tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114609035625662111..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Hoax?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146252217333337342006-04-28T15:23:00.000-04:002006-04-28T15:23:00.000-04:00If there is a war between our sites it's just limi...If there is a war between our sites it's just limited to Sean and myself. <A HREF="http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/04/26/debunking-christianity-a-hoax-site/" REL="nofollow">He didn't let it die</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146240031444496792006-04-28T12:00:00.000-04:002006-04-28T12:00:00.000-04:00hey exb,when i think of "debunking christianity" i...hey exb,<BR/>when i think of "debunking christianity" i don't think of it as exposing it as all false. i'm convinced that Jesus (or whoever wrote on his behalf) was a closet group selectionist, a definate discipline of evolution. most evolutionists are individual selectionists, so that's why Jesus is not usually seen for who he was. my point: there's falseness to expose everywhere. One who debunks is hopefully an open minded person, not a narrow minded person. for instance, you demonstrate your open mindedness by acknowledging Rons intellect and refusing to make generalizations about christians. Hey, if christians can substantiate that what they are saying is true, i'd love to hear it. It's difficult for Christians to say the same about nonies without violating the principle of faith, so they get kind of stuck. they have to argue from a standpoint of closed mindedness since they already know the truth. when one knows something one stops looking at it.<BR/><BR/>btw, i enjoy your openness and honesty.<BR/>paulpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146236390653404862006-04-28T10:59:00.000-04:002006-04-28T10:59:00.000-04:00exb,Hear, hear!You're right about the hasty genera...exb,<BR/><BR/>Hear, hear!<BR/><BR/>You're right about the hasty generalization. I know precious little of the collective intellect there, and was basing my judgment on their response to one post. And Ra-men to the rest of your post.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146235137937223672006-04-28T10:38:00.000-04:002006-04-28T10:38:00.000-04:00I think the whole thing is funny. I was glad to b...I think the whole thing is funny. I was glad to be counted alongside the Secular Outpost as a hoax site. If you are going to get dumped on, it's better to get dumped on alongside people with good reputations.<BR/><BR/>I hope this doesn't denigrate into a blog war with god is for suckers. Who cares? If some of them don't find this site compelling, they don't. I'm fine with that. We have different purposes, and different philosophies of blogging.<BR/><BR/>I also hope that we can avoid hasty generalizations about the contributors to god is for suckers. As I mentioned there, the founder of that blog, Ron, is my brand new graduate advisor in my philosophy program. He has a PhD in philosophy from MIT, and hardly qualifies as one we can call "dumb enough" to fall for anything.<BR/><BR/>The way I see it, there is no way for us to come out of this without looking like shit. The satirical nature of Steve's original post was obvious to me, but it wasn't to Sean and a couple of others there. So, maybe shame on them for that.<BR/><BR/>But, then, they came to our own site and read it over and concluded that some Christians were getting the "upper hand," that we have "lost control" of the blog, that we are not debunking what we say we are going to debunk, that our testimonials are "wishy-washy," that we are "still searching to find answers that maybe will lead [us] back to gawd or something," etc.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that it is impossible to defend ourselves in this situation without looking worse for it. We can't say, "Don't think Christians have the upper hand here," without sounding whiny. They read what we wrote and came to a conclusion. In defending ourselves, however, we look the lamer for it.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me, the best policy here is to save as much dignity as possible and quietly move on.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146228851697305582006-04-28T08:54:00.000-04:002006-04-28T08:54:00.000-04:00Thanks Danny. I understand. And yet it's my nature...Thanks Danny. I understand. And yet it's my nature to try to get along with everyone as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>Hey, let's come up with our own little nasty rumor and spread it around....like....John and the members of this Blog are really government agents working to debunk evangelical Christianity for fear of the political power of the Christian right. Their Blog is funded by powerful special interest groups and lobbyists who are opposed to the influence of Christianity in America today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146228091812844502006-04-28T08:41:00.000-04:002006-04-28T08:41:00.000-04:00Godis4suckers may be a "sister site" with regards ...Godis4suckers may be a "sister site" with regards to their mutual disbelief in God, but I hate it that Triablogue thinks them "sister" to us in any other way.<BR/><BR/>This site exists for the purpose of debunking and debating. Their site exists "by atheists, for atheists" <A HREF="http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/04/26/debunking-christianity-a-hoax-site/#comment-15026" REL="nofollow">in their own words</A>. They aren't interested in back-and-forth with theists, and they admitted to have been banning all Triabloguers from commenting on their site. <BR/><BR/>They have the right to do whatever they want with their site, and it appears they are quite uninterested in engaging in the aspect of the "culture wars" which we are only interested in -- a transparent display of ideological contrasts.<BR/><BR/>I can't believe they were dumb enough to fall for it. They even went digging around on my sites, without emailing me first, and found them unconvincing. I feel kind of sorry for them having made an ass of themselves. Oh well...<BR/><BR/>Next time, don't lend credence to their ignorance by posting in response to their credulity. It makes us look like we're coming to their rescue. Hell, even if those rumors had started, it would only have resulted in more traffic and interest in the site. ;)nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146101351979807072006-04-26T21:29:00.000-04:002006-04-26T21:29:00.000-04:00I understand what Danny and ex-believer are saying...I understand what Danny and ex-believer are saying about Triablogue. I'm just concerned about the possibility that an ugly rumor that starts with Godis4suckers spreads around the internet. As we know, rumors grow exponentially, so nip them in the bud if possible, and if needed. And I don't want to have any problems with sister atheist sites. I'm not opposed to being skeptical when so many Christians seem to discredit us all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146092983417312382006-04-26T19:09:00.000-04:002006-04-26T19:09:00.000-04:00I agree. Most of them aren't up for debate, just ...I agree. Most of them aren't up for debate, just name calling (with a couple of exceptions). I feel sorry for any of our readers who click there for any substance.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146092565301673292006-04-26T19:02:00.000-04:002006-04-26T19:02:00.000-04:00Why take them seriously, whether they really mean ...Why take them seriously, whether they really mean it [although they wouldn't waste so much time with us if they really thought this site a farce] or not?<BR/><BR/>Who cares what they think? They come here to engage us, and as of just now, we are averaging 344 visits per day, and 728 page views. I have a blocking cookie installed, and so my own visits aren't counted. I encourage the other bloggers here to do the same -- write me at dmorgan@chem.ufl.edu to get the login information for sitemeter.com so you can too.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we have occasionally intellectual conversations with them, but more often than not, trade barbs in the circle jerk of egos that we call "debate". This is but another of their barbs. Don't elevate them to a level of importance that they don't deserve. If they have a point to make against a farcical site, they obviously make it, as a quick and dirty google search for "loftus" yielded 30 hits doing a site search on triablogue and "debunking" yielded 155 (admittedly, some didn't refer to this site).<BR/><BR/>So they're wasting a lot of breath on a facade, a farce, a hoax, aren't they? Maybe they're just really bored. I wouldn't doubt it.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.com