tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115143760906192659..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: I Feel JeebusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152553417823495772006-07-10T13:43:00.000-04:002006-07-10T13:43:00.000-04:00Gene,It is an established maxim and moral that he ...Gene,<BR/><BR/><I>It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.</I><BR/>-- Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17<BR/><BR/>The apology is awful late in coming? What would Jesus do?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151677593716356082006-06-30T10:26:00.000-04:002006-06-30T10:26:00.000-04:00deathofseasons,Go ahead and send me your email (th...deathofseasons,<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and send me your email (through a comment on my blog) so we can talk details.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151644820521089422006-06-30T01:20:00.000-04:002006-06-30T01:20:00.000-04:00I hate the format of Carm. How about email and the...<B>I hate the format of Carm. How about email and then we can post it wherever we want?<BR/><BR/>Put a comment on my blog with your email address (I won't publish it). I'll write you and we can work out the details.</B><BR/><BR/>OK, that's fair. Let me contact the admins at carm to see if I can post our e-mail exchanges at carm. Give me a day or two for them to reply. If they don't like that, I will set up a blog or a discussion forum where I can post our e-mail exchanges.<BR/><BR/>Talk to you soon. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151642773451861642006-06-30T00:46:00.000-04:002006-06-30T00:46:00.000-04:00I hate the format of Carm. How about email and th...I hate the format of Carm. How about email and then we can post it wherever we want?<BR/><BR/>Put a comment on my blog with your email address (I won't publish it). I'll write you and we can work out the details.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151642561068019562006-06-30T00:42:00.000-04:002006-06-30T00:42:00.000-04:00John Loftus wrote:"First they attacked Babinski, t...John Loftus wrote:<BR/><BR/>"First they attacked Babinski, then exbeliever, then me, then Dagoods, and now it's your turn Morgan. Step up! How does it feel? Just kidding. But I wonder how anyone would feel if they were attacked like this...anyone. It's not pleasant, nor kind, nor productive, nor advancing the arguments pro or con, nor fair. It's a digression. Why can't they just deal with the arguments. leave personalities out of it. But they drag us down into the mud with them to have it out. It's disgusting. And we have each been dragged down there to defend ourselves. Why? Because our integrity matters to us. And who says atheists don't have any morals? Integrity. That's a moral character. Thanks for having it Daniel!"<BR/><BR/> I cannot wait until they attack me! I would love to see how Frank Walton, this Gene fellow, and some of the Triabloggers respond to my stuff as more of it gets published!<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151641838480892872006-06-30T00:30:00.000-04:002006-06-30T00:30:00.000-04:00If you are willing to state TAG (or any other argu...<B>If you are willing to state TAG (or any other argument for the existence of God) explicitly, then I would be more than willing to take you up on your debate offer (of course, this is what I was willing to do from the beginning on my blog, but you didn't seem to agree with this at the time).</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I will state an argument for the existence of God. But I much prefer to post at carm (which is independent for both of us) and there are debate boards that are set aside for one on one debates. You can of course post the debate at your blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151638854932234512006-06-29T23:40:00.000-04:002006-06-29T23:40:00.000-04:00I've noticed that both Corey and Frank have some d...I've noticed that both Corey and Frank have some difficulties with not only reading comprehension but also spelling and grammar. A good liberal arts education might help to rectify these issues in addition, hopefully, to correcting their tenuous grasp on argumentation.Nihlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10212972916007086778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151624837786282942006-06-29T19:47:00.000-04:002006-06-29T19:47:00.000-04:00Deathofseasons,I just posted all of your past comm...Deathofseasons,<BR/><BR/>I just posted all of your past comments that didn't make the cut <A HREF="http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/2006/06/comment-hell-where-naughty-comments-go.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. So, even though you intentionally disregarded my comment policy and then complained when I did exactly what I said I would do, they are now on my blog. Happy?<BR/><BR/>Now, let's go back a little here. In <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c115154308189543714" REL="nofollow">this comment</A>, it seems as if you are implying that you are willing to state TAG explicitly. Am I reading you right? Because you certainly didn't state it in the comments that I just posted to my blog.<BR/><BR/>If you are willing to state TAG (or any other argument for the existence of God) explicitly, then I would be more than willing to take you up on your debate offer (of course, this is what I was willing to do from the beginning on my blog, but you didn't seem to agree with this at the time).<BR/><BR/>Am I hearing you correctly? Are you willing to explicitly make an argument for the Christian God that we can debate? If that is, indeed, the case, I'll make you a guest contributor on my blog and we can have the discussion there.<BR/><BR/>Tell me what you think.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151621931105973892006-06-29T18:58:00.000-04:002006-06-29T18:58:00.000-04:00No shit dude, the more you post the more you sound...No shit dude, the more you post the more you sound like an ass.<BR/><BR/>I'll tell you what I'm wondering, is this:<BR/><BR/>Being Cory/Frank can't read, or comprehend are we going to have to support his ass by welfare and food stamps. There's no way this clown could land a job.<BR/><BR/>Hey Cory/Frank , are you on welfare and food stamps? I'll bet you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151607895848906272006-06-29T15:04:00.000-04:002006-06-29T15:04:00.000-04:00Seriously, might I suggest an adult-education cour...Seriously, might I suggest an adult-education course on reading comprehension?Nihlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10212972916007086778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151583077794549042006-06-29T08:11:00.000-04:002006-06-29T08:11:00.000-04:00Corey,Does Gene owe me an apology? A retraction?Corey,<BR/><BR/>Does Gene owe me an apology? A retraction?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151583028147291032006-06-29T08:10:00.000-04:002006-06-29T08:10:00.000-04:00Corey,You're a little late. I'm sure you already ...Corey,<BR/><BR/>You're a little late. I'm sure you already read the "Libel?" post at the Triablogue (darn those trilly-boogers!), and so you're just repeating what has already been said, and I dealt with in the comments section there.<BR/><BR/>Note first that libel potential requires a statement of fact about someone. It is pretty clear here I am airing an <I>opinion</I> about an <I>unspecified group of people</I> (those familiar with Frank's antics) and what they <B>probably</B> spend their time wondering...<BR/><BR/>Am I denying that I indirectly insulted Frank...? Of course not. I first directly insulted Frank via email, who chose to "go public" with this spectacle, and my anger got the best of me, really. At the same time, though, I think this little flame war has been good for me. It has helped me to clearly expose the moral vacuity of some Christians [unnamed]. And, those with any sense will see that, and exactly what is going on here.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Corey, but your thought about this disparaging comment isn't original, and let me ask you point blank: did you already read the post entitled "Libel?" on the Triablogue site?<BR/><BR/>BTW, the insult is indirectly to Frank only, as everyone understands the colloquial usage of "your parents used drugs during your gestation" is an insult to the <I>person</I> as it implies something happened to that person as a fetus which produced the negative traits we observe in them today. Everyone understands the colloquial usage. Except you, apparently. The reference to the parents is not to be taken seriously in this usage, nor any allegation of actual drug use, but instead, it is understood [by everyone but you and Steve, apparently] that the insult is to the person addressed.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151558433948508192006-06-29T01:20:00.000-04:002006-06-29T01:20:00.000-04:00Even more unbelievable!Danny made an assumption ab...Even more unbelievable!<BR/><BR/>Danny made an assumption about Frank's parents via "people familiar with Frank's antics." Oh, but, that comment about Frank's parents... it was <I>just</I> a random comment.<BR/><BR/>(sarcasm aside)<BR/><BR/>Read and think!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151557291784697822006-06-29T01:01:00.000-04:002006-06-29T01:01:00.000-04:00Unbelievable!Danny made an assumption about "Peopl...Unbelievable!<BR/><BR/>Danny made an assumption about "People familiar with Frank's antics," not about Frank's parents.<BR/><BR/>READ!exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151556880545928402006-06-29T00:54:00.000-04:002006-06-29T00:54:00.000-04:00Yes, ex-believer, but Danny is making an assumptio...Yes, ex-believer, but Danny is making an assumption on Frank's parents. No more than Frank made an assumption on Danny's sex life, which is ironic because Danny <B>first</B> made an assumption on Frank's sex life. Yet Frank never considered it a libel worthy of a suit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151555465652107572006-06-29T00:31:00.000-04:002006-06-29T00:31:00.000-04:00Since you said that his parents did drugs, I guess...<I>Since you said that his parents did drugs, I guess that's libel huh?</I><BR/><BR/>Reading is a lost art.<BR/><BR/>Let's read what Daniel said again, ". . .those familiar with his (Frank's) antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation"<BR/><BR/>Now, does Daniel make a claim about Frank's parents or does he make a claim about "those familiar with his (Frank's) antics"?<BR/><BR/>Let's see how these statements would differ:<BR/><BR/>(1) <I>Frank's parents</I> used drugs during his gestation.<BR/><BR/>(2) <I>People who are familiar with Frank's antics</I> wonder what drugs Frank's parents used during gestation.<BR/><BR/>What's the subject in the second sentence? (I'll help; "People who are familiar with Frank's antics). What action are these people doing? ("Wondering") What are they wondering? (what drugs Frank's parents used during gestation).<BR/><BR/>I don't know if Daniel's claim is true or not. I've never even thought about Frank's parents. But maybe other's have. In any case, it's not libel.<BR/><BR/>I haven't kept up on this whole thing. I haven't read Frank's posts or Daniel's. I only know what I've read here. I don't know if Frank said anything worthy of a lawsuit, and I don't care. I try to stay away from these people.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151553400337707732006-06-28T23:56:00.000-04:002006-06-28T23:56:00.000-04:00Morgan writes:"...but suffice it to say that those...Morgan writes:<BR/><BR/>"...but suffice it to say that those familiar with his (Frank's) antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation, wondering what the label 'Christian' means to Frank, and regurgitating their lunch in response to his posts."<BR/><BR/>Since you said that his parents did drugs, I guess that's libel huh? Uh, I guess that means Frank can sue you.<BR/><BR/>(Laughter) But seriously Frank isn't like you, Daniel. Because he's courageous and he can just about take anything anybody says about him. You can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151547944283879392006-06-28T22:25:00.000-04:002006-06-28T22:25:00.000-04:00You are of course welcome to run your blog how you...<I>You are of course welcome to run your blog how you like. . .</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/><I>. . . don't pretend that it's fair when you won't allow comments that do directly influence how we argue over such matters and our critical analysis of them.</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't. Every comment that I didn't publish broke the explicit policy that I spelled out in my comments policy.<BR/><BR/><I>You are welcome to come to carm and have a friendly debate with me.</I><BR/><BR/>No thanks. <BR/><BR/>But you are welcome (as is anyone else) to make <I><B>relevant</I></B> comments to my posts on my blog.<BR/><BR/>My blog is very specific and I state this explicitly. I deal with <I>arguments for the existence of a god or gods</I>. I'm only interested in presuppositionalism when it makes an argument. Traditionally, presuppositionalists have used TAG. TAG is an argument and I want to examine it as such.<BR/><BR/>If you don't believe that an argument can be made, that basic beliefs cannot be supported deductively, etc., that is fine. You may be right. <B><I>BUT THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN ON MY BLOG</B></I>. <BR/><BR/>Historically, most apologists have tried to make some kind of <I>argument</I>. Aquinas, Craig, Bahnsen (three very different apologists) all make some kind of argument that can be analyzed. My blog is simply focused on those arguments. I am not concerned (on that blog) whether or not this is a valid method. I'm only interested in analyzing the arguments that people make for the existence of a god or gods.<BR/><BR/>Is that really too hard for you to understand?<BR/><BR/>I can retrieve the <B>three</B> comments that I haven't posted and prove that none of them presented an argument or corrected my representation of that argument. They all simply questioned my method.<BR/><BR/>Maybe my method is total shit! You are free to say so. But that isn't the point of my blog. All I want to do is analyze the arguments that people make for the existence of a god or gods. This goal necessarily excludes all kind of other concerns (e.g. epistemology, theology, etc.).<BR/><BR/>If you have <I><B>an argument</B></I> for the existence of a god or gods (or "the Christian God"), feel free to make it. Put it in the comment section of my introductory post. Paste it here too, if you want, with a note that says, "Let's see if exbeliever has the guts to post this."<BR/><BR/>If your apologetic doesn't believe that arguments can be made for the existence of a god or gods, then that's cool with me. Argue that elsewhere. I'll be happy talking with the thousands of Christians who do believe an argument can be made.<BR/><BR/>Anyone think I am being unfair here? I simply set a goal for what I want my blog to be about. I have goals for all of my blogs. I have one blog that details my marriage from the first time I met my wife until now (no, I won't tell you what it is because it is not anonymous). I have another blog that chronicles my PhD work. I don't mention atheism on either of those blogs. I don't mention politics either. They all have a focus as does my Not Many Wise blog.<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'm tired of defending myself now. I stated all of this clearly from the beginning at my blog and I don't see how repeating it will make any difference.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for taking up space here.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151543081895437142006-06-28T21:04:00.000-04:002006-06-28T21:04:00.000-04:00It's interesting how you talk about debate. It's a...<B>It's interesting how you talk about debate. It's almost as if I'm being called out for a fight. It's the whole debate-as-war metaphor. I prefer the debate-as-education metaphor.</B><BR/><BR/>I am not calling you out for a fight in the least. What I do disagree with however is a person who is supposedly studying philosophy and yet doesn't offer those that disagree a fair say and then makes comments like:<BR/><BR/>"At this point, we can begin to piece together TAG (something that very few Internet "apologists" are willing to state explicitly)."<BR/><BR/>You are of course welcome to run your blog how you like, but don't pretend that it's fair when you won't allow comments that do directly influence how we argue over such matters and our critical analysis of them. My offer still stands. You are welcome to come to carm and have a friendly debate with me. IF not, I won't mention it any longer. Thank you for responding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151524973085371742006-06-28T16:02:00.000-04:002006-06-28T16:02:00.000-04:00Aside from the fact that you were indeed insulted,...Aside from the fact that you were indeed insulted, you have ignored the fact that the substance of your charge (that only one side is being presented) was refuted. He quoted and linked, which is more than what is to be expected.<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and post your argument for the existence of God on Carm. I will address it.Nihlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10212972916007086778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151510280807179302006-06-28T11:58:00.000-04:002006-06-28T11:58:00.000-04:00I want your pity about as badly as I want your rel...<B>I want your pity about as badly as I want your religion.</B><BR/><BR/>Then quit whining about what all these Christians do. This blog has something negative to say about some Christian on a regular basis; it is hardly a blog that debunks Christianity.<BR/><BR/><B>Perhaps you never got an education in writing</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I see, so you can't resist insulting others?<BR/><BR/><B><I>You are letting people see one side of the story and not being fair</I><BR/>I quoted what they said, and linked back to the original source. You're a moron.</B><BR/><BR/>And another insult.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Where did exbeliever? He makes it pretty clear that his site is specifically for people to raise the bar and argue with him about his writing, and that he'll delete pure crap. I'm sorry that you can't meet his standard, but where did he say otherwise?</B><BR/><BR/>Ex-believer says that he will only posts comments that present arguments and yet he posts praises of his blog while ignoring several of my comments that dealt specifically with how a presuppositionalist argues. Ex-believer is not providing the full story with his readers, and I think he is afraid to have a one on one debate out in the open. He would rather impress his audience with his apparent proficiency in formal logic and how he can put arguments into syllogistic form then have an actual debate. He wants to control what is posted, what is said, what his opponents can say and where they can begging their arguments. He basically cuts them off at the knees and then wants to kick box them. That's not only unfair, it's dishonest. My challenge remains. I post at carm as deathofsseasons and we can have a one on one debate where I will present an argument for the existence of God. Ex-believer can either back up his claims or stay in his controlled environments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151506837957056572006-06-28T11:00:00.000-04:002006-06-28T11:00:00.000-04:00Jesus the racist.22And, behold, a woman of Canaan ...Jesus the racist.<BR/><BR/>22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. <BR/><BR/> 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. <BR/><BR/> 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. <BR/><BR/> 25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. <BR/><BR/> 26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151501292845075742006-06-28T09:28:00.000-04:002006-06-28T09:28:00.000-04:00I can forgive a mistake, if Gene can muster an apo...I can forgive a mistake, if Gene can muster an apology. It won't happen, though. Too much Jeebus-like humility.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151501251592675842006-06-28T09:27:00.000-04:002006-06-28T09:27:00.000-04:00According to Webster's:Lie (#4, noun):Function: no...According to <A HREF="http://www.webster.com/" REL="nofollow">Webster's</A>:<BR/>Lie (#4, noun):<BR/>Function: noun<BR/>Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie<BR/>1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker<BR/>2 : something that misleads or deceives<BR/>3 : a charge of lying<BR/><BR/>A lie can be told with or without <B>the intent</B> to deceive, so long as it is clearly misleading, deceiving, untrue, inaccurate, etc.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151490783277156972006-06-28T06:33:00.000-04:002006-06-28T06:33:00.000-04:00Anon said:it seems that the atheists here just wan...Anon said:<BR/><EM>it seems that the atheists here just want someone to feel sorry for them</EM><BR/><B>in the real world<BR/>as in dreams<BR/>nothing is<BR/>quite what it seems</B><BR/><BR/>I want your pity about as badly as I want your religion. Perhaps you never got an education in writing, but the introduction and conclusion of any piece of writing are supposed to tie together a major thesis: in this case, whether or not Gene will apologize. Did you miss that? He told a lie, and I called him on it. I won't hold my breath waiting for one, nor for you to admit this.<BR/><BR/><EM>Stand up and take your lumps like an adult should</EM><BR/>Um, okay? And how is that? What am I doing "wrong"? Letting <B>them</B> air their lies without calling them on it?<BR/><BR/><EM>You are letting people see one side of the story and not being fair</EM><BR/>I quoted what they said, and linked back to the original source. You're a moron.<BR/><BR/><EM>and all I can honestly say is that some here are hypocrites with no equal</EM> <BR/>Typically a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Where did I do that? Where did exbeliever? He makes it pretty clear that his site is specifically for people to raise the bar and argue with him about his writing, and that he'll delete pure crap. I'm sorry that you can't meet his standard, but where did he say otherwise?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.com