Pages

Monday, February 19, 2007

Blacklisted

For rationally and calmly debating Brian Insapient via email, accepting his debate challenge he made on Nightline (only to have him backout), and answering his questions for theists, I have been blacklisted.

Atheist Richard Spenser, host of Faith and Freethought Radio, had this to report:

"I spoke with Sapient recently and was informed that Paul [Manata] had been added to the list of people the RRS will not talk to. (And it's a short list, so congrats Paul.) I find it odd that the RRS has posted questions but then, after someone takes the time to answer them all, they add that person's name to the list of people they won't talk to. This creates the impression that they only want to talk to people who can't answer their questions."


Like I said, the RRS is free to continue to present themselves as offering some kind of challenge to Christian theism (whatever that is), but they really should't pretend it's any where near a rational challenge.

Rational Response Squad - 0

Christian Theism - 1

24 comments:

  1. Ha ha ha...maybe Insapient's (mis)applying the passage concerning one casting pearls before swine...

    Godspeed to you, Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congrats on making that list

    ReplyDelete
  3. Take heart, Paul, and be proud! The Lord is taking account of the points you score in Debateland! Kudos to you! Keep arguing, one day you just might argue the Bible into truth!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul,

    We're "Faith and Freethought" now, not Infidel Radio! IR is the former name, hence the website, but we're in the process of switching it over.

    http://www.faithandfreethought.com

    - Jim

    ReplyDelete
  5. THIS JUST IN FROM RRS:

    Paul, ur arguhmints is lame, u know what were sayin. ur arguhmints is lame just like da guy nammed Paul in da bible. Cuz da bible is lame two, u know what were sayin. May be u was nammed Paul cuz of yur lame arguhmints like Paul u know.

    anywhay, just so u know, we aint skared of u. we just want a fare debeight on our sho. We kin sho on hour sho dat Chritianality is dum.

    Senseerly,

    Duh Rashunul Responz Sqwod

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love it when Paul does his little Christian scoreboard thingy...its cute, just like him!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous,

    Were you referring to me or the Apostle Paul?

    I Corinthians 1:20 2Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

    I thought atheists liked empirical proof of the Bible's claims. Guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous - 0

    Paul's Cute Scoreboard Thingy - 1

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally, I think Paul's scoreboard needs more flair. At minimum, 37 pieces of flair.

    ************

    Rational Response Squad - 0!!!

    Christian Theism - 1!!!

    ************

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not only are the (Ir)Rational Response Squad more irrational than we imagined, they are more irrational than we can imagine

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nevermind that RRS has helped deconvert many more people to atheism than it has helped push people into theism. God always wins!

    RRS: 0
    God: infinity

    Seriously though, while RRS may have declined to engage you Paul, it is picking its battles well, for the ones that RRS picks, it wins.

    The Blasphemy Challenge has been a huge hit and has helped shine the spotlight on atheism. It inspired many people to affirm their nonbelief publicly, and in turn those public admissions of atheism inspired many more people to question their own beliefs.

    I dont see any Christian Theistic equivalent or competitor that is "winning hears and minds" the way that RRS and similar atheist groups are.

    Surely, your recent series of posts attacking RRS have done nothing to bring more sheep into the Christian flock.

    But obviously you dont care about winning hearts and minds Paul, because youve already explained that you think everything taking place today is exactly according to God's plan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aaron said:
    ---
    Nevermind that RRS has helped deconvert many more people to atheism than it has helped push people into theism.
    ---

    How could you possibly know this?


    Aaron said:
    ---
    The Blasphemy Challenge has been a huge hit and has helped shine the spotlight on atheism.
    ---

    Yeah, and Mel Gibson helped shine the spotlight on anti-semitism too.

    Aaron said:
    ---
    It inspired many people to affirm their nonbelief publicly, and in turn those public admissions of atheism inspired many more people to question their own beliefs.
    ---

    Again, you have no way to know "more people [have begun] to question their own beliefs" due to the RSS. I can simply counter by saying that all the RSS is doing is getting people who were already non-believers to say they are non-believers. This isn't "conversion"; this is "acknowledgement."

    Of course, the problem with both our theories is that it would require us to have access to the minds of other people. Thus, this is mere speculation. My speculation is just as good as your speculation, and yet it directly contradicts your speculation. That would mean it's not a very stable ground to argue from, doncha think?

    Aaron said:
    ---
    I dont see any Christian Theistic equivalent or competitor that is "winning hears and minds" the way that RRS and similar atheist groups are.
    ---

    A) You aren't looking very hard.

    B) Real Christian evangelism isn't the kind of thing you're going to see news reports on (any more than you'd see news reports on *real* atheistis "evangelism" either). The only people who make the news are the people who can make people tune in--and those people are the ones who cause controversy. So you'll see Fred Phelps on the news; you won't see pastor Bob from down the street who's had 20 converts so far this year.

    Aaron wrote:
    ---
    Surely, your recent series of posts attacking RRS have done nothing to bring more sheep into the Christian flock.
    ---

    Again, there's no way you can possibly know this. You don't know what people need to hear in order to believe. There could very well be someone who reads what Paul writes and thinks, "Wow, these 'freethinking' atheists are really just ideological Nazis interested in coersion, not truth."

    That the people who would think this aren't in your circle of friends says more about you than it does about Paul.

    Aaron wrote:
    ---
    But obviously you dont care about winning hearts and minds Paul, because youve already explained that you think everything taking place today is exactly according to God's plan.
    ---

    But obviously you don't care about understanding Calvinism, Aaron, because you've never once bothered to accurately state a single tenet of Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That the people who would think this aren't in your circle of friends says more about you than it does about Paul."

    I'm curious, Peter. What do you think that says about Aaron?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm going to take a guess here, but I think he's saying that the people Aaron hangs around with are ideological Nazis interested in coercion, not truth. Maybe you should just re-read the sentence...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe this will help:

    Aaron likes to hang out with idealogical Nazis because, like him, they are interested in coersion, not truth.

    Just thought I'd take another stab at it........

    ReplyDelete
  16. *lol*

    Hostus amazingly demonstrates what happens when you read the context of a sentence! :-) Would that other people had this apparently magical (since it's so rare) talent!

    In any case, I can accomodate brachter too. It's possible s/he doesn't understand analogy and illustration. Likewise, it's possible s/he has gone through public school and thus is ignorant of the basic history required to make the connection. So, to make it as clear as possible:

    Aaron doesn't surround himself with people who would challenge his assumptions. His friends are limited to those who agree with him. These friends then become the lens by which he judges the entire world. If all of Aaron's friends agree with Aaron, then the whole world must agree with Aaron too. Well, the whole "normal" world; Paul doesn't count because Paul's a freak (i.e. "Christian").

    Aaron and his friends scoff at Paul's argument; therefore, everyone scoffs at Paul's argument. End result? Aaron says: "Surely, [Paul's] recent series of posts attacking RRS have done nothing to bring more sheep into the Christian flock." How does Aaron know this? Because Paul did not convince Aaron and Aaron's friends; therefore, Paul did not convince anyone.

    Now granted in my original analogy, I could have used a different word than "Nazis." Facists, for instance, comes to mind. See also: totallitarians, dictators, tyrants, etc. Naturally, some might accuse me of "poisoning the well" with such terms; but in calling themselves "freethinkers", atheists are "sweeting the well" first anyway. My anology only seeks to point out that they are as "free" as the jackboots marching in Germany in 1938. (For public school students, this means they weren't free at all. That "freethinkers" are not free thinkers is known as: irony.)

    In any case, Aaron's inability to understand that there might be intelligent people who would (horror of horrors) disagree with Aaron merely demonstrates Aaron's myopia (for public school students: "nearsighted"). Thus, Aaron's statement that SURELY no one was convinced by Paul's argument speaks volumes about Aaron, while not saying much at all about Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ideological Nazis, huh? Like the beliefe that everyone is born totally depraved and guilty and that you need to submit to a deity in order to be saved from a destiny of eternal misery and whoever doesnt believe this is a "fool"?

    Is that a kind of ideological naziism?

    And to Peter:

    There isnt a way for me to objectively prove what I claimed about the RRS helping others deconvert. I stated an observation based on what Ive seen lately in the blogosphere, on youtube, in the media, in atheist book sales, etc...

    And regarding the blasphemy challenge, there are hundreds of videos posted for it be nonbelievers. But the Christian response has numbered in less than a hundred videos. The challenge the blasphemy site isnt getting as much attention or hits as the blasphemy challenge site.


    Peter, you also said:

    A) You aren't looking very hard.

    So why dont you help show me?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter said:

    Aaron doesn't surround himself with people who would challenge his assumptions. His friends are limited to those who agree with him. These friends then become the lens by which he judges the entire world. If all of Aaron's friends agree with Aaron, then the whole world must agree with Aaron too. Well, the whole "normal" world; Paul doesn't count because Paul's a freak (i.e. "Christian").

    How do you know this Peter?

    Aaron and his friends scoff at Paul's argument; therefore, everyone scoffs at Paul's argument. End result? Aaron says: "Surely, [Paul's] recent series of posts attacking RRS have done nothing to bring more sheep into the Christian flock." How does Aaron know this? Because Paul did not convince Aaron and Aaron's friends; therefore, Paul did not convince anyone.

    How exactly did I scoff at Paul's argument?

    In any case, Aaron's inability to understand that there might be intelligent people who would (horror of horrors) disagree with Aaron merely demonstrates Aaron's myopia (for public school students: "nearsighted"). Thus, Aaron's statement that SURELY no one was convinced by Paul's argument speaks volumes about Aaron, while not saying much at all about Paul.

    How do you know that I cannot believe that there are intelligent people who would disagree with me? Why do you think all of my friends are atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aaron,

    You claimed,

    "Seriously though, while RRS may have declined to engage you Paul, it is picking its battles well, for the ones that RRS picks, it wins. "

    Actually, the RRS picked the argument. On Nightline they said that to "all the millions" of Christians that think they're right, "put your arguments on the table, and I'll [Sapient] put mine on the table, and we'll see who's are based on faith and who's are based on fact."

    So, Aaron, they picked the challenge with me (since I am one of the "millions" of Christians), but yet they back out.

    This state of affairs is different than the one you report. Why the need to shift the goal posts for RRS?

    So, try again.

    ~PM

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, the RRS picks their battles all right. Let's see, any new Christians out there who've read through the Gospels at least once? C'mon in here and we'll crush you like stale crackers. That's what Sapient meant by "millions of Christians", they just edited out the part where he qualified his challenge. Anyway, they're spineless jellyfish with big mouths. I have more respect for someone like James Lazarus, who understands and interacts with the theist position intelligently, than I ever will for the RRS dweebs...

    --the twinkie

    ReplyDelete
  21. I originally said:
    ---
    Aaron doesn't surround himself with people who would challenge his assumptions. [etc.]
    ---

    Aaron responded:
    ---
    How do you know this Peter?
    ---

    Later, Aaron also asks:
    ---
    How do you know that I cannot believe that there are intelligent people who would disagree with me? Why do you think all of my friends are atheists?
    ---

    Okay, you got me there. My only evidence is taking you at your word that you know all these people who have become non-believers. You could, of course, be lying about all that.

    In fact, it seems to be the case. Or perhaps I can soften the blow a bit...you were "over-enthusiastic" and "generalized" too much maybe. Still, whatever the case, my comments were based off of taking what you said in a truthful manner.

    I have no problem just assuming you don't mean anything you every say if that'll make our conversations less burdensom for you...

    Aaron said:
    ---
    Ideological Nazis, huh? Like the beliefe that everyone is born totally depraved and guilty and that you need to submit to a deity in order to be saved from a destiny of eternal misery and whoever doesnt believe this is a "fool"?
    ---

    Wasn't it the atheists recently who were complaining about all the "tu quoque" arguments??? Hey, get consistent already.

    In any case, you may certain believe the above claim if you wish; it has no bearing on my argument about your position. I readily admit that some Calvinists do behave in the same manner as you do.

    But you've missed the point completely. In my above statements, I never said atheism itself was an Nazi-esque ideology; I said that a certain group of atheists were engaged in these tactics. You happen to be one of those atheists. The others happen to be the RSS, those who claim to be "freethinkers", and we can throw in all the Debunkers too, just for fun.

    Aaron asks:
    ---
    How exactly did I scoff at Paul's argument?
    ---

    Oh yes. This is a hard one. I suppose "scoffing" to you may not include saying such things as: "Nevermind that RRS has helped deconvert many more people to atheism than it has helped push people into theism. God always wins!" Or: "But obviously you dont care about winning hearts and minds Paul, because youve already explained that you think everything taking place today is exactly according to God's plan." Or, for that matter: "This must be why his book is selling so poorly, why atheism is losing so many adherents, why there are so many new recent Churchgoers, and why religion is seeing such a huge popularity surge - especially among the youth" (which you stated in this post.

    You may very well consider that to be something other than scoffing. But you should still see why others might possibly see it in a different light.

    Then again, I can't assume you meant anything you said there. So maybe you weren't scoffing. Maybe you were trying to be ironic. Maybe you were giving me your recipe for clam chowder. Words are so tricky these days, I just can't be certain there....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hmm, I wonder if I made the list.

    ReplyDelete