Sunday, September 24, 2006


At 5:21 PM, September 23, 2006, Matthew said...

“John, I would take Hays with a grain of salt. If someone like Turkel has a low opinion of Hays (or had one) then, what confidence can the world of reason have in Hays to be an effective and formidable opponent of skepticism and freethought?”

At one level, this is a trivial issue, but it also illustrates the intellectual frivolity of so many unbelievers.

1.To begin with, if MG were a real “freethinker” who represents the “world of reason,” then why can’t he think for himself? Why would he form his own opinion on the basis of what second-party had to say? Why is a “freethinker” retailing in second-hand opinions?

2.Moreover, consider his source. This is his most recent performance evaluation of Turkel:

“As I have said before, I now have a very low opinion of Turkel and I consider him to be the worst spin-doctor imaginable these days...Turkel is just an intellectual wanna-be…Turkel has a complete creep…Turkel is an apologetic joke of the worst sort and I regret that any Christian might have a high opinion of him. It's my hope that the Christian community will one day, in strong unity, condemn and chastize Turkel for the charlatan that I am convinced that he is.”

Consider, then, MG’s process of reasoning: MG has a low opinion of someone who has a low opinion of me, therefore MG has a low opinion of me.

Does that sound very logical to you?

Suppose I were to argue along the same lines, viz.

i) I have a low opinion of the National Inquirer.
ii) The National Inquirer has a low opinion of global warming.
iii) Ergo, I should have a low opinion of global warming.

Or, to put it another way, if someone who happens to be a “spin-doctor,” “intellectual wannabe,” “complete creep,” “apologetic joke of the worst sort,” and “charlatan” has a low opinion of global warming, then we should share his low opinion of global warming.

Or, to put it yet another way:

i) So-and-so is a quack doctor
ii) Dr. Quack has a low opinion of penicillin
iii) Ergo, I should share Dr. Quack’s low opinion of penicillin.

3.Furthermore, why does the fact that I disagree with Turkel erode my credibility while MG’s disagreement with Turkel doesn’t seem to have the same effect on MG? Hmm.

Once again, this is what passes for rationality among “freethinkers.” They wrap themselves in the mantle of reason all the while uttering the most unreasoning nonsense imaginable.

4.Or, to take a different example, notice the current exchange between Bridges, Engwer, and Jon Curry over the anonymity (or not) of the Gospels.

It’s clear that Curry begins from a posture of unbelief, and then goes on a desperate search for any scrap of evidence that would support his initial position of unbelief—a position which he obviously arrived at sans the evidence he is now sweating to hustle in after the fact—like someone who tries to backdate a bounced check.

He is indeed a “free-thinker”—more precisely, a fact-freethinker.


  1. Turkel probably has a lower opinion of people like Matthew anyway, so...

  2. Poor Stevie Weevie...

    Its so funny to see how desperately the T-bloggers want respect and admiration....

    Just bask in the love of your god...shouldn't that be enough?

    Thanks your god that he deemed to PICK you, over all of the other millions of losers that will burn forever.

    But this isn't enough, so Steve needs to write, and write, and write, and seeks the pats on the back from his fellow brainwashed chosen.

    You're pathetic.

  3. How come atheists never respond to arguments and just hurl abuse?

    Do you really think the T-bloggers 'desperately want respect and admiration'? Does this really seem rational to your depraved mind?

    Steve even said it was a 'trivial issue', his only purpose was to demonstrate the 'intellectual frivolity'. Having done this you then come on and just verbally abuse him with dubious psychoanalysis. Your opinions are worthless, borderline insane. Holding has said on his website that he misunderstood James White, and so he probably misread Steve too, on the same issue.
    Holding has been using a lot of material from the Context Group, scholars who have done research into the social context that the Bible is written in, and so it's clear to anyone who's frequently been on the Tekton website that Holding beat both Hays and White in debate, but it doesn't look that way to outsiders.
    Calvinists have for centuries had to put with nonsense arguments from Arminians so they generally would dismiss any such arguments as Holding's out of hand. But the thing is that Holding is right. After becoming so frustrated that people were responding to his posts without interacting with ANY of his arguments (if you see White's posts, they have completely nothing to do with what Holding is saying) he got down to some lightly comedic ostrich illustrations and then as the argument progressed ... went mental. But the thing is that Holding doesn't know anything about theology, and thinks the New Perspective on Paul is probably true or something. Some apologists go out and debate atheists without knowing anything about Christianity to start off with - Holding actually says that he rarely prays and only reads the Bible in context of his apologetics work. This was to prove to an atheist that he wasn't brainwashed by his religion. If people go into apologetics without knowing theology then they often end up compromising Christian doctrines to make it easier to refute atheist arguments or to make Christianity seem more reasonable to non-believers (e.g. his article on how hell is non-literal, 'few will find it' doesn't mean salvation, you can have 'born again Catholics', Billy Graham is not a false teacher, constant toilet humour jokes are acceptable, some atheists are intelligent, all music is acceptable in church, the devil is bound, sign gifts have continued (the logic being that Charismatics can't be demon posessed, see previous)... well the list is legion). Just goes to show that people need to study their Bibles before going off and attacking people with human arguments.

  4. Rob,

    Stellar!!! That was almost as interesting and useful as Steve's earth-shaking article.

    who cares about Holding/turkel/Calvinists?

    Bunch of deluded zombies...

  5. And yet Anon, the mere fact that you seem to comment on every one of Steve's blog entries is interesting. If Steve is so pathetic then you must be even more pathetic wasting your time on something that pathetic. It's like Ted whose standard comment is "YAWN" and yet he seems to read just about every blog. (Or he doesn't and thinks he is being so very clever by commeting with "YAWN" all the time). If it is so boring then his life must be a real hoot seeing as though he spends a bit of his time at this blog....

  6. Obviously you, anonymous, care enough about us to post messages to us and read our blogs. I bet you come here on a daily basis. That's good! Keep coming here and maybe you'll eventually learn something.

    Keep making fun of us and love that your fellow atheists will appreciate your cut downs.

    Just bask in the fact that you're the highest evolved ape-like creature, shouldn't that should be enough?

    Thank Mother Nature that she picked you, over all the weak gened looseres.

    But this isn't enough, so anonymous needs to commment, and comment, and comment, and seek the comfort of knowing you've made fun of people who are determined to believe the way they believe because of the laws of physics.

    You're pathetic.

  7. Anonymous drive-by insults are quite easy. Talk about losers....

  8. Uh, that was in reference to anonymous #1...

  9. Poor Paulie, Waulie...he had to have my comment deleted, as I pointed him out hiding again behind 'anonymous'...

    Learn to spell 'lose' and 'loser,' you'll be much more equipped to snipe from behind the anonymous veil.

    Looser. :)