{no subject} [#2649]

[pianodwarf]

I have zero "belief" in Jesus.  Personally I think no such person ever existed, & it's all part of the archetypal mythology that's existed from long before then regionally.
 
However, I find your website to be completely lame.  The arguments are filled with fallacious argument techniques and have glaring holes from projection into all sorts of statements.  If anyone is convinced by this, they could use a logic class.
 
Sincerely,
[name removed]

[Nick]

Lame, full of holes, I feel insulted but I don't know why.

[One Above All]

You should point out a hole or two, rather than simply assert their existence. I could do the same to your message and it wouldn't mean a damn thing if I didn't explain where the holes are and why they're holes.

[crumbs]

Unbelievably creepy site.  You write an email -- and they post it to the forum without permission!!!!

They FORCE YOU to REGISTER, in order to react to this action by them!!!  A lot of mind games going on here.  You have to "agree to have your beliefs challenged" (register) just to post that you didn't authorize this post!!!  Well I don't agree to have my beliefs challenged because I had no interest in any of this.

The post of this email to them, was that there are obvious false arguing techiques (they are obvious & they are well aware of them & don't need to be pointed out in order to make what WAS THE POINT) ...  simply that someone without bias against their views, can see the smoke screen methods.

The point isn't to debate that there are or aren't smoke screens.  The site developers know that (one can assume since they are glaring).... the point was to let them know that this person is saying so.

Interestingly, it's that "having a voice" that was the drive to write.  And sure enough, they shut that voice down with dishonesty.  When you get an email, you can ignore, or answer.  You have NO right to shove it elsewhere & say "go tell your brother instead."  In that situation, we can all see that it's a shut down, a belittling of one's voice.

Requring connection & agreement, in order to post anything in response to their response (of posting it here) --- is even more manipulative.

I don't care about the "exists or doesn't or has this or that powers" topics.  The TOPIC I was writing about was the "making voiceless" and the belittling that comes from pretending to be a better thinker, while using dishonest comments.  In every textual quote, they put in assumptions that aren't there, to go with the accurate bits they use.  That's glaring.  If you can't see it -- that's not my problem.  I was writing to the site's authors.  They KNOW it -- and don't need me to point it out.

As a matter of fact, they know it so well, that they were afraid to treat my email (or anyone's) with honesty, and either answer them, or ignore them, and to write what they will do, where they have their email address.  Posting it, without pre-warning, is a statement of dishonest intent...

I've asked them to remove this entire forum entry, that I didn't post & didn't give permission for.  If they are respectful of other people, including their well being & feelings -- they will remove it.  If they don't -- (and likely will remove only my entry here) -- they are making a statement about themselves.

I hope removal happens.  I have no need for this to be here, my words included.

[One Above All]

crumbs, there was a warning that emailing might get your email posted. You have no reason to complain about that or the "manipulation" you perceive or anything else, really. Nearly every forum requires you to register in order to post. And all of them have stuff you must agree to.
Now, if you could actually point out an error on the main website, I might take you seriously.

[crumbs]

Not yet have I said it well, so I'll say it again.

My point was to let the website authors know their smoke screen argument methods are obvious.  Since I am not bias against their final views, I added that, to give power to my point.

My point was NOT to debate whether such smoke screen methods exist.  They are glaring -- and the authors know it.  I was writing to them, and therefore don't need to include the obvious. 

I wasn't writing to this forum.  It's another manipulative technique to have to now supposedly answer to some other audience my original addressee.  One with different agenda -- and goals -- that requires a totally different type of discussion in order to make sense to.  It's called "moving the goal posts" when you redirect to a different audience (or topic) & force original assumption to not make sense because your with a different audience.

It's like talking to an scientist who's used manipulation on his numbers about your REACTION (reaction, not the manipulations), then having to prove what's obvious to you and the sciencist to some lay audience.  It's a way by that sciencist to avoid talking about your reaction.

Tricky.  A removal of context, in order to make a point seem empty.  Good reading skills would have picked up the original context as well as the content... and understood what was actually communicated.

[One Above All]

Still not seeing those "smokescreens". Kindly point one out. Besides yours, I mean. You're obviously just pulling stuff out of your ass and your refusal to provide evidence for the author's use of such smokescreens tells me everything I need to know.

[caveat_imperator]

So, you are unable to point out these "obvious false" arguing techniques are you, crumbs? I'm not surprised.

[One Above All]

So, you are unable to point out these "obvious false" arguing techniques, are you? I'm not surprised.

Nah, caveat_imperator. The "obviously false" arguing techniques are glaringly obvious! You can't see them because you're part of the conspiracy!
crumbs, ever heard of a fallacy known as "Poisoning the well"?

[ParkingPlaces]

You shouldn't take anonymity so personal, guy.

And you could have written another email to the mailbag complaining, without signing up. It wouldn't have been any more effective, but at least we wouldn't have the slightest idea who you are.

Relax. You had a generic opinion. You stated it broadly. You made gross assumptions and condemned us based on your own personal biases. We get that all the time. We've never hunted anybody else down. And there is no sense starting with you.

You have just given us a third post, and though you are claiming things like smoke screens, etc. you aren't giving us any specifics. As you can imagine, if we really are that far out of it, logic-wise of otherwise, we need to have our hands held while we are told about our horrid tactics.

I, for instance, haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

At least let us know ONE of the glaring errors. At least give us a clue.

And just to make things more frustrating for you, the author of the web site is not involved in the forum, as far as we know. He lets us use it though. Nice guy.

[Emily]

You're message was pretty lame also. All you did was talk about how the website has fallacies, yet you never once included where. If you wish to show some disagreement with what the website has to say how about addressing how the points are fallacious. If you either don't or just refuse to, then your message and complaint to us is pretty pointless.

-M

PS: Also, since you are talking about the website perhaps you sent your message from the contact link. That page does say

If you have questions, comments or suggestions about this web site or God's existence, you may also want to visit the forum. There is no way we can respond to all the emails that we receive each day. Therefore, some emails are posted anonymously on the forums so that readers may respond.

[crumbs]

Ah, I see the "warning."  It's NOT adequate.  It should say, we may post YOUR emails to the forum.   

After the "you may visit the forum" I read the rest as having to do with if you visit the forum.  That if you visit the forum, then emails will be posted there or something -- that no longer applied to me, because I wasn't going to the forum.

So you are right -- there is a warning.  However, when doing something this unusual (this is NOT usual), it should be MUCH more clearly written.  Never crossed my mind when reading that sentence.  I cut & pasted an email address into my email program -- not filled out a comment form.

And at this point - i would ask that you remove this entire posting --- out of courtesy.   I won't email again.

The whole thing is still manipulative feeling.

[One Above All]

Sorry, not buying it. What you propose makes no sense. What emails did you think the message underneath the website's email address in the "contact" section was talking about?
Anyway, I'm glad to see you've acknowledged that there are no smokescreens of any kind. At least that's what I'm concluding based on the fact that you're not longer claiming that they exist. The "manipulation" thing will still need some work, but we'll get there.

[crumbs]

"I, for instance, haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about."

They are that glaring -- and I'm not spending time debating with anyone for whom it doesn't pop out at them.  If you honestly don't see how you manipulated, -- it's not up to me to fill you in.  I made my point.

Again, as a person who doesn't think Jesus ever existed, I don't have a bias to disprove you.  Yet I found the site disappointing it it's manipulative methods.  If you aren't already aware, i'll leave you... it's hard for me to believe you aren't already aware.

Good bye.

[Emily]

And at this point - i would ask that you remove this entire posting --- out of courtesy.   I won't email again.

The whole thing is still manipulative feeling.

Or, you can just leave the forum knowing your message is here and swallow your pride.

Perhaps it will help you to know that the creator of the site no longer contributes to the forum or the site (as far as I am aware). The one posted your message didn't create the site; the admins didn't create the site. In fact Marshal Brain who created HowStuffWorks did.[1]

This is the internet, dude. Don't take is so personally.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Brain#Beliefs_and_interests

[crumbs]

I acknowledged there was only some manipulation with the email postings.  The smoke screens in the arguments are all over the place.

Good bye.

[One Above All]

If you honestly don't see how you manipulated, -- it's not up to me to fill you in.  I made my point.

Poor crumbs... There's a reason pulling facts out of your ass won't convince anyone. It's all shit in there.[1]

1.	See what I did there?

[crumbs]

"This is the internet, dude. Don't take is so personally. "

Don't assume how I feel.  Nor tell me what to do with my thoughts. 

Again, kindly remove this.  I didn't realize, and that would be the kind thing to do.  End of story.  I acknowledged the warning statement -- so what has pride got to do with it.  My mistake to have emailed, but now you can be decent & kind about it.

Why not?  It effects your pride?  How?

[Avatar Of Belial]

Unbelievably creepy site.  You write an email -- and they post it to the forum without permission!!!!

They FORCE YOU to REGISTER, in order to react to this action by them!!!  A lot of mind games going on here.  You have to "agree to have your beliefs challenged" (register)

They're the Illuminati. Duh. What did you expect?

It effects your pride?  How?

Yes, it creates his pride. Out of thin air, apparently. Or did you mean "affects"? /smug

[crumbs]

Okay so I have:

- no one originally associated with the original site.  I'm talking to irrelevant people.

- a name caller who went to insult phrases as a response.

- someone who needs others to swallow their pride, instead of reaching out.

[One Above All]

Okay so we have:

Continuous insults (through the "poisoning the well" fallacy and blanket statements).
No evidence for any of your statements.

[Quesi]

I'm genuinely baffled about what you would have preferred to happen to your email.

Would it be better to have deleted it or filed it somewhere sight unseen?  And if so, what was your purpose in writing it?  Was it just a private exercise?  Sort of like a prayer? 

[Emily]

If you honestly don't see how you manipulated, -- it's not up to me to fill you in.  I made my point.

Actually, a small minority of the posters here have become atheists from this site. Many of us have been atheists before this site was even created.

But again, bitch all you want. Without including how this site is manipulative then your bitching is pointless. Without showing the flaws in the arguments presented on this site then your OP is meaningless. And here you are, a new member on a site you find to have flawed arguments refusing to back your OP up, but rather simply going in circles about how the site's manipulative.

Right now it seems like you just want attention.

"This is the internet, dude. Don't take is so personally. "

Don't assume how I feel.  Nor tell me what to do with my thoughts. 

Again, kindly remove this.  I didn't realize, and that would be the kind thing to do.

Why not?  It effects your pride?  How?

OK, I will try to help you. E-Mail a mod or admin. Hal is the main guy in charge here. Ask him to remove post.

[JeffPT]

"This is the internet, dude. Don't take is so personally. "

Don't assume how I feel.  Nor tell me what to do with my thoughts. 

Again, kindly remove this.  I didn't realize, and that would be the kind thing to do.  End of story.  I acknowledged the warning statement -- so what has pride got to do with it.  My mistake to have emailed, but now you can be decent & kind about it.

Why not?  It effects your pride?  How?

From someone who is unable to see the 'glaring' issues that seem to pop readily out for you, I'd like to know exactly what you're talking about.   I consider myself relatively well educated with a Masters degree (Magna Cum Laude) in a science field, and while I don't find the arguments to be perfect, I do not see the glaring holes that you do.  So show us what you mean.  Think of it as an educational exercise.

If all you are going to do is state that you've found errors, and not illuminate those errors for the rest of us to see, then why should we take you seriously?

Can you at least show us 1?  You said they are in every quote, so it shouldn't be hard to find just one, is it?  Throw us a bone here. 

 

[crumbs]

"They're the Illuminati. Duh. What did you expect?"

That's just showing a really low level of topic.  Adding to the list of nothingness here.

See now that is part of the manipulative methods -- I said nothing remotely about conspiracies.  Only disintegrity about posting unexpectedly.  Try reading more carefully -- and not projecting to insult people.  Now I know -- this has nothing to do with the original authors, and the posters here are too bored to get a life.  (when you have to waste time on illumniate to someone who isn't remotely mentioning anything like that.)


3 new posts -- well this time I'm going to post without glancing.  I wanted to post that they posted this out of context for anyone stopping by.  I have.  And the rest of you, aren't saying anything but insults to make yourself feel good -- and that is incredibly boring.

BMI awarded.

[Quesi]

 I'm talking to irrelevant people.

Oh my goodness.  Irrelevant people?  Clearly it would be best not to waste your time on anyone less than a relevant person. 

[pianodwarf]

Unbelievably creepy site.  You write an email -- and they post it to the forum without permission!!!!

It's not a terribly unusual practice.  A lot of places don't even bother to anonymize anything they post.  WWGHA is always very careful to remove any identifying information.

They FORCE YOU to REGISTER, in order to react to this action by them!!!

I honestly don't understand why you care.  Your message was posted anonymously, so it wasn't even worth any further consideration on your part if you weren't interested in a discussion.

Well I don't agree to have my beliefs challenged because I had no interest in any of this.

You must have had some interest, else you wouldn't have written at all.

The post of this email to them, was that there are obvious false arguing techiques (they are obvious & they are well aware of them & don't need to be pointed out in order to make what WAS THE POINT) ...  simply that someone without bias against their views, can see the smoke screen methods.

Why don't you explain what some of them are?  You're basically making accusations without any specifics.  It's not very helpful or productive to say, "You've committed a logical fallacy," unless you point to it and say what it actually is.

Interestingly, it's that "having a voice" that was the drive to write.  And sure enough, they shut that voice down with dishonesty.

Your voice was not "shut down".  If anything, it was made louder by giving it a wider audience.

Requring connection & agreement, in order to post anything in response to their response (of posting it here) --- is even more manipulative.

Requiring registration is becoming increasingly the norm at discussion fora.  Among other things, it reduces spamming and cranks.  WWGHA has chronic difficulties with both.  (Look up a guy named Dennis Markuze sometime.)

As a matter of fact, they know it so well, that they were afraid to treat my email (or anyone's) with honesty

The author of the site is no longer involved with WWGHA.  Your email came to the attention of the forum's Mail Staff -- that is, me -- and I handled it in the same way I handle all mailbag submissions.  The person whose logic you are criticizing isn't even here anymore and hasn't been for years.  You should probably be more cautious about imputing motives to others, especially when you have no idea whom you're talking to; do you even know the name of the site's author?  Most mailbag submitters don't.

I've asked them to remove this entire forum entry, that I didn't post & didn't give permission for.  If they are respectful of other people, including their well being & feelings -- they will remove it.  If they don't -- (and likely will remove only my entry here) -- they are making a statement about themselves.

I still don't see what you're so upset about.  You know, if you were to go back thru the mailbag, you'd see some emails that are far, far more hostile than anything you've said here.  A number of people have even given us some pretty explicit death threats.  Why you would be upset about having your note about logical fallacies posted here is beyond me.

I hope removal happens.

[crumbs]

"
If all you are going to do is state that you've found errors, and not illuminate those errors for the rest of us to see, then why should we take you seriously? "

Because i wasn't writing to you!!!   As I've already stated.  if you really want to know -- I'll set my email on & you can write to me.  But exercise?  I don't have a need to convince anyone of anything here.  Merely found the original authors disintegrity to be annoying & wanted to let them know it wasn't "invisible."  The point was that -- to let them know it wasn't invisible.  Not to debate with them or anyone if to them it was invisible to them.  Then it wasn't worth my while - to convince people of things they don't see.  That wasn't the point.  It was to tell people who DID know they were manipulating that they were obvious to others, who likely weren't the ones who spent time on the forum.

The point wasn't to debate an argument.

It was to let manipulators who already knew they'd manipulated, know they were visible.  If they didn't know (and they aren't here anymore) then again, the point wasn't to point it out to them.

And that was the original context.  So if you have masters hopefully by now you can understand the difference in the purpose of the email from how it's been read here, out of context.

[One Above All]

You know, crumbs, you remind me of another idio- I'm sorry, user we had around here. He was a troll and did much fo what you're doing now. You don't want to be a troll, do you? Point out one instance of manipulation and we'll take you seriously. If you're not here to be taken seriously, then go away.