According to Bethrick:
“Though I have not read all of Steve’s opinion pieces, I’ve not found anything in what I have read of them that I would call “rigorous counterarguments.” Indeed, it’s not at all clear to me what it is he thinks he is trying to prove, other than that he has deep resentment for John Loftus for some reason. When I first discovered Triablogue some months ago, I was looking forward to reading at least somewhat interesting material since I thought James Anderson was associated with it, and from what I can tell James tends to focus on issues rather than on personalities.”
i) There’s no doubt that Dr. Anderson moves in a higher orbit than I. I’m a tuna wagon to his Lamborghini.
One of the privileges of team blogging is that I get to recruit some folks who are way more talented than me. I’m just a pitch-hitter until the A-team takes up the bat. Then I’ll be happy to watch the action from the dugout.
ii) That said, I focus on issues and personalities alike where Debunking Christianity is concerned precisely because Loftus and his crew focus so much attention on their own personalities. If they are going to make their personal testimony such a large part of their case against the faith, then it’s only fair game to reply in kind.
iii) But they don’t respond to my issue-oriented pieces either. They prefer to characterize what I’ve written instead of quoting and rebutting what I’ve written.
And they characterize what I’ve written in very ad hominem terms even as they loudly profess to deplore ad hominem tactics.
I’ve mounted a two-pronged counteroffensive in which I respond to them on their own turf, whether in issue-oriented pieces or ad hominem pieces.
According to Exbeliever:
“Here is what he's posted so far: Why does John Loftus ask so many dumb questions?, Debunking Loftawful bunk, Social conditioning, Exbrainer, To the ends of the earth, God can damn well damn anyone he damn well pleases, Autobiographical Atheism, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, The Loser's Club, Baby Atheism.”
Actually, Exbeliever missed a couple of beats:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/debunking-john-loftus.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/loftistic-problems.html
According to Loftus:
“Walton…You're shameless, but that's what I've come to expect from Christians and one of the many reasons I'm not one anymore.”
i) Actually, Walton is one of the few Christian bloggers I’m aware who’s taken on Debunking Christianity. For this he is to be commended when so many other bloggers choose to sit out the fight.
And he has a lot of another good stuff on his blog. Check it out.
ii) In addition, Loftus, as well as Exbeliever, still labor under the flattering illusion that they are entitled to deferential treatment.
But they do not deserve our respect either as a matter of Christian ethics or secular ethics.
a) To begin with, I have a simple rule: I give respectable arguments a respectful hearing while I treat disreputable arguments with disdain.
b) Secularism has no basis for morality. Astute unbelievers in flashes of momentary candor, like Mackie, Russell, Kai Nielsen, and Quentin Smith, admit this.
So if we were to treat Loftus et al. according to a secular worldview, then we could treat them anyway we please.
They lack the courage of their convictions. They talk atheism, but they don’t walk atheism.
c) As to Christian ethics, we are not dealing here with some know-nothing teenager or confused collage student whose view of the Christian faith is based on hostile, thirdhand sources.
Someone like that should be gently corrected and patiently instructed.
BTW, I happen to know some well-informed teens and twenty-somethings. I’m talking about those with no Christian background.
No, what we are dealing with over at Debunking Christianity is hardened unbelief by those who sin in full knowledge of the light.
The Bible doesn’t treat everyone the same way. There are degrees of guilt and aggravating circumstances.
If you read what the Bible has to say about open apostates and false teachers, they come in for a very different treatment.
Steve: "i) There’s no doubt that Dr. Anderson moves in a higher orbit than I. I’m a tuna wagon to his Lamborghini."
ReplyDeleteThere's a bigger difference since tuna wagons still have something of value to offer - namely tuna (delicious with soy sauce and wasabe). Then again, I certainly would not compare Anderson to a Lamborghini, save perhaps because it is steeply overpriced.
Steve: "One of the privileges of team blogging is that I get to recruit some folks who are way more talented than me. I’m just a pitch-hitter until the A-team takes up the bat. Then I’ll be happy to watch the action from the dugout."
I think you're somewhat missing my point, Steve, which was that your blogs - what I've read of them anyway - markedly depreciate the value I originally perceived in Triablogue. Of course, I have no idea if that would be important to its original founders. However, if the writings of your blogs (again, what I've read of them) are used to attract "fresh talent," I can only suppose that the fraternity of backslappers will simply grow while Anderson and any other zippy racers here are drowned out by the spiteful revelry.
The rest of what you posted appears to be an attempt to justify your resentment. Meanwhile, I've missed your "rigorous counterarguments" and still wonder what it is you're trying to prove.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson: There's a bigger difference since tuna wagons still have something of value to offer
ReplyDeleteDawson Burner: So, Steve has *no* value to offer?
Dawson: your blogs - what I've read of them anyway - markedly depreciate the value I originally perceived in Triablogue.
Dawson Burner: Well, is the value there, but just markedly depreciated, or is there no value at all?? You're still contradicting yourself within paragraphs as always, plus ça change plus c’est la même chose.
Dawson: Then again, I certainly would not compare Anderson to a Lamborghini
Dawson Burner: Well, whatever vehicle James Anderson is, is still better than your status as a Hot Wheel (awesome with a plastic looped race track, and another Hot Wheel to race).
Dawson: save perhaps because it is steeply overpriced.
Dawson Burner: So then, sticking with our comparisons, I can look forward to receiving payment from you for reading your drivel?
Dawson: When I first discovered Triablogue some months ago, I was looking forward to reading at least somewhat interesting material since I thought James Anderson was associated with it, and from what I can tell James tends to focus on issues rather than on personalities.”
Dawson Burner: So I take it that you would say that what you wrote in the comments section here was not interesting, since it focused on personalities?
Dawson: ..."your blogs - what I've read of them anyway - ..."if the writings of your blogs (again, what I've read of them)..."
Dawson Burner: So you try to imply that you have not read much here but then say that Steve's writings have *no* value and that there has not been counter arguments? How can you be sure that Steve has nothing of value to offer if you haven't read everything? Maybe one of his posts has been valuable? Oh, this must be an inductive generalization. But how is induction accounted for by you? Oh, that's right, you're a Randroid Objectivist. You try to account for incunction and the uniformity of nature by an appeal to "the law of identity."
Let nature = A
Let Uniformity = B
The law of identity says A = A and so you take that to mean that A is B.
Furthermore, saying nature is nature is a tautology and offers nothing informitive about how the world is, or *behaves.*
So, it apears that you have no grounds to say the writings here have no value.
Dawson: I can only suppose that the fraternity of backslappers will simply grow while Anderson and any other zippy racers here are drowned out by the spiteful revelry.
Dawson Burner: is that why the zippy atheist racers have zipped past your blog and enjoy their distance from another Randist cult member? Or, maybe you consider calling yourself someone's "burner" not "spiteful revelry?" If that is not, then I don't even know how we can classify your comments?
Dawson: The rest of what you posted appears to be an attempt to justify your resentment. Meanwhile, I've missed your "rigorous counterarguments" and still wonder what it is you're trying to prove.
Dawson Burner: Are you sure that you're reading and comprehending properly? Just checking because you don't have the best (plastic) track record:
e.g.,
Part 1:
http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/12/greg-bahnsens-self-appointed-internet.html
Part 2:
http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/12/greg-bahnsens-self-appointed-internet_28.html
Part 3: http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greg-bahnsens-self-appointed-internet.html
Paul: "Well, is the value there, but just markedly depreciated, or is there no value at all?? You're still contradicting yourself within paragraphs as always, plus ça change plus c’est la même chose."
ReplyDeleteNo contradiction, Paul. Triablogue has become analogous to a coin purse containing both small amounts of petty cash, which has at least a little value, and lint, which has none.
Hope that helps!
Dawson
the truth hurts: In reading Loftus, and all his "stuff" the consistent theme is "its all about me", me me me. Its never about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting widows,orphans and the oppressed,etc. Its about Loftus. Why this insane, drawn out self-martyrdom using bandwidth? Atheism is dying, they have no real mission, because if they could find same, they would actually be doing it. If an emp strike crashed the internet, unless thy had backed their stuff up, atheism would be gone. THey have no substance.
ReplyDelete