, honestly... is there any chance you would admit that your faith in the core tenets of Christianity is false? Because you have to be willing to be mistaken before you can be honest, and I don't believe you are, given how dishonestly you've denied large portions of my argument even when they DO meet your supposed criteria. (moving the goalpost, another point already pointed out to you.)

JStressman said...

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/for_faculty/faculty_find/wikipedia/

That last link in particular puts the use of Wikipedia in these discussions into the proper context, as I have done previously as well.

What you are doing Don is nothing more than trying to dismiss a mainstream, valid source of easy reference material on topics, while almost never providing any links of your own. In fact, I believe the link you've provided here is your second link EVER... and guess what Don? Allow me to show how dishonest, ignorant, and biased you are.

You rant about reliability... and yet when I cite sources that are themselves well cited, and have been studied by mainstream credible sources, and reported on by mainstream credible sources as being more than reliable enough for discussions such as this... what do you cite as your rebuttal?

A fucking OPINION PIECE by some random guy with an axe to grind against Wikipedia... with ZERO citations of its own.

This is the same dishonest and stupid bullshit you pulled by trying to quote some nobody's personal cite about the Roman calendar as PROOF against all the information I'd presented from Wikipedia and other sources. And of course that time you were laughably wrong as well, on top of course from being a huge hypocrite.

JStressman said...

And I didn't manipulate what the Seminary said, Don... I LINKED YOU TO THEIR JOURNALS DIRECTLY. TO THE VERY PAPERS IN QUESTION so that you could read them for yourself.

YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH trying to assert otherwise.

I'm not laughing any of this off as a joke Don. You continue you fallacious lies and bullshit delusions in every post you make and its infuriating every time.

You never admit that you've been mistaken, no matter how overwhelming the truth... just like I'm sure you'll avoid admitting that it was stupid and dishonest and hypocritical of you try quote an uncited random opinion piece as a valid rebuttal against Nature, the BBC, CNet, Carleton College, IBM, The Guardian, and numerous other academic studies... essentially ALL of which found that Wikipedia was as reliable as Britannica and other "mainstream" encyclopedias and primary sources... and that the only "fault" they found was that while there were generally no errors, that the coverage was less extensive and exhaustive.

In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia itself has 106 different citations to primary sources, academic studies, mainstream journalists, etc.

But I'm sure your opinion piece written by a nobody with zero citations negates ALL of that, right?

Yet again Don, you're a dishonest and deluded liar who denies all the evidence presented and pathetically and desperate reasserts your lies in spite of it all, and refuses to ever admit he's mistaken, no matter the weight of evidence establishing your errors.

Anonymous said...

Guidelineѕ are сonstructed οf light
plаѕtiс-tуpе plates that are "nail"-shaρеd.
The Sіnful Ϲolоrs polishes are pаckagеd
reаllу nicelу with a rounded bаse аnd a blaсk top and simple
blaсκ lettering on thе bottle. If everyone сan do that,
our cοuntry ωill be strongeг аnd ѕtrοnger.


Chеck out my web blοg; Nail designs

Anonymous said...

You will find the best aѕsortment of diffеrent types of peгfume
that arе haгd tο finԁ еlsewhere.
Нigh enԁ ԁesіgnеr рerfumе that usually costs
$50+ рег bottlе ωill cost nearlу 75% less. This is why you need to have your bottle facing the light in a way that you can still read the text and have the rest of the bottle visible with perfect definition from shadows.

Here is my blog post; the perfume shop

Anonymous said...

With many of оur Memorial Day activities being held Wednеѕdаy, theгe ωill be businesses
cloѕed anԁ pеople ωith that dаy off, too.
You will notice аn array of blue dots, this is the
scanning technology that Flow uses to helρ reсognize items uѕing augmentеd
reality. Tо hеlp dеal with the
spots Aloe Vеra is greаt to use.

Feel fгee tо surf to my blog post ... bizspeaking