"...[M]y point is don't judge country people. We aren't any different than you. Anyway back to what I was saying., I am just a good ol' country boy. I am not a scientist or philosopher or some "intellectual pinhead" I am just a regular guy like most of you reading this. However I am also an atheist. (That is to say I don't believe in any deities or accept any religious dogma.) But I don't bite. I don't howl at the moon, and sacrifice cats or any other weird stereotype you have about atheists. If you didn't know any better you couldn't tell me apart from anybody else. The only difference is that I don't believe in gods. This is true for most atheists. We aren't the bad guys folks make us out to be." SOURCE
The guy in the pics looks remarkably like Peter Pike.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, PM, what's the point of your blog today? Know ye not that ye shall be judged by your words, deeds and actions?
You're assuming that Peter's icon is a real picture of himself. I have it on good authority that because Peter doesn't want his ladykiller good looks to distract female readers from the intellectual substance of his posts, he is using a pic of his second cousin Jethro.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Pike is quite the lady killer. Rolling up on his bike, since he can't legally drive a car.
ReplyDeleteHAW HAW HAW!!!!
Great Post Paul!
Them damn atheists are almost as bad as those damn liberals!
HAW HAW HAW!!!
"By the way, PM, what's the point of your blog today? Know ye not that ye shall be judged by your words, deeds and actions?"
ReplyDeleteChrist took my judgment.
The point, as indicated, was to unvail the anonymous troll. I take it that it is always more pleasent to respond to people when you can put a face to their posts. Perhaps this will allow us to be more nice since his comments have a human face behind it.
For example, why have I been so nice to you? Well, I happen to know what you look like.
So, glad I could answer your question. If you have any more, don't hesitate to ask. Ru, Ru, Baby Ruth.
"The guy in the pics looks remarkably like Peter Pike."
ReplyDeleteYeah, well you look like Joel Osteen.
Triabloggers are about 20 times smarter than their atheist counterparts, but they're also about 100 times funnier! Good stuff. >8-D
ReplyDeleteWhen the height of someone's discourse is HAW HAW HAW, I think you can safely say Proverbs 26:4 is the applicable rule. Why are you and Steve even wasting time on this cretin?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you and Steve even wasting time on this cretin?
==========
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
I hate to ask this publically, but I don't know either of you're email addresses, so please don't take the below in an "I'm callin' you out!" sort of way.
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely curious: Is there any kind of Biblical warrant or justification for this kind of treatment of someone? I am aware of harsh things said to point out and exploit great moral shortcomings (e.g. "You brood of vipers!"), but how does mocking the way someone looks tie into things? Is this kind of thing compatible with 1 Peter 3:15-16?
Paul & Steve, I think you are both great guys; you're both really funny and I've learned so much from your writings, but some posts (and things said in various comboxes) are a bit too J.P. Holding-esque for my (perhaps unelightened) tastes. The questions in my penultimate paragraph are not rhetorical, but genuine queries, and I would appreciate any clarification.
Anonmymous,
ReplyDeleteThese are the pictuures the Hill Billy atheist himself puts up for the public
http://www.hillbillyatheist.com/
I'm simply putting a face to the anonymous poster.
Pointing out anything about looks is your own inference.
It's a public website, there's no mistreatment here.
Yes, I have been to Hillbilly Atheist's site before, and I've seen those pics. But the mere posting of them wasn't what I was refering to. That said, I have to admit that I read too fast. When I first skimmed through this thread, I thought that you were, among other things, comparing Hillbilly's appearance to that of Sloth's (who's one of the best character's ever, by the way), and that's where I got the idea of extreme harshess.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, my questons still stand (though perhaps not as tall). You yourself said that your posting of Hillbilly's pictures would
"Perhaps...allow us to be more nice since his comments have a human face behind it."
And that's actually what I am referring to, that genreal un-niceness that comes about here now and then. For instamnce, I see plenty of fairly harsh remarks with respect to the lack of intelligence of the atheists that post here. While I certainly don't question the truthfulness of those remarks, my original questions would apply to the spirit and actual utterance of them. In other words, is that kind of thing consistent with a Biblical apologetic? If so, how?
It should be noted that I am not suggesting that anything said by you guys is mind-blowingly harsh, especially when compared to the kind of things they are usually in response to. Indeed, when it comes to a sheer aptitude of (and disposition to) vileness, Hilbilly and Friends win out a million to one. The only way you could even come close to equaling them in that respect would be to repeat them. Given that, I give you guys a large benefit of the doubt in this matter.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe point about putting a face behind it was to give a stupid answer to a stupid comment. An insincere response to an insincere question. A response at the level of my competition.
My responses are not intended to be mean for meanness sake, but to showcase the level of response the atheist is offering. To show the absurdity of the level he's operating at. Or, depending on the situation, to goad him into another response. Keep him coming back for more so that more apologetic techniques can be illustrated. Bank on his pride. His love of self. Mock his god and he'll stay around to defend it.
I should add that when someone is sincere, an honest inquirer, the tone is a but different. Here's a few examples:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-evil-then-god.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogues-with-infidels.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/immorality-of-hell.html
So, if the majority of commenters were like the atheists in those links, the tone and level of responses would be much different. But since the majority play at the level you see above, they get the low-grade responses. They don't learn well by following arguments, they need to have a mirror put in front of them. let them see how stupid they're acting. You see, all the time they complain against our behavior is really just a testament against *them.*
That make sense. Thanks for taking the time, Paul.
ReplyDeleteHillbilly really knows how to fill up a picture.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit ironic that I too was once a cowboy hat wearing athiest redneck.
ReplyDeleteGod took care of the athiest part and my wife eventually broke me from wearing the hat and boots.
Thank God for Grace and a patient wife!
:)
Hi Guys,
ReplyDeleteYour blog is stellar -- I peruse it nearly every day. I would just urge you, as a brother in Christ, to please be sensitive to people who may like 'cowboy culture' (and play the violin, etc.).
Sometimes you need to answer a fool according to his folly, and sometimes you need to refrain from doing so. Maybe this is a time to refrain?
Jesus said that if we love those who love us, we're on level with the world. Nothing special. But if we love our enemies and pray for them, then we're imitating our Heavenly Father.
Believers and unbelievers of all stripes need to be assured that they have a 'safe place' to express these (adiaphora, cultural) tastes, in the presence of Jesus-followers. We're not cultural elitists.
I too have laughed at what many consider 'low-brow' culture, a la Jeff Foxworthy, but I just think we need to be careful about maintaining gentleness and kindness with folks (1 Cor. 13).
This may not be a picture of the atheist himself, but it is a picture of some human being, with dignity and emotions, and a soul. Just want to urge you to consider that.
God bless – keep up the good work.
Paul, your dishonesty is always so fun to read, and your dancing around and trying to justify the sinful feelings behind your posts makes me smile.
ReplyDelete1. I am not the Hillbilly Atheist. I also sincerely doubt that you will be SHOCKED by this admission.
2. You write this kind of thing to indulge in your desire to mock someone that is disrespecting you, which stems from your pride.
3. You think you are the grand manipulator by trying to get responses from evil atheists so they can fall into your apologetic traps, but in reality, they are doing the same thing to you! Do you ever notice that the actual content of your original postings is rarely interacted with, because you're wasting time in bantering back and forth to sooth your wounded pride? Do you think this is because 'anonymous' is so afraid of your posts, or because they want to turn attention to you, the real entertainment, instead?
4. The 'spirit' behind your words is not of Christ, as hard as you try to claim otherwise. You are drawn into sinful behavior again and again through these interactions.
5. As much fun as it is for you and other T-bloggers to flex your apologetic muscles against such heavyweights as 'anonymous,' it is just as much fun for 'anonymous' to laugh back at your hypocrisy.
6. If unbelievers are right in their view of the world, they justified in laughing at your idiocy. If you are correct in your view of the world, they are justified in laughing at your hypocrisy.
That ain't no violin, it's a fiddle.
ReplyDelete"2. You write this kind of thing to indulge in your desire to mock someone that is disrespecting you, which stems from your pride."
ReplyDeleteYou're projecting, anon. You filter everything through your world view. Let me humbly suggest that maybe it is limited, and perhaps inaccurate and what you are saying is unfair to Paul. At least consider the possibility that your limitations might cause you to attribute motives to others that don't exist.
But he has got you thinking, and coming back and even troubled you to the point of forgetting the trademark 'haw haw'. Maybe his method is working after all.
I'd also add, liberal theologies often try to derail orthodoxy with this charge of 'pride'. But simply because doing the right thing (such as rebuking, church discipline, how about stopping a mugger from stealing an old woman's purse?) involves the danger of pride, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteIf people want to play the speculation game, the case seems far more damning against the liberals.
To make one more analogy that you as an atheist would be able to relate to: let's say a corporate shill for a tobacco company tried to convince people that smoking was healthy. It would be the moral duty of a compassionate medical authority to refute this in the strongest possible terms. He might be proud of his refutation, but so what? It's irrelevant. If he has any spiritual discernment he'll pray to be cured of any wrong motives, but he won't duck his responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteI hate to ask this publicly, but I don't know either of you're email addresses, so please don't take the below in an "I'm callin' you out!" sort of way.
I am genuinely curious: Is there any kind of Biblical warrant or justification for this kind of treatment of someone? I am aware of harsh things said to point out and exploit great moral shortcomings (e.g. "You brood of vipers!"), but how does mocking the way someone looks tie into things? Is this kind of thing compatible with 1 Peter 3:15-16?
Paul & Steve, I think you are both great guys; you're both really funny and I've learned so much from your writings, but some posts (and things said in various comboxes) are a bit too J.P. Holding-esque for my (perhaps unenlightened) tastes. The questions in my penultimate paragraph are not rhetorical, but genuine queries, and I would appreciate any clarification.
And that's actually what I am referring to, that general un-niceness that comes about here now and then. For instance, I see plenty of fairly harsh remarks with respect to the lack of intelligence of the atheists that post here. While I certainly don't question the truthfulness of those remarks, my original questions would apply to the spirit and actual utterance of them. In other words, is that kind of thing consistent with a Biblical apologetic? If so, how?
It should be noted that I am not suggesting that anything said by you guys is mind-blowingly harsh, especially when compared to the kind of things they are usually in response to. Indeed, when it comes to a sheer aptitude of (and disposition to) vileness, Hillbilly and Friends win out a million to one. The only way you could even come close to equaling them in that respect would be to repeat them. Given that, I give you guys a large benefit of the doubt in this matter.
**************************
These are valid questions. By way of reply:
1.I’m not responsible for what Manata does, and Manata is not responsible for what I do. I can’t speak for him, and he can’t speak for him.
BTW, this is not to distance myself from anything he’s said or done. In fact, I agree with everything he’s said in the combox here.
2.Likewise, you’re question is very general, so I can’t go through every post I’ve done or comment I’ve left on a case by case basis and explain my motivations.
3.There are different ways of responding to potential critics. One way, generally exemplified by the likes of John Murray, John Frame, and Roger Nicole, is to use the same tone with everyone. A detached, respectful tone that avoids all ad hominem invective.
That’s a valid approach, and perhaps it’s the best overall approach.
4.However, I don’t think that’s the only valid approach. Up-to-a-point, I respond to people on their own level, and if they complain, they’re being hypocritical since I’m merely answering them on their own terms.
5.At Tblog I have two types of targets. On the one hand, I try to target the best representatives of the opposing position. On the other hand, I also target the popularizers.
The tone I adopt is generally a reflection of the target. Opponents of Christianity in general and Reformed theology in particular are usually quite unreasonable.
If the tone of Tblog seems to be disproportionately negative, that’s a side-effect of our lopsided selection-criterion. It’s due to the nature of the people we critique or respond to. By the same token, Tblog is a magnet for irrational critics.
Manata and I are both capable of having perfectly civil discussions with folks we disagree with. However, most of the folks we critique, or most of the folks who respond, are irrational, so that affects the overall tone of Tblog.
We could raise the tone and make the content more edifying by simply avoiding Catholic epologists and atheist epologists (to cite two examples). But it’s important to get into the trenches with these folks because they have a far longer reach. For every atheist who reads Graham Oppy, there are hundreds (or more) who get their info from some atheistic epologist. For every Catholic who reads Karl Rahner or Ray Brown, there are hundreds (or more) who get their info from some Catholic epologist.
6.I think it’s helpful to expose the intellectual pretensions of unbelievers. They pride themselves on the intellectual superiority of atheism. They pose as rationalists and intellectuals. But they don’t actually argue for atheism. Or if they do, they simply regurgitate some stock objections to Christianity. Having done that, they’ve shot their wad. When you respond to their stock objections, they have no counterargument.
So it’s useful to rip off the mask and show that their intellectual affections are just for show, just a front for beliefs and behavior they adhere to for emotional or personal reasons.
7.Apropos (6), it’s hard to get through to the real person when he’s putting on an act. Unbelievers play the role of the rationalist or man of reason.
But the quickest and easiest way to get in touch with the real person is to make him mad at you. Suddenly the make-up comes off and you’re face-to-face with the real person.
There are times when it’s necessary to shame the unbeliever in order to smoke him out into the open. Either he can back up his claims or he can’t. So you take advantage of his intellectual pride. Unbelievers are very concerned with the image they project. They don’t want to look foolish.
When you’re dealing with a posturing or evasive unbeliever, it can be useful to pin him to the wall with his own rhetoric. If he’s a poseur, he needs to be challenged and confronted on his own terms. At that point he will either drop the act or go hide. As long as he’s play-acting, it’s impossible to have an honest conversation.
So that’s my rationale. It may be mistaken, but that’s how I see it.
CHRIS ROSS SAID:
Hi Guys, your blog is stellar -- I peruse it nearly every day. I would just urge you, as a brother in Christ, to please be sensitive to people who may like 'cowboy culture' (and play the violin, etc.).
Sometimes you need to answer a fool according to his folly, and sometimes you need to refrain from doing so. Maybe this is a time to refrain?
Jesus said that if we love those who love us, we're on level with the world. Nothing special. But if we love our enemies and pray for them, then we're imitating our Heavenly Father.
Believers and unbelievers of all stripes need to be assured that they have a 'safe place' to express these (adiaphora, cultural) tastes, in the presence of Jesus-followers. We're not cultural elitists.
****************************************
Hi Chris,
It’s true that the Christianity is not about cultural elitism. I think Manata’s point, and I’ve made this point myself, is that unbelievers generally treat all Christians according to an elitist stereotype of bucktoothed snake-handlers.
And I think Manata is simply measuring them by their own chosen yardstick. This isn’t his yardstick.
Chris,
ReplyDelete"I would just urge you, as a brother in Christ, to please be sensitive to people who may like 'cowboy culture' (and play the violin, etc.)."
You should know that I like 'Cowboy Culture.'
I am also a fan of Cajun Music, which is even to "Redneck" for some rednecks.
Hill Billy Anonymous,
ReplyDeletePaul, your dishonesty is always so fun to read, and your dancing around and trying to justify the sinful feelings behind your posts makes me smile.
You can think what you want, but what else explains the quite pleasent and enjoyable and polite conversations I've had with many other atheists? Why is it that I only treat the people who call me an "idiot" like an "idiot?" Read what I wrote, go back and view all my comments to you (and the others) in that light, and see if the light turns on for you.
I was pretty sure you weren't the Hill Billy atheist, but you came in here and called yourself Uncle Jesse and acted like a country bumkin atheist. So, I dubbed you the hill billy atheist. After all, you're anonymous. Perhaps if you went by your real name you wouldn't act the way you do? Perhaps then you wouldn't just lob stupid and irrelevant comments our way since there'd be a name behind it?
Anyway, I'm not really concerned with what you've said, so I'm not going to bother responding to all your points. Frankly, I'd be happy if all you New Atheists found yourselves a new watering hole. The "idiot!" and "yawn" and "sinner" and "that was 10 second I'll never get back" gets a bit old. But as long as you play that way, I'll talk your own language better than you.
LOL!
ReplyDeleteThe truth hurts, doesn't it Paul?
Beeyotched again.
HAW HAW HAW!!!
:::YAWN!!!:::
and don't forget,
SNNNIIIZZZZ!!!
Paul, you have a moral duty to delete the above comment. R.C. Sproul or Paul Washer might stumble across it by mistake and turn into atheists.
ReplyDeleteYou must remember that hillbilly atheists can't read.
ReplyDeleteThis is how this page looks to Uncle Jesse.
This blog keeps getting worse and worse. The authors at Triablogue allow themselves to descend lower and lower, hoping to outdo their unbelieving rivals. It's quite disappointing to see that the playground mentality has gotten the better of you all. No doubt you're going to try to defend your behavior, which will only seal my point all the more.
ReplyDeleteSteve Hays wrote "I have it on good authority that because Peter doesn't want his ladykiller good looks to distract female readers from the intellectual substance of his posts, he is using a pic of his second cousin Jethro."
ReplyDeleteAnother liar posing in shepherd's clothing. Nothing new.
The atheists keep getting whinier and whinier. They descend lower and lower into irrationality pretending to be wise. It's quite dissapointing to see the DNC mentality has gotten the better of y'all. No doubt you're going to ignore the fact that an argument has already been presented (and not responded to), which will only seal my point all the more.
ReplyDeleteHEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEE HAW, you Christians make me PEEEUKE. We are the winners. The ATHEISTS! When will you realize that your pathetic apologetics will NEVER usurp us. NEVER! From my mom's basement computer lab, I'll rule the world, mmmwwwaaahahahaha. We're out of the closet now, theists. We're not afraid to show our atheistic pride anymore. Too long have you ostracized and demonized us. Too long have we had to bow our heads at high school football game prayers. Well not anymore! We're large and in charge in the science halls. Don't you know that over 80% of the scientific community hold no god-belief. If you didn't, YOU KNOW NOW! We're sick of you. Thinking you're better than us. Too long have you burned free-thinkers at the stakes of dogmatic authority. Well now it's our time to shine. OUR TIME, I tell ya!
ReplyDeleteWe're gonna send Pike on a hike.
Beat Manata like a piñata.
Put Hays in a daze.
Toss Gene of the Bridges of Madison County.
Hit Chan with Hitchens.
Put Bernie on a gurney.
Give Engwer the middle fengwer.
And finally get even with Evan.
Just you try to stop us. JUST TRY IT! HEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEE HAW.
Stay tuned to the atheist mental degradation station. Rock 666.0. Eveyr night. Midnight. With your host, D.J. Squawkin Duh Dawkins. BOO-YAH!
Atheist United Front, out.
ROTFL! Thanks for making me spit my soda all over my computer screen, whoever did that AUF post. LOL.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, that auf (paul) comment was pretty hilarious.
ReplyDeleteAtheists loose again!
This guy makes me almost miss Loftus.
ReplyDeletePaul Manata said:
ReplyDeletePerhaps if you went by your real name you wouldn't act the way you do? Perhaps then you wouldn't just lob stupid and irrelevant comments our way since there'd be a name behind it?
Why would you think that? It hasn't stopped you.