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:
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:
Blarky Malarky writes,
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.