Watch for Updates

Originally Posted January 17, 2022

by Robert Baty

https://www.facebook.com/james.mcmullen.9

I invited Emma Thorne to consider my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Argument.

Emma did not respond, but James McMullen did.

https://twitter.com/EmmaTheGoblin/status/1481279697359187973

• 

Link to article on this website presenting the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise of Robert Baty:

http://kehvrlb.com/atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise

Links to articles on this website archiving consideration of the Exercise by Aron Ra and A.J. Patterson:

http://kehvrlb.com/l-aron-nelson-ra-v-robert-baty-on-atheism

http://kehvrlb.com/patterson-atheist-jr-v-baty-atheism-debate

Link to the discussion with James McMullen:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/posts/2042700782565707

From James McMullen January 16, 2022 at 2:08 AM MT

I’ve looked at it, and it simply seems a way to obfuscate an unproven premise with enough rhetorical jibber-jabber that most people simply give up, letting Baty claim he won. It’s pretty weak sauce, really. And I’m generally pretty sympathetic to Robert Baty and his efforts.

From Robert Baty January 16, 2022 at 7:35 AM MT

It’s simple, not weak, I think, and that is why folks like you are so critical.

It’s kinda hard to take such criticism too seriously (there certainly has been plenty of it) when the critic fails to submit answers to the 6 simple questions or otherwise engage in a serious analysis of my claims for the Exercise/Argument.

If there is any obfuscation regarding the unproven premise(s), it comes as a result of reluctant critics who don’t like it; not me.

Max Black, I think, got it right and his observation has application here, and that is what my critics don’t like about my approach to such things; I think.

From James McMullen January 16, 2022 2:10 PM MT

What I don’t like about your exercise is that rhetoric is not a substitute for evidence.

You’re trying to “prove” something the way a lawyer would, instead of like a scientist.

From Robert Baty January 16, 2022 9:01 PM MT

You are the one who might have simply offered your “6 words” instead of your misleading, evasive rhetoric.

I don’t figure the folks who do all the whining while refusing to give their “6 words” have any legitimate standing to get any serious consideration as to the merits of my claims for my Exercise and Argument.

I have answered.
You can answer.
It’s easy, peasy.

Maybe this rule will help. If you can’t bring your self to answer “yes”, the default is “no”; 6 questions, 6 words in response, one for each.

The problem, regarding “proof”, is what the Exercise establishes when properly considered, and it really ain’t that hard for the willing with critical thinking skills.

From James McMullen January 17, 2022 1:50 AM MT

I do not accept your major premise as demonstrably true, as I do not see how it is a testable hypothesis. Therefore, I refuse to travel down the cattle chute and play the rest of your game.

Whether or not a God exists is a separate proposition entirely from whether or not a human can come up with the concept of a God. An interventionist deity might force the issue, but both an aloof and secretive god and an imaginary deity might (or might not) exist, equally leaving humans to come up with ideas on their own. And for that matter, a malevolent deity might well choose to remain hidden on purpose, again leaving humans to come up with ideas on their own.

Your syllogism is therefore flawed, as there are multiple possible reasons to explain your minor premise that do not lead directly to your Premise B.

Also, this kind of philosophical wankery is pretty damn unsatisfying if you’re trying to determine deep and useful answers about reality, in my opinion. And I’m someone who thinks that your Premise B is actually very likely correct.

From Giles Denney Janurary 17, 2022 2:52 AM MT

 Very good reply. 

From Robert Baty January 17, 2022 8:11 AM MT

You should have first just submitted your “6 words”.

Your effort, however, is quite valuable in the continuing history of my Exercise and Argument.

They are what I claim for them and the Exercise and Argument does what I claim they do.

Now, instead of whining about it, just submit your “6 words”, or not. Maybe then we’ll have something more substantive to discuss.

Did I say the first premise was “demonstrably true”?
Did I say I think it is “demonstrably true”?

See, that’s really a good point, actually, but premature for purposes of the Exercise and Argument.

That’s the problem for atheism, the atheists who so boldly proclaim some ancient someone, somewhere just “Sponge Bobbed” God.

Even you noticed that when I presented an example of what Max Black had to say about it.

Typically, that has been what really ticked off my atheist adversaries when it comes to this matter.

I guess I should thank you for that further vindication of my Exercise and Argument.

I’m going up the mountain again today, so I won’t have so much time for bantering with you about it.

Maybe your “6 words” will be waiting for me when I return and we can pick it up from there.

Maybe not.

As my mentors have said, no one turns against logic until logic turns against them.

For now, James, you seem to have turned against logic, and I think I see why. Many have preceded you.

Giles Denney, why don’t you try submitting your “6 words”. Or, just try one at a time. Start with the 1st question and just submit your first word and any issues/questions you think should be considered.

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– Giles Denney: (To Answer: “Yes” or “No”)

I’ll look for your response, if it is submitted, upon my return from the mountain. Notice, this is about form, not content.

From James McMullen January 17, 2022 2:13 PM MT

Robert, perhaps you missed it because I refuse to be railroaded into your manipulative format, but my answer to Question 1 is “no” for the reasons I stated above. I consider it a faulty syllogism, and therefore dead in the water as a pathway for determining facts. There’s no reason to continue the dance after that first misstep as it’s not leading anywhere useful.

I’m not interested in trying to define a God into or out of existence using wordplay and blather. I’m interested solely in demonstrable evidence.

From Robert Baty January 17, 2022 6:40 PM MT

Someone missed something, some things, but thou art the man, James, not me.

You had plenty of opportunity to just keep your mouth shut and move along and as far away from my Exercise and Argument as you could. You, like many before you, seem to think you are so smart that you have to tell me what’s allegedly wrong with my Exercise and Argument while refusing to demonstrate your own level of critical thinking skills by offering up your “6 words”.

While it wasn’t necessary, I again thank you for vindicating my Exercise and Argument and the claims I make for them.

You have plenty of company, but maybe you didn’t take the time to do your homework assignment.

You now say your answer to the first question of the Exercise is “no”, for some reason you stated further; apparently because you don’t think the first premise has been established as true.

And you offer that answer to the first question even after I gave Giles Denney the clue that this first question has to do with form, not content.

Let me be clearer. James, the logical validity of the syllogism has to do with how it is constructed, not whether or not the premises are true. This is, indeed, Logic 101 stuff.

Did I thank you for your demonstration, James?

Giles, have you figured it out yet? It’s really simple stuff, and nothing to be afraid of except for those whose thinking and critical thinking skills are such as James is demonstrating.

James, as you suggest, you are welcome to move along. You have done me a service in further vindicating my Exercise and Argument.

Glad to hear that you are interested in “demonstrable evidence”. Both of the premises can’t be, for such a reason as that, shown to be true.

That’s not a problem for me or my Exercise or Argument.

That is the problem facing those bold atheists who make the claim reflected in the conclusion of the Argument.

They can’t get to their conclusion without going through my Argument, which is actually their Argument, though the ones I have had contact with really, really, really don’t like to admit it.

Next time you hear some “bold atheist” claim the God thing was just “imagined”, let them know that that is just their ipse dixit belief, what Kent Hovind calls their religion. I get that, and they really, really, really don’t like to have to admit it.

That’s one of the utilitarian purposes of my Exercise and Argument; saves a lot of time quibbling over secondary and tertiary philosophical/theological/scientific matters.

Update January 18, 2022

https://www.facebook.com/groups/khwnprivate/posts/470142401469950/

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 3:38 AM AMT

I don’t think it was that great of a Great Debate, honestly. But I did re-read what I had written just now, and I think it adequately expresses my opinion of how useful this kind of rhetorical exercise is. Which is not much. I mean, seriously, if you actually had verifiable, conclusive evidence, you’d lead with that, not with convoluted philosophical wordplay.

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 3:40 AM MT

Anyways, I guess there’s a whole bunch of others in the past who found this exercise to be pretty thin soup.

However, I guess it’s possible that we’re all wrong and Baty is in in the right.

Sometimes.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 7:26 AM MT

You continue to confirm Max Black’s observation, being the one that prefers “400 pages” to a simple, 3-line syllogism because you simply can Not handle the straight-forward truth of the matter(s) at hand.

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– James McMullen: No

You indicated your answer was no because you didn’t like the first premise’s content, even though I warned repeatedly that the matter was not to be resolved based on content but rather by form.

That’s one reason why it is styled a “critical thinking” exercise.

While I formulated the premise for the Exercise and Argument, it is the premise implied or explicitly stated by such “bold atheists” who affirm that the concept of God originated as a fancy by some somebody in the olden days.

You, James, haven’t come close to taking your problem seriously in this matter, but you have provided continuing vindication for the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument; for which I thank you.

For now, this is where we are, absent your evasive whining:

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– James McMullen: No

Giles Denney, have you made any progress in deciding whether or not to submit your “1 word” as your start in the Exercise?

From Giles Denney January 18, 2022 7:29 AM MT

No, I’ve made no progress. It’s really not of much interest to me.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 3:31 PM MT

Why it’s called Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise!

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– James McMullen: No

How useful has this “rhetorical exercise” been?
Very useful in my opinion and my thanks goes to McMullen.

There have always been people like McMullen to vindicate the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument; seeming to think there is some kind of trick at play or “convoluted philosophical wordplay” or “philosophical wankery” or some kind of “manipulative format”.

Nope!

Just Logic 101 with “bold atheism” as the content matter instead of “p’s and q’s”.

James McMullen v. Irving Berlin – Who Says It Best!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1x4DzUzxU

From The Following Thread on FaceBook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/posts/2046637128838739/

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 4:32 PM MT

I’m sorry I didn’t follow your predetermined script for you, Robert, but I think we both know you were going to claim ABSOLUTE VICTORY! regardless of how I responded.  

And jeepers, for a devotee of Dr. Black, you sure do come up with a lot of crowded pages of words and arguments.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 4:35 PM MT

If “we” knew where this was going, James McMullen, it is because of my perceptive abilities with reference to your all-go-common initiation of this exchange.

You, like so many others before you, just can’t stand to be asked to demonstrate your critical thinking skills on such a fundamental level, and your demonstrations are evidence as to why that is the case.

Another victory for me and the claims I make for my Exercise and Argument.

Maybe you should be explicit in telling our audience that I am not paying you to make me look so good.

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 4:36 PM MT

At any rate, since you concede that a syllogism can indeed be logically sound without any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is actually true, then I think that goes on to emphasize my point that the utility of it for determining the validity of factual claims is often irrelevant.

A logically valid syllogism composed of complete nonsense was a popular Victorian parlour game, you know?

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 4:39 PM MT

There you go again, James, demonstrating the vindication of my claims for my Exercise and Argument.

Statements/premises are true or not true.

Arguments are valid or not valid, sound or not sound.

You can’t seem to get those terms straight for purposes of my Exercise and Argument and so it is no wonder you falsely accuse me of including “complete nonsense” into it.

Typical course for a “loser” in this matter.

You’ve got a lot of company, James.

Seems you can’t even get past question #1.

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 4:40 PM MT

And therefore, since I don’t think your little exercise does much to elucidate the actual underlying question of whether or not humans imagined the concept of Gods all on their own, I just don’t have much interest in playing along.

(Apparently this is “evasive whining”, though from my perspective, the one doing most of the whining here is the man desperately trying again and again for people to docilely play the pre-established parts he has written for him in his little Drama 101.)

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 4:44 PM MT

You, James McMullen, are the one who showed up whining instead of simply submitting your “6 words” and engaging in a legitimate discussion of such issues as you might take with the matter.

As you have clearly demonstrated, you can’t handle it, haven’t handled it.

You stimulate me to follow you in your false and misleading claims and accusations and then accuse me of offering up “400 pages” to confound the elect.

What a joke you are with such nonsense.

As was noted earlier, though art the man, James, refusing to deal openly and honestly with these simple matters; demonstrating that, in fact, that men like you turn on logic when the logic turns on them.

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 4:46 PM MT

I will finish by pointing out that most people think that humans made up all the other Gods than the ones from the religion that they subscribe to. Not many people these days would accept that Poseidon and Susano-No and Huitzilopochtli were divinely inspired revelations of these Gods themselves.

So I think we have common ground in establishing that at least some gods were made up, since they are mutually contradictory.

So what makes your God special?

Other than that your friends and family were also brought up in the same culture?

There’s certainly no global consensus.

Unlike true things like gravity, or the speed of light.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 4:52 PM MT

It is not relevant to my Exercise and Argument that some people can make up gods, but you are right that we agree that such is the case.

Many have confused that with the issue in my Exercise and Argument.

James McMullen, you seem to confuse that issue as well with my Exercise and Argument, implying that you, as indicated in the conclusion of the Argument, claim the whole notion originated in some ancient mind through imagination.

People that claim such things, as you, don’t like your position reduced to a simple “3-line syllogism” that lays bare the bones of “bold atheism” (i.e., they believe it but that’s all they got, their think-so).

That’s where it started, isn’t it? You came in blasting away not being able to stand the simple affirmations of “bold atheism” that has but “I think-so’s” to support it even while whining about others without evidence.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 5:01 PM MT

Maybe I will follow your finish, James McMullen, by noting that, as far as the Exercise and Argument are concerned, this is where we left off, and I am adding a clue should you wish to return and reconsider and/or discuss your answer.

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– James McMullen: No

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 8:54 PM MT (Edited 8:56 PM MT)

Here’s my favorite new argument in that form:

Premise A: If you engage with Baty on his turf, 

he will claim victory regardless of what you say.

Premise B: He will also claim VICTORY!!!

if you refuse to follow his script.

Minor Premise: Don’t I have better things to do with my time?

Conclusion: I am a dumbass and should have known better.

From James McMullen January 18, 2022 8:57 PM MT

I think we can all agree on that.

From Robert Baty January 18, 2022 9:00 PM MT

You again let pass another opportunity to deal with your blundering:

Question #1:

Do you think the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Argument is so constructed that;
if its premises are true,
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
(i.e., that it is logically valid)?

– Robert Baty: Yes
– James McMullen: No

You further show you lack of critical thinking skills by falsely claiming your argument below is the same form as mine:

(Begin quote.)

Here’s my favorite new argument in that form:

Premise A: If you engage with Baty on his turf, 

he will claim victory regardless of what you say.

Premise B: He will also claim VICTORY!!!

if you refuse to follow his script.

Minor Premise: Don’t I have better things to do with my time?

Conclusion: I am a dumbass and should have known better.

– James McMullen
– January 18, 2022
– 8:54 PM MT (edited 8:56 PM MT)

(End quote.)

I don’t really know if you don’t know any better or that you know better and are just not open and honest enough to deal with your blundering; may be a combination of factors that compel you to do anything but face your blundering regarding logic, critical thinking and that in the context of my Exercise and Argument.

Thanks again for the vindication of my claims as to my Argument and Exercise.

The Conclusion of The Matter!

Due to James’ continued misbehavior as recorded above, I removed him from my 2 FaceBook groups where the above exchanges took place. That should bring to a close the present discussion. While James’ vindication of my claims is noted, there is a limit to how much such misbehavior as noted above will be patronized. I’ve only been through such things with my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise about 100 times and, as James again demonstrates, “they” can’t handle it.

Update January 20, 2022

From FaceBook Messenger

From James McMullen at 4:37 AM MT

Hey Robert, sorry to keep coming back to this, but after pondering on it, something still isn’t sitting right. I don’t think you’re actually all that interested in having a genuine conversation about this topic.

You have offered that about a hundred others have already failed to be convinced by your exercise here. Do you think that is because you alone have that special spiritual enlightenment that the 99% cannot comprehend? Or is it possible that there is something in your approach that just isn’t compelling enough to convince these multitudes that it has something valuable to offer? Do you think there might be others who got so frustrated by your patronizing, your aggressive dominance games, and your abrasive name-calling that they simply gave up rather than continuing? Is that a “victory” you find satisfying? Have you considered the possibility that your exercise is perhaps not the Magic Bullet you think it is? I offered some opinions based on a fair amount of rumination about this topic on why I personally think it is not a particularly useful exercise for establishing TRUTH™ in that first thread, all of which you dismissed out of hand…for structural reasons? Because you didn’t like how I was not following your pre-ordained sequence of events for answers? Because you don’t actually want to discuss the meta-issue behind this rhetorical exercise? Have you not wondered why so few other people find this word game to be compelling evidence? I know that you claim it is because these fools “hate to admit it,” but I do wonder if you have spent any time actually analyzing why it doesn’t seem to be very popular from their points of view. Perhaps you are happy in your proud conviction that everyone else just doesn’t get it, though. And you certainly jumped at the chance to make sure I wouldn’t challenge you in public about it any more.

But getting back to our own regrettable dust-up, to start with, you’ve been kind of a condescending jerk from the get-go. I acknowledge that I was indeed descending into a bit of snark at the end there, but it was definitely driven by being frustrated with you. Your tactics smack of someone trying to browbeat and harangue someone into submission rather than really having a discussion. I’m not sure why you would take the stance that you get to be the one-and-only who unilaterally proclaims the exact parameters and rules of our mutual conversation unless you simply weren’t interested in anything that didn’t fit your preconceptions. I certainly didn’t consider that my choice to have posted a comment on a thread that you started meant that I was intending to cede to you all control of a future discussion (and especially since my original comment was actually directed to another respondent other than you).

And you have peppered your side of this talk with all sorts of disparaging ad hominem comments–how I don’t have any critical thinking skills, I’m unprepared and didn’t do my homework, I have “turned against logic,” I’m evasively whining, that I’m a “loser”, all the while scolding me for failing to conform to your script and then crowing about how you have defeated me, just like so many others in the past. These seem like power-plays, and attempts to establish dominance, rather than a good faith effort to support your position. I don’t need you to lecture me like a naughty schoolboy for submitting an answer you think is “premature”. I was attempting to have a colloquy, but you seemed to be more intent on delivering some sort of self-aggrandizing monologue against a strawman. I mean, c’mon, Robert, you were being pretty aggressive with me. You wanted to play your game with the deck stacked in your favor, and then repeatedly insulted me when I wouldn’t fall in line. That’s not a very respectful, let alone pleasant, sort of dialogue. From over here, it feels more like you were trying to get me to shut up rather than that you were trying to support your case.

And then let’s talk about the ultimate power-play–and no I’m not talking about kicking me out of your Kent Hovind Group, though that did seem kind of petty. I’m talking about how you have now posted our “discussion” up on your website like you are counting coup for your Amazing Intellectual Victory. It’s just kinda rude, man, to post something like that without the consent of both parties involved. Now I’m not so naive as to think that anything I post on the internet has any expectation of privacy, but I certainly didn’t think that I was somehow formally entering into an agreement to permanently enter my name onto your website’s Shrine of Enemies Defeated by Baty’s Remarkable Wisdom. Seems like it would be polite to at least ask me, before cutting and pasting my comments from an entirely different thread into your stand-alone webpage. And this seems especially bitchy and obnoxious now that you have unilaterally decided to cut off my opportunity to respond by uninviting me from the webgroup where all of the initial discussion took place. Not cool, amigo.

Perhaps you will have the integrity to post this followup to that page, however, since I have no other way to respond.

I feel betrayed, Robert, to be treated with such contempt after multiple years of posting witty and entertaining quips on your Hovind page, almost all of which you gave a ‘like’ to your very own self. And worst of all, you’ve now had me starting to ponder whether I should actually feel a twinge of sympathy for some of the other people you’ve harassed, like ol’ Doctor Dino even. Definitely not cool, amigo! How dare you make me feel sympathy for that sociopath!

From Robert Baty 7:06 AM MT

I know the feeling. Something wasn’t sitting right with me either.

I wrote, in part:

(Begin quote.)

It wasn’t just a philosophical difference that got you shown the door.

(End quote.)

I should not have put that “just” in there. Your dismissal had nothing to do with a “philosophical difference”.

Your latest response is further evidence of that.

While there may be many things to discuss relevant to my Exercise and Argument and the claims I make for it, you have taken a different route, all the while continuing to refuse to simply submit your “6 words” in a show of good faith interest and so set the stage for a discussion thereof. You did manage “1 word”, “no” on the first question, and your blundering was pointed out to you and you failed to openly, honestly address your problem.

Your latest response is just more of that.

Deal openly and honestly with our difference on the first question and then maybe we’ll have something more to discuss.

Your antics are not unlike so many before you.

You’ve not convinced me of any legitimate interest you might have in my Exercise and Argument, so what you might want to discuss should be addressed elsewhere. Maybe there will be some interest. Maybe not.