How I was murdered in my own home and lived to pay for it.

Atheist Straw Men

Odd how for this person, Ernest Crunkleton, he felt a need to indicate that my statement was wrong since I spoke to the fact that Atheism is a system of belief that has no proof and that is akin to any religion that has no proof of God.

Team Leader @ Help At Home 2840 E Chestnut Expy Springfield, Missouri 65802
Phone (417) 869-7200 Website

He felt that this was a Straw Man argument I made and I offered fine, show me where it is?

He failed to do so, cited then that since he is Atheist, I spoke for him inaccurately and that being Atheist simply meant that he feels there is no God since he has no proof.

I said fine, this is not a Straw Man but my statements are correct since they include him and he has no proof and admits that. So he is bifurcating on the term Atheism and cites his specific case as a mode of failure for me.

I said fine I addressed that, and he felt this is now a false equivalency to which I said not really, since your case is included. I have spoken to other Atheists and they say they have proof there is no God, or they believe for certain there is no God and I offer in this person's case, he says he has no belief.

Again I tell him my offer is general and inclusive and none of you have any proof for or against God.

Largely you can not agree on the definition but overall this is a creator of the universe and of you in total, etc. Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

So again I say no proof, you have no witness outside this small window of time and on this one lonely planet in all of the Universe that we are now told is expanding...

He then decided to change his mind, indicate that he never said he was atheist, since he saw he was trapped making that bifurcation and that my solution of course was general and includes both and any definition of theist or atheist, etc. So now he lied.

Then he starts finding fault with me, saying I need to go to school, that I type in some manner for him he does not like, and I use bad grammar, like a ten year old, he has a 4.0 gpa in philosophy that I guess has him learn new terms he can misuse such as straw man, false equivalency, and the rest along with him being an expert in logic and debate that has him miss the day one drama of any logical argument, absence of proof (My offer all along, you have no proof) is not proof of absence. WOW!

So then since he has no proof that Ted Bundy murdered 12 women, that does not prove that Ted Bundy is innocent.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

So his ad hominem continues, I am later called a female dog, likely now since he sees he has been caught in numerous lies, won't defend any of his fallacious claims, and then begins to rant and cites he has won the debate.

Now he bifurcates on the word belief and since he is atheist but changed his mind later in this discussion now is not and never said that, now he feels the use of the word belief is outside his lexicon and we need to trip over that. Since he has no belief and by that this must imply dogma and ritual etc.

I said that is wrong since like many other words in our language the word has general appeal to more than one definition, that being, faith, or that which one knows to be true or feels to be true.

He seems now to think he can base a rebut of my overall offer that says he has no proof and neither do theists and claims that I am one somehow, on the fact the word belief only means or applies to religion.

I said he believes all kinds of things in his daily life and has no proof there either, it is accepted this means something we feel is true. I believe I will have ham for supper, I may in fact be wrong since the ham is spoiled.

All of this of course is nonsense. He is wrong. And lied and then called me things like a female dog, etc. In other words this person is not here to understand anything and really only wanted to make a mess.

So I stand by all I have said.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Atheists are an organized group and agree overall on the fact there is no God and this commenter is included in that either way, I don't need to know it, and you have no proof.

And he admits that. But then says otherwise.

Ernest Crunkleton "Good job of taking my comments and misconstruing them, it's still a strawman. "

You said I was wrong and I am not, you have no proof to deny me. And your offer that there is no God has no proof and you accept that. So you have no proof to deny either.

My statements are correct and you citing them as wrong is your error. DONE. I am factually correct and you decided to change or narrow definitions based on your view and yours alone. And you did that wrongly and dishonestly.

Your disputes prove you wrong and then you want to recant without doing so and reverse when you see them as being liabilities.

Still does nothing but prove me correct and you made mistake of worrying that I spoke to what you believe. It won't matter since you have no proof and I am still right. You never will. I accommodate that.

Again you never defined the straw man and split on both the definition of atheism and of belief that in your mind indicated dogma and religion, it is more general than that.

Slurs and profanity make you the fool.

You believe lots of things and have no proof and must do so to move forward in life. That is belief. Proves your bifurcation on that definition is also too narrow as is your define of Atheism. Yours does not matter since others are more broad or narrow. Still makes me right.

Offers of false equivalency also prove your comment wrong and that does not negate my claim, that being you have no proof either way. Looks as your Straw Man now eh?

1 ) Strawman - Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

You make no argument just a false claim to offer my statement saying you have no proof is wrong. You are done with the first comment you made and made it worse from there attempting to back fill it along the way.

"Atheism is a lack of belief. "

Which has no proof you'd be right or did any diligence etc.

Your diligence is in bad faith and says you will never get anyplace for it. Since you just like to find fault with others who see the larger solution, being there is none.

Critique of bad faith reduces to this in total, and the minutiae the bad faith and their perversions on it all offer.

Fails for two reasons as you do here.

That is your definition and many Atheists accept there is no God since there is no proof. And my statements are still correct making you still wrong since none of you have any proof for or against. Despite the onus to prove. Onus does not matter.

There are other definitions and your lack of belief proves me right, you have no proof you are right since you have not and can not consider all other offers of proof nor did you accept the notion I am right and that you will never know.

You refuse to solve the problem in other words. You lose....

"We are not organized, I nor many others belong to formal organizations."

Many is not all and I don't need any other than ONE who says something else. They prove you wrong and I already said either way that does not allow you to rebut my offer.

That strikes out your claim your belief system or being called an Atheist that you seemed to reverse on twice or more matters to the problem and even that you'd be right about that. You missed that one too.

Absent proof, is a belief, and does not prove object does not exist. Fails on both. I accommodate that also.

Defined as??? Wrong on that, I can cite numerous bodies including American Atheists etc who hold meetings etc to discuss the notion of no God.

"And I always maintained that I am atheist, once proof of supernatural entities manifests I'm sure I would change my mind though."

You denied that around the time you bifurcated on the meaning of Atheism, your view is too specific and that matters not since you still have no proof.

"In short you don't get to pick others arguments or positions for them, and you can't redefine words to suit your argument."

This is what you have done, the definitions are more general and less specific than you'd like and that supports my offer anyway. You just like to narrow them to find fault with me, that still does not prove me wrong. You have a lack of evidence and that means you do not know.


"Oh and, I don't need proof to prove a negative, the onus is upon theists to prove gods exist. You keep using the same tired old line theists always trot out "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Sorry teach, but that position is intellectually dishonest. It's a gish gallop, pure and simple."

You have an absence of proof and need proof to be an Atheist meaning you believe there is no God and most that I talk to profess or believe that. And you label me as a theist and you can not and need not know that.

"Good luck and all that!!"

And I think that your offer is overly disputatious and in bad faith.

You made no effort to accept the fact you'd be uncertain and you have that doubt...

And your offers of expertise, your QPA or GPA and all that training that has you study concepts that you don't apply properly says one thing....


Your lies are tiring.

Good luck with the name calling and rash behavior when you find your 4.0 won't get rash idiots like you hired anywhere since you know it all... ?

Oh and the onus to prove is on you since you need to do that for you and you only at least.... otherwise you are just ignorant.

And you demonstrate that here.


Don't bother to comment since you don't make sense and have no point of view or fact you can make.

It gets you one place, looking a fool and liar.

Again you believe you have a lack of proof but can not know that.

And lack of proof does not prove lack of object.

You just wanted to find fault with me to prove me right and by disputing definitions and that matters not since my offer is correct.

Theism and Atheism has no proof they are correct.

Overall logic is you closed one door and need to leave both open, problem is too large and you will never have witness to support either conclusion.

Impossible to solve.

You waste your time in debates that make you look ignorant and nothing else.

And you are not willing to see or admit you are wrong, a personal failing you will trip on hard, has nothing to do with God, and you are not willing to come to a terminus for the problem meaning you won't solve it.

That is my offer and this is right.

I don't need to re quote you and it matters not since you lied about all of it and claimed I spoke to what you believed etc....

Over for you.

Still does not support your original error and the scads of bad faith and name calling you did.

You could have deleted it or it may still be there.

I don't jump through hoops to prove you wronger.

You missed on belief and atheism etc... over for you.

You don't know what you are.

And can't have others offer that the theism debate comes down to two problems, debunk of bogus religion and the fact you won't have others.

And I don't need to suffer abuse like this to help you or others:

Ernest Crunkleton "hey terry, you are a piece of shit with it IQ of a worm.

Since all you have is vacuous comments and incoherent ramblings ill just tell you."

Ernest Crunkleton "Fucking disabled god for nothing piece of trash"

Ernest Crunkleton "YOu are a fucking wheelchair riding moron who broke som many laws you had to flee the country since you are too much of a coward to face justice."

Ernest Crunkleton Most people are smart enough to know what Halloween is, I guess you got a train instead of a brain.

Beware shill groups etc and offers to fluff up state in debates and wars they make on themselves.

This is all laudable but the hidden proxy with evidence bothers me, shills like Ernest and the behaviors bother me such as lies and name calling etc ....

"Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."

Address and charge bad faith as being bad faith.

All you need is State do to that.

Lack of evidence does not prove lack of God.

Should be Atheist's Commandment #1.

Show good faith and truth up front.... why bury the proxy?

Odd twist and vanity repeat on Jesus eh?

So now you are agnostics....

They are dividing you and going to use the back door proxy against you later.

The definition is specious..... atheist.