The "Kangaroo Court" Debate Style

[MikeF]

Nothing exists if existence itself cannot be idealized.

Your sentence above does not make sense to me. Nothing exists if [the property of existing?] itself cannot be [regarded or represented as perfect or better than in reality]?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

*shrugs*
People are people. I've copped this many times, both IRL and on the net where people ascribe all sorts of motivations and background causes for my atheism without knowing anything about me, and fail to accept my simple explanations about my motivations as I understand them.

You've surely seen the 'no true atheist' treatment, commonly citing scripture to support the view.

Why There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

If what Paul says in Romans 1 is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist.

www.crossway.org

Life is easier if we just take people as they are, rather than assign motivation based on an umbrella grouping.

'All theists are...'
'All atheists are...'
'All Americans are...'
'All men are...'

Meh. Over generalisations.

 

[PureX]

Your sentence above does not make sense to me. Nothing exists if [the property of existing?] itself cannot be [regarded or represented as perfect or better than in reality]?

"The property of existing" is an abstract idea that we created in our minds that presumes upon an antithetical that is not logically possible (non-existence), but that's the way our binary minds work. If we remove the human mind from this happenstance, there is no "property of existing". There is no anything. Try and imagine your mind turned completely off. ... Nothing. Not even an absence. THAT is what you materialists are calling "objective reality". That is what you imagine to be embodying and defining the truth of what is when you disregard human cognition. And it's logically absurd.

This is why philosophers rejected philosophical materialism almost immediately upon it's being proposed. But the scientism cult has made it the source of their new godless religion. All hail "objective reality"! The new alpa and omega! That is in fact not even nothingness.

 

[PureX]

As I said though, the process of evolution also acted to combine existing physical factors to produce birds hat would not have otherwise existed. For some reason, you seem to put the two things in different categories, and I haven't seen you support that convincingly.

This is an interesting assertion. Are you suggesting that the physical world didn't exist before there were conscious minds to observe it? I know that is a particular philosophical position.


Is there no middle ground? Even putting thought into a different category (which I don't) the airplane needs both thought and the components of the physical world to exist, no?

Thinking is not thought. Thinking is a physical process. But the thought that results is a metaphysical awareness of the process.

Likewise, perception is the physical process of our body experiencing it's environment, while conception is the metaphysical understanding that results.

Thinking is meaningless without the awareness that results. Sensory perception is useless without the understanding that results. The process does not define the result. The result defines the process. "Form follows function."

 

[MikeF]

"The property of existing" is an abstract idea that we created in our minds that presumes upon an antithetical that is not logically possible (non-existence), but that's the way our binary minds work. If we remove the human mind from this happenstance, there is no "property of existing". There is no anything. Try and imagine your mind turned completely off. ... Nothing. Not even an absence. THAT is what you materialists are calling "objective reality". That is what you imagine to be embodying and defining the truth of what is when you disregard human cognition. And it's logically absurd.

This is why philosophers rejected philosophical materialism almost immediately upon it's being proposed. But the scientism cult has made it the source of their new godless religion. All hail "objective reality"! The new alpa and omega! That is in fact not even nothingness.

You do not seem to appreciate the limited utility of logic. Logic is simply an algorithm that ensures conformity to the boundaries, rules, properties, and characteristic created for an abstract system. It is a tool to produce "deductively valid inferences from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content."

So for example, we can create an abstract system, say "The magical world of Harry Potter", and establish boundaries, rules of operation/interaction, properties, and characteristic for this abstract system and then proceed to make valid logical inferences regarding "The magical world of Harry Potter", inferences that comport with or maintain correspondence with "The magical world of Harry Potter".

We, unfortunately, do not fully understand the boundaries, rules of operation/interaction, properties, and characteristics of actual non-abstract Reality, and as a consequence we are unable to create a completely abstract system that accurately corresponds and comports with non-abstract Reality. This presents some significant challenges in the application of logic when our intent is to remain synthetic to actual objective Reality. Great care, therefore, must be used in applying the tool of logic to questions related to actual objective Reality as we have an incomplete understanding of the system, and thus logic has a very limited utility.

Logic is not the starting point for understanding Reality as logic requires both true statements upon which to apply logic and a complete understanding of the rules of operation/interaction for the system in which those statements are true. One requires a means by which to generate true statements independently of logic before one can even attempt to apply logic, and even then, with incomplete understanding of the system and its rules, logic will have limited utility and any results only held to some limited degree of confidence.

Your use of the term 'logic' does not seem to fully appreciate this.

 

[PureX]

You do not seem to appreciate the limited utility of logic. Logic is simply an algorithm that ensures conformity to the boundaries, rules, properties, and characteristic created for an abstract system. It is a tool to produce "deductively valid inferences from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content."

So for example, we can create an abstract system, say "The magical world of Harry Potter", and establish boundaries, rules of operation/interaction, properties, and characteristic for this abstract system and then proceed to make valid logical inferences regarding "The magical world of Harry Potter", inferences that comport with or maintain correspondence with "The magical world of Harry Potter".

We, unfortunately, do not fully understand the boundaries, rules of operation/interaction, properties, and characteristics of actual non-abstract Reality, and as a consequence we are unable to create a completely abstract system that accurately corresponds and comports with non-abstract Reality. This presents some significant challenges in the application of logic when our intent is to remain synthetic to actual objective Reality. Great care, therefore, must be used in applying the tool of logic to questions related to actual objective Reality as we have an incomplete understanding of the system, and thus logic has a very limited utility.

Logic is not the starting point for understanding Reality as logic requires both true statements upon which to apply logic and a complete understanding of the rules of operation/interaction for the system in which those statements are true. One requires a means by which to generate true statements independently of logic before one can even attempt to apply logic, and even then, with incomplete understanding of the system and its rules, logic will have limited utility and any results only held to some limited degree of confidence.

Your use of the term 'logic' does not seem to fully appreciate this.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that our understanding IS IT'S OWN REALITY. A metaphysical reality. Where all sorts of abstract ideas and combinations of ideas become possible that don't even exist, otherwise. Logic being one of them, that we can use to associate the others.

 

[Alien826]

Thinking is not thought. Thinking is a physical process. But the thought that results is a metaphysical awareness of the process.

Likewise, perception is the physical process of our body experiencing it's environment, while conception is the metaphysical understanding that results.

Thinking is meaningless without the awareness that results. Sensory perception is useless without the understanding that results. The process does not define the result. The result defines the process. "Form follows function."

I'm not sure I understand this. But I'll leave it here as your response to @MikeF is more understandable.

"The property of existing" is an abstract idea that we created in our minds that presumes upon an antithetical that is not logically possible (non-existence), but that's the way our binary minds work. If we remove the human mind from this happenstance, there is no "property of existing". There is no anything. Try and imagine your mind turned completely off. ... Nothing. Not even an absence. THAT is what you materialists are calling "objective reality". That is what you imagine to be embodying and defining the truth of what is when you disregard human cognition. And it's logically absurd.

This is why philosophers rejected philosophical materialism almost immediately upon it's being proposed. But the scientism cult has made it the source of their new godless religion. All hail "objective reality"! The new alpa and omega! That is in fact not even nothingness.

What you say is correct so far as one isolated person is concerned. If someone stops thinking, then he has no further thoughts. Nevertheless, all the other people continue to think.

What you are saying seems to be like "If we turn off the radio, the radio waves, transmitter and whoever is speaking (or whatever) all disappear". Surely you see how ridiculous that would be?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure I understand this. But I'll leave it here as your response to @MikeF is more understandable.



What you say is correct so far as one isolated person is concerned. If someone stops thinking, then he has no further thoughts. Nevertheless, all the other people continue to think.

What you are saying seems to be like "If we turn off the radio, the radio waves, transmitter and whoever is speaking (or whatever) all disappear". Surely you see how ridiculous that would be?

Without conscious awareness, whatever remains is completely irrelevant. Moot. Of no consequence, and devoid of any differentiation. Yet this is the ever-so-important “objective reality” of the materialists. A reality that isn’t anything at all.

It makes no difference how many or how few awake minds there are in the universe. The universe is literally nothing at all without them.

 

[Kathryn]

Wow it's been a long, long time since I was on a debate team.

 

[JIMMY12345]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

I find the main problem with Religious forums is everyone agrees with each other politely.There is NO debate.
Religious forums please encourage people to post from the Far left and Far right.Its getting to tame.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The airplane is an idea. That's how it exists. And there are many different kinds of manifestations of that idea. Stories, pictures, drawings, models, replicas, and actual flying machines. They are ALL "airplanes". They are ALL valid and they are ALL real. Not understanding this is the faulure of philosophical materialism.

You make the claim but not the argument. What failure of naturalism? Naturalism accounts for all of that. Nature assembled matter into galaxies of solar systems comprising the elements. Nature caused them to assemble into life and then mind. There is no evidence that any more is needed or exists.

You frequently refer to the cult of scientism, but it's your words that feel cultlike. You seem to have an emotional commitment to a worldview that causes you to resent those that disagree with you. And you make claims that you don't and can't support. The people you resent are not like that.

This is why philosophers rejected philosophical materialism almost immediately upon it's being proposed.

Materialism is still a viable worldview, and in fact the dominant one in the sciences.

 

[PureX]

I find the main problem with Religious forums is everyone agrees with each other politely.There is NO debate.
Religious forums please encourage people to post from the Far left and Far right.Its getting to tame.

They just spanked me three times in a row here for being too overt in my criticism of atheism. So don't hold your breath.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They just spanked me three times in a row here for being too overt in my criticism of atheism. So don't hold your breath.

That's unfortunate. You rarely address atheism as opposed to atheists, but your opinions on atheists, materialism, and scientism are among your most useful and interesting comments from my perspective. I would love for you to change them, and have tried to help you with that, but to no avail, but for as long as you continue to hold them, I would prefer that you could and would express them.

I understand that the forum rules are intended to keep debate and discussion civil and to avoid offending posters, but I don't think the atheists posting here are much offended by anything judging by the cool, dispassionate responses they post in response to the criticisms of the believers. I would much rather see the believers given free rein to express themselves. I am willing to be censored on my side unilaterally, and I have been. Some of my comments have also been called violations of forum rules. They were carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but they apparently are also sometimes deemed offensive in the eyes of those empowered to judge such things.

Incidentally, I took JIMMY's comment as sarcasm, but maybe not.

 

[PureX]

That's unfortunate. You rarely address atheism as opposed to atheists, but your opinions on atheists, materialism, and scientism are among your most useful and interesting comments from my perspective. I would love for you to change them, and have tried to help you with that, but to no avail, but for as long as you continue to hold them, I would prefer that you could and would express them.

I understand that the forum rules are intended to keep debate and discussion civil and to avoid offending posters, but I don't think the atheists posting here are much offended by anything judging by the cool, dispassionate responses they post in response to the criticisms of the believers. I would much rather see the believers given free rein to express themselves. I am willing to be censored on my side unilaterally, and I have been. Some of my comments have also been called violations of forum rules. They were carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but they apparently are also sometimes deemed offensive in the eyes of those empowered to judge such things.

Incidentally, I took JIMMY's comment as sarcasm, but maybe not.

Nor am I ever offended by the comments of others. And I actually do welcome criticism, and I do consider it when I read it. Honestly.

Also, it's hard sometimes to identify sarcasm in this medium. So I try and treat it like spelling ... just take it at face value and hope for the best.

 

[Alien826]

Without conscious awareness, whatever remains is completely irrelevant. Moot. Of no consequence, and devoid of any differentiation. Yet this is the ever-so-important “objective reality” of the materialists. A reality that isn’t anything at all.

It makes no difference how many or how few awake minds there are in the universe. The universe is literally nothing at all without them.

OK, this is something I can get my teeth into. Thank you. And thanks for dropping the condescending tone, I really am trying to understand your point of view.

You say that without "awake minds" the universe is "literally nothing at all". That means that the universe actually, really, in fact ..... doesn't exist without these minds. I'm not sure if that implies that with the minds the universe does exist physically? OK let's examine what follows from that. Once upon a time there was no universe because there were no awake minds. So where did the minds come from? I can think of a few explanations, none of which make much sense to me.

1. The minds always existed.
2. The minds don't need physical matter (like, a brain) to exist.
3. The minds came into existence in some way unrelated to physical matter.
4. The minds are "literally" all there is.

I have a feeling that #4 is the only one that makes sense, as otherwise we would have physical objects literally popping into and out of existence as people formed mental concepts or ceased to do so.

By the way, in your first sentence you use the word "irrelevant". This suggests a different approach, that I agree with. Though it's trivially true in that "relevance" requires a mind to form that opinion, and a materialist would say so what, the universe still exists and is whatever it is.

Over to you.

 

[PureX]

OK, this is something I can get my teeth into. Thank you. And thanks for dropping the condescending tone, I really am trying to understand your point of view.

You say that without "awake minds" the universe is "literally nothing at all". That means that the universe actually, really, in fact ..... doesn't exist without these minds. I'm not sure if that implies that with the minds the universe does exist physically? OK let's examine what follows from that. Once upon a time there was no universe because there were no awake minds. So where did the minds come from? I can think of a few explanations, none of which make much sense to me.

"No universe" is an idea occurring in your mind based on an abstract binary comparison. So it doesn't apply to this "scenario" since your scenario has eliminated the mind. In fact, your whole question becomes completely meaningless and moot because there is no mind to ask or answer it. There is no awareness, ni curiosity, and no discussion without cognizance. Everything that matters begins, there. NOT with some fantasy of mindless molecules creating themselves out of nothing for no reason.

1. The minds always existed.
2. The minds don't need physical matter (like, a brain) to exist.
3. The minds came into existence in some way unrelated to physical matter.
4. The minds are "literally" all there is.

I have a feeling that #4 is the only one that makes sense, as otherwise we would have physical objects literally popping into and out of existence as people formed mental concepts or ceased to do so.

By the way, in your first sentence you use the word "irrelevant". This suggests a different approach, that I agree with. Though it's trivially true in that "relevance" requires a mind to form that opinion, and a materialist would say so what, the universe still exists and is whatever it is.

Over to you.

We can't answer this question because we are contained within it. And we can't get "outside" of existence to look back at it "obectively". All we can surmise is that somehow the possibility of existence occurred, and was then fulfilled. And to organize it's fulfillment, so that it would become something other then abject chaos, which would make something and nothing the same, and pointless, those possibilities had to came with their respective impossibilities. And it was these, together, that define the event we call existence.

But we don't know what those possibilities and impossibilities are, exactly. Nor what originated them. Nor why. Nor do we have any means of finding any of this out. So here we sit ... clueless minds in a vat of matter and energy. Imagining what the truth is because that's all we can do.

Welcome to the human condition.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, you know what I do? I usually post sources for my assertions. I pretty much leave it at that.

 

[Alien826]

"No universe" is an idea occurring in your mind based on an abstract binary comparison. So it doesn't apply to this "scenario" since your scenario has eliminated the mind. In fact, your whole question becomes completely meaningless and moot because there is no mind to ask or answer it. There is no awareness, ni curiosity, and no discussion without cognizance. Everything that matters begins, there. NOT with some fantasy of mindless molecules creating themselves out of nothing for no reason.

We can't answer this question because we are contained within it. And we can't get "outside" of existence to look back at it "obectively". All we can surmise is that somehow the possibility of existence occurred, and was then fulfilled. And to organize it's fulfillment, so that it would become something other then abject chaos, which would make something and nothing the same, and pointless, those possibilities had to came with their respective impossibilities. And it was these, together, that define the event we call existence.

But we don't know what those possibilities and impossibilities are, exactly. Nor what originated them. Nor why. Nor do we have any means of finding any of this out. So here we sit ... clueless minds in a vat of matter and energy. Imagining what the truth is because that's all we can do.

Welcome to the human condition.

I suppose I was silly expecting you to actually address what I said. So I'll just say that nothing I said should be taken to mean that I think minds don't exist, quite the contrary in fact. I just questioned the idea that amid could exist without a physical "something".

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[PureX]

I suppose I was silly expecting you to actually address what I said. So I'll just say that nothing I said should be taken to mean that I think minds don't exist, quite the contrary in fact. I just questioned the idea that amid could exist without a physical "something".

And I answered that we just don't know because we are a mind. I'm not sure what you were expecting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

The problem with religious debates is that both sides play by different rules. It has nothing to do with "ego" or whatever you wish to blame for it.

The fundamental difference between the religious believer and the non-believer in a "debate" about the religious claims, is how both sides justify belief. Or rather, what methodology is used to decided if a belief is justified.

In this case, it all comes down to what is and is not considered evidence.

For me, evidence requires independent verifiability. Evidence furthermore requires a falsifiable hypothesis.
Without such, evidence is not evidence. It's just data. Data only becomes evidence once it can be evaluated against predictions naturally flowing from a hypothesis / claim. But for that to even be possible, the claim / hypothesis requires some sort of falsifiability.

To the religious believer, that is far to restrictive as an understanding of what is and is not evidence.

On forums such as this, religious believers will claim all kinds of things as being "evidence" which simply doesn't match the above criteria:
- anecdotes
- supposed "testimony"
- the fact that there are people that believe the claims
- the claims themselves (ie: the bible is evidence of the bible)


Such thing simply don't compute as valid evidence to me.
And, I would argue, it also doesn't compute as valid evidence to them when it comes to any other subject then their own religion.
Because every one of such types of "evidence" also exist for other religions that they don't believe. But then it doesn't count, for some reason.


I simply try to be consistent in what I deem to be valid evidence and what not. In all areas. Be it religion or anything else.
Yes, this means that whenever a debate comes up regarding pretty much any and all religious claims, chances are rather ENORMOUS that they will end up in the same way as all others: me not being convinced because the "evidence" offered will not meet my standard of evidence (independent verifiability of a falsifiable hypothesis).

It just so happens that that is the nature of claims concerning ghosts, the supernatural, gods, miracles, paranormal activity, voodoo, magic, mythical creatures,... and so on.

I can not convince myself to believe unfalsifiable extra-ordinary claims. It's just how my brain operates. I see no reason to believe claims that are unfalsifiable. I see no reason to believe falsifiable claims that don't have evidence either.

I require evidence to justify belief. And I described above what I consider and do not consider evidence.
To me, that's a rational stance.


You like to fault me for this stance. You like to "accuse" me of "kangaroo court" and what-not.
But to me it just comes accross as you being butthurt of being unable to provide me with rational evidence or alike.

I actually don't really understand why me having such a standard of evidence annoys you so much.... It seems to make you very bitter for some reason. To the point that you feel like creating threads like this, where you try to paint people off as "closedminded" and "full of ego" and "intellectual failures" and what not.

It seems like badmouthing people simply because they have a standard of evidence that you can't meet.