What’s so striking about this bunker mentality is the fact that these three apostates happen to be the most intellectually competent bloggers to cycle through DC. If they can’t withstand rational scrutiny, what does that say about the B-team?
It also tells you something about the level of paranoia among militant unbelievers when they are prone to this siege mentality.
**************************************
This blog is open to invited readers only
exapologist
http://exapologist.blogspot.com/
It doesn't look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation.
*******************************************
This blog is open to invited readers only
Not Many Wise--On Pause for a While
http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/
It doesn't look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation.
*****************************************
This blog is open to invited readers only
Get Busy Livin', or Get Busy Bloggin'
http://blog.danielmorgan.name/
It doesn't look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete---
What’s so striking about this bunker mentality is the fact that these three apostates happen to be the most intellectually competent bloggers to cycle through DC.
---
That's what I've thought too (especially about Daniel). While we've disagreed on a lot of issues, I've always respected his rational abilities. Mainly because his disagreements were substantial rather than the typical Loftusian strawman disagreements. Daniel at least know where to attack, even though I don't think his attacks are convincing.
What a bunch of pansies!
ReplyDeleteI've seen this operate in the real world. There's a group here called the Piedmont Freethought Society. However, they don't want to interact with anybody that doesn't think the same way as they think, and they've made that abundantly clear. Their online conversation on their Yahoo group reads like a laundry list of paranoia, thinking the local Christians are out to get them, take over the country, the world, unlimited rice pudding for everyone, etc, etc. The seige mentality will eventually result in the Loftian strawman arguments given time if this group of bloggers follows the same path, for, eventually, these individuals have lost all contact with the point-of-view they wish to criticize, such that they can't get the most basic claim, definition, or overall position correct, and one spends more time correcting them on their presentation of their opposition than one does in dealing with them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they are just tired of idiots?
ReplyDeleteIn any case maybe it's a way for them to shut down for a while.
But it's absolutely juvenile to come up with one and only one reason for why they do this...That they're scared? Really? That's laughable to me.
Or maybe you're just trying to taunt them into opening it up for you to read? You feel left out. Pity you. Again, this is juvenile. Come up to the thinking adult world you guys. Let people do what they want to do without falsely judging their motives.
And I don't care who is better or who thinks someone is better than I. It makes no difference to me. I don't have that kind of ego, but I detect this in you guys. There are many people who are better at arguing for what I believe better than I do. So what? Big deal. I don't care. There are many people who argue better than you do too, but you cannot even get them to be on your blog, so there's an important difference.
You assume that we should only share why we believe what we do if we are the best at it, and that's bogus. I disagree with scholars on your side. You disagree with the scholars on my side. How dare you do that with my scholars? My scholars are better than yours are any day, and my dad can kick your Dad's ass, too.
And sometimes you can't even get the B-team to talk to you. Troy Waller turned tail and ran when I visited his blog, and called me names once he started banning my comments. I promise I didn't use any naughty words, except for "rationality".
ReplyDeleteWell, I do not control anyone, after all, we are known as "freethinkers," and I like it that way. They answer to no one but themselves. They are all adults and they think like adults.
ReplyDeleteYou may not be able to talk to some of them, but I'm still available, if you try to understand and not mischaracterize me or attack me.
John W. Loftus said,
ReplyDelete"Or maybe you're just trying to taunt them into opening it up for you to read? You feel left out. Pity you. Again, this is juvenile. Come up to the thinking adult world you guys. Let people do what they want to do without falsely judging their motives."
Maybe those two reasons are not it?
Let Steve do what he wants to do without falsely judging their motives.
I mean, maybe he did it so Loftus would blow a gasket again, say something self-defeating...again. Who knows? Just make sure you act like an adult, not imputing motives to people when they haven't told you the motives.
THat's a good come back Paul!
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me, Loftus said in one of the other comment sections: "You want to know why I am kind to people, even you?" Here he claims to be a "freethinker" and an "adult."
ReplyDeleteThe "freethinking, kind, adult" John Loftus:
--------------
“Calvindude, as I said before, get in line. Besides I don't make it a point to debate stupid people like you.” (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/answer-fool-according-to-his-folly.html)
“This is why I banned you, because you’re stupid and the only reason I come here is to correct your stupidity because you linked this page to one of ours.” (http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2006/07/loftus-and-education/#comments)
“And while I offer people the chance to get in the ring for themselves on my Blog, I am not offering that to you….so what? Would YOU offer me the chance to be a blog team member here? Hardly. So get off your ignorant high horse and get educated.” (http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2006/06/loftus-responds/#comments)
“Take a higher level OT course, but first finish High School and graduate from college, Calvindude.” (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/hebrew-polytheism.html)
--------------
Ah, basking in the freethinking adult kindness of Loftus is a glorious thing. And that only took five minutes to compile.
Here' another one Peter:
ReplyDeleteI don't suffer fools gladly.
The idea that the Debunkers all value freethinking is laughable.
ReplyDeleteTroy Waller said it best.
"Yeah, he's a tool! Don't publish his comments and he'll go away." ("He" is me.)
My guess is JWL will say "hey, we Debunkers don't self-police, and so I can't speak for Troy. But you must have really been acting like a punk for Troy, a free-thinking person, to ban you from his combox."
Yup, that's me - a seething cauldron of obscenities and expletives.
Paul, I didn't try to offer an exhaustive list of possible reasons for these blogs being closed to the general reading public, and I merely suggested that Steve "maybe" taunting them.
ReplyDeleteI am kind here. I am not bombastic. I don't throw shit at people, but I don't take it thrown at me either, and that's a big difference between us.
Freethinking, BTW has a lot to do with not blindly accepting a religious so-called "inspired" book as the authoritative source of our ideas.
Yes, it's much more "freethinking" to blindly force your own narrow irrational relativistic dreams and hopes of what the world could be onto others.
ReplyDeleteThis is off-topic, guys, so I hope you don't mind. But do you know a person named "Todangst" who wrote against TAG here. Have you guys ever responded to him?
ReplyDeleteI might post more later, but a couple of things jump out.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when this individual puts for the the "argument" presups use, he actually doesn't do so--he puts forth the summary sentence. Well, when you don't put forth the "guts" and deal with those, it's easy to dismiss them.
"Oh, you SAY you're going to deal with X, but this summary sentence never does. Therefore you don't." Response: "It would help if you read the argument rather than just the summary."
Secondly, he treats "God" as if it's an undefined term with no attributes. Thus, he says:
---
First: this is one flimsy sense of "accounting" for something. If that is "accounting" for the uniformity of the nature, then so is this: There is a council of twelve, universe-creating elves (tm)" who create uniform universes. This universe being an example of their handiwork.
There, that "accounts" for the universe being uniform just as cogently as does positing the Christian God.
---
Except it doesn't. "God" has meaning, especially for the presuppositionalist (that meaning is the Bible's descriptions of His attributes, etc.). Likewise, his concept of "twelve elfs" has meaning--we're supposed to think of an "elf" in common use.
Yet later this guy argues:
---
The presuppor basis his 'foundation' not only on a label, but an incoherent lable. He cannot provide any ontology for this 'god' nor can he give you the steps between this completely unidentifiable "X" and how this incoherent term actually provides a foundation for logic, reason, etc."
---
Except God is not a "completely unidentifiable 'X'" to the presuppositionalist. God is a being with specific attributes; He is not an unknown label that is just used. Therefore, this argument isn't addressing the presup position. It's addressing a mythical view that this individual has put forth.
This is why you can't interchange "God" and "twelve elves." Twelve elves don't have the same attributes as God.
Frankly, if this is the best critique that can be used against the presuppositionalist, the atheists are in even more trouble than I thought.
"This claim leads to a stolen concept fallacy."
ReplyDeleteSince he's a materialist, and since concepts are clumps of neurons on his view, I was wondering how I was able to cut open his skull and rip a handful of neurons out of his head, without him even knowing it? Surely he can't be *that* dumb as to miss an event like that!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteTodangst is actually Chris Smith. He's this ugly looking no-talent in need of a haircut. (He should do some push ups too.) Anyway, his justification for logic is completely arbitrary and he does the common mistake most atheists do when critiquing TAG: they use Michael Martin's argument against it. You'll find plenty of critiques of Dr. Martin in the net.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYesterday at 9:20AM, I left the comment on your thread that:
"As a side note, I've made my blogsite private because I am applying for jobs and thought it wise, so please refrain from the disparaging comments like you made about exapologist and exbeliever for doing so."
To charitably interpret this thread you started at 10 AM, after I made this comment, I could assume that you didn't see what I had said.
Or, you don't believe/understand the necessity of covering one's backside while sending out employment applications.
If the former, then do you honestly think I'm "scared"? What am I scared of? I haven't interacted with you or the other bloggers here on my own personal site for months now. Did I suddenly grow fearful that you all were going to start picking at my random writings?
If the latter, I suggest you read a bit more on the topic of employers using Google.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130466/
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/07/2005070801c.htm
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001936.html
It is bitterly ironic that SOME people here hide behind anonymity while labeling others as cowards from their own secure little bunker.
If you people think that I don't want to interact with you, whether out of fear or distaste for sampling the thoughts of those I disagree with [ie that I'm not a "true freethinker"], why do I spend so much time and effort reading your material and occasionally responding to it? How is it consistent to think that I am "too scared" to allow you to read my thoughts at my own site, but not too scared to leave them here?
Don't I have a lot more control at my own site, to censor/edit comments and modify my articles once mistakes are pointed out? Would it not be more rational to "hide" at one's own house?
OT: J P Holding has got a reply for Steve.
ReplyDeleteAnd a new nickname: CAPTAIN CALVINISM!!!!
D SAID:
ReplyDelete***QUOTE***
Or, you don't believe/understand the necessity of covering one's backside while sending out employment applications.
If the latter, I suggest you read a bit more on the topic of employers using Google.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130466/
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/07/2005070801c.htm
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001936.html
***ENDQUOTE***
Danny’s paranoia is highly ironic coming from a man who’s made some of the following claims in the past:
***QUOTE***
Sadly, it appears that your ranks among published and recognized philosophers has steadily dwindled for generations, and the trend shows no signs of reversal.
I certainly cannot say without some sort of survey data as to whether the estimates asserted in your source article are true. I know that here at UF, in our philosophy department, my advisor knows of only one theist in the entire faculty. I also read things like this editorial description: Today the majority of philosophers in the English-speaking world adhere to the "naturalist" credos that philosophy is continuous with science, and that the natural sciences provide a complete account of all that exists--whether human or nonhuman.
And see both confirmation that the "trend" may be, as you said, reversing in your direction, and confirmation that my assertion about the raw number of naturalists [versus theists] was well-founded. Is there survey data available? I hate speculating. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd love to see a statistical study of the composition of religions by profession (Ph.D. philosophers). I know that in my own field, the "best and brightest" (the NAS) are 7% theist.
***END-QUOTE***
So even though, according to Danny, people with his outlook dominate academia, reaching the 97th percentile in his own field, he lives in fear that he will be the object of discrimination when he applies for a job should his irreligious sentiments become a matter of public knowledge.
Where was he planning to apply for a job? Bob Jones University? Liberty University? Regent University?
And if he’s so apprehensive about his career prospects, why did he go on national television (Hannity & Commie) to broadcast his irreligious sentiments all around the world? Remember, too, how he touted that interview.
Now, however, he’s gone into hiding, out of fear that the vast right wing conspiracy exerts too much influence over state universities and private colleges.
Can't notice the irony here with D's comment,
ReplyDeleteSO I suppose Atheism is not the best factor for survival of the fittest in the work place huh?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteFirst, those stats refer to NAS members in the physical sciences.
Second, I am not applying to any university position, and human resources depts are not typically stocked with PhD scientists.
Third, email me at thinkingfreely@gmail and I'll send you a Blogger invite to read, and maybe then you'll show a little humility and retract the name-calling.
That applies to anyone here -- send me an email for a Blogger invite to read my site. Just, you know, to help me get over this great fear I have of all of you.
jimmy li,
ReplyDeleteCan't notice the irony here with D's comment,
SO I suppose Atheism is not the best factor for survival of the fittest in the work place huh?
Honestly, I don't get the irony here at all. Is anyone denying that the USA is ~90% theist/religious?
Why do you guys love "survival of the fittest" so much? It's probably because you mistake it for a moral imperative rather than an observation on the process of natural selection. Like "heat flows to colder objects," you know?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSomeone just pointed this post out to me today.
I gave up blogging altogether because I ran out of time for it. I actually came back to your site several times under different names and had quite pleasant conversations with you and Paul (you may remember some discussions with "interlocutor").
I was also tired of the heated exchanges that I consistently got into, and I felt that we were often talking past one another. I was embarrassed that I got so caught up with it all that I started calling people names (like Calvin Dude/Peter; I'm sorry for calling you an idiot all the time, btw). Blogging seemed to bring out the worst in me.
I also stopped blogging because I found that there was a lot more I needed to study before confidently asserting everything I claimed to know. I'm still very convinced (for a myriad of "reasons" that I feel are pretty good) that God does not exist, but I honestly haven't done enough study to really dialogue with people like you and James Anderson. I had a moderate understanding of presuppositionalism and reformed epistemology, that took me a little way (and, in my opinion, was adequate enough to answer many of the Christians who also thought they understood it), but I found that I really didn't know as much as I thought I did about it.
Probably the main reason I stopped, though, was because I stopped caring so much about the subject. The Christian faith was a big part of my life and leaving it was a painful process. I had a lot that I needed to "get out" about my experience of leaving. That took the form of blogging for me.
Now, I feel like I have moved on. I don't spend much time thinking about Christianity at all. I'm very busy with my studies, and am happy spending my time on other things. I am content to let others carry on these conversations while I do otherwise.
In case you are wondering, there is nothing going on at the Not Many Wise Blog. I haven't posted anything new there since I made it private. I only made it "private" because I wasn't planning on using it any more and didn't have time to save all of the posts and delete it altogether. Daniel asked just yesterday to be added to read the archives and he is the only reader who can access the site.
I do find it interesting that you view this stuff in such combative terms--e.g. bunkers, scaredy cats, siege, etc. I probably did my part in portraying a militant attitude, but I hope I have grown some since, and you can check back over my comments as "interlocutor" to see that we can have civil discussions.
If you miss reading about me so much, though, ;) I can point you to two sites that I maintain (they both contain my real name, and I would appreciate it if no one posted anything like, "Ah ha! exbeliever/exbrainer was really . . ." I chose to remain anonymous for the sake of my mom, mostly).
My grad-student profile.
My family blog.
Best.
D,
ReplyDelete"It's probably because you mistake it for a moral imperative"
Where did I state that survival of the fittest is a moral imperative?
I thought it was ironic because atheists talk alot about survival of the fittest, and it was just an ironic observation that your suggestion of protecting one's atheistic identity might be a good thing in "covering one's backside while sending out employment applications"
I knew it!
ReplyDeleteExbeliever is really Bob Saget!!!
Exbeliver said:
---
I was embarrassed that I got so caught up with it all that I started calling people names (like Calvin Dude/Peter; I'm sorry for calling you an idiot all the time, btw).
---
Thanks. You should know that it didn't really offend me (aside from the initial reaction). This is the internet, and I've got a thick skin (besides, I'm used to Loftus now).
But thanks for the thought anyway :-)