Metacrock's Blog

Christian thinker Joe Hinman has the equivalent of a Ph.D. and is taking me to task for dealing almost exclusively with fundamentalist Christianity, here, and here. Maybe I have developed a tunnel vision about the Christian faith, and so I thank him for reminding me that Christianity is broader than fundamentalism. But as you'll see I can also deal with liberal versions of Christianity. I recommend his blog.

About me Joe said:

“I do want to thank [Loftus]. It makes it so much more interesting to dialog with an intelligent person who does not assume one is a fool. Loftus is so much more fair and reasonable and intelligent than most atheists at CARM (his other site). I forgot what it was like to deal with a real dialog partner.”
Thanks Joe. Others may disagree, but it's nice to hear you think so.

14 comments:

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

thanks John. point of info, CARM is not my site, it was started by one Mat Slick (that's his name) and he's very fundie. but I've been posting there for about ten years. It was the first message board I discovered.

I don't think Message boards are conducive to productive discussions.

WoundedEgo said...

I'm thinking that the name "Metacrock" is a confession of some sort. This moniker advertises... do not use a bathroom after THIS guy... I can't think of a handle that MORE SUGGESTS that whatever this person says will require toilet paper to remove.

But OK, perhaps it is the family name. Perhaps, long ago, there was a patriarch who lived off a dirt road just outside of a villiage where there was a monster called "FEAR" that only he could control, and thus amassed fortunes placating the alleged devil. This, I can see, would be the eponym for such a name, and one must live down our family reputation.

PERSONALLY, I have no stomach for discussing a religion that doesn't matter.

In the cult classic "Donnie Darko" the shrink asks if he thinks it matters if God exists. He replies, "Not if we all die alone."

I would say, unless the existence of God is *measurably* significant, then who cares? Maybe God is pushing all of the buttons, and calling all of the shots... but if you can't really assign a value to this "knowledge" then who cares? Make a prediction based on this info and then you have something. Otherwise, it means nothing.

That is why I am much more interested in the Bible issue. There we have real live measurable propositions. For example, we are told that the sky is a solid structure with itty bitty stars embedded in it. THAT is something I can test.

And John, here's a heads up...

Metacrock RELISHES the untestable nature of his "beliefs" so you should NOT expect to see him go "OH! I see!" any time soon!

Bill Ross - perhaps unnecessarily nasty
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

GordonBlood said...

Bill... ugh. Enough said.

zilch said...

Bill- what gordonblood said. If I want bathroom humor I can go to Frank Walton.

Anonymous said...

Bill said...perhaps unnecessarily nasty.

You know I don't tolerate this. But I'll leave it up so people can see the true offensive nature of someone who wants to be respected as an author.

Bill...Metacrock RELISHES the untestable nature of his "beliefs" so you should NOT expect to see him go "OH! I see!" any time soon!

Nope. But I don't see you convincing him that Paul was not a Jew, or that God does not love the world, or that God cannot read your mind, or that God approves of slavery either. He probably would agree with much of the rest of what you argue in your book, even if what you write is too simplistic for him.

Maybe it just bothers you that with Christians like him you don't know what to say to them.

openlyatheist said...

Just because someone is jerking you around politely it does not mean you aren't being jerked around.

I have read literally hundreds of "Metacrock's" posts from Cristianforums.com, where his old threads can be searched, and IIDB, from which he was banned for "repeatedly insulting users, and failing to abide by moderator and administrator instructions."

This person was a churlish, childish, pedantic fundy of his own personally invented religion, cobbled together from his dubious "history of ideas" degree, and consisting entirely of stolen bits and pieces from better thinkers. One who would alternately mock his opponents reasoning while hiding his own errors behind a learning disability. Anyone is free to research this claim of mine.

I can see that he has already begun his games with you, JWL. While I know you're a patient man, JWL, don't say you weren't warned that it is these "liberal" Christians, inventing their Christianity as they go along based solely on what they think they can defend, not what they can prove, who are a far worse breed than fundamentalists, who can at least stick to the letter of their holy book.

Karl Betts said...

apJohn - Some Liberal theists (myself included) choose remain open to new discoveries as to how revelation could be an on-going divine activity in history. I relate to “Metacrock” on that score, and appreciate your introducing us to him.

In response to the idea that we "relish the untestable nature" of our "beliefs." (woundedego). Indeed there is a risk of looking like we are sheltering ourselves from the realm of skepticism and epistemic justification when we cry "nolo contendere" in this arena. Rather than "relish,"-- for some of us -- our position is merely a statement of limitations when it comes to making assertions about the nature of God in the realm of analytical, empirical justification. For most educated people -- theistic, spiritual, experiential and religious content is already ruled out in any probablistic forum (much less a scientific verification forum), because it is so far afield from the post-enlightenment scientific method. It is pointless to diss the post-enlightenment scientific method, cause' dude -- I live there as I write.
Obviously, there are other categories for theological inquiry, discussions and objections.

There are some very interesting logical arguments that Plantinga and others introduce to the philosophic community that lead us into "justified belief" by way of syllogistic, meta justification, problem of evil, and the like. Christian philosophers from the Alston / Howard-Snyder school do a good job of clarifying the logical significance and implications of those contributions. In the end, you end up with some massive equivocations by atheistic and theistic philosophers alike, if not serious limitations for the theistic side in this arena as well.

Therefore, I see this blog --"Debunking Christianity" as doing a very good service to the popular, vocal, influential, Fundamentalist - Evangelical community.


"Meta" is right in his observation that you take on the easy targets (before I ever read his stuff, I've already pointed this out to you myself). That said, in terms of the popularity and consensus of your opponent,(loud and vociferous indeed!) you are taking on a giant of a historic, cultural phenomenon.

Just think of the papal authority that James Dobson in an election year!

Let me put it this way. By the time many evangelicals or fundamentalists read Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Case for Faith and Case for Christmas, they would like to believe that they've done their homework.

I see this Blog as a service to challenge the false security that that those writings and other similar pop-apologetics create.

Dinesh D'Souza is the newest of the pop-apologists, and you are already at the task of challenging him.

There's no shame in challenging the icons of popular writers and speakers who seem to dismiss the seriousness of the objections raised here.

As a Liberal, I expect to be challenged and tested here, despite the genuine (but unrelished) limitations of my position.

goprairie said...

john: while we are discussing the relevancy of labels on the 'new atheist' thread, let's take a crack at them here too.
1) fundamental vs. other types of christianity: if you can demolish fundy christianity, you don't NEED to demolish looser christianity. it is all still based on the bible, which is illogical and error filled. just because the lib christians pick and choose and make up their own meanings, they still accept it as god's inspired and preserved word. i think if you can debunk fundy, you have by default debunked it all. lib christians are held to no bounds, as they can say it means what they want. at least fundies are somewhat consistent in their literal readings.
2) metacrock, whom you are attempting to take seriously, is not worth your time. on his blog to which you link, his latest comment is that the internet is home of 'bottom feeders'. that he would post such a thing, in a place he professes to reside as such an intellectual, shows his level of reasonable rational logicl thought. i am with others in telling you not to bother with him. he labels others in order to put them down.

Steven Carr said...

All I heard was that Metacrock was having a few mental problems, but seems to be recovered.

But all that is rumour.

Shygetz said...

What would Joe have you do...debunk an ever-moving target whose only basis is a vague numinous feeling and a humanist philosophy? He stated himself that his brand of Christianity makes no verifiable propositions. There's nothing to attack (and conversely, nothing to defend; it is a factually null statement), and no reason to do so.

Liberal Christianity is only a problem insofar as it promotes faith-based thinking. In and of itself, it only promotes faith-based thinking for non-factual problems; however, such nice distinctions are often lost in the shuffle, and as a result it provides cover (inadvertantly, perhaps) for dangerous fundamentalism. After all, if faith-based thinking is good enough to answer the question of "who is my neighbor", then it's good enough to answer a relatively trivial question like "how did humans come to exist", right?

Emanuel Goldstein said...

Henry Ford used your argument a long time ago, Loftus.

And said it better...

"History is Bunk!".

So just don't go using history to back up your arguments when you feel like it...O.K.?

Valerie Tarico said...

What I find least interesting about debating with someone like Metacrock is that his version of Christianity is ideosyncratic. I don't mean it is uniquely ideosyncratic. It's pretty close, for example, to Spong's reworking of Christianity which speaks to tens of thousands of people. But it is not relevant to the main current of Christian thought either now or for the past 2000 years.

If Metacrock can come up with a nontheistic god concept that is not incompatible with what we know about ourselves and the world around us, well and fine for him. He is a very smart person, and I honor the level of abstract thinking and nuance required to attempt this.

But why should we let him get away with calling it Christianity when most Christians would not? (Consider, for example, the marginalization of Spong.)

By falling into a tacit agreement that Metacrock or Spong speaks for Christianity, we support the illusion that the main current of Christianity is somehow less cruel and ridiculous than is actually the case. Spong, at least, says explicitly that he is trying to seed the next phase of evolution of the Christian faith, a New Christianity for a New Age. But Metacrock talks, at least sometimes, as if he were simply articulating what has been the core of Christianity all along. This is simply untrue.

My concern is that it also create a distraction for those of us who are interested in debunking real-world Christianity, the Christianity that is shaping the moral priorities of hundreds of millions of people, the Christianity that may have the power to accellerate human extinction into a historically meaningful timeframe.

Anonymous said...

He and I are emailing each other and I am cautious that doing so doesn't distract me from debunking a Christianity worthy of the name.

Grog said...

I found this blog while looking for Metacrock's pages. I've engaged in several long discussions with him at carm and the observations made on this page are spot on, I'd have to say. I enjoy the discussion and he ranges from insulting to funny and self-deprecating. One thing I've noticed is that he will compartmentalize his evidence, he will use a piece of evidence to support his house of cards over here and not recognize that it crashes it down over there. Weird.

On the point that JWL starts with, Metacrock demands that critics of christianity only respond to his brand of christianity (membership of 1, as far as I can tell) and say nothing to the vast fundamentalist movement. Happens over and over again at carm. Anyway, I'm off to find his page. I'm looking for a story of his revelation. Haven't found it yet.