Debunking Christianity: A Very Sad Farewell
Debunking Christianity -- Atheism and More! A Very Sad Farewell
Steve, over at Triablogue, is an interesting fellow. If for no other reason than the spectacle of unexcelled hubris, he is worth the read.I mention this because he seems to have become obsessed with this blog. Here is what he's posted so far: Why does John Loftus ask so many dumb questions?, Debunking Loftawful bunk, Social conditioning, Exbrainer, To the ends of the earth, God can damn well damn anyone he damn well pleases, Autobiographical Atheism, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, The Loser's Club, Baby Atheism.I really don't have anything to comment on. If you want to read some of the most sophomoric and laughable ad hominem arguments that have ever been formed, peruse the above.Somehow, Steve has come under the impression that he is some kind of intellectual. In his latest post, he wants everyone to know how intelligent he is and says to John Loftus, "I can run to your right both as a believer and an unbeliever. IÂve been on both sides of the fence. YouÂre just canon fodder." He also claims to have given "rigorous counterarguments," but if you can find those anywhere in his posts, please point them out.As you can read from Steve's posts, apparently his idea of "rigorous counterarguments" is the "You're-a-big-liar" defense. That's where he assumes you are a liar and proclaims himself the winner of a debate.Anyway, if you need a good laugh, read through some of Steve's "arguments." I tried to stick with the blog hoping that something intelligent would be said, but I think I've read enough to know that they really have nothing. From now on, I'm going to read a more intelligent Christian blog.-----------------------The following is added by John...Look at the hermeneutical skills of evanmay here. The people at triablogue do not seem to be able to properly exegete simple sentences, so how do they propose to properly understand paragraphs, arguments, mild arguments, and/or complex arguments? How can they propose to even understand their Bible? Most all of the same hermeneutical skills are required.If God exists, his first order of business should be to save himself from these so-called defenders of his. They only serve to remind me almost everytime they post something why I'm glad to have left what they seek to defend. Their behavior is indicative of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not exist because they exhibit none of the fruits of the Spirit.My challenge to evanmay: Prove to me that you can properly understand what I meant with my one liner, and thereby debunk yourself, or, forever be thought of by me as being so blinded by your faith that you cannot think straight.Your choice.----------------------------And while you're exegeting my statement, try properly exegeting these verses:12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. 13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. [I Peter 1:12-17]9 Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing. 10 For “Those who desire life and desire to see good days,let them keep their tongues from evil and their lips from speaking deceit; 11 let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”13 Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? 14 But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, 15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. [I Peter 3:9-16]I don't have to follow this advice, but with only a few exceptions I think I do much better than they do at following it, and I don't claim to have the Holy Spirit helping me either.
EB: “He also claims to have given ‘rigorous counterarguments’, but if you can find those anywhere in his posts, please point them out.”Though I have not read all of Steve’s opinion pieces, I’ve not found anything in what I have read of them that I would call “rigorous counterarguments.” Indeed, it’s not at all clear to me what it is he thinks he is trying to prove, other than that he has deep resentment for John Loftus for some reason. When I first discovered Triablogue some months ago, I was looking forward to reading at least somewhat interesting material since I thought James Anderson was associated with it, and from what I can tell James tends to focus on issues rather than on personalities. Lately, however, Triablogue has acquired the stale air of a frat boy bacchanalia, where self-styled “apologists” frolic in a clumsy manner, not unlike the Three Stooges, patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other for who knows what. I’m always amused when people who want to take belief in invisible magic beings seriously indulge in heckling non-believers simply for the fact that they don’t buy into their mystic nonsense. They seem ever so anxious to find occasion to call their critics “stupid” or “moronic” or “ignorant,” as if their god-belief required the most profound intellect possible to man. They apparently don't have anything else at their disposal. I suppose that if they didn't have atheists to lampoon, they'd eventually turn on each other as believers do so often. Regards,Dawson
February 24, 2006 at 6:43 AM
You made me laugh. That last link was a great comic comparison. Come on Steve, bring on the substance anyday now.
Frank, as I said, when someone attacks me and belittles me and then has the gall to post his conversion story which is supposed to show that God changes lives, then I have a right to analyse that as an argument. In it I read where 1) Paul Manata witnesses his own father beating up his mother; 2) and I am absolutely alarmed by the wanton evil desire of his to anonymously beat up one person from each state with a baseball bat; 3) I see he never came forward to the police after his conversion to own up for his deeds, which would have put the victims at ease, knowing who it was and that he repented, and then 4) he exhibits the same type of verbal harrassing behavior in how he still deals with people like me, 5) then I think it's not inappropriate to tell him what psychologists will say about the future prospects are when it comes to his wife. As I said, I may have prevented him from doing just that because he will think about what I said, and of all people he will not want me to be right about anything. You however, only want to attack me. His wife may thank me someday.I wrote to Paul:What I said was not personal. But you’re taking it that way, and in a way I understand this, from your perspective. But it’s not from mine. Just like those who have been molested usually become molesters, so also, those raised in an environment like yours with the hate you express will usually beat their wives. These are facts, based upon science and probability. And I’m merely stating these things, not to piss you off, although I can understand why you are, but to offer a psychological critique of you claimed Holy Spirit life changing experience in advance of you doing what I think you will probably do to your wife. And when you do, I hope you think of me, since I was the only one who told you the truth, although once again I hope you don’t. You also realize that I don't believe in a Holy Spirit Conversion. So, I am merely pointing out, from my perspective, that you really haven’t changed that much. I think this is fair game, when you propose to say you have changed because you’ve come to the objective truth. If you put out your story, like the Apostle Paul did, as an example of the truth of Christianity and how Christ changes lives, then why can’t I evaluate it without you charging I did it because I’m pissed off at you for beating my arguments to the ground. You did no such thing at all. And I didn’t do here what you claim I did. Nor did I demean you here in this response by belittling you.Frank, would you please deal with what I wrote above? But since you cannot think through these things Frank, you now personally attack me. But I have thicker skin than most. And the more you attack me the more attention we'll get here at Debunking Christianity. They'll want to come see for themselves. So keep it up, please. And more Christians will read through our stuff.You are not a deep thinker at all--there are much harsher ways to put this. No wonder you don't allow comments on your blog. What you say cannot be backed up.
Perhaps they've already spent their intellectual capital coming up with puns and wordplay for their post titles?
February 24, 2006 at 8:52 AM
John (and other contributers) --I'm curious if you've ever spent any time reading Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/).
Anonymous: "I'm curious if you've ever spent any time reading Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/)."I can't say I have, though it's possible I did at some point in the past (the trouble with reading a lot is the potential for forgetting where you read something summoned to memory).For grins, I clicked on the link and found some guy worried that his girlfriend did not think he is handsome. Obviously you had something else in mind. If you feel there's something important or earth-shattering at that website, could you pinpoint it for us? Is there a magic argument on that site somewhere?
February 24, 2006 at 9:59 AM
What a bunch of subtle sophistry and deceit. You posted your diatribe about Triablogue just so you could post the link to other blog. This wasn't about Steve it is about the fact your sophomoric arguments fall flat, and you needed to insert this link to take another cheap shot, just like your comments to Manata. Your pretty transparent John.
SA,I wrote this post, not John.Yes, I posted this just so that I could link the other site. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being called a "country bumpkin" and a liar.
February 24, 2006 at 11:14 AM
This is from his Baby Atheism post:If you stare atheism square in the face, with glint-eyed honesty, it’s all pins and needles, broken glass and razor wire. No safety net. No security blanket. No tummy rubs or back pats.I see now. Religion isn't about finding "truth" in our universe and explaining the mysteries of life. Rather, it is a security blanket to make you feel good when things aren't going your way. Just like when mommy used to kiss your scraped knee to make if feel better.I think this guy was weaned way too early as a child.
EB- My apologies, I thought John had written this post. My point is, the link was unnecessary.
February 24, 2006 at 11:40 AM
SA,The link was my lame attempt at humor. I definitely don't associate you or any of the people at triablogue with that kind of whackiness.I should definitely stick to my day job as a humorless academic.
February 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM
A quick look at the posts at Triablogue tells me that the people there are republiKKKans. I can see how the racist, homophobic, chauvinistic and violent god of the bible would appeal to you guys
February 24, 2006 at 1:43 PM
That's a rather spectacular set of ad hominems, all right. (Why are all these Christians so angry?) The author of Triablogue seems to have studied at the J.P. Holding School of Apologetics, where the way to "win" a debate is to come up with the most creative insult and proclaim your superior intellect the loudest.
February 24, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Hmmm, I keep wondering when the call for civility will actually kick in?
February 24, 2006 at 3:36 PM
SA,You mean the call for civility that was mocked in steve's and evanmay's posts? The call for civility that was explicitly rejected by triablogue? The call to civility that meant I wouldn't say anything while triablogue called me a liar, a bumpkin, and other such names?Is that the call for civility that you are wondering when it will kick in?
February 24, 2006 at 3:47 PM
The good laugh came when I read your blog not the Triablogue... attention has come to your blog... but certainly not attention of which you would be in agreement with. It is sadly you that buys into mystic nonsense.... all said in love.
It's pretty ironic to see streetapologist first posting things like this:"What a bunch of subtle sophistry and deceit.... This wasn't about Steve it is about the fact your sophomoric arguments fall flat, and you needed to insert this link to take another cheap shot, just like your comments to Manata."...and then calling for civility in his very next post in the same thread. You reap what you sow; when you make nasty comments, you should expect to be answered in kind. We atheists tend not to take insults lying down.
Ebonmuse- There is nothing ironic. There is huge difference between sophistry, which EB would recognize as regarding *argumentation versus painting a picture of Christians as nothing more than a bunch of racists etc. (Read Othello's remarks) There is a difference.
And I suppose the use of terms such as "deceit", "cheap shot", and "sophomoric" (which my dictionary defines as "conceited and overconfident but poorly informed and immature") is standard debating practice also? Do you really intend for us to read your post and come away thinking you meant nothing personal by it?Bottom line, streetapologist: Your post was hostile and insulting in tone, like Triablogue's, and you were answered in kind. If you want to be treated gently, you need to treat others that way as well.
I am not the one that is supposedly thin skinned. I can handle ad hominems just fine. Follow along Ebonmuse, I am pointing out hypocrisy. Supposedly the fellows at Triablogue weren't playing nicely (in the subjective opinion of some at this blog) John went out of his way to say that those who were posting here were going to be held to a standard, which I did (look back through the comments) prior to Thursday. Then all of the sudden the game changed and those posting stopped being interested in rational discourse and began using sick and degenerate language in reference to God (when the self-imposed policy precluded such behavior)and to Christians. I am a big boy, and I know the risks involved talking with atheists, I am not afraid of the language, rather I am pointing the double standard. Its called sarcasm :)
February 24, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Hey frank, real blogs allow comments.Or are yiou afraid of what response you might get?? I suspect you are....and you should be.
You are afraid, frank. But I don't blame you. There wouldn't be many nice comments.
streetapologist,I am a former christian (although my family does not know this yet). I don't want to go into any detail about my deconversion, but my immersion in the faith exposed me to a side of christianity that is diametrically opposed to the image of the loving benefactor painted sunday afer sunday in most churhes.I do not have to paint a picture of christians as racists. All I have to do is look at the Pat Robertsons, the Fallwells and the George Bushes of fundamentalist christendom to become convinced. If I happen to be wrong and it turns out that there is a god and this god is the christian god, then I would rather spend an eternity in hell with folks like exbeliever, John Loftus, Carl Sagan, Gandhi(as he was hindhu I am sure you believe he is roasting in hell)than one second in paradise with these hateful warmongers and you.
February 24, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Hey Frank,Is "Frank Walton" an alias for Clarence Thomas?
Ooh, ooh!Can I add a quick, ironic note that typifies the Triablogue intelligence.John added some ideas to this post. You all probably noticed because of the huge freakin' red letters that said, "The following is added by John. . ."Now, the irony is that steve and gene decide to mock MY exegetical skills by missing those huge red letters (that I know were there before 3 pm when I saw them) and attributing that entire section to ME instead of John.Wow, these guys are rocket scientists, aren't they? They are really careful, thorough scholars I see.I asked for an admission of mistake on their site, but I'm not going to hold my breath.These shmucks are unbelievable!
Until Frank Walton will allow comments on his site, he will not be allowed to post any comments on mine. He could allow them, ya, know, by merely moderating them and not posting the offensive ones.
February 25, 2006 at 8:30 AM
Good move, john.I really enjoy your blog. But, in the end, it's pointless, I think.It's near impossible to convince indoctrinated individuals. Those like you, who are able to break free from the indoctrination, will do so on their own because of a personal search for truth.Third party influence doesn't work in this regard, unfortunately.
February 25, 2006 at 9:43 PM
"Until Frank Walton will allow comments on his site, "You have to admit though that it's pretty damn funny that he doesn't allow comments yet expects others to put up with his garbage on their blogs.
March 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM
I don't believe John's blog is pointless at all. The war will be won (or lost) by thousands or millions of small battles. This blog won't of itself change the course of human affairs but it may play help. People are out on the internet searching for answers and every reasonable voice out there increases the chance that people will be steered toward the truth.Keep it up, John, you're doing the right thing!Ken
Debunking Christianity: A Very Sad Farewell
Debunking Christianity -- Atheism and More! A Very Sad Farewell
Steve, over at Triablogue, is an interesting fellow. If for no other reason than the spectacle of unexcelled hubris, he is worth the read.I mention this because he seems to have become obsessed with this blog. Here is what he's posted so far: Why does John Loftus ask so many dumb questions?, Debunking Loftawful bunk, Social conditioning, Exbrainer, To the ends of the earth, God can damn well damn anyone he damn well pleases, Autobiographical Atheism, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, The Loser's Club, Baby Atheism.I really don't have anything to comment on. If you want to read some of the most sophomoric and laughable ad hominem arguments that have ever been formed, peruse the above.Somehow, Steve has come under the impression that he is some kind of intellectual. In his latest post, he wants everyone to know how intelligent he is and says to John Loftus, "I can run to your right both as a believer and an unbeliever. IÂve been on both sides of the fence. YouÂre just canon fodder." He also claims to have given "rigorous counterarguments," but if you can find those anywhere in his posts, please point them out.As you can read from Steve's posts, apparently his idea of "rigorous counterarguments" is the "You're-a-big-liar" defense. That's where he assumes you are a liar and proclaims himself the winner of a debate.Anyway, if you need a good laugh, read through some of Steve's "arguments." I tried to stick with the blog hoping that something intelligent would be said, but I think I've read enough to know that they really have nothing. From now on, I'm going to read a more intelligent Christian blog.-----------------------The following is added by John...Look at the hermeneutical skills of evanmay here. The people at triablogue do not seem to be able to properly exegete simple sentences, so how do they propose to properly understand paragraphs, arguments, mild arguments, and/or complex arguments? How can they propose to even understand their Bible? Most all of the same hermeneutical skills are required.If God exists, his first order of business should be to save himself from these so-called defenders of his. They only serve to remind me almost everytime they post something why I'm glad to have left what they seek to defend. Their behavior is indicative of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not exist because they exhibit none of the fruits of the Spirit.My challenge to evanmay: Prove to me that you can properly understand what I meant with my one liner, and thereby debunk yourself, or, forever be thought of by me as being so blinded by your faith that you cannot think straight.Your choice.----------------------------And while you're exegeting my statement, try properly exegeting these verses:12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. 13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. [I Peter 1:12-17]9 Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing. 10 For “Those who desire life and desire to see good days,let them keep their tongues from evil and their lips from speaking deceit; 11 let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”13 Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? 14 But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, 15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. [I Peter 3:9-16]I don't have to follow this advice, but with only a few exceptions I think I do much better than they do at following it, and I don't claim to have the Holy Spirit helping me either.
EB: “He also claims to have given ‘rigorous counterarguments’, but if you can find those anywhere in his posts, please point them out.”Though I have not read all of Steve’s opinion pieces, I’ve not found anything in what I have read of them that I would call “rigorous counterarguments.” Indeed, it’s not at all clear to me what it is he thinks he is trying to prove, other than that he has deep resentment for John Loftus for some reason. When I first discovered Triablogue some months ago, I was looking forward to reading at least somewhat interesting material since I thought James Anderson was associated with it, and from what I can tell James tends to focus on issues rather than on personalities. Lately, however, Triablogue has acquired the stale air of a frat boy bacchanalia, where self-styled “apologists” frolic in a clumsy manner, not unlike the Three Stooges, patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other for who knows what. I’m always amused when people who want to take belief in invisible magic beings seriously indulge in heckling non-believers simply for the fact that they don’t buy into their mystic nonsense. They seem ever so anxious to find occasion to call their critics “stupid” or “moronic” or “ignorant,” as if their god-belief required the most profound intellect possible to man. They apparently don't have anything else at their disposal. I suppose that if they didn't have atheists to lampoon, they'd eventually turn on each other as believers do so often. Regards,Dawson
February 24, 2006 at 6:43 AM
You made me laugh. That last link was a great comic comparison. Come on Steve, bring on the substance anyday now.
Frank, as I said, when someone attacks me and belittles me and then has the gall to post his conversion story which is supposed to show that God changes lives, then I have a right to analyse that as an argument. In it I read where 1) Paul Manata witnesses his own father beating up his mother; 2) and I am absolutely alarmed by the wanton evil desire of his to anonymously beat up one person from each state with a baseball bat; 3) I see he never came forward to the police after his conversion to own up for his deeds, which would have put the victims at ease, knowing who it was and that he repented, and then 4) he exhibits the same type of verbal harrassing behavior in how he still deals with people like me, 5) then I think it's not inappropriate to tell him what psychologists will say about the future prospects are when it comes to his wife. As I said, I may have prevented him from doing just that because he will think about what I said, and of all people he will not want me to be right about anything. You however, only want to attack me. His wife may thank me someday.I wrote to Paul:What I said was not personal. But you’re taking it that way, and in a way I understand this, from your perspective. But it’s not from mine. Just like those who have been molested usually become molesters, so also, those raised in an environment like yours with the hate you express will usually beat their wives. These are facts, based upon science and probability. And I’m merely stating these things, not to piss you off, although I can understand why you are, but to offer a psychological critique of you claimed Holy Spirit life changing experience in advance of you doing what I think you will probably do to your wife. And when you do, I hope you think of me, since I was the only one who told you the truth, although once again I hope you don’t. You also realize that I don't believe in a Holy Spirit Conversion. So, I am merely pointing out, from my perspective, that you really haven’t changed that much. I think this is fair game, when you propose to say you have changed because you’ve come to the objective truth. If you put out your story, like the Apostle Paul did, as an example of the truth of Christianity and how Christ changes lives, then why can’t I evaluate it without you charging I did it because I’m pissed off at you for beating my arguments to the ground. You did no such thing at all. And I didn’t do here what you claim I did. Nor did I demean you here in this response by belittling you.Frank, would you please deal with what I wrote above? But since you cannot think through these things Frank, you now personally attack me. But I have thicker skin than most. And the more you attack me the more attention we'll get here at Debunking Chris
tianity. They'll want to come see for themselves. So keep it up, please. And more Christians will read through our stuff.You are not a deep thinker at all--there are much harsher ways to put this. No wonder you don't allow comments on your blog. What you say cannot be backed up.
Perhaps they've already spent their intellectual capital coming up with puns and wordplay for their post titles?
February 24, 2006 at 8:52 AM
John (and other contributers) --I'm curious if you've ever spent any time reading Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/).
Anonymous: "I'm curious if you've ever spent any time reading Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/)."I can't say I have, though it's possible I did at some point in the past (the trouble with reading a lot is the potential for forgetting where you read something summoned to memory).For grins, I clicked on the link and found some guy worried that his girlfriend did not think he is handsome. Obviously you had something else in mind. If you feel there's something important or earth-shattering at that website, could you pinpoint it for us? Is there a magic argument on that site somewhere?
February 24, 2006 at 9:59 AM
What a bunch of subtle sophistry and deceit. You posted your diatribe about Triablogue just so you could post the link to other blog. This wasn't about Steve it is about the fact your sophomoric arguments fall flat, and you needed to insert this link to take another cheap shot, just like your comments to Manata. Your pretty transparent John.
SA,I wrote this post, not John.Yes, I posted this just so that I could link the other site. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being called a "country bumpkin" and a liar.
February 24, 2006 at 11:14 AM
This is from his Baby Atheism post:If you stare atheism square in the face, with glint-eyed honesty, it’s all pins and needles, broken glass and razor wire. No safety net. No security blanket. No tummy rubs or back pats.I see now. Religion isn't about finding "truth" in our universe and explaining the mysteries of life. Rather, it is a security blanket to make you feel good when things aren't going your way. Just like when mommy used to kiss your scraped knee to make if feel better.I think this guy was weaned way too early as a child.
EB- My apologies, I thought John had written this post. My point is, the link was unnecessary.
February 24, 2006 at 11:40 AM
SA,The link was my lame attempt at humor. I definitely don't associate you or any of the people at triablogue with that kind of whackiness.I should definitely stick to my day job as a humorless academic.
February 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM
A quick look at the posts at Triablogue tells me that the people there are republiKKKans. I can see how the racist, homophobic, chauvinistic and violent god of the bible would appeal to you guys
February 24, 2006 at 1:43 PM
That's a rather spectacular set of ad hominems, all right. (Why are all these Christians so angry?) The author of Triablogue seems to have studied at the J.P. Holding School of Apologetics, where the way to "win" a debate is to come up with the most creative insult and proclaim your superior intellect the loudest.
February 24, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Hmmm, I keep wondering when the call for civility will actually kick in?
February 24, 2006 at 3:36 PM
SA,You mean the call for civility that was mocked in steve's and evanmay's posts? The call for civility that was explicitly rejected by triablogue? The call to civility that meant I wouldn't say anything while triablogue called me a liar, a bumpkin, and other such names?Is that the call for civility that you are wondering when it will kick in?
February 24, 2006 at 3:47 PM
The good laugh came when I read your blog not the Triablogue... attention has come to your blog... but certainly not attention of which you would be in agreement with. It is sadly you that buys into mystic nonsense.... all said in love.
It's pretty ironic to see streetapologist first posting things like this:"What a bunch of subtle sophistry and deceit.... This wasn't about Steve it is about the fact your sophomoric arguments fall flat, and you needed to insert this link to take another cheap shot, just like your comments to Manata."...and then calling for civility in his very next post in the same thread. You reap what you sow; when you make nasty comments, you should expect to be answered in kind. We atheists tend not to take insults lying down.
Ebonmuse- There is nothing ironic. There is huge difference between sophistry, which EB would recognize as regarding *argumentation versus painting a picture of Christians as nothing more than a bunch of racists etc. (Read Othello's remarks) There is a difference.
And I suppose the use of terms such as "deceit", "cheap shot", and "sophomoric" (which my dictionary defines as "conceited and overconfident but poorly informed and immature") is standard debating practice also? Do you really intend for us to read your post and come away thinking you meant nothing personal by it?Bottom line, streetapologist: Your post was hostile and insulting in tone, like Triablogue's, and you were answered in kind. If you want to be treated gently, you need to treat others that way as well.
I am not the one that is supposedly thin skinned. I can handle ad hominems just fine. Follow along Ebonmuse, I am pointing out hypocrisy. Supposedly the fellows at Triablogue weren't playing nicely (in the subjective opinion of some at this blog) John went out of his way to say that those who were posting here were going to be held to a standard, which I did (look back through the comments) prior to Thursday. Then all of the sudden the game changed and those posting stopped being interested in rational discourse and began using sick and degenerate language in reference to God (when the self-imposed policy precluded such behavior)and to Christians. I am a big boy, and I know the risks involved talking with atheists, I am not afraid of the language, rather I am pointing the double standard. Its called sarcasm :)
February 24, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Hey frank, real blogs allow comments.Or are yiou afraid of what response you might get?? I suspect you are....and you should be.
You are afraid, frank. But I don't blame you. There wouldn't be many nice comments.
streetapologist,I am a former christian (although my family does not know this yet). I don't want to go into any detail about my deconversion, but my immersion in the faith exposed me to a side of christianity that is diametrically opposed to the image of the loving benefactor painted sunday afer sunday in most churhes.I do not have to paint a picture of christians as racists. All I have to do is look at the Pat Robertsons, the Fallwells and the George Bushes of fundamentalist christendom to become convinced. If I happen to be wrong and it turns out that there is a god and this god is the christian god, then I would rather spend an eternity in hell with folks like exbeliever, John Loftus, Carl Sagan, Gandhi(as he was hindhu I am sure you believe he is roasting in hell)than one second in paradise with these hateful warmongers and you.
February 24, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Hey Frank,Is "Frank Walton" an alias for Clarence Thomas?
Ooh, ooh!Can I add a quick, ironic note that typifies the Triablogue intelligence.John added some ideas to this post. You all probably noticed because of the huge freakin' red letters that said, "The following is added by John. . ."Now, the irony is that steve and gene decide to mock MY exegetical skills by missing those huge red letters (that I know were there before 3 pm when I saw them) and attributing that entire section to ME instead of John.Wow, these guys are rocket scientists, aren't they? They are really careful, thorough scholars I see.I asked for an admission of mistake on their site, but I'm not going to hold my breath.These shmucks are unbelievable!
Until Frank Walton will allow comments on his site, he will not be allowed to post any comments on mine. He could allow them, ya, know, by merely moderating them and not posting the offensive ones.
February 25, 2006 at 8:30 AM
Good move, john.I really enjoy your blog. But, in the end, it's pointless, I think.It's near impossible to convince indoctrinated individuals. Those like you, who are able to break free from the indoctrination, will do so on their own because of a personal search for truth.Third party influence doesn't work in this regard, unfortunately.
February 25, 2006 at 9:43 PM
"Until Frank Walton will allow comments on his site, "You have to admit though that it's pretty damn funny that he doesn't allow comments yet expects others to put up with his garbage on their blogs.
March 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM
I don't believe John's blog is pointless at all. The war will be won (or lost) by thousands or millions of small battles. This blog won't of itself change the course of human affairs but it may play help. People are out on the internet searching for answers and every reasonable voice out there increases the chance that people will be steered toward the truth.Keep it up, John, you're doing the right thing!Ken