Wednesday, October 25, 2006

QED

Having lost the intellectual war the atheists who frequent T-blog’s comboxes have decided to play their last hand - victory by propaganda and character assassination. Fine by me. I’ve always said they were bluffing about their intellectual hand. Most atheists, especially of the teenage and internet hero sort, are about saving the group first, rational arguments second. That’s why you hardly see them critiquing other atheists for the same things they critique Christians for. Fine by me. Strengthens my faith all the more. I’ve always said that to deny Christ is to deny rationality. Since they would rather waste time on calling me names and complaining about my parody blog, The Discomfiter, rather than on actually interacting with any of the arguments we offer here, I’ll meet them where they’re at. Unfortunately, their latest round of attacks only serves to disrepute them even more. The Christian can win in the arena of rational debate, as well as the arena of sophistic rhetoric. Rather than ignore them and just watch them die like a dog on the side of the road I thought I’d have compassion and shoot them; you know, put them out of their misery. Any response I receive hereafter will be the twitching that happens after death.

1. I am fully convinced in my conscience that I did nothing wrong. None of my elders I’ve spoken to think so either. There’s been not one Christian who I’ve talked to that thinks my parody was sinful. At the end of the day, though, God judges me, not man. I don’t give a hoot if the atheists think what I did was wrong. Their claims do not bother me. What matters is my standing before God. And, I only stand before Him trusting in Christ. His life covers my sins.

2. I did not give my name when I did the Discomfiter. I didn’t want to take away from the point of that blog. The point, which people are missing, was to finally give John Loftus’ arguments the credit they deserved: Laughter.

3. Again, as I pointed out before, Momma Nature makes deceivers. Given evolutionary assumptions, one should have no problem with my deception.

4. My argument, nor Steve Hays’ post, nor the link to John Frame’s article, has not been addressed or refuted. The claim is that it’s not always wrong to lie or deceive. See these posts:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/truth-telling.html

5. John Loftus and his fellow debunkers, as well as the teenage atheists in our combox, are trying to point out that I’m “bad.” But, John Loftus points out that,

"People don't misbehave because they are evil, they may just be sick. Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding." (source)

But then why is Loftus heaping scorn and ridicule on me rather than “healing me and understanding me?” John Loftus’ ethical view here is ridiculous, but that’s not the point. The point is that he can’t even live consistent with his own ethical theories!

6. In this com box:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html#comments

Blarky Malarky writes,

**********
Paul,

I think this all goes back to the fact that you shouldn't have done that little parody, because it put you in a difficult situation and you had to dance around the truth to make it work. You made a point with it, but it could have been made in some other way. Now these hypocrite liar atheists will play this harp string for the rest of your life. Though Loftus lied to his wife, kids, church, etc., committed adultery and all the deceit that goes with it, he is going to stick this in your face every now and then. You made your own bed, bro!
**********

a) No, I should have done it. The point was to get people to laugh, which is what Loftus’ arguments deserve - a hearty guffaw.

b) I don’t care if these atheists play this harp string, it’s all they got.

c) Loftus would throw my belief in 6 day creationism in my face as well and call me a backwards and superstitious person. Loftus (nor you) won't dictate what I will or won’t say.

d) I have no problem laying in this bed, I’m fully convinced I did no wrong.

7. In the same thread, Blark’s _ Grandpa said:

**********
Paul Manata's Deception List 1.0

1. Posts under false names and/or pretenses on blogs and message boards.

2. Claims to be 'bloggers' he is not.

3. Dances around and plays word games to avoid repentance.

4. Claims to be leaving the blogosphere to focus on his family, but then returns to continue his deceptions.

5. Gets defeated soundly by Barker and Sansone, but claims victory.

and so on, and so on.

Sonny...its time to confess your sins, beg forgiveness, and let go of your pride.
**********

a) “Dagoods” posts under a false name. In fact, so do most atheists on message boards.

b) False pretenses? What, parody? I admit one time I posted as “ex-monkey” on “ex-Christian dot net” and pretended to be an atheist, same reason. So what? Are you this much of a baby?

c) I provided exegesis for my claims. Without interacting and dealing with my arguments it appears that you’re the one dancing around and playing word games. If all one needs to do to refute the work done by another is to assert they they’re “dancing around” then let’s just get rid of rational debate. That’s where you’re tactic is leading you.

d) My situation changed somewhat, that’s not lying.

e) LOL. At best I’d be mistaken, but that’s not lying, now is it?

8. Regarding “Brother Blark.” I’m not him but “Dagoods” thought he could provide an inductive argument that it was me (see the above link). He writes,

**********
Now where have I heard that name before? “Blark…Blark…Blark” *snaps fingers* I remember a “Blark” that once posted on IIDB who was an ardent TAG supporter and a pre-supposionalist. Recently, James Lazarus recently indicated that it was you—Paul Manata—that posted under the moniker of “Blark.” (The account has since been deleted, but a search for “Blark” brings up numerous hits.)
**********

Actually, I stole “Blark” from George Smith’s (author of Atheism: The Case Against God) radio interview with Greg Bahnsen. Smith claims that ‘God’ is a meaningless term and you might as well say that “Blark exists.” So, given the fact that George Smith used the term, and he’s a well known atheist who might like to make fun of theists, maybe George Smith is “Brother Blark?” ;-)

9. Both John Loftus, Dagoods, and some other teenage atheists have made the comment that they “can now no longer believe anything I say.” Dagoods also said the same about God, he writes, “Simply put, if the humans created a God that can lie, we cannot know when such a God is telling the truth.”

The embarrassing problem that arises from their claims is radical skepticism. If you can no longer believe anything I say, then if I say that 2+2=4, you can’t believe it! If I say that modus ponens is a valid form of inference, you can’t believe it.

Also, agnosticism is now the default position.

Now, they might say, “well, now that you’ve lied we have no reason to believe that you believe what you say you believe. But I never said I believed I wasn’t the discomfiter. I never said I believed I was Brother Blark (even though I wasn’t). So, I never lied about this.

If you want to make the stronger claim, that you can never believe that I’m telling the truth, then global skepticism results.

10. This is all personal. The atheists are simply hoping that since they can’t win the intellectual war they can obstruct and ostracize me. Because if this wasn’t personal, and they really believed what they say they do, then they would have no reason to believe John Loftus. Even John Loftus shouldn’t believe himself! Why? Loftus has admitted to lying to his wife, his church, and himself. So, considering that Loftus has admitted this, then we can never trust John Loftus. We have no reason to believe his arguments. The DC crew and the teenage atheists should, if this is not personal, heap the same accusations and ridicule on Loftus as they are on me. Not only that, Loftus should ridicule himself.

11. Apropos 10, they won’t though, and this is because they’ve lost the intellectual war. This is all they have left. But, when and argument ends in global skepticism and making you heap scorn upon yourself - when you don’t think you should - you know you’re bluffing. You don’t even have the ace you pretended to have. We can see through it now. Now, you’ve lost the intellectual war as well as the propaganda war.

23 comments:

  1. I'm really done with the immaturity of some of these atheists on this blog, and also as well on PTA previously...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm really done with the immaturity of some of these atheists on this blog, and also as well on PTA previously...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Paul,

    I just wanted to let you know that I finally got around to writing a response to the reply that you wrote up regarding my discussion with Steve on the PoE.

    Link:
    http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2006/10/manatas-commentary-on-my-discussion.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. thnaks Laz, I'll try to reply this weekend, if time allows.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, an atheist that does not just come by and just yawn...
    how about that?

    A breath of fresh air

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes atheists, reap the whirlwind!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Three things Paul. 1) When we skeptics write about you lying, we are offering what you call an internal critique of your behavior. It makes no difference if we are godless heathen without a moral compass. You claim to have one, so we've asked you to defend your claim. You cannot offer up a red herring that turns it back on us in this situation. That's a different argument, one we've tried to discuss reasonably with you before to no avail. Stay on topic, please.

    2)Although I did wrong as a Christian and had an illicit affair with my first wife, something you won't understand given the nature of that affair and the accusations when I cut it off, I am a changed man. I am completely and thoroughly faithful and monogamous to my wonderful wife. I love her with all I've got. You see, the past is the past. I deconverted, just as you converted, and all my past "sins" are as if they are no more. It would be as if I continually brought up your past when you went around beating up strangers with a baseball bat. I don't do that, unless you first bring up my past, and you do that all of the time (I did it just now in response to your claim that I am a liar. I am not a liar. I lied, yes. We all do. But that was pre-deconversion days, friend, and you know that with such a (de)conversion we all change! ;-)

    3) One last thing. While I do think you are a present embarrassment to Triablogue and should be given the boot, what I think doesn't matter one bit, now does it? I know I wouldn't have someone with your ethics and attitude on my blog for one minute. But hey, I'm just an "unprincipled moral heathen," right?

    All I ever want from you (or anyone who disagrees with me) is a respectful discussion of the ideas. That's all. But you have never given that to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 5. Gets defeated soundly by Barker and Sansone, but claims victory.

    Pfft.

    Now this is truly dishonesty.

    Anyone who would actually side with either Sansone or Barker on either of those debates...now that is truly, in the words of John Loftus, an "embarrassment"

    ReplyDelete
  9. When we skeptics write about you lying, we are offering what you call an internal critique of your behavior.

    When you skeptics begin to address the biblical issues surrounding when deception is and is not permitted, then your critique will truly be "internal."

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm still laughing at the show your did with Gene. Just tonight I was laughing at the "funk in my shoe." My wife ask, what are you saying. :)

    Hahahahaha, LOL!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. somehow, in your stirring reubttal above, you missed this comment from the 'liar liar' post:


    Paul "Blark" Manata says above:

    "Anyway, Brother Blark is not me."

    However...you've already stated elsewhere:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/lucky-charms-atheology.html

    "I'm not brother blark.

    The discomfiter claim to be brother blark because he knew that would silence his attemtp at parody.

    I claimed to be brother blark and atheists banned him from their blogs and would not read his parody blog."


    so, Paul, you claim to be brother blark, you claim not to be, your alter ego claims to be, what are people supposed to think?"

    Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you did wrong here, and lied? Even if you weren't "brother_blark," and don't like "brother_blark," you think it is OK to flat out lie about being him?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Evan May,

    Do you agree that there are instances in which a Christian may lie to a non-believer?

    If so, can you point out a moral precept in the Bible that indicates the parameters of those instances, in which a Christian is allowed every time to lie to a non-believer?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do you agree that there are instances in which a Christian may lie to a non-believer?

    Yes.

    If so, can you point out a moral precept in the Bible that indicates the parameters of those instances, in which a Christian is allowed every time to lie to a non-believer?

    1. I'm not certain what you're asking. Of course, I don't believe it is permissible for a Christian to always lie to an unbeliever no mattter what the case.

    2. Let's distinguish between two issues here. There's the question of whether or not it is biblically permissible to deceive. Then there's the other question of whether or not this present situation was biblically permissible.

    3. Paul and Steve have already presented their case for this, as well as posted an article by John Frame. None of these have been interacted with.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, Evan May, I was more interested in each person’s take on this subject, including yours. Not cited articles.

    The way I see it, there are four (4) possible categories (but don’t let me limit you if you think there are more):

    1. You always have to tell the truth.
    2. You always have to NOT tell the truth.
    3. You can choose whether to tell the truth or not,
    4. You don’t know whether you have to tell the truth or not.

    I find it fascinating, frankly, to encounter individuals that believe they can utilize Category 3, simply because of the status of the belief of the person to whom they are talking! That if the person believes the same as you, you are bound by Category 1, but if they do not, you fall to Category 3.

    Further, I am attempting to determine what falls in Category 1, even with non-believers, to be certain to limit my discussion in that regard. Remember, we are talking about internet interaction—not Nazi’s banging on the door, or robbers demanding where the wife and kids are. Nor “have a nice day” or “you look good in that dress.”

    It appears (and I may be wrong) that some individuals believe that simply because I am an infidel that allows certain internet interactions to be in category 3. If it is parody—fine. I don’t recall ever interacting with The Discomfiter, as I can see that clearly was Category 3, and I was focusing my interest elsewhere at the time. But if people are claiming that they can deceitfully post as an atheist to cause harm, because we atheists fall in Category 3, but they would NEVER deceitfully post as a Christian to cause harm, because Christians fall in Category 1…well, THAT makes an interesting discussion.

    It is why I am looking for direction as to when Believers can lie.

    I was a little surprised you want us to interact with the Frame article. It isn’t that good. The methodology is poor (using a small list of events recorded in the Bible to develop a precept). What if we used this methodology regarding healing events? Or genocide? Or God directly interacting with humans? Using this same methodology, we would be led to believe God very often heals, provides license to have genocides and interacts with humans regularly.

    The methodology is lacking. To Frame’s credit he records events of deceit many would avoid, but he does not include those that discredit his hypothesis. Abraham & Sarah. David & Bathsheba. The Magi & King Herod. In each of those scenarios the person doing the deceiving did not receive condemnation, but innocents did,

    Finally, even with all that, he fails to uniformly apply his own methodology. The critical failure is that Event No. 16 does not conform to his hypothesis!

    I did point that out. No one bothered to respond or address that problem. I was unaware a more complete explanation would be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First, dagoods, I'd like to know if you think parody is "lying" in an immoral sense.


    Your four choices are limited. How about, "the Bible determines what lies are acceptable and which ones are not, this includes valid inferences from the Bible."

    You say, "But if people are claiming that they can deceitfully post as an atheist to cause harm, because we atheists fall in Category 3."

    But that's not what went on with the Discomfiter. i did not pose as an atheist "to cause harm."

    If you're referring to the "fake/real (we'll never know) post of John Loftus, that wasn't me who did that. And, again, I thought he was the one who did it. At best I made an innocent mistake in not deleting the post. but that has nothing to do with lying, that's another issue.

    Basically, you need to drop it. The fact that you guys are railing on this shows you've lost the intelelctual war. That you would throw temper tantrums at a parody is ridiculous. And, it only shows me that it acheived it's goal.

    I also find it interesting that you won't comment on my analysis of Loftus. I showed how he is a liar. Do you excuse that or will you condemn him. The fact that you won't shows that you really don't care about any "ethical" implications of this whole thing. It's simply a stall tactic.

    in fact, that you don't berate Loftus for doing much worse than the discomfiter is hypocritical. Is that immoral in your view of things?

    The reason you guys aren't making head way if because you're fighhting a loosing battle.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. You always have to tell the truth.
    2. You always have to NOT tell the truth.
    3. You can choose whether to tell the truth or not,
    4. You don’t know whether you have to tell the truth or not.


    None of the above.

    There are times when it is biblically permissible to not tell the truth, and there are times when it is biblically impermissible to not tell the truth. This is not a matter of choice, as you state it, as if in any given circumstance I am free to either tell the truth or lie.

    You say that you are interested in my position, not a cited article. But my position is in agreement with the article cited. And that article lays out the characteristics for when it is and isn’t biblically permissible to deceive. Now, whether or not any given situation meets those characteristics is a separate question.

    I was a little surprised you want us to interact with the Frame article.

    The reason I want you to interact with the Frame article isn’t because there is some authority in the article itself. Rather, it is simply because it has already been posted, and yet many are furthering this discussion while ignoring what has been stated.

    It isn’t that good. The methodology is poor (using a small list of events recorded in the Bible to develop a precept). What if we used this methodology regarding healing events? Or genocide? Or God directly interacting with humans? Using this same methodology, we would be led to believe God very often heals, provides license to have genocides and interacts with humans regularly.

    This is an exegetical question. If you want to rebut Frame’s exegesis, go ahead. But don’t be lazy. Don’t give us assertions minus the arguments.

    I did point that out.

    I haven’t been reading all of the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Manata, I mean the Discomfiter, I mean anonymous, I mean brother Blark said:

    At best I made an innocent mistake in not deleting the post.

    And at worst?

    Your self-justifying and self-delusionary apologetic is amazing for me to watch.

    You could justify anything, couldn't you? Doesn't it make you wonder whether or not you defend Christianity in the same ways?

    It certainly does to me.

    And what lies are you talking about coming from me, anyway? Is this a diversionary tactic of yours to get the heat off of you? Boy, when I admitted to having an affair everyone pounced on me that I should have repented, and I did at the time? You're caught "sinning" and you claim you did no wrong. Why don't you just publicly repent like people said I should've done (which I did at the time)?

    A lie is basically an attempt to deceive someone with information that the knower believes to be wrong. Where did I ever do that here with you?

    But you do that regularly with us all. There's no parity with anything I did in the distant past. We're talking about here and now, and watching you justify your actions before your God. I'm sure he's going to always be please with you, right? 'Cause you'll tell him he should be! :-)

    You're a joke to me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Evan May,

    I will confess. I WAS being lazy. You are quite correct I only brushed over the highlights of what could be a full-blown response to Frame’s article. I momentarily thought of writing a blog entry dissecting it, but after framing the outline within my mind, found it to be obvious. And boring.

    Start with Event 16. How does that fit within Frame’s proposal? It doesn’t.

    You did write something that made me chuckle. I apologize. If you will indulge me: you state, “If you want to rebut Frame’s exegesis…Don’t give us assertions minus the argument.”

    Shouldn’t Frame be held to the same standard? It seems hardly fair that he would be allowed to assert all day long, and that is acceptable, whereas I am held to a standard that I must provide argumentation.

    While Frame does give argumentation against other positions (briefly) what is the basis for his own?

    Frame: But in the situation where someone is seeking to destroy innocent life, rather than to help and heal, does such a neighborly relation exist? I think not. At least, I doubt that those who misled others in the seventeen passages mentioned earlier were in a neighborly relation to their opponents. Certainly those who deceived in those passages didn’t think so. And I think Scripture concurs in their judgment.

    “I think…”? “I doubt…”? “I think…”? Honestly, Evan May—would you ever accept such a position from an atheist as “argumentation”?

    Read that paragraph again. Read Event 16. Explain (if you would be so kind) how that fits.

    I hope you can see why, after viewing that, I considered a response unnecessary and boring.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think Christians are morons. I renounce my faith in Christ!


    (all is fair in WAR!)

    ReplyDelete
  20. those STUPID Christians say that they have an ANSWER to the problem of EVIL but we atheists know that there's NOTHING WRONG with what one animal does to another animal!

    One's man's RAPE is another man;s PLEASURE. Those STUPID Christians actually have the nerve to say that people born with the sexual desire to have sex with Children are WRONG to do that.

    Us atheists know that PEOPLE CAN'T HELP THE WAY THEY WERE BORN!

    Gooooooooo NAMBLA!! Three cheers for NAMBLA~ Hip hip, hooray. Hip hip, hooray. Hip hip, hooray.

    STUPID Christians, there's NO MORALITY OTHER THAN WHAT :::YOU::: DECIDE IS MORAL!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was curious. Does the Bible have to be inerrant for TAG and presuppositionalism to work? And realted to this question: My ESV or NIV or whatever is not inerrant. Neither is my Greek Nestle/Aland Greek text or my Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia text. How does this affect the TAGers argument?

    ReplyDelete
  22. DagoodS:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/event-16.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bretheren,

    I loose.

    I should not have lied and pretended to be other bloggers. I have sinned against men, but more importantly, against my God.

    I repent in ashes and shame.

    Head bowed, tears of blood down my cheeks...

    I'm sorry.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete