So much for integrity from the Christian Community
By boomSlang
Recently I attempted to engage an aspiring Christian apologist on his own blog-site in an attempt to oblige him on his site's supposed mission statement, which in part was to seek to "understand" Atheists. Let it be known that for this endeavor I even made sure to check my normally biting sarcastic edge "at the door," and I did my best to respectfully stick to the facts of the conversation.
Well, to no avail, nonetheless.
Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" atheists, I call "bullshit."This person, who by the way, frequently makes guest appearances on this site (ExChristian dot net), and who has also posted his opinion about this site on his own blog, has recently removed our entire conversation, as well as other comments I've made. At one point - a point when he evidently could not address my questions with sound, reasoned answers - this person even sought out the assistance of an apologist "pinch hitter." His excuse and method for doing so was supposedly under the premise that if I had questions regarding the articles he posted, that I should address the author of the article directly, as opposed to asking him---that is, as opposed to asking the guy who links, supports, and extols the articles on his blog in the first place. The nerve of me.
In any event, his "pinch hitter", a "she", eventually showed up on the scene to presumably set me straight on one topic of discussion, which was who has the "Burden of Proof" between theists and atheists. Without getting into great detail, it was offered by this person that "initial plausibility" can be entered into the equation when determining who has the burden of proof, depending on the nature of the discussion..i.e..whether it's "formal debate," or "just a discussion." While both she and I concede/conceded that "initial plausibility" is a debate in itself, she, of course, maintained that her position is more "plausible." Well, I maintain that that amounts to special pleading.
As for our aspiring Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" Atheists, I call "bullshit." For him, it is not about honest inquiry at all; it is about wanting his beliefs to be true, and thus, surrounding himself with people who agree with him and who support his worldview. The atheist?...huh, the atheist is the LAST person on earth he "wants to understand."
In reason, boomSLANG.
Recently I attempted to engage an aspiring Christian apologist on his own blog-site in an attempt to oblige him on his site's supposed mission statement, which in part was to seek to "understand" Atheists. Let it be known that for this endeavor I even made sure to check my normally biting sarcastic edge "at the door," and I did my best to respectfully stick to the facts of the conversation.
Well, to no avail, nonetheless.
Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" atheists, I call "bullshit."This person, who by the way, frequently makes guest appearances on this site (ExChristian dot net), and who has also posted his opinion about this site on his own blog, has recently removed our entire conversation, as well as other comments I've made. At one point - a point when he evidently could not address my questions with sound, reasoned answers - this person even sought out the assistance of an apologist "pinch hitter." His excuse and method for doing so was supposedly under the premise that if I had questions regarding the articles he posted, that I should address the author of the article directly, as opposed to asking him---that is, as opposed to asking the guy who links, supports, and extols the articles on his blog in the first place. The nerve of me.
In any event, his "pinch hitter", a "she", eventually showed up on the scene to presumably set me straight on one topic of discussion, which was who has the "Burden of Proof" between theists and atheists. Without getting into great detail, it was offered by this person that "initial plausibility" can be entered into the equation when determining who has the burden of proof, depending on the nature of the discussion..i.e..whether it's "formal debate," or "just a discussion." While both she and I concede/conceded that "initial plausibility" is a debate in itself, she, of course, maintained that her position is more "plausible." Well, I maintain that that amounts to special pleading.
As for our aspiring Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" Atheists, I call "bullshit." For him, it is not about honest inquiry at all; it is about wanting his beliefs to be true, and thus, surrounding himself with people who agree with him and who support his worldview. The atheist?...huh, the atheist is the LAST person on earth he "wants to understand."
In reason, boomSLANG.
Comments
http://christiancrosstalk.blogspot.com/
This guy even has a neat little graph "proving" that atheism will lead to human extinction. So much for the return of Jesus.
Warning: Ed gets VERY pissy when he feels cornered. He runs around chasing his tail and then WHACKS you silly for *making* him chase his tail which he realizes he's chasing after about, um, several arguments down the road. Lots of fun for you atheists who have never given Ed a spin. Warning: do NOT engage Ed while at work...loud laughter may be a signal that you are off-task. I LOVE Ed and am his number one fan!!! LOL...have fun but be nice to Special Ed.... ;-)
Some people from the theistic world just cannot see the irrationality in their argument. They can't even distinguish between day and night. It appears there is no room for any argument with them based on reason or logic.
The xtain stance is: I am right and you are wrong.
I just wonder what a Christian believed before they were convinced that they were right?
When I was around six years old, I thought the world was flat, because I could not see beyond the horizon, I also believed that I was being watched from the clouds above, this confirmed to me that a god lived in the clouds, but when I went to church, all I could see was hypocrisy and selfrighteousness and bickering amongst the church members, a power struggle if you will, noticed this even at my young age, but nothing representitive of a god there.
The nonbeliever has to be cajoled through the fear of hell to be made to conform, to bend, to be subservient to the doctrines.
In short, Christians have had their slate of rationality wiped clean and it is confirmed by the allegiance and the conformity of the selfrighteous church members.
Christians are irrational, rationality becomes a sin to the Christian believer.
What we, you and I and others here are trying to do is replace their rationality, but the mind refuses and rejects and resents being shown that it made a wrong decision, or a big stupid mistake.
A Christian's mind resents being shown it is wrong. Dead wrong, as wrong as wrong can get, because a person has to be convinced it's true outside of their own rationality.
It's like going to a party at someone's house and having stepped in a pile of dog shit in the front yard and someone says out loud, What is that terrible smell? And you look around like it couldn't be you, but yet it is you.
So Christianity is like stepping in a pile of shit and it's hard to get it all off your shoes or flip-flops...lol
Besides boomslang, what the hell are you doing at other websites? You belong over here...lol
It's hard to debate Christians on their turf because they can delete anything that opposes their deluted
view.
I would have loved to read what your responce to them was tho. <:-)
You know, part of my beef with this character, the "apologist" in question, is that when he'd lose his ass here, he'd scamper off to his own blog and post things about this site, in general---one such thing was that this site is "uninformed". He cannot back his position with sound arguments, and/or, evidence, so he concludes that people who disagree with him are "uninformed". He cannot even hold is own on his own blog, so he farms pinch-hitters to take over when he's backed into a corner.
Here is the blog, as requested:
http://simplyecclesia.com/
The conversation he and I had was titled "One apologist's burden", and has since been scrubbed. I had also commented on, "Oh, so that is a Strawman", and that, too, has been scrubbed.
I believe the owner/moderator now uses comment moderation(screening). Good luck.
I wonder where the smart Christians are, because the cyber ones seem to be the most ignorant, deluded ones.
My guess is that the "smart" ones are pew warmers who would never waste their time defending their faith online.
The faithful that come over to argue with us are the most deceived ones and that's why they sound so child-like and ignorant.
"Hi David,
Boom' here. This is my second inquiry as to why my comment on this thread was removed. There was nothing particularly offensive about it, was there? I simply stated why I believed your apologist friend misrepresented the Atheist position, which, yes, was/is technically a strawman tactic. You claimed(formerly) to want to 'understand' Atheists, yet, if you buy into people misrepresenting them, and/or, if you censor their comments, how will you ever 'understand' them? That's my question. Thanks.
In reason, boom'."
We'll see.
Why did it take me over over 40 years to finally be able to think rationally about the Buy Bull? Because Bible God will F’ you up.
He is meaner than the Piranha Brothers on Monty Python’s expose. Here is a clip:
Interviewer: I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.
Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.
Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.
Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that.
Interviewer: Why?
Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law.
Interviewer: What had you done?
Stig: Er... well he didn't tell me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. He'd do anything for you, Dinsdale would.
Interviewer: And you don't bear him a grudge?
Stig: A grudge! Old Dinsy. He was a real darling.
Interviewer: I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee table. Isn't that true Mrs O' Tracy?
Mrs O' Tracy: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Stig: Well he did do that, yeah. He was a hard man. Vicious but fair
There is nothing like a vicious God backed up by historically vicious priesthoods and clerics to put an end to rational thought. All the brutal tribal desert dogmas rose to power backed by bloody consequences for anyone that challenged them. Its origins are very Mafia like.
Apologist:“ What ? Jehovah ordering the slaughter of whole cities and ripping babies from their mothers womb, and slavery? No! No way! He is a God of Love!”
Interviewer: “Ummm but we’ve got it right here written in his Holy Scripture.”
Apologist: Well I mean yeah Ok its there but it was tough times you know,. He was vicious but fair. And quite reasonable and rational too I mean , ya know , for the times. He’s really is the best God ever! You just don’t understand him like I do”.
'Funny how you call that "debunking". 'Funnier how "hay" is for horses.
We also refer to the cats' litterboxes in our basement as the Piranha Brothers. It's time to change 'em when we hear a giant hedgehog calling "Dinsdale... Dinsdale!" from downstairs. :D
'Cruel but fair', indeed... *shudders*
do you have purpose?
--S.
Funny how desperate you are at wanting traffic at your pathetic blog. But HAAAAY, that's what we all think.
--S.
“The Italian freethinker Lucilio Vanini suggested that humans evolved from apes. In 1618 he was tried in France and found guilty of atheism and witchcraft. He had his tongue cut out, he was hanged, and his body was burned” 2
You would almost think Doug and Dinsdale Piranha were the real powers behind the Vatican.
I’ll modify Steven Bently’s quote just a bit.
“ Because of the horrifying consequences of thinking rationally, rational thinking becomes a sin to the Christian believer.”
Think of the worse torture you can imagine. Expand it to all eternity. Now ask a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim if they want to push their luck by thinking rationally.
Having worked briefly in a Mafia influenced environment years ago, you learn to shut your mouth and not ask to many questions if you know what's good for you. Capisce?
So when the blogger from whatever Christian or Muslim site is defending his faith, you can see why he has to do whatever he has to do to to silence your inquiry because in his mind the penalty for one misstep in questioning will land him in world of unimaginable suffering.
1 and 2 from Why Atheism by Mark Thomas c 2007
No, I didn't save my exchanges with him. I didn't see any reason to do so, because, well, I had no idea he'd just up and scrub an entire thread. One of his last replies to me(that's now history) included the ol' "you can lead a horse to water..." soundbite, which of course, I shredded to infinity.
It seems to me that in all this time, Christians could come up with a better analogy when trying to illustrate how their religious "faith" works. How they see a parallel between leading someone to an invisible being, and leading a horse to H2O, I'll never understand. Notwithstanding, I don't think he'll try that analogy with another Atheist any time soon.
Peace.
Laughing (with egg on my face), hey, I am human you do understand. Thanks for correcting me.
BTW There is No such thing as an Ex-Christian
Seriously, Dan: We don't believe what you believe. Live with it.
Of all the fallacious Christian arguments, this is one of the more boring and unceasing. It essentially attempts to say that once you believe something to be true, you cannot change your mind. Isn't that charming? It amounts to special pleading, as if believing the bible is truth is some sort of psychological "contract" that you cannot breach or negate. Hmmm...like.....like the theological equivalent of herpes, or some crap. Well, there's a cure. It's called Reason. As you can see, it doesn't quite get rid of all of the "sores", but it prevents the spread of the disease.
Is there such a thing as an ex-Christian?
Cliche answers Christians use when...
Dan, because you played this card, and Ray Comfort himself already accused me personally of this, I will have to play my card. Normally I like to live and let live, but I see this particular claim as an attack on my character, even though it's not directed at me personally.
Because Jesus, as he is presented in the New Testament and is viewed by modern Christendom, is more than likely a myth I would state that there is no such thing as a True Christian, thus I must agree with you that there is no such thing as an ex-Christian. There are only people like me that woke up from the dream.
an ad for a product to help people stop smoking. So, if someone says they're an ex-smoker, does that mean they were never a real smoker
to begin with? (Even if they smelled like it?)
You claim "The arrogance and pride of such individuals is striking."
(45) "There is no such thing as an ex-christian, honey."
With nothing to back up your position.
You claim "I am a former member of the centrist Christian Churches/Church of Christ " I can totally concede/agree with this true statement. It is a fact and can be proven. You just falsely called your blog something that is untrue and you are unable to back it up Biblically, that's all.
You will forever be considered an Un-Biblical false platform to gather at, be proud.
Why would an ex-Christian put stock in the Bible as a guide for anything?
Quoting scripture to someone who doesn't believe in it is useless. Proving something biblically to someone who doesn't believe the Bible is worse.
Okay....
- Prove to me, using the Book of Mormon, that Moroni didn't bury some golden slates in a hill.
- Prove to me, using the Holy Qu'ran, that Muhammad was not the Prophet of Allah.
- Prove to me, using the nursery rhyme Peter Pumpkin Eater, that he didn't shove his wife in a pumpkin shell.
Any intelligent adult can plainly see, that in employing such a tactic, I am simply asking you to first assume that my position is true, and then asking you to prove it false. Clever, huh? Ta da!
After my brief stint over at "Simply Ecclesia", here is the lastest revision in their agenda:
"Real quick I thought I should let you know that at this time Simply Ecclesia is not taking questions nor will the two contributors debate about apologetics. We are currently looking for another contributor who is more gifted and knowledgeable in this area who is able to talk to atheists or people who have questions about apologetics."
This is not how you argue or prove something. This is characteristic of circular reasoning and what is commonly known as 'begging the question.'
Anyone with an acredited college degree should know this.
Dan, are you even college educated? Stop this, it's so humiliating on your part. It's really sad.
When boomSlang mentions:
"Any intelligent adult can plainly see, that in employing such a tactic, I am simply asking you to first assume that my position is true, and then asking you to prove it false. Clever, huh? Ta da!"
This is proof rests within the realms of "proof by contradiction."
Come on, Dan; you're really bad at this.
In regards to your last post...that was the definition of COP OUT!! Those guys should be humiliated! Yeah, this is what we believe but we can't tell you why exactly....how pathetic
Just had to laugh/roll my eyes...
I left a few comments of my own on a few blogs (as Auracle). I'm not holding my breath that any of them will be approved.
But I've got screenshots. So if anyone is interested in what I've said, I'd be happy to share ;)
YAY! I was wondering when someone would try to pull the "No True Scotsman". My expectation is fulfilled - I may now watch as the master of logic tries to bungle his way out of this one.
(For those of you who don't know about the "no true scotsman", google it. It takes this conversation thread to a whole new level of hilarity.)
This does not hold up to basic logic. If you were to use the comparison to lets say Chinese people there would definitely be characteristics of a Chinese person. The originator of the "Scotsman" augment (probably an atheist, prove me wrong please) used Scotsman because of the lack of physical characteristics of a certain race. This argument wouldn't work with "true Japanese", "true Chinese" Even Obama is being compared to a "true Black man" so your argument is washed.
Christians, like Chinese, have definite characteristics of being one, albeit not physical, but distinct characteristics. A person swinging an axe at children screaming "I am a Christian" would never be confused with a Christian. Just because you all are parroting each other because some bozo thought of the 'Scotsman' augment doesn't mean you all lack logic, but you do lack leadership skills. Speak for yourselves instead of seeking "validation" from each other. Atheists look for validation, Christians are proclaiming truth.
Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said:
"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.
Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)
Dan
Wow.
Remember webmdave you were not "chosen" by God to be His. Bring it up with Him. Besides, I am not presenting myself in any way other then a wicked sinner that is in desperate need of a Savior. Thank you Jesus Christ our Lord and my Savior. I bow to Him, as you should also. You will someday but it might not be under good conditions. Be afraid, be very afraid.
It’s okay webmdave, sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you.
-noun
a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.
Would you consider the people of Scotland to be related in some way? Maybe that they are all, oh I don't know, Scottish?
Certainly they are a group.
The No True Scotsman fallacy stands, and you are guilty of using it as well as not understanding it.
- Prove to me, using the Book of Mormon, that Moroni didn't bury some golden slates in a hill.
- Prove to me, using the Holy Qu'ran, that Muhammad was not the Prophet of Allah.
- Prove to me, using the nursery rhyme Peter Pumpkin Eater, that he didn't shove his wife in a pumpkin shell.
Tick-tock tick-tock
Kind of like a scam artist on the auto boards I frequent. They only answer when they need to keep scamming people. (oh yes I did go there)
The only thing I wish I was able to do was to take back all the time he's wasted us.
From dan marvin the martian:
"Remember webmdave you were not "chosen" by God to be His."
then:
"I bow to Him, as you should also."[bold added]
If webmdave wasn't "chosen", what possible good would it do him to start kissing your gods ass?
And the missundertanding of the "No true scottsman" thing....
...and then to persist in such, such ignorance.....HAAAAAAA!HA HA HA! HEE HEE HAA HA! HO HO HEE HA HA AH!
Whew!
Oh dan...just let it go man!
I don't pretend to want to know more.
I know what could happen if the government were officially atheistic..I learned from my parents.
Who ya kidding?
Hey Dave, say high to that idiot Iggy.
He used to brag about it at the old KCFreethought site, before it went under!
LOL!
What a buffoon!
And atheists don't?
Bahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
You should visit the the KCFreethought site before it dies completely...right now the forum is belly up!
We had this guy named Iggy who bragged about "eating Christian brains" and "visiting the wrath of Hannibal Lector" on people.
Of course, he said he was kidding, but he was a real creep.
Fun to argue with though, but he always ending up running away.
I'm surprised he's still around, honestly. He's really wasting his time here. It's kinda creepy, really.
Go figure.
...... but if he is a God fearing Christian then he is my brother and I would love to hear his views at my blog Debunking Atheists
---------------
Dan,
The name of your site, "debunking atheist", is certainly an oxymoron.
In order to 'debunk' an atheist, one would have to have credible and scientifically acceptable proof for the existence of a god.
Seeing as how all xtians believe in their god on FAITH, then you obviously have no proof to offer in order to "debunk an atheist".
If xtians had real proof of their god, then no faith would be necessary and your whole dogma would then fall to pieces.
You can't have it both ways, Danny boy.
ATF (Who thinks Dan's next website will be for debunking those who deny Peter Pan is a thousand years old)
the same person, but they've proven absolutely nothing to anyone here except why we were
wise to get out of Christianity.
Please, both of you, go back to your Christian blogs and continue
living in the fairy tale you've
constructed for yourselves. You've said nothing that hasn't been said
here a thousand times before, and the result is the same..no takers.
I thought you were leaving for good? What's taking you so long?
Yeah, Dan, god's not going to like it, one bit, that you are braking one of his ten commandments and lying to us. Ohhhhhhh, you're going to helllllll.
--S.
Post a Comment