Thursday, August 17, 2006

Secular-fundy literalism

According to Ed Babinski:

***QUOTE***

On the Christian blog, "Triablogue," I found a thread titled, "The Discomfiter," that discussed a new blog of that name by someone who claims he has deconverted from Christianity and become an atheist seemingly overnight, but whose arguments are mere parodies of the atheistic types of arguments at "Debunking Christianity." After reviewing the blog of the "The Discomfiter," Steve Hays at "Triablogue," wrote, "The only plausible alternative is that The Discomfiter is legit, but out of his mind."

Is that the only "plausible" alternative? Maybe for Steve, who already views all non-Christians as insane in some sense in God's eyes, but anyone with a lick of commonsense could tell "The Discomfiter" was NOT legit from the start. Apparently Steve's legit-o-meter is broken. Makes me wonder whether he watches "The Colbert Report" and finds the "only plausible alternative" to be that Stephen Colbert is a genuine Right Wing fanatic?

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/08/steve-hays-of-triablogue-discomfiter.html

***END-QUOTE***

It's funny how literalistic an unbeliever can be. He will mock the "fundies" for taking the Bible at face value, yet an unbeliever can be more literalistic than a flat-earther.

It doesn't even occur to Babinski that my post might have been tongue-in-cheek.

I happen to know who the Discomfiter is. And I knew that before I ever did the post in question.

I know more than I let on to knowing.

However, I won't tell you whether or not he's the real deal since that would spoil the fun. Best to keep the secular-fundy literalists like Babinski guessing.

26 comments:

  1. Quit being so literal about Babinski!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Babinski is another jealous atheist. He's jealous that I have more comments on my blog than he. He's jealous that I've improved on John's Bird Man argument with my Aqua Man argument - and his son, gill-boy.

    In fact, he tried to stop me from defeating Gene Cook. Gene Cook told me that Babinski personaly emailed him and warned him that me, the Discomfiter, big D, was a fake! How dare he! He was so worried that I was getting interviews after only only 6 months of being an apostate while it took him years, that he tried to sabotage my message of freedom.

    Babinski failed though and people can Hear My Interview Here.

    What I want answered by either Babinski or Loftus is how they can call my "Bird Man" post "funny" when it was not relevantly different than Loftus' post? Why are gills on a man "funny" and wings on a man "serious?" I've shown myself to be more intellectually rigerous than the Lofty one.

    So, Steve, now on to you. I've surpassed my teacher, John Loftus, and would appreciate you recognizing it and at least dealing with my Bird man post, if you can.

    Babinski, I'll give you one more chance to make amends in the atheist community, I'll let you become a member of my blog. When you join team Discomfiter, you'll finally be taken more seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why in the world should Babinski have a problem with The Discomfiter? He practically says everything Loftus said at one point. Whatever Loftus believes The Discomfiter believes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Discomfiter,

    It's one thing for me to pick off an easy target like Loftus.

    But I choose my battles. You're a far more formidable opponent than Loftus ever was.

    Your Bird Man and Aqua Man arguments are way above my pay grade. I've referred them to Alvin Plantinga.

    I know my limits, and I'm maxed out in dealing with an atheologian of your caliber.

    I'll confine myself to small fry like Loftus and Exbrainer. I'm not going to pick a losing battle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    Do you agree with Reppert that what The Discomfitor did was unacceptable?

    With your knowledge of him, perhaps you can shed some light on the topic?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dagood,

    A couple of observations:

    1. I've now read the offending comment. I agree that it was over the line in a couple of respects:

    i) It's defamatory or libelous

    ii) Impersonating someone else is unethical if the impersonation is intentionally deceptive (unlike a spoof).

    If a comment like that was left at T-blog, and I was aware of it, I'd delete it.

    2. That said, you are attributing to the discomfiter what was actually said by a commenter.

    So what you're doing isn't all that different from the commenter.

    He's attributing something to Loftus that Loftus never said while you're attributing something to the discomfiter which the discomfiter never said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Steve, for the first part of your comment.

    I am glad you would delete such a comment. Knowing The Discomfiter, have you asked him/her to do so as well, out of Christian courtesy?

    As to the second part of your comment—what concerns me is the fact that John W. Loftus posted another comment on the thread, indicating he did not make the offending statement.

    That comment was deleted.

    That raises huge concerns with me. True, I did not see the comment by John W. Loftus attempting to resolve the situation, but I have every reason to believe that he would have left such a comment, and no reason to believe he would not.

    As far as I know, the only person who could delete the comment is The Discomfiter.

    We have:

    1) a blogger that is clearly mocking Loftus,
    2) an extremely suspect post that is in such poor taste, you concur it should be deleted,
    3) Loftus attempts to correct it with another comment which is deleted,
    4) A controversy that runs rampant, and as of my last check, the problem comment remains.

    I don’t know that The Discomfiter actually wrote the original comment. But deliberately deleting an attempt to correct it, and allowing it to remain make his/her actions implicitly wrong.

    Obviously, I have strong suspicions that The Discomfiter either wrote it, or knows who did. But even if neither is true, he/she has given such tacit approval toward it, and actually furthered the problem (by deleting Loftus’ real comment) which makes them part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Thanks, though, for your forthright response.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    I have to agree with DagoodS on this one (gulp!). That comment was a low blow and the fact it's still there and John's attempt to defend his name has been deleted is suspect. If you know the Discomfiter, please exhort him to delete the offending comment. It's the right thing to do.....thanks, brother

    S&BL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Alvin Plantinga8/17/2006 4:41 PM

    Steve,

    I've examined Discomfiter's arguments and the only conclusion I can come to is that they're stupid. I could have written some intelligent sounding and technical response, but why bother? They're just plain old-fashioned stupid. I've got term papers to correct, so please only send the heady stuff my way next time OK? My time is valuable.....

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  10. Discomfiter,

    It seems like letting you on my team has gone to your head. You're gettin' too big for yer britches there buddy. Since you think Aquaman and Gill Boy are such good ideas, maybe you'd like to spend some time at the bottom of the sea? Remember, I was the original John Loftus spoofer, don't forget where you came from....

    ReplyDelete
  11. John W. Lost us.

    That can be arranged.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Confirming what I suspect...
    that was a funny radio show...I've not laugh so hard for so long...

    I've been scratching my head over how there's so many atheist who does not believe in morals, yet feel so morally outraged...
    Hm...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm disappointed to see that the Discomfiter actually deleted a comment from Loftus that tried to clear his name.

    I don't agree with Loftus, but I'd like him to come to the Lord and join our team.

    If the Discomfiter is really a Christian, as Steve says, then he has some serious problems.

    In Him

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can promise that I did not leave that comment.

    Actually, I have a good idea that it was John Loftus who posted that comment.

    John is jealous of my atheological abilites and is stuck in a bind since my arguments resemble his he cannot say that mine are no good.

    So, how else can John shut down my site? By posting under his name and then saying he didn't post that.

    I have no reason to believe Joh would be honest here. Indeed, read my posts where he says that evil is an illusion and there's not foundation for morality and that relativism is acceptable. You expect me to believe that Loftus is a man of honor?

    To sum it up, all that matters is that I deleted the offensive comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Discomfiter,

    is it true what was said above, that you left the offensive comment, and deleted John's attempt to clear his name?

    (I read you eventually deleted the offending comment...but did you leave it there first, after deleting John's followup comment)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, I left *John's* comment on there.

    I think John himself left it.

    Either way, let's not dwell on this.

    As an atheist there's no morality, as John Loftus says.

    John is a hypocrit for acting as if this were *wrong.*

    if I were a Christian I'd say he's not keeping the iageo deo supressed as well as he thinks, but hey, I'm not.

    What is funny is that I left deflamatory comments about Josh Brisby, Paul Manata, Steve Hays, Gene Cook, and Jesus Himself up on my blog. There was nary a word from Babinski or Loftus, and then all of a sudden Loftus has an attack of morality?

    He's dissapointing, that one. I thought he was a consitent atheist.

    Either way, if the post was him it backfired. Or, his complaining about it also backfired, showing he's not consistent with his atheism. I'm the only consistent one here. I'm a better Loftus than Loftus.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, you're super, Discomfiter.

    A star for Christ.

    I quit.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, Steve says:

    "I happen to know who the Discomfiter is."

    "However, I won't tell you whether or not he's the real deal since that would spoil the fun."

    and

    Discomfiter says:

    "What is funny is that I left deflamatory comments about Josh Brisby, Paul Manata, Steve Hays, Gene Cook, and Jesus Himself up on my blog."

    Perhaps I'm wrong...Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time...but...

    If Discomfiter is really a Christian (and the radio interview really made that painfully obvious to me) what is the deal with him making not only "deflamatory" comments about other believers, but about Jesus too?

    That seems really messed up...and dangerous. I just can't see Jesus thinking that would be funny.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If Loftus is really an atheist, who says there's no morality, what's wrong with him faking a defamatory post about himself?

    That would be messed up, but the universe wouldn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul,

    Do you think its a sin for a Christian (or non) to make "deflamatory" comments about Jesus?

    I don't care about Loftus.

    I'm curious what you think about a Christian that deceives other people, and even disparages other Christians and Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I definatley think it's a sin to make those comments about Jesus.

    I never would, never have, and Lord willing never will.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon,

    Check out the Discomfiter's comments again. The disparaging 'Jesus' remarks were made by other commenters, not the Discomfiter. He simply left them up. If you have read most of them you'll notice Daniel Morgan's attempt to entice the Discomfiter to do just that in order to 'prove' he truly is an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Warren,

    Would you have just left disparaging remarks about Jesus on your blog? So if you don't personally make them, I guess you're free and clear from responsiblity for them by just leaving them posted on your blog...

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you have read most of them you'll notice Daniel Morgan's attempt to entice the Discomfiter to do just that in order to 'prove' he truly is an atheist.

    And unless you think I'm a total dolt [no, don't answer that], you'll realize I knew they wouldn't ever be made. I was trying to help some of the, uh, how do I say this nicely...slower to catch on that this fellow was not an atheist (some people seemed to have thought it a disgruntled atheist).

    Further, you'll note that early on, I basically said, "What harm is the guy doing, he's funny...?"

    Of course, it has turned into a no-holds-barred flame war since then...but it's all fun and games until somebody loses an eyeball, right?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon,

    I was answering your statement Do you think its a sin for a Christian (or non) to make "deflamatory" comments about Jesus?

    I'm curious what you think about a Christian (who)...disparages...Jesus.


    The point is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Discomfiter or Christians made those disparaging remarks about Jesus. They were all made by anon or other commentators whi I suspect were simply trying to unmask the Discomfiters true intentions.

    Now that you have moved onto your second question, my answer would be, no! If I had a blog those kinds of comments would be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ...or as Daniel points out to help some of the, uh, how do I say this nicely...slower to catch on.

    ReplyDelete