Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks V

I just happened to see this over at Uncommon Descent, and thought I'd share it with Gentle Reader --
Barry Arrington: If I Made This Stuff Up No One Would Believe Me

Mark Frank: “PVH is surely right that it is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief.”

Barry: “Mark, is it possible that that statement is wrong?”

Mark Frank: “Yes”

to which Mark Frank replied:

Can anyone explain to me what Barry finds ridiculous about this? I made an assertion. Like all assertions I might be wrong. Clearly I think I am right, but I am fallible.

The typical 'atheist' or 'skeptic' (or 'Science!' fetishist) simply doesn't *think* ... neither about what "the bad guys" say, nor about what they themselves say; even *after* it has been pointed out that there is a logical flaw in what they assert, they do not rationally/logically examine it to see the flaw for themselves.

What happened here is that in one easy step, Barry Arrington used the "Skeptical" game Mark Frank was playing against the game itself ... and against Mark Frank's 'Science!' fetishism.

Here's how the "Skeptical" game works --

You, not being a self-proclaimed 'skeptic' and paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', that is, not being a God-hater, state (or even argue) 'X'.

Now, 'X' may or may not have anything directly to do with God or morality or other such "offensive" topics, but if it leads to God or morality or so forth, then the 'skeptic', being a paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', simply *must* deny it, denegrate it, and "prove" that you're an idiot.

So, the 'skeptic', that a paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', when he can't attack what you've said on rational and logical grounds -- as he generally can't -- resorts to various forms of irrationality and illogic. Currently, one of their favorite means to denegrate the ideas they hate is play the "Radical Skepticism" card, that is, to simply deny that any knowledge is possible.

Understand this: Mark Frank, and PVH before him, didn't show any error or flaw in whatever it was that someone else had said which they woshed to deny. Instead, simply by asserting "that might be wrong/incorrect", they magically transformed it into a wrong/incorrect statement or argument.

And, if you, trying to be "civil", let them play the "Radical Skepticism" card, or worse, agree with its premises, then, for their purposes, they "win". For, keep in mind, such God-haters don't care about getting at the truth of reality, but care about getting rid of God, somehow, anyhow, and about silencing anyone who is trying to discover or explicate more about God.

==== Edit: 2013/12/02
The explanation for the fact that Mr Frank (and PVH before him) was playing an intellectually dishonest game, rather than demonstrating actual skepticism, has to do with the nature of logic and logically valid reasoning --
1) when one starts with true premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be other than true;
1a) when one starts with true premises, BUT reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises;
2) when one starts with false premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be other than false;
2b) when one starts with false premises, and reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises;
3) when one starts with possibly true premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... this is because the premises may have been false, after all -- that is, such a conclusion *may* be a case of 1) or of 2);
3a) when one starts with possibly true premises, and reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises AND the premises may or may not be true, after all -- that is, such a conclusion *may* be a case of 1a) or of 2a);

Had Mr Frank been demonstrating actual skepticism about whatever it was he wished to deny, he might have attempted to show that the premises were false; he might have attempted to show that the reasoning from the premises was logically invalid; lastly, he might have attempted to show that the truth-value of the premisses is unknown, and thus, though the resoning may have been logically valid, the conclusion cannot be trusted as being true.

He *pretended* to be taking the third tack, simply by asserting his "conclusion" that the thing he wished to deny was possibly false: either because the premisses were possibly false or because the reasoning was possibly invalid.