Amazon Vehicles Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer TheKicks TheKicks TheKicks  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Celine Dion Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > The God Delusion forum

Translating Bruce-Speak

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 49 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 12, 2012 4:33:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 4:27:21 PM PST
Bruce (paraphrasing): "According to my definition of _____, what you say makes no sense at all."

Translation: My definitions are always right, so any other ideas are banned in any conversation with me. Since I have few other arguments to make on my own, I will simply deny yours make any sense. I can do this because I am superior to atheists in every way!

Bruce (paraphrasing): "Please provide me with your peer-reviewed evidence."

Translation: I have no idea how science works or what evidence really is, and don't need it anyway because I am a believer. I will therefore, in good conscience, simply deny or ignore any references to evidence you provide. That way I can win any argument, since I am superior to atheists in every way!

Bruce (paraphrasing): "Your arguments are illogical."

I couldn't follow your arguments even if I tried, which I won't, but I don't have to anyway because as a humble believer in Jesus I am superior to atheists in every way! Plus you are all going to hell unless you believe in my dedicated and repetitious efforts to save your unreasoning souls.

Bruce: "Remember; it is incumbent upon you to offer a Logical, rather than an Illogical argument."

Translation: I take myself to be the Only Real Authority on what is Logical and what is Illogical, and I condemn your statements to the Land Of Illogic. If you don't believe I am the Absolute King of The Land Of Logic, just ask me (since I am superior to atheists in every way....) !

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 5:38:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 12, 2012 5:43:13 PM PST
Some more Bainian phrases with explanatory notes:

"Per usual you are relying on the Fallacy of the Bare Assertion (Fallacy of the Ipse Dixit)"

Translation: I am fond of using latinisms I've found in philosophy textbooks regardless of whether I understand what they mean. I also like to use capitals to show you, the reading public, I know what I'm talking about.

"Argument of the New Atheists"

Translation: I like to use the rhetoric of Christain apologists without consideration for what my opponents choose to describe themselves.

"Peer reviewed Scientific Publications"

Translation: A phrase I use to brow beat my opponents without having to demonstrate I've actually read any.

"Where can (insert concept) be found in the brain?"

Translation: If naturalism is true we must be able to find the same physical objects in the brain that we are referring to. A rhetorical device designed to deflect inquiry about how concepts might be physical.

"There must be Scientific Measurements for (insert concept)"

Translation: According to me, phenomena I consider to be transcendentals under 'Classical Christian Dualism' must be measurable physical objects under naturalism. So 'good' and 'bad' must be things you can weigh.

"According to Science what Rice Krispies are in this" (describes nutrient description information on Rice Krispies box)

Translation: Science only deals with chemical composition. That's what I understand from my apologetics texts.

For the benefit of the reading public.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 5:43:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 12, 2012 5:44:33 PM PST
Jeremy wrote: "For the benefit of the reading public."

Hi Jeremy. I always enjoy reading your contributions.

Yes, that was my motivation. Without some helpful translations of Bruce-Speak, any newcomers are likely to be quite baffled by all the apparent non-sequiturs.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 5:45:28 PM PST
Good post Jay.

The reading public deserves an explanation for Bruce-speak lest they mistake it for substantive comment.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 5:50:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 12, 2012 6:07:51 PM PST

Bruce-Speak has all the weight of Real Philosophical Discourse, and in fact Bruce does (repetitiously) convey at least a few ideas about his own positions -- as you summarized in your excellent recent post in the moral compass thread for instance. Unfortunately, Bruce apparently has no real talent for anything resembling normal conversation. (In fact, he may even be afraid of real conversation.) From him, it's all sound and fury -- and no understanding of different ideas.

Posted on Dec 13, 2012 2:32:20 PM PST
Bos Vinamou says:
Psychodynamic perspective, from an earlier post:

In 1908 Freud described what is now known as Obsessive-Compulsive as the "Anal Retentive Character". Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is today known as a condition in which one is preoccupied with rules, orderliness, and control.

Perception of one's own and others' actions and beliefs tend to be polarized ("right" or "wrong", with little or no margin between the two, with only one perceived blemish to find complete justification in discarding opposing views), along with chronic displays of rigidity and stubbornness.

Additional dynamics include:

1. rigid ownership of truth, which produces frustration and conflict. Any ability to attend to subtle cues within the social environment is lost due to this overriding perspective;

2. preoccupation with details, rules, and lists, including excessive pedantry;

3. resisting the independence of others while simultaneously demanding that others conform to their position;

4. a general inability for closure: others are punished for not being willing to deal with the issue at hand. The OCPD feels a great need to bring about absolute clarity; this need for the perfect resolution creates a seemingly never-ending tweaking of issues;

5. inappropriate self-disclosure and social friction; attention seeking and alienation, with relations sabotaged through criticism, diversion and distortion;

6. stubbornness and circular conversations (repeating patterns without resolution), inappropriate ranking and comparing, selective competence;

7. triggering, where insignificant or minor actions, statements and events produce an overreaction or inappropriate response.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 6:09:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 6:18:42 PM PST

So you also agree that Bruce's posts mean something quite different than their apparent content, though you have much different interpretations than my own. Perhaps I should reconsider Bruce's only apparently free will and surprising lack of self-reflection in your light and be done with him, but I tend to give him at least that much of the benefit of my doubts. Still, your interpretations may be more generous in that they don't blame him personally for his poor behaviors.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 7:27:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 7:31:41 PM PST
Bos Vinamou says:
Hello Jay,

Only that the content be contextualized as coming from a frustrated and distracted individual. He's responsible, especially for the manifest ill will he directs toward new & short commentaries. Looking at some, he's actually nastier toward them than the rest of us.

He's a blazing hypocrite in the abuse he inserts in many of his posts while simultaneously claiming he's only dealing with the ideas. There's also a compensatory dynamic at work--witness the fake & simulated erudition. He gives the game away by misusing categories and falling back on literalism (noticed that he's incapable of getting metaphor, irony or any significant level of nuance?). And of course the grammar errors.

Also note the weird triggering. Reviewing the forum I have noticed--as have a couple of others--that any atheist quoting Mark Twain really sets him off. And the use of "freethinker." He associates that with a conspiracy.

My background is in psych, hence my reading. But it's definitely his karma. The real irony is that he--along with a couple of his sidekicks--discredit Christianity more than a hectare of atheists.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 3:18:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 3:26:09 PM PST
Bos wrote: "He's a blazing hypocrite in the abuse he inserts in many of his posts while simultaneously claiming he's only dealing with the ideas."

That may be his most distinctive quality. I call it his lack of self-reflection. He can't seem to fathom how his arrogance and condescension have insulted and estranged his audience; how little he has accomplished at this site from the point of view of even communicating his ideas clearly, let alone convincing anyone; and how he has again and again validated our worst assumptions about theists. I know that most theists are not as bad a Bruce, but now I certainly know how bad they can be.

If Bruce understood naturalism, he would be more on his guard against his emotions and prejudices intruding on his thinking abilities. As it is, he thinks he is a unified soul with a unified message -- something others can easily see isn't true.

What he is doing is trying to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and prejudices against atheists. He's not interested in any of us as individuals at all, he's only interested in dehumanizing us. That's why he keeps writinging things like "What Scientific Evidence can you provide which demonstrates that a HUMAN MORALITY exists?" !!! He may as well write, "If you're so smart, prove to me the sky is blue!"


Posted on Dec 15, 2012 4:44:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2012 4:39:25 PM PST
Bruce wrote: "New Atheists never blame a man or a woman for anything, unless of course the person is a Christian."

Translation: I don't understand anything about atheists, new or otherwise, so I just make things up based on my religious preconceptions and my biased observations of their criticisms of religious thoughts and behaviors.

My comments: New Atheists so-called also make some very specific criticisms of Jews and Muslims, and of course we are free to criticise all sorts of other people and ideas as private citizens with free speech. We also criticise each other over particular ideas, just as Christians criticise other Christians in similar ways. If Bruce's criticism is really against bias or imbalance, then he should deal in specifics.

Posted on Dec 16, 2012 10:31:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2012 10:32:20 AM PST
On Translating Bruce's Posts:

The fact that Bruce Bain does not address the actual arguments and evidence presented by the atheists contributing to this forum, but only addresses his own equivocations and distortions of them, is an implicit acknowledgement by him that he CAN'T address them. So even if there WERE answers to such arguments and evidence, Bruce has failed by not presenting them. Whether this is because of his lack of honesty or his lack of ability is therefore a secondary issue.

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 4:39:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 4:40:10 PM PST
Bruce: "Where is the objective evidence which substaniates your conclusion?"

Translation: I ignored every evidence you ever offered so I will pretend you never offered any.

Bruce: "You have not demonstrated by Scientific Evidence than any PROBLEM exists. Neither have you demonstrated by Scientific Evidence that there exists a PROBLEM that is logically coherent with the Scientific Theory of Natural Selection."

Translation: I deny atheists the right to define abstract concepts, since I take them all to be spiritual in nature.

Bruce: "I am still waiting to see what objective evidence you can provide for a MORAL COMPASS."

Translation: Again and again, I ignore any evidence you offer.

Bruce: "What Scientific Evidence from a Peer Reviewed Science Publications can you provide which shows that an HONESTY or DISHONESTY objectively exists?"

Translation: Again and again, I deny atheists any right to abstract concepts. Atheists are not to be considered human.

Repeat forever.

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 6:41:44 PM PST
hemingway says:
Yep repetition. More like chanting than argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:26:53 PM PST
Mystére says:
He is only interested in playing word games. It always comes down to semantics with believers.

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 6:00:20 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 13, 2013 8:19:57 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2013 6:31:59 PM PST
Mystére says:
I appreciate your compassion. It's hard for me to get that concerned about him. He puts himself in this postition himself. It's his obnoxious behavior which needs to be addressed. Maybe you're right and he can't help himself. If so, he can't possibly be emotionally harmed with some accurate criticism. I think that people's behavior should be held accountable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2013 10:26:33 PM PST
Johns says:
>> it became clear to me, as it did to others, that he's mentally disabled (it doesn't take a Freud to figure this out)

What evidence is there that Freud was adroit at diagnosing mental disability? How do you define mental disability?

Posted on Jan 19, 2013 9:52:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 19, 2013 9:53:25 AM PST
Freud was a neurologist (MD) who practiced medicine at the University of Vienna. He wrote several papers concerning cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is a group of disorders that involve the brain and nervous system. It effects movement, learning, hearing, seeing and thinking. It is a mental disability.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2013 1:58:18 PM PST
Johns says:
S. Mind,
Does that mean that you consider that Bruce has cerebral palsy?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2013 6:39:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 21, 2013 4:42:28 PM PST

Are you being coy or are you just having trouble with making connections? Freud was a medical doctor (MD) in the field of neurology. Neurology is the branch of medicine that investigates, diagnoses and treats neurological disorders. Neurology is the medical speciality that studies and treats the human nervous system. The human nervous system includes the brain. Freud also was one of the pioneers in the new field of psychiatry. Both neurology and psychiatry study and treat mental/brain disorders.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 20, 2013 8:17:43 AM PST
Joe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 20, 2013 8:22:34 AM PST
Joe says:
Hey big tank, how are you? Bruce a little thorn in your ample girth?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 20, 2013 11:02:02 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 20, 2013 11:02:44 AM PST

Not really. Every once in a while I just counter people like yourself and Bruce along with the fantasy world drivel that is swirling around in your craniums.

I'm glad I can teach you and hopefully you may learn something.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2013 2:54:42 AM PST
Johns says:
>>Freud also was one of the pioneers in the new field of psychiatry.

He was a purveyor of psychoanalysis.

Psychologists sometimes get offended if they are called psychiatrists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2013 7:09:45 AM PST
Hello Johns,

Psychologist is someone who has a Ph.D. A psychiatrist is someone who is an M.D. A psychiatrist can prescribe medication and graduated from medical school with an emphasis in psychiatry or psychology as one would become a cardiologist etc... A psychologist attends university and attains their Ph.D, but does not attend medical school.

I hope that clears up any confusion and I apologize if you were already aware of the above.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  The God Delusion forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  49
Initial post:  Dec 12, 2012
Latest post:  May 30, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins by Richard Dawkins (Paperback - May 1, 2007)
4.0 out of 5 stars (3,267)