I have been away from my blog for a long while and I have missed the chance to vent my spleen on 'home turf'.
My diversion to Debunking John Loftus was a mistake. I should have watched to see how the blog developed - it is simply not my style. I may not agree with JWL, but I do not know him, to like or dislike, so I am not comfortable with the personal tone on Debunking Loftus. On the plus side, JWL banned me from DC which gave me the opportunity for his peculiar brand of atheism to flush itself out of my system. That said I have enjoyed interacting with many on DC.
Also on the plus side, freed from DC I have explored many of the increasingly common atheist sites at my leisure. Found some good and some bad - had some challenging discussion on a number of them. Certainly in my travels I have tried to avoid those atheists that seem to base their entire case on an inerrant literal interpretation of the Bible. This avoidance is perhaps the main factor in challenging and developing my theism. It was good to debate with those who actually had a point to make.
While a few have caused me to sit back and ponder my theism, it still comes out as the rational position for me.
Perhaps the discussion that has given me the most food for thought is a point made on "Common Sense Atheism" - itself not normally a font of powerful reasoning, but in this case the provocative challenge slipped in. The point raised was; could I clearly demonstrate the differences in this world attributable to God compared to what would be without God. Easy to dismiss with a cheap shot, but I wonder if it is possible to argue the point at all. After all, our only experience is in this world, with or without a God - what would we objectively use as an alternative frame of reference.
Yes we can develop a set of criteria that will prove our case, but would they pass muster as an objective frame of reference?
Hamba kahle - peace
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Diversions - good and bad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Take your name off that blog and you will no longer be banned from DC. I see that you've recognized the mistake. Correct it and we're good to go.
Your choice.
Cheers.
Well spotted John - I had not noticed that my name was still there ( I only visited it a few times in the beginning) but since I don't align myself with the tone of the site my name should be removed ... and for that reason alone.
One certainly does not need to resort to personal attacks to debunk your views John.
Hamba kahle - peace
Take your name off that blog and you will no longer be banned from DC. I see that you've recognized the mistake. Correct it and we're good to go.
Hi there John.
I suppose it didn't ever occur to you that you are not free from making personal attacks, yes?
You've admitted before that your motives for "debunking" Christianity was based on how Holding "treated" you. I am going to try and speak objectively here in saying that there is little evidence to suggest that you were treated unfairly. You wanted to focus the discussion you were having on your book, and Holding refused to let you have the floor whenever you tried to snatch it. Is there anything wrong with that?
Here's an interesting quote from your site. This comes from the book (which was published today) rebutting (er..refuting) your rants:
"I want it known by everyone that it was Holding who initially motivated me to debunk Christianity by how he treated me. I decided that I would aim for the jugular vein of a faith that could be used by him to justify his treatment of me. It's to him that I'm indebted to for initially motivating me to do what I'm doing today..."
Yet you're trying to make yourself look as though you don't engage in personal vendettas. Pfft!
Moral of the day: Stop wailing about Debunking Loftus and look in the mirror, hotshot. Your arguments and personality are inseperable. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, that's the case. And the only reason you are letting akakiwibear back on your blog is because he no longer belongs to a venue that is set on directly refuting your crap.
akakiwibear, I see you took your name off that ignorant Blog. Welcome to the world of civility and self-respect.
You are no longer banned from DC. Come back and comment as you wish.
Cheers.
OK kids - chill! This is not a platform for personal attack - any more comments in that vein will be deleted.
I suggest that John's arguments are sufficiently weak for most theists to defeat them without getting personal - so lets play the ball not the man.
Hamba kahle - peace
John, so truthbetold quotes you as being indebted to Holding (but it seems for non-intellectual reasons).
I fell I should acknowledge a sincere indebitedness to you and DC for challenging my theism and helping me to grow in my theism and develop a better understanding thereof.
I guess you had the opposite effect on me that your book may have had on others ;) I may return to DC in the future, I have no plans to so for a while.
Hamba kahle - peace.
Here is a challenge to Loftus: Read what I've rebuted about the first chapter in your book here: http://www.tektonics.org/ezine/1personal.html
Now, after people read that, are they really going to think the issue is all about "personal attacks" or will they ask themselves: Does a person who can't be very consistent with his claims, who needs the floor of discussion almost every ticking second, and requires undeserved recognition come up with logice coherent arguments?
That's an important question, regardless of whether or not people choose to accept its importance. Anyone who cares enough to point out the errors in my thinking is certaintly welcome to do so. John?
Anybody who is truly interested in what Loftus is made of can check out this post:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/09/at-55-today-im-wondering-if-i-can-book.html
People who say that by criticizing John we are being off-target with his arguments should know better now after this little gem.
Post a Comment