AI Assessments of Social Media Dialogues: A Case Study

In this post, a Facebook exchange between Phil Stilwell and Ralph Litton is analyzed by Grok, with their logical coherence, scientific accuracy, epistemic quality, relevance, and civility being evaluated. Based on the goal of promoting rationality to at least ten focused readers of the exchange, a recommendation is made for the focus to be shifted from directly engaging Ralph to his illogic being used as a teaching opportunity for the audience. Tactics such as highlighting fallacies, contrasting with evidence, and posing Socratic questions were outlined to maximize impact. A sample response was provided, with a comprehensive, rigorous approach being demonstrated that models rationality while Ralph’s claims are addressed. The recommendation focuses on the exchange being leveraged to foster critical thinking among readers rather than an unreceptive participant being converted.

Introduction: Soliciting a Dialogue Assessment

There are times on social media when it is difficult to know how to proceed with an interlocutor. Do you continue with a direct appeal to the mind of your interlocutor who seems not to be engaging in good faith, or do you relegate your interlocutor to the role of a salient example of illogic. Fortunately, the advent of AI has given us a new tool to assist us with these and related questions.

AI has reached the level of maturity at which it can now quite accurately assess various dimensions of social media dialogues. I have been using AI to ensure my responses remain appropriate across various relevant aspects of dialoguing. Below you’ll find an actual example. Below the blue line you’ll find a Grok response to the following prompt:

PROMPT: Assess the the logical coherence, scientific accuracy, epistemic quality, relevance of the responses, and civility of Phil and Ralph in the following exchange.
[Entire exchange pasted in]

Grok’s First Output:

Here’s the revised assessment with key terms highlighted for clarity. The structure and content remain unchanged.

Let’s assess the exchange between Phil Stilwell and Ralph Litton based on the requested criteria: logical coherence, scientific accuracy, epistemic quality, relevance of the responses, and civility. I’ll evaluate each participant separately and then summarize.

Phil Stilwell

Logical Coherence

Phil’s initial comment and subsequent replies are logically coherent. He presents a clear argument: biological self-repair mechanisms can be explained by evolution through natural selection, not requiring a designer. He supports this with:

A step-by-step explanation of how self-repair evolved (incremental improvements enhancing survival).
Analogies (e.g., snowflakes) to show complexity arising naturally.
Observations of biological imperfections (e.g., vestigial structures, error-prone DNA repair) as evidence against design. His responses to Ralph remain consistent with this framework, addressing Ralph’s “zero proof” claim by reinforcing his argument with specific examples (e.g., fossil transitions, genetics) and questioning Ralph’s epistemology. There’s no apparent self-contradiction or disjointed reasoning.

Scientific Accuracy

Phil’s claims align well with established evolutionary biology:

Self-repair mechanisms (e.g., DNA repair, regeneration) are documented outcomes of natural selection, supported by studies of species like salamanders and starfish.
Fossil evidence (e.g., Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx) and genetic data (e.g., human-chimp DNA similarity, ERVs) are widely accepted as confirming evolutionary predictions.
His mention of experimental evolution (e.g., Lenski’s E. coli) reflects real, peer-reviewed research. The only minor critique might be oversimplification (e.g., “trial-and-error” could be nuanced as differential survival of random variations), but his points are scientifically sound.

Epistemic Quality

Phil demonstrates a strong epistemic approach. He relies on empirical evidence, cites specific examples, and invites Ralph to provide counter-evidence or clarify his stance. His repeated questions (e.g., “What specific evidence would convince you?”) reflect an openness to dialogue and a commitment to falsifiability—a hallmark of scientific reasoning. His later focus on epistemology (e.g., faith vs. evidence) is philosophically relevant and ties directly to the debate.

Relevance of the Responses

Phil’s initial comment is a standalone argument about evolution and design. His replies to Ralph start relevant, addressing Ralph’s “zero proof” claim with evidence. However, as the exchange progresses, he shifts to questioning Ralph’s identity (e.g., “Are you a Christian?”) and behavior (e.g., obedience to 1 Peter 3:15). While this ties to his epistemic critique, it veers from the original scientific topic, reducing relevance at times. His final replies refocus on evidence and epistemology, regaining traction.

Civility

Phil maintains a civil tone throughout. He avoids insults, even when Ralph calls him “stupid” and “idiot.” His responses like “I hear your frustration” and “Welcome aboard” show restraint and an attempt to de-escalate or redirect. His sarcasm (e.g., “Carry on”) is mild and strategic, not hostile. He consistently models respectful engagement, aligning with his later citation of 1 Peter 3:15’s call for “gentleness and respect.”

Ralph Litton

Logical Coherence

Ralph’s responses lack logical coherence. His central critique—“zero proof” and “chance of the gaps is not science”—is repeated but never substantiated with reasoning or evidence. He doesn’t explain why Phil’s examples (e.g., fossils, genetics) fail as proof or what “chance of the gaps” means in context. His arguments jump inconsistently:

From dismissing evolution to attacking Phil’s motives (e.g., “pushing politics”).
From denying Hitler’s Christian ties to comparing Nazis to “Dems Party” without clear linkage. There’s no structured rebuttal, just assertions and tangents.

Scientific Accuracy

Ralph’s scientific accuracy is poor. He rejects “macro evolution” without defining it or engaging Phil’s evidence (e.g., speciation in fruit flies, fossil transitions). His phrase “chance of the gaps” seems to parody “God of the gaps” but isn’t a recognized scientific critique. His historical claims (e.g., “US Christianity stopped Hitler”) oversimplify complex events and ignore evidence (e.g., Hitler’s public Christian rhetoric, Nazi persecution of some Christian groups alongside co-optation of others). No scientific support is offered.

Epistemic Quality

Ralph’s epistemic quality is weak. He dismisses Phil’s evidence as “debunked Atheist talking points” without citing counter-evidence or engaging specifics. His reliance on ad hominem attacks (e.g., “stupid,” “bigot”) and assertions (e.g., “no proof”) suggests a closed epistemology, uninterested in testing his views against data. He deflects Phil’s questions about evidence or identity as irrelevant, avoiding substantive debate.

Relevance of the Responses

Ralph’s initial reply (“zero proof”) is relevant as a direct challenge to Phil’s claim. However, his subsequent responses derail into personal attacks, political jabs (e.g., “Dems Party”), and historical tangents (e.g., Hitler). He rarely addresses Phil’s scientific points, focusing instead on Phil’s motives or identity. Even when Phil refocuses on evidence, Ralph doubles down on dismissal, reducing relevance further.

Civility

Ralph’s civility is low. He repeatedly insults Phil (“stupid,” “idiot,” “moron”), mocks him (e.g., “cry like babies”), and accuses him of bigotry and mental illness without evidence. His tone is aggressive and unyielding, rejecting dialogue for confrontation. He shows no interest in constructive exchange, violating norms of respectful discourse.

Summary Comparison

Criterion	Phil Stilwell	Ralph Litton
Logical Coherence	High—clear, consistent argument	Low—disjointed, unsupported claims
Scientific Accuracy	High—aligns with evidence	Low—no evidence, misrepresents
Epistemic Quality	High—evidence-based, falsifiable	Low—closed, dismissive
Relevance	Mostly high, some drift	Low—tangential, evasive
Civility	High—respectful, composed	Low—insulting, hostile

Phil presents a reasoned, evidence-backed case and adapts to Ralph’s hostility with civility and focus. Ralph offers no substantive counterargument, relying on insults and deflection, undermining his credibility. Phil’s approach better exemplifies intellectual integrity, while Ralph’s suggests defensiveness or inability to engage the topic.

This analysis avoids making normative judgments about who’s “right” and focuses on the quality of their exchange as requested. Let me know if you’d like a deeper dive into any aspect!

Subsequent Comments from Ralph:

March 5, 2025 — Reread my comments, you’re psycho.
March 5, 2025 — Phil, I’ve lost count of how many times you keep recycling the same debunked nonsense and pulling little FB scams because you can’t accept scientific truth. … You were so desperate in a debate that you cherry picked comments taken out of context and then feed that into a program to try and one up me in a FB debate. As if that’s some kind of “truth”. You are pathetic, psychiatric help [sic].
^{{Grok was given the entire FB thread. Nothing was cherry-picked.}}
March 9, 2025 — Yes, we know that the evidence runs counter to the random creationist 1800s fairytale that a magic primordial soup daddy randomly created all life. As you’ve told, but fail to accept because of your irrational alliance to new Atheist propaganda. That’s your religion.
March 10, 2025 — Recycling your debunked propaganda again, go see a shrink.
March 11, 2025 — Doesn’t change the fact that you you cherry picked the information for you childish debunked stunt. Atheists have a history of fabricating data. You also failed to answer any of my questions. You base your arguments on group identity rather than scientific fact. That’s anti science and why Atheists make such bad decisions. You’re the typical dishonest Atheist. Atheists are historically known for psychopathic behavior and low test scores relative to Christians.
March 23, 2025 — I see our little psychopath Phil is back. Did you ever get the balls to tell your little computer friend about your bigotry yet? … As expected, psychopaths commonly look externally to distort reality rather than dealing with their issues internally. Cherry picking information to receive a computerized confirmation bias is your method. Obviously, the computer doesn’t know that you’re stalking Tour or other Christians, nor does it confirm your juvenile arguments. We’ve been over this before, thanks again. That was easy.
March 23, 2025 — Thank you, you just proved my point, ONCE AGAIN.
^{{We’ve reached the level of “I know you are, but what am I?”}}
March 30, 2025 — As previously shown, your selective editing of discussions is actually “counter to a commitment to epistemic openness.” Your obsessive smearing is cyberstalking, not science. You’re projecting. “cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization”.
April 09a, 2025 — No, we’ve been over this already. You obviously troll Christians websites to push your political agenda. You teach bigotry and spin to further this agenda. Evidence includes your obsessive compulsive harassment of Christians, selective editing, stating opinions as fact, over use of cliches, self promotion. etc. Social conditioning is not science, reason, or critical thinking. You’re really just an ignorant bigot with no sense of self awareness. That’s why you’re an Atheist. It gives you a false of superiority because it teaches identity politics not human nature and accountability as an individual. This is historical that that I have already provided you, but you refuse to accept. Your opinion is not fact.
^{{I’m often wrongly called an atheist. Many never bother asking, and instead try to tell me what I believe.}}

April 09b:

Here’s Ralph Litton’s comment reformatted in Markdown for a WordPress blog post. The style emphasizes clarity, logical structure, and evaluative commentary for readability and analysis.

🧠 Evaluating Ralph Litton’s Attacks on Phil Stilwell

Topic: A sequence of hostile remarks by Ralph Litton aimed at Phil Stilwell, framed by assumptions about atheism and an array of unfounded accusations.

🔥 Ralph Litton’s Comments

Comment 1

Ralph Litton:
Daryl Lynch – Phil is more interested in trolling Tour and pushing Atheist propaganda. Phil knows nothing about science, history, or really anything based on his comments. It’s all Atheist B.

Comment 2

Ralph Litton:
Phil Stilwell – No, we’ve been over this already. You obviously troll Christian websites to push your political agenda. You teach bigotry and spin to further this agenda. Evidence includes your obsessive-compulsive harassment of Christians, selective editing, stating opinions as fact, overuse of clichés, self-promotion, etc. Social conditioning is not science, reason, or critical thinking. You’re really just an ignorant bigot with no sense of self-awareness. That’s why you’re an Atheist. It gives you a false sense of superiority because it teaches identity politics—not human nature and accountability as an individual. This is historical [fact] that I have already provided you, but you refuse to accept. Your opinion is not fact.

Comment 3

Ralph Litton:
Phil Stilwell – You missed the most relevant aspect of Atheism, so you’re not much of a critical thinker. This is why you’re such a bigot. Straight from Google. You were even told this before, shame on you.

“State authoritarians have used atheism throughout history to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and impose their ideologies. Here are a few examples:

Soviet Union: The Soviet government promoted state atheism, suppressing religious freedom and persecuting believers, especially Christians.

China: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has historically been atheist, restricting religious freedom and cracking down on religious groups, particularly the Falun Gong.

North Korea: The North Korean government, officially atheist, severely restricts religious freedom and has been known to persecute Christians and other religious minorities.

Albania: Under Enver Hoxha’s communist regime, Albania was declared the world’s first atheist state, with severe restrictions on religious freedom.”

🧾 Grok Evaluation of Ralph Litton’s Comments

🧩 Logical Coherence

Ralph’s comments are riddled with logical fallacies and exhibit poor reasoning structure:

Ad Hominem Attacks: Instead of addressing Phil’s actual arguments, Ralph engages in personal insults, calling him a “bigot,” “ignorant,” and “not self-aware.” This shifts attention from argument content to character defamation—a textbook fallacy.
Assumed Atheism: Ralph builds his entire critique on the false assumption that Phil is an atheist. This renders much of his commentary irrelevant and speculative.
Guilt by Association: By linking atheism to historical authoritarian regimes, Ralph commits a genetic fallacy. He implies that modern, non-authoritarian atheists share blame for past authoritarian abuses, without showing any direct causal or ideological continuity.
Circular Assertions: Ralph repeatedly claims that Phil is wrong because he is an atheist, and that he is an atheist because he is wrong. No independent reasoning is offered to support these intertwined claims.
Unsubstantiated Accusations: He mentions “selective editing” and “self-promotion” but gives no examples, making the allegations unverifiable.

📚 Factual Accuracy

Ralph mixes factual references with distortions and irrelevance:

State Atheism Examples: The regimes Ralph lists (USSR, China, North Korea, Albania) did promote state atheism, often accompanied by religious persecution. These are accurate descriptions of historical events.
- However, Ralph presents these as if they define atheism rather than represent political implementations of atheism by authoritarian regimes.
- Atheism, by definition, is simply the absence of belief in gods—it does not prescribe authoritarianism, persecution, or political ideology.
“Teaches Identity Politics”: There is no centralized atheist doctrine that teaches “identity politics.” This claim is a fabrication, projecting political frustration onto a non-doctrinal worldview.
Historical Data Reuse: Ralph claims to have “already provided” historical facts, but his examples are Google-level summaries and don’t engage with any specific claims Phil made.

🗣️ Civility

Ralph’s comments are highly uncivil, bordering on personal harassment:

Hostile Language: Calling Phil a “troll,” “bigot,” “ignorant,” and lacking self-awareness sets a hostile tone that discourages dialogue.
False Attribution: Assuming Phil’s beliefs and then attacking them shows disrespect for honest discourse.
Shaming and Condescension: Statements like “shame on you” and “you were even told this before” amplify the condescension, making the exchange personal rather than reasoned.
Dismissive Framing: Phrases like “not much of a critical thinker” serve not as rebuttals but as attempts to disqualify the speaker from participation.

🧾 Summary Assessment

Category	Evaluation
Logical Coherence	🔻 Very weak: Relies on ad hominem, false assumptions, and historical guilt-by-association.
Factual Accuracy	⚠️ Selective: Historical regimes cited accurately, but misapplied to critique atheism itself.
Civility	🚫 Poor: Dismissive, inflammatory, and reliant on personal attacks rather than ideas.

💬 Final Thoughts

Ralph’s comments are emotive outbursts masquerading as critique. They reveal a deep ideological bias, a misunderstanding of atheism, and a refusal to engage substantively with Phil’s actual arguments. Most notably, Ralph never asks whether Phil is even an atheist—a foundational misstep that invalidates the thrust of his critique.

If you’re interested in a line-by-line breakdown, fallacy tagging, or a formal rebuttal, let me know. 📩

Would you like me to integrate this post with a tagged index of fallacies or draft a response in Phil’s voice?

Phil: Yes, list the fallacies.

Here is a list of logical fallacies found in Ralph Litton’s comments, categorized and explained for clarity. This can be added directly to your WordPress post as a reference section.

📉 Fallacies in Ralph Litton’s Comments

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy

Definition: Attacking the person instead of engaging with their argument.
Example: Calling Phil “ignorant,” “a bigot,” and someone with “no sense of self-awareness.”
Why It Fails: These insults replace reasoned refutation with character attacks, offering no challenge to the content of Phil’s claims.

2. Straw Man Fallacy

Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.
Example: Accusing Phil of “teaching bigotry” or “pushing atheist propaganda” without citing any actual teachings or posts from Phil.
Why It Fails: Without quoting or accurately summarizing Phil’s arguments, Ralph attacks a caricature instead of the actual position.

3. Guilt by Association

Definition: Associating someone’s views with undesirable groups or individuals to discredit them.
Example: Linking Phil’s assumed atheism to totalitarian regimes like the USSR and North Korea.
Why It Fails: The authoritarian misuse of atheism says nothing about Phil’s views or atheism in general. It’s an irrelevant association.

4. Non Sequitur

Definition: A conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the premises.
Example: “You’re a bigot. That’s why you’re an atheist.”
Why It Fails: There’s no logical connection between being a bigot and being an atheist—this is illogical cause attribution.

5. False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

Definition: Assuming a causal relationship without evidence.
Example: Claiming that atheism causes authoritarianism because authoritarian regimes were officially atheist.
Why It Fails: Correlation is not causation. Those regimes suppressed religion for control—not because atheism necessitates it.

6. Hasty Generalization

Definition: Making a sweeping claim based on insufficient evidence.
Example: Suggesting all atheists lack critical thinking or self-awareness.
Why It Fails: Ralph presents no data or examples beyond Phil, yet generalizes to a whole worldview.

7. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming what you’re trying to prove.
Example: Saying atheism “teaches identity politics” without defining what atheism teaches or proving that it teaches anything at all.
Why It Fails: Atheism is not a doctrine—it lacks teachings unless coupled with other ideologies.

8. False Attribution

Definition: Citing vague or inaccurate sources to support a claim.
Example: “Straight from Google…” is presented as authoritative, but no scholarly source or context is provided.
Why It Fails: Google is a search engine, not a source. Quoting Wikipedia-style summaries without vetting or context undermines credibility.

9. Red Herring

Definition: Introducing irrelevant topics to distract from the main issue.
Example: Shifting the discussion from biblical argumentation to political regimes.
Why It Fails: Phil’s topic was likely scriptural or philosophical—historical state policy is a distraction.

10. Appeal to Shame

Definition: Attempting to shame someone into agreement rather than using logic.
Example: “Shame on you. You were even told this before.”
Why It Fails: Shaming does not constitute reasoning—it is emotional coercion masquerading as rebuttal.

Would you like each of these fallacies embedded as inline annotations within Ralph’s original text next? Or should I format them into a downloadable infographic or sidebar glossary for your blog readers?

Phil: Yes, provide the inline annotations.

Here is Ralph Litton’s original text with inline annotations indicating the specific fallacies committed, each clearly labeled and explained. The annotations appear in bolded brackets to draw attention without disrupting readability.

🗣 Ralph Litton’s Comments (Annotated with Fallacies)

Comment 1

Ralph Litton:
Daryl Lynch – Phil is more interested in trolling Tour and pushing Atheist propaganda.
[Ad Hominem] – Attacking Phil’s motives instead of engaging with his actual arguments.
[Straw Man] – No evidence is provided for what the “propaganda” entails. Ralph misrepresents Phil’s position without citation.

Phil knows nothing about science, history, or really anything based on his comments.
[Hasty Generalization] – Broad claim based on unspecified examples. No actual reasoning or data.
[Ad Hominem] – Again, attacking intelligence instead of ideas.

It’s all Atheist B.
[Loaded Language / Red Herring] – A vague, emotionally charged dismissal. No definition of what “Atheist B” means, nor connection to any specific claim.

Comment 2

Phil Stilwell – No, we’ve been over this already. You obviously troll Christian websites to push your political agenda.
[Begging the Question] – Assumes that Phil has a “political agenda” without proving it.
[Straw Man] – Ralph frames Phil’s participation as a political tactic, not an intellectual discussion.

You teach bigotry and spin to further this agenda.
[Ad Hominem] – Asserting Phil “teaches bigotry” is a serious claim left completely unsubstantiated.

Evidence includes your obsessive-compulsive harassment of Christians, selective editing, stating opinions as fact, overuse of clichés, self-promotion, etc.
[Hasty Generalization] – A grab-bag of accusations without a single specific example.
[Poisoning the Well] – All future arguments are preemptively framed as dishonest.

Social conditioning is not science, reason, or critical thinking.
[Red Herring] – Irrelevant to whatever Phil was saying. No context.
[Straw Man] – Suggests Phil used “social conditioning” as an argument, but no quote is given.

You’re really just an ignorant bigot with no sense of self-awareness.
[Ad Hominem] – Pure insult without argumentative content.

That’s why you’re an Atheist.
[Non Sequitur] – The conclusion (“you’re an Atheist”) doesn’t follow from the preceding insult.
[False Cause] – Suggests being a “bigot” causes atheism—this lacks any basis.

It gives you a false sense of superiority because it teaches identity politics not human nature and accountability as an individual.
[Begging the Question] – Assumes atheism “teaches” identity politics, which is not part of any atheistic creed.
[Guilt by Association] – Ties atheism to disliked social trends without evidence.

This is historical that I have already provided you, but you refuse to accept.
[Appeal to Authority / Assertion without Evidence] – Asserts that the claim is “historical” but gives no actual source.
[Ad Hominem] – Again frames Phil as irrational for rejecting a supposedly self-evident truth.

Your opinion is not fact.
[Tautology] – True but vacuous. Does not demonstrate why Phil’s claim was incorrect.

Comment 3

Phil Stilwell – You missed the most relevant aspect of Atheism, so you’re not much of a critical thinker.
[Ad Hominem] – Dismisses Phil’s thinking without refuting any argument.
[Begging the Question] – Asserts that Ralph’s view of atheism is the correct one without argument.

This is why you’re such a bigot.
[Non Sequitur] – No logical link between missing a point about atheism and being a bigot.

Straight from Google.
[False Attribution] – “Google” is not a source—it is a search engine.

You were even told this before, shame on you.
[Appeal to Shame] – Uses embarrassment instead of reasoning.

“State authoritarians have used atheism throughout history…”
[Guilt by Association] – Describes state abuse of religious groups, then implies this is inherent to atheism.

Examples Given:

Soviet Union

China

North Korea

Albania

[False Cause] – These governments were atheistic, but their authoritarianism stemmed from political ideology, not from atheism as a belief system.
[Red Herring] – The historical reference doesn’t address Phil’s specific points or arguments.

Phil: Discuss what might motivate led Ralph to wrongly assume without asking that I am an atheist and believe in identity politics. Why might he not simply ask me what I believe?

ChatGPT:

Ralph’s decision to assume your worldview—labeling you as an atheist and claiming you promote identity politics—without directly asking, can likely be traced to several motivational and cognitive tendencies. Here’s a breakdown of what might underlie such assumptions:

🧠 1. Cognitive Shortcut: The “Prototype” Heuristics

Ralph appears to rely on stereotypical heuristics. That is, he may hold a prototypical image of a person who critiques Christianity—likely picturing them as:

Atheist
Left-leaning
Supporter of identity politics

Once he perceives you criticizing a Christian apologist (e.g., James Tour), his mind fills in the blanks based on that prototype rather than verifying your actual beliefs. This is an example of confirmation bias: fitting you into a pre-existing category to simplify mental processing.

🧩 2. Defensive Attribution Bias

When someone feels that their core identity (e.g., as a Christian) is being challenged, they may react with defensive hostility. Rather than:

Asking questions
Exploring nuanced disagreement
Entertaining the possibility that a critic is arguing in good faith

They go into fight-or-flight mode, preemptively assigning motives to discredit the challenger. In Ralph’s case, it’s easier to paint you as an “atheist bigot” than to imagine a theist who critiques biblical claims rationally or from a non-faith epistemology.

📉 3. Argument Evasion Strategy

By framing you as an atheist, Ralph can:

Avoid engaging your actual reasoning
Shift the conversation away from your points and toward the moral failings of atheism
Frame the discussion as a battle between “faithful truth” and “godless ideology”

This reframing relieves him of the burden to engage your claims about logic, scripture, or epistemic responsibility. It becomes a psychological escape hatch from the discomfort of scrutiny.

🤖 4. Projection and Ingroup-Outgroup Polarization

Ralph’s insistence that you’re aligned with “identity politics” may stem from:

His belief that such ideologies are pervasive in those who reject traditional Christian frameworks
His tendency to view critics as members of an outgroup defined not just by disbelief but by political and cultural agendas

Rather than asking you what you believe, he’s reacting to what he fears you might represent. This blurring of person and ideology is typical in polarized contexts.

🤔 5. Why Didn’t He Just Ask You What You Believe?

A few plausible reasons:

Certainty Bias: He believes he already knows what you believe. There’s no need to ask when he’s “sure.”
Perceived Threat: He may view open dialogue as conceding too much ground—risking the legitimacy of your challenge.
Echo Chamber Effects: If his prior encounters with critics followed a pattern (e.g., most were atheists), he might assume you must fit that pattern too.
Status Preservation: Admitting uncertainty by asking you for clarification might feel like losing control of the narrative.

🧭 Final Thought

This isn’t just a failure to ask. It’s a failure to be curious, a reluctance to engage with nuance, and a defensive move to insulate belief from critique by reducing the critic to a category. Whether or not you’re an atheist, Ralph’s refusal to ask reveals more about his epistemic posture than about your beliefs.

April 10a:

Ralph Litton says:
We’ve been over this Phil. It’s psychopathic that you would ignore these atrocities committed by Atheists.
Again, the use of selective editing for third party validation is both unethical and counter to best practices in epistemology.
“The use of elective editing can be counter to epistemology and is considered unethical in the context of science.
Epistemological concerns:
Distortion of truth: Selective editing can manipulate information, leading to a distorted representation of reality.
Lack of objectivity: By presenting only certain aspects of information, selective editing can compromise objectivity and create a biased narrative.
Incomplete knowledge: Selective editing can result in an incomplete understanding of a topic, as important information is omitted or downplayed.
Ethical concerns:
Deception: Selective editing can be used to deceive or mislead others, which is a violation of intellectual honesty and trust.
Manipulation: By presenting information in a selective manner, individuals can manipulate others’ perceptions, opinions, or decisions.
Lack of transparency: Selective editing can obscure the full context or relevant information, making it difficult for others to make informed decisions or judgments.
Examples of problematic selective editing:
Cherry-picking data: Selectively presenting only favorable data or results while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence.
Quote mining: Selectively quoting or citing sources in a way that distorts their original meaning or context.
Media manipulation: Selectively editing or presenting information in a way that creates a misleading narrative or agenda.
However, it’s essential to note that selective editing can also be used in a positive sense, such as:
Summarizing complex information: Selectively editing can help condense complex information into a more digestible format.
Highlighting key points: Selectively editing can draw attention to crucial information or insights.
To maintain ethical standards, it’s crucial to:
Clearly indicate selective editing: Provide context or notation to indicate that information has been selectively edited.
Preserve original context: Ensure that the original context and meaning are preserved, even if information is condensed or selectively presented.
Avoid manipulation: Refrain from using selective editing to manipulate or deceive others.

Critique of Ralph Litton’s Comment on Logical Coherence, Factual Precision, Degree of Substantiation, and Civility

1. Logical Coherence

Ralph’s comment lacks internal consistency and argumentative clarity across several dimensions:

Non-Sequitur Inference: Ralph claims Phil is “not much of a critical thinker” because he allegedly failed to mention “the most relevant aspect of atheism”—namely, its use by authoritarian regimes. This reasoning is structurally flawed. Even if Phil did not address historical state atheism, it does not logically follow that he lacks critical thinking. This is a non sequitur: failure to mention something does not demonstrate inability to reason.
Ad Hominem & Circular Reasoning: Ralph compounds his claim with the assertion: “This is why you’re such a bigot.” The structure here assumes that failure to accept Ralph’s claim implies bigotry. No evidence is provided to show prejudice or intolerance from Phil, only disagreement. This is an ad hominem and also circular—Phil is a bigot because he doesn’t accept Ralph’s framing, and Ralph’s framing is justified because Phil is a bigot.
Genetic Fallacy and Guilt by Association: Ralph lists regimes that adopted atheism and committed atrocities, then implies that atheism itself is dangerous. This is a genetic fallacy—evaluating an idea by its historical associations, not its merits. He also commits guilt by association, assuming atheism qua atheism entails political repression. No causal link is established between atheism and authoritarianism beyond the correlation.
Double Standards and Projection: Ralph warns that “selective editing” can distort truth, mislead, and manipulate—while doing precisely that himself by omitting Phil’s arguments and context. His condemnation of selective editing lacks internal coherence when paired with his own one-sided, decontextualized framing. This suggests inconsistency and projection.

Conclusion on Logical Coherence:
🔻 Ralph’s reasoning is fallacy-laden, structurally unsound, and marred by personal accusations that are not logically linked to the claims they are meant to critique.

2. Factual Precision

Ralph’s factual claims about atheist regimes contain partial truths but are misapplied and generalized:

Accurate Historical References, Misused: The examples—USSR, China, North Korea, Albania—did indeed adopt forms of state atheism and commit atrocities. However, Ralph presents this history without context, nuance, or analysis of whether atheism itself was the driving ideology. Most historians would point to authoritarian consolidation, totalitarian control, and political paranoia—not atheism per se—as the operative causes of oppression.
Mischaracterization of Atheism: Atheism is a position on the existence of deities, not a political program. Ralph treats atheism as a system with active goals and causal agency, which is factually inaccurate. The regimes he mentions suppressed religion, but this was part of broader efforts to eliminate rival sources of authority—not due to the philosophical content of atheism.
Dubious Psychological Labeling: Calling someone “psychopathic” for not foregrounding historical abuses allegedly committed by atheists is medically imprecise, emotionally inflammatory, and logically meaningless in this context.

Conclusion on Factual Precision:
⚠️ Ralph presents historical facts in an oversimplified, decontextualized manner and misattributes causal agency to atheism itself. Psychological terms are misapplied to pathologize disagreement.

3. Degree of Substantiation

Despite the lengthy quote on “selective editing,” Ralph fails to connect this framework to Phil’s actual behavior:

No Evidence of Cherry-Picking: Ralph asserts that Phil is guilty of selective editing but does not cite which statements were edited, what context was removed, or how this editing distorted the original meaning. This makes his charge unsupported and rhetorically hollow.
Misuse of Quotation: The block quote on epistemology reads like a generic excerpt—perhaps copied from a web source or AI explanation—rather than a targeted critique. There is no attempt to analyze how Phil’s specific edits fit the problems listed (e.g., quote mining, deception, data omission). It functions as a disconnected appeal to authority.
Assertion in Place of Analysis: Ralph says, “We’ve been over this,” but offers no record of prior resolution or reason why repeating the claim without evidence should settle the matter. This is a reassertion without argumentative advancement.

Conclusion on Substantiation:
📉 Ralph’s claims are not evidenced. The quoted material on selective editing, while valid in abstract, is misapplied and never tied to concrete actions or examples from Phil.

4. Civility

Ralph’s tone is derisive, shaming, and accusatory:

Personal Insults: Accusing someone of being “not much of a critical thinker,” a “bigot,” and “psychopathic” crosses multiple lines of civil discourse. These statements are designed to discredit the person, not to interrogate the idea.
Shaming Rhetoric: “You were even told this before, shame on you” is an attempt to control discourse through condescension rather than logic. It presupposes guilt without demonstrating it.
Tone Contradiction: The quotation about epistemology promotes objectivity and integrity, yet the broader tone of Ralph’s own message violates the very standards he is advocating. This incongruity reduces the ethical force of the quoted section.

Conclusion on Civility:
🚫 Ralph’s comment is confrontational, dismissive, and laden with personal attacks. His performative invocation of ethics does not match his rhetorical behavior.

Summary Table

Dimension	Evaluation
Logical Coherence	🔻 Very Low – Contains ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, and misuse of historical analogies.
Factual Precision	⚠️ Low – Relies on oversimplified representations of complex regimes and conflates atheism with totalitarian practices.
Substantiation	📉 None – No specific evidence is provided for the central charges of selective editing or bigotry.
Civility	🚫 Poor – The use of psychological labels and shame tactics undermines constructive engagement and reflects contempt over curiosity.

Closing Reflection

Ralph’s comment is rhetorically aggressive and logically weak. It exemplifies ideological projection, intellectual impatience, and epistemic overreach. His refusal to engage Phil’s actual arguments—combined with his misuse of historical, psychological, and epistemological claims—suggests a motivated reasoning posture, where the priority is not truth but triumph.

April 10b: I haven’t seen any evidence that you teach anything. Based in your comments, should go back to grade school. You’re a bigot who obsessively stalks Tour and other Christians because you’re sick and pathetic. ||| We’ve been over this how many times already? Selective editing to desperately get a confirmation bias from a computer program only proves you’re weak, pathetic, and insecure. You’re really much of a man. lol
April 10c: Good, add how you obsessively stock [sic] Tour and using selective editing.
April 10d: You only claim to teach critical thinking, but you were caught selective editing for a third party validation source. This established that your dishonest. BTW, Christians dramatically outscore Atheists on test scores. You’re pathetic. “Member schools of the Association of Christian & Classical Schools (ACCS) produce students whose SAT scores are, on average, 325 points higher than public schools, 191 points higher than conventional religious schools, and 138 points higher than secular private high schools.

April 10d:

Ralph Litton says:

You only claim to teach critical thinking, but you were caught selective editing for a third party validation source. This established that your dishonest.

BTW, Christians dramatically outscore Atheists on test scores.

You’re pathetic.

“Member schools of the Association of Christian & Classical Schools (ACCS) produce students whose SAT scores are, on average, 325 points higher than public schools, 191 points higher than conventional religious schools, and 138 points higher than secular private high schools.

Evaluation of Ralph Litton’s Comment: Logical Coherence, Factual Precision, Degree of Substantiation, and Civility

1. Logical Coherence

Ralph’s comment continues his pattern of making accusatory claims without argumentation, exhibiting several logical fallacies:

Bare Assertion Fallacy: Ralph declares, “you were caught selective editing,” as if this is a proven fact, yet he does not provide a single example of what was selectively edited or why it was misleading. This is a classic bare assertion—a claim without argument or demonstration.
Non Sequitur: Ralph leaps from “you were caught selective editing” to the conclusion that “your [sic] dishonest,” without providing a clear explanation of the causal connection. This is a non sequitur, especially since no evidence of editing or distortion is introduced.
Red Herring via Test Scores: The introduction of Christian vs. Atheist test scores has no logical connection to the topic of selective editing or critical thinking. It serves as a distraction from the actual issue and constitutes a red herring.
Hasty Generalization: Ralph claims Christians “dramatically outscore Atheists” based on one data point (the ACCS). This is a hasty generalization, especially considering:
- ACCS schools are a tiny, self-selected elite subset of Christian institutions.
- The comparison doesn’t control for socioeconomic, regional, or selective admissions factors.
- No data is provided for atheists as a category, only secular schools.

Conclusion on Logical Coherence:
🔻 Ralph’s comment jumps between topics, lacks inferential support, and introduces irrelevant comparisons to distract from the central issue.

2. Factual Precision

Factual Claim about ACCS Scores: Ralph cites a statistic that students in ACCS schools score higher on the SAT compared to other school types. This claim has some basis in published ACCS reports, but several issues undermine its utility:
- Selective Sample Bias: ACCS schools often enroll high-performing students and have rigorous admissions criteria.
- No Control for Confounding Variables: These score differences may reflect affluence, class size, curriculum intensity, or parental education levels—not religious belief.
- Category Misalignment: ACCS schools ≠ all Christians; secular private ≠ atheist students. Ralph conflates institutional labels with personal beliefs—this is category confusion.
No Support for Dishonesty Claim: The claim that Phil is “dishonest” rests entirely on Ralph’s assertion of “selective editing,” but again, no example is offered, and the supposed dishonesty remains unverified.

Conclusion on Factual Precision:
⚠️ While the quoted SAT statistic is loosely accurate, it is contextually misapplied, and the key claims about dishonesty and critical thinking failure lack evidentiary grounding.

3. Degree of Substantiation

Ralph’s claims are entirely unsubstantiated:
- No link to evidence of selective editing.
- No documentation of what was edited or misrepresented.
- No explanation of why the ACCS statistic relates to the current discussion.
The juxtaposition of “you only claim to teach critical thinking” with a completely disconnected academic statistic is not an argument—it is guilt by contrast, designed to associate the target with low performance by implication.

Conclusion on Substantiation:
📉 All serious allegations (dishonesty, incompetence) are stated without any supporting evidence or argumentation. The only cited data point is out of scope.

4. Civility

Direct Insults: Ralph’s tone is explicitly hostile: “You’re pathetic” and “you were caught…” are not neutral or exploratory phrases; they are accusations.
Dismissive Framing: Rather than encouraging open dialogue or questioning, Ralph presents his claims as if they are settled facts, employing shame and derision as rhetorical tools.
Psychological Framing: By saying “you only claim to teach critical thinking,” Ralph implies deliberate imposture—an attack on both credibility and character, with no effort to inquire or understand.

Conclusion on Civility:
🚫 The comment is aggressive, condescending, and designed to demean rather than dialogue. It reflects hostility rather than curiosity or epistemic humility.

Summary Table

Dimension	Evaluation
Logical Coherence	🔻 Very Low – Contains non sequiturs, irrelevant statistics, red herrings, and fallacious generalizations.
Factual Precision	⚠️ Low – Misuses education data to imply broad cognitive superiority, misapplies source categories, and falsely equates schools with belief systems.
Substantiation	📉 None – No citations, examples, or supporting documentation are provided for accusations or metrics.
Civility	🚫 Poor – Contains direct insults, patronizing tone, and character attacks without justification.

Final Reflection

Ralph’s comment is rhetorically forceful but epistemically hollow. The accusation of dishonesty, the attack on Phil’s teaching credibility, and the invocation of SAT data all lack the minimum standards of rational discourse: clarity, charity, and evidence. His move from dialogue to derision signals a shift from debate to denunciation.

Continuance Recommendation

At this point, AI can also provide insightful recommendations on the continuance of the dialogue.

PROMPT: Provide a recommendation on how to proceed with Ralph based on the goal of promoting rationality across as many minds as possible. Should I continue directly interacting with Ralph in the hope of nudging him in the direction of rationality, or should I instead employ the salient illogic in his arguments as a teaching opportunity for others. Let’s assume there are ten focused readers of the thread. Subsequently, provide recommendations on the various tacts and technique that can be employed to best achieve the goal of promoting rational thought.

Grok’s Second Output:

Recommendation on How to Proceed with Ralph

Given the goal of promoting rationality across as many minds as possible, and assuming there are ten focused readers of the thread, the most effective approach is to pivot away from directly engaging Ralph Litton in hopes of changing his mind and instead use his responses as a teaching opportunity for the audience. Here’s the reasoning:

Assessment of Ralph’s Receptivity
Based on the exchange, Ralph exhibits a closed epistemology—he dismisses evidence (e.g., fossils, genetics), relies on ad hominem attacks, and avoids substantive debate. His repeated insults and deflections (e.g., “stupid,” “chance of the gaps”) suggest he’s entrenched and unlikely to shift toward rationality through direct interaction. Continuing to nudge him risks diminishing returns, as his responses show no signs of engaging with logic or evidence.
Impact on the Audience
With ten focused readers, the thread offers a broader opportunity to influence minds open to reason. Ralph’s illogical arguments (e.g., unsupported assertions, tangents about Hitler) provide clear examples of flawed thinking that can be dissected for educational purposes. By contrast, Phil’s evidence-based approach offers a model of rationality that readers can emulate. Leveraging this contrast maximizes impact across the audience, even if Ralph himself remains unmoved.
Strategic Choice
- Direct Interaction with Ralph: This might yield a small chance of influencing him, but it’s resource-intensive and risks devolving into a repetitive cycle of insults and dismissals, potentially alienating readers.
- Teaching Opportunity for Others: This amplifies the reach of rationality by using Ralph’s responses as a foil to highlight logical fallacies and reinforce scientific reasoning. It’s more efficient and aligns with the goal of affecting “as many minds as possible.”

Recommendation: Shift focus from persuading Ralph to using his salient illogic as a teaching tool for the ten readers. This approach treats Ralph as a case study rather than a target, prioritizing the audience’s growth in rational thought.

Recommendations on Tactics and Techniques

To best achieve the goal of promoting rational thought, here are specific tactics and techniques tailored to this scenario:

1. Highlight and Name Logical Fallacies

Tactic: Identify specific fallacies in Ralph’s arguments and explain them clearly for the audience.
Technique: Use neutral, educational language to label and dissect errors.
- Example: “Ralph claims ‘zero proof’ for evolution but doesn’t address the fossil record or genetics. This is an argument from ignorance—assuming something isn’t true because he hasn’t seen the evidence himself. Here’s why that’s flawed: absence of personal knowledge doesn’t negate peer-reviewed data like Tiktaalik or ERVs.”
Benefit: Readers learn to recognize fallacies (e.g., ad hominem, strawman) and distinguish them from valid reasoning, building their critical thinking skills.

2. Contrast with Evidence-Based Reasoning

Tactic: Pair Ralph’s assertions with concise, evidence-backed counterpoints to model scientific reasoning.
Technique: Keep explanations simple and cite accessible examples.
- Example: “Ralph calls evolution ‘chance of the gaps,’ but science doesn’t rely on chance alone—it’s about natural selection filtering random mutations. For instance, Lenski’s E. coli experiment shows bacteria evolving new functions over 30+ years, observable in real time.”
Benefit: Juxtaposing Ralph’s vagueness with concrete evidence (e.g., experiments, fossils) reinforces the strength of rationality and makes it tangible for readers.

3. Ask Socratic Questions for the Audience

Tactic: Pose open-ended questions inspired by Ralph’s responses, encouraging readers to reflect rather than targeting Ralph directly.
Technique: Frame questions as neutral prompts for thought.
- Example: “Ralph dismisses macroevolution—what evidence would it take to convince someone it’s real? Fossils? DNA? Speciation in labs? What do you think counts as ‘proof’ in science?”
Benefit: This engages readers actively, fostering their own epistemic curiosity without escalating conflict with Ralph.

4. Use Analogies to Simplify Complex Ideas

Tactic: Translate scientific concepts from Ralph’s critique into relatable analogies for clarity.
Technique: Draw from everyday phenomena to bridge understanding.
- Example: “Ralph suggests complexity needs a designer, but consider a snowflake: its intricate pattern emerges from simple physics, no architect required. Evolution works similarly—small changes add up over time, like snowflakes piling into a drift.”
Benefit: Makes rational explanations accessible, countering Ralph’s oversimplifications while appealing to readers’ intuition.

5. Maintain Civility and Model Emotional Resilience

Tactic: Respond to Ralph’s hostility with calm, respectful commentary to demonstrate rational discourse.
Technique: Acknowledge his tone briefly, then pivot to substance.
- Example: “Ralph’s frustration is clear, but let’s focus on the argument. He says there’s ‘no proof’—yet genetics shows humans and chimps share 98% of DNA, including fused chromosomes. How else might we explain that?”
Benefit: Shows readers how to handle emotional attacks with logic, reinforcing civility as a strength of rationality.

6. Summarize Key Takeaways

Tactic: Periodically recap the discussion to distill lessons for readers.
Technique: Use a neutral tone to frame the exchange as a learning moment.
- Example: “So far, we’ve seen claims of ‘no proof’ met with fossils, DNA, and lab results. A key question emerges: what separates a scientific explanation from a personal belief? That’s worth pondering.”
Benefit: Keeps readers focused on rational principles, tying Ralph’s illogic to broader insights.

7. Invite Reader Participation

Tactic: Encourage the ten readers to weigh in, shifting the conversation beyond Ralph.
Technique: Pose inclusive prompts tied to the debate.
- Example: “Anyone here have thoughts on what ‘proof’ means in science? Ralph’s skepticism is one view—how would you test evolution yourselves?”
Benefit: Activates the audience’s critical thinking, extending the reach of rationality beyond a single antagonist.

Implementation Plan

Next Steps: In your next reply, briefly acknowledge Ralph’s latest point (e.g., “Ralph sees this as bigotry”), then pivot to a teaching moment using one or more techniques above. Avoid further personal questions about his identity, as they’ve proven unproductive.
Focus: Aim 80% of your effort at the readers—e.g., explaining a fallacy, offering evidence, or asking a Socratic question—and 20% at engaging Ralph to keep the thread alive.
Tone: Stay civil, concise, and educational, maximizing appeal to the ten focused readers.

By treating Ralph as a foil rather than a convert, you leverage his illogic to illuminate rationality, optimizing impact across the audience. This balances efficiency with the goal of influencing “as many minds as possible.” Let me know if you’d like a sample response crafted along these lines!

PROMPT: Sure, provide a sample response that is both comprehensive and rigorous.

Grok’s Third Output:

Below is a sample response crafted to be comprehensive and rigorous, aligning with the recommendation to use Ralph Litton’s responses as a teaching opportunity for the ten focused readers. It employs the outlined tactics and techniques—highlighting logical fallacies, contrasting with evidence-based reasoning, using Socratic questions, maintaining civility, and summarizing key takeaways—while minimally engaging Ralph to keep the thread active. Key terms remain highlighted for clarity.

Sample Response

“Ralph Litton—I see you’re calling this ‘bigotry’ and ‘nonsense,’ and I’ll address that briefly: I’m not here to attack anyone, just to explore evidence and reasoning about how biological systems like self-repair work. But since you’ve doubled down on ‘chance of the gaps’ and ‘no proof,’ let’s step back and unpack this for anyone still following along—because there’s a lot here worth digging into.

First, Ralph’s claim of ‘zero proof’ for evolution is a strong assertion. In science, proof isn’t absolute like in math—it’s about building a case with data. So what data do we have? Fossil transitions like Tiktaalik (a fish-tetrapod link) and Archaeopteryx (a dinosaur-bird bridge) match evolutionary predictions. Genetics shows humans and chimps share 98% of our DNA, including a fused chromosome 2 and ERVs (viral remnants) in the same spots—hallmarks of common ancestry. Then there’s experimental evolution: Lenski’s E. coli study watched bacteria evolve a new metabolic trick over decades, tracked in a lab. This isn’t ‘chance’—it’s natural selection shaping random mutations. For readers: how much evidence does it take to call something ‘proven’ in science? What would you need to see?

Now, Ralph’s phrase ‘chance of the gaps’ seems to riff on ‘God of the gaps’—the idea of plugging unknowns with a designer. But here’s the snag: evolution doesn’t just say ‘stuff happened.’ It’s a mechanism, tested against fossils, DNA, and real-time observations. Dismissing it as ‘chance’ without tackling the data is an argument from incredulity—a fallacy where something’s rejected because it feels unlikely. Think of a snowflake: its intricate symmetry comes from physics, not a sculptor. Evolution scales that up over billions of years. Does anyone see a better way to explain regeneration in salamanders or DNA repair in cells?

Ralph also calls this ‘debunked Atheist talking points,’ but that’s an ad hominem—attacking the source, not the argument. Science isn’t about group identity (Atheist, Christian, or otherwise)—it’s about what holds up under scrutiny. I’ve laid out specifics; Ralph hasn’t countered with alternative evidence. That’s telling. For readers: why might someone dodge data like this? Is it about protecting a belief, or something else?

Here’s a takeaway: rationality hinges on wrestling with evidence, not just shouting ‘no proof.’ Ralph’s skepticism could be a starting point—science loves questions—but only if it leads to testing, not dismissal. I’d ask Ralph: what data would change your mind? For everyone else: what separates a scientific explanation from a gut feeling? That’s the line we’re tracing here. Thoughts?”

Analysis of the Response

Logical Coherence and Rigor
- The response systematically addresses Ralph’s claims (“zero proof,” “chance of the gaps”) with a clear structure: evidence presentation, fallacy identification, and epistemic reflection.
- It uses specific examples (e.g., Tiktaalik, Lenski) and ties them to scientific principles (e.g., natural selection), ensuring rigor.
Teaching Focus
- Fallacies (argument from incredulity, ad hominem) are named and explained for readers.
- Socratic questions (e.g., “How much evidence does it take?”) invite audience reflection.
- The snowflake analogy simplifies complexity without a designer.
- Takeaways summarize the lesson in rationality.
Civility
- It acknowledges Ralph’s tone (“I see you’re calling this ‘bigotry’”) without retaliating, then pivots to substance, modeling respectful discourse.
Minimal Engagement with Ralph
- One question (“What data would change your mind?”) keeps him in the loop, but 80% of the text targets the readers, per the strategy.
Comprehensive Scope
- Covers evolution’s evidence (fossils, genetics, experiments), counters Ralph’s critiques, and ties it to broader epistemic principles, making it a standalone educational piece.

This response balances comprehensiveness and rigor while prioritizing the ten readers, using Ralph’s illogic as a springboard to promote rational thought. It’s ready to post as-is or tweak based on your style!

See also:

The Selective Blindness of Faith

In a personal chat about the scenario in which a young girl with a Muslim father and a Christian mother,…

This response is a necessary reboot of your position, Ryan. You have effectively abandoned the “stopping rule” epistemology you previously…

I understand your analogy and analysis, but I think you are confusing something. As I read the scriptures, I do…

This is a list of probing questions designed to clarify and scrutinize your epistemic position, particularly in light of the…

◉ The Infinite Gap: Where Biblical Salvation Breaks Epistemic Hygiene Ryan, let’s take that imagery of the cliff and the…

Ryan, your latest response confirms my suspicion: you are confusing pragmatic utility (the necessity to act within a physical, high-stakes…

Since your whole refutation hinges on a flawed Bayesian approach to epistemology, I will only address one part of your…

(Continued from Above): 4b.) The following elements in your understanding of the creation/common Christian interpretations (and correct me if I’ve…

In response to the specific points in your last post: 1.) Respectfully, what appeared to a form of “question-begging” was…

Thanks for the response. I apologize if my posts weren’t well-outlined or well-formatted: it would probably have been better…