Paleocrat: Man of honour?

[wizardbrandon]

Don't even try with him. It's like arguing against a brick wall. You may not know this because I presume you aren't from America, but Paleocrat is real chummy with a documented (by the SPLC and ADL) hate group in Michigan. I think he's the next Rush Limbaugh.

[mdcaigoy]

Why are people still arguing with presuppositionalists? Did the position get any less intellectually bankrupt in the last few years?

[Naked4Jesus]

LOL!!!!! I almost lost a kidney!  Great point!

[AbbeyNormal]

Asking Paleocrat to apologize to you is pointless because even if you somehow make him see that he's committed an unethical act against you he considers you, as an atheist, to be fundamentally amoral and therefore aren't allowed to make such a claim against him. He can even excuse killing you because he thinks your worldview doesn't support an opinion that killing is wrong. See his above comment.

[bitbutter]

hi abbeynormal. P believes that I 'borrow from the xtian w/view' whenever i talk about right and wrong, but even if he was right about that (and hes not, of course) this would have no bearing on the fact that he's behaving wrongly.

I'm not aware of any doctrine he subscribes to that says it's ok to be dishonest as long as your opponent is a non-believer.

[AbbeyNormal]

>>I'm not aware of any doctrine he subscribes to that says it's ok to be dishonest as long as your opponent is a non-believer.

No, me neither, but his comment strongly implied that because you don't have any right to make any moral judgments against him, regardless of whether he's really wrong. He's said stuff like that to me before. You accuse him, he says you have no basis from which to accuse.

[bitbutter]

Yeah, and when he does that he's actually changing the subject.

[AbbeyNormal]

Yes, it's totally non-sequitur and meant to distract from the accusation that something dishonest has been done. And it works too, because how do you even respond to that? You can go into an explanation of a non-theistic view of morality but it's pointless, you're talking to a wall.

[randyhelzerman]

Its pretty durn galling to get stuff like that. Its galling for me to to listen to that being said about you. Paleocrat, be a gentleman and apologize, please.

[bitbutter]

Thanks for the support randy.

[paleocrat]

Ouch. Notice the various fade effects. The video was 17 minutes. Much of it got cut. Now notice the phrase "why this is necessary." Prior to that segment I spoke (shortly) about why we insist that God is essential for the UON, why the Christian worldview and it alone can account for it, and how we have talked about it many times over. At cut time, I figured that this was a given and didn't need reiterated, whereas the clip I kept fit in well with the rest.

I only apologize when I've done wrong

[bitbutter]

"Prior to that segment I spoke (shortly) about why we insist that God is essential for the UON,"

You've _asserted_ many times that God is necessary for the UON. You have not provided an argument for why that is the case.

If you think i'm in error, and you can point me to one such instance, i will gladly check it. If i find that i was wrong, i'll retract my claim that you haven't argued for why God is necessary to maintain the UON. Until then, my claim stands.

[paleocrat]

That is a lie. I have argued that the providence of God is required for the uniformity of nature. I have maintained that his immutability provides the preconditions for the reliability of his providential care. I have also stated that it is the necessary position in light of the impossibility of the contrary.

Have I always directed these remarks towards you? No. Then again, I have written to many. Vlogs, blogs, comments, messages, radio show, etc. Sorry if my world doesn't revolve around you.

[bitbutter]

"That is a lie."

Calm down with your hysterical "liar!" nonsense already and act like an adult for five minutes.

Here's a possibility you might want to consider: I may have overlooked or forgotten an argument you have made. I don't think I have, but i will graciously admit my fault if you can show me where you have argued for the necessity of God to maintain the UON.

I'm waiting for you to point to an example, thanks in advance.

[paleocrat]

You wish for me to fumble through the hours worth of material, the thousands of comments, and various messages I have sent in order to show YOU that I have done as much. And you seem to forget that many of my videos are ten minute clips from radio programs that may have dealt with the issue at great length, consuming possibly upwards of 45 minutes of the program. Not sure.

[bitbutter]

I appreciate that it might be difficult for you to locate examples of you making the argument in question. If that's the case, then it would be difficult for me to find them too.

When i see such an argument i will happily admit that i was in error.

If such an argument does exist then at the very worst I spoke prematurely. That does not make me a liar, and it is dishonorable for you to continue making that claim.

[bitbutter]

To accuse me of lying is a very low blow Paleocrat. And I think you know that. A little more charity please.

[paleocrat]

This from a man who cannot account for objectively meaningful or binding moral judgments! Silly Bitbutter, objectively meaningful and binding moral judgments are for those whose worldview can account for them.

[ianw115]

"This from a man who cannot account for objectively meaningful or binding moral judgments! Silly Bitbutter, objectively meaningful and binding moral judgments are for those whose worldview can account for them."

Weak, Paleocrat. Seriously weak. Either produce the video in question or be a man and apologize.

[DickJohnson3434]

"This from a man who cannot account for objectively meaningful or binding moral judgments!"

You can't account for them. Anyone who thinks God actually does work in accounting for any of things you claim he does is necessarily unintelligent.

God teaches us precisely as much about nature as Zeus does about lighting, or the mysterious designer does about a bacterial flagellum.

And to post comment after comment calling someone a liar instead of just proving them wrong makes you seem like a liar.

[UnBeguiled]

Paleocrat apologize or retract something? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Poor guy, it's obvious that he's capable of understanding the truth but he's simply incapable of accepting it.

[h8uall66]

It seems pretty obvious that tat this point he has nothing. He's outta steam and he knows it. By calling you a liar he both distracts everyone from his failure to out reason your position, and at the same time, he forces you to waste time and energy defending your integrity from a demonstrably false assertion. In my "Chroma Key Test" video, I am dealing with a creationist that is doing exactly the same thing.

[Mjhavok]

Once again a persons bias makes them confuse something that they read or watched. Human nature I guess but its no excuse when your mistake has been pointed out to you like you did for him.

He should apologise and actually attempt to answer your question(which he knows he can't so it is easier to call you a liar).

[bitbutter]

Absolutely. He's a master at half-listening, and then mangling what his opponent has said with his own half-baked straw man idea of physicalism.

[paleocrat]

A straw man of physicalism? haha Well, you disagree with my conclusions pertaining to physicalism (i.e. it cannot account for origin, being, knowledge, morality, etc.). But to say that I described physicalism, as it is in itself aside from its ramifications, in a way that could be described as a straw man is pushing it. Nice try.

[bitbutter]

You use a straw man version of physicalism each time you complain that it cannot accommodate non-material entities.

[paleocrat]

Ah, ok, maybe you've done a video dealing with how physicalism can account for non-material entities, but I don't remember. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would be interested to know.

Bargain: You make a video pertaining to this issue and I will make a video specifically dealing with why God is necessary for the Uniformity of Nature. Deal?

[bitbutter]

No deal. I don't trust you enough to make a pact.

[carciar]

Why don't you just say why? Why all the insistence that you've already demonstrated it? Is the answer really so abstruse that you can't possibly restate it in the space of a post? I'm also very interested as to how only a God, and only your God, could be responsible for nature's consistency.

When someone can't argue a point briefly and clearly, it's usually a good indication they don't have a point at all.

[ProfMTH]

From what I've seen of Paleocrat, he's the YouTube equivalent of the conservative talk radio pundits who rarely let facts get in the way of their rants and almost always accuse others of the medacious misdeeds in which they regularly engage.

Well done, Bitbutter.

[bitbutter]

Hi prof, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

[SofaKingLoaded]

Ya know, Paleo is obviously a pretty sharp guy.. it's kind of a shame to see him squandering his mental abilities in the intellectual funhouse of presuppositional chicanery. He will eventually be filming his videos in the middle of the freeway donning a tinfoil hat, a leopard print thong, with bologna duct taped to his feet whilst rebuking the clouds..

[bitbutter]

That'll be a hard mental image to shake skl.

[riversonthemoon]

I can't wait to watch him try to change the topic and squirm out of this. His arrogance got in the way here and he must have realized that by now. But that same pride will keep him from retracting and apologizing for his accusation, especially after his attitude in his last video.

It's funny, but he would save more face by being humble now, though I doubt he'll see it that way.

[bitbutter]

Yes. My hunch is that he'll act as though this never happened, maybe he'll even continue calling me a liar. I really hope I'm wrong about that though.

[MercifulMing]

Disappointing. I thought he was better than that, actually.

[bitbutter]

Yeah me too.

Either he finds it very difficult to be charitable to his opponents.

Or he's not above being deliberately dishonest.

Perhaps both.

[Cainer666]

It seems he's got no real answer for the question you're asking, so he's calling you a liar in the hopes of putting you on the defensive.

Kudos to you for resisting the urge to deride the hilarious irony of the title of his last video, "Aliterate Atheists". I suppose though, it is an example of illiterate alliteration, though splitting the difference as far as spelling goes.

Egad.

[bitbutter]

"It seems he's got no real answer for the question you're asking, so he's calling you a liar in the hopes of putting you on the defensive."

Yes. At least he couldn't have done a better job of making it look like that's the case.

[PrexicKehdaki]

i've challenged paleocrat to a debate months ago, but he declined

I'm now kind of glad he declined, he must be a pain to debate with..

[bitbutter]

I'm sure it would be a frustrating experience.

[Munkatten]

goodjob !

I don't think you're ever going to get him to admit he's wrong tho, doesn't matter how much evidence you got.

[bitbutter]

Thanks munkatten. I think you're probably right about that.