Sunday, February 19, 2006

Their Policy There...

Our Policy Here…

Here at Debunking Christianity we allow anyone to comment on what we write. We like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people.

We will respond to the posts we choose to respond to if and when we have the time. But don’t assume that because we don’t respond to a post that we agreed with it, or that we didn’t respond because we didn’t want to offend someone by disagreeing with it. When it comes to posts we disagree with, don’t assume that if we haven’t responded that we won’t, and don’t assume that if we don’t respond that we can’t, and don’t assume that if we can’t respond that our opponents are right. There are always people who agree with us that will be able to answer the objections that our opponents might have. No one can claim to be an expert on all of the relevant issues between Christianity and atheism, although, our focus here is merely to debunk Christianity.

Christianity is wrong, false, and incorrect as a system of belief and as a basis for behavior. And since any system of belief that is wrong will produce ill effects for the believer, his or her family, their country, and the world as a whole, then we oppose it. It’s that simple.

…Other than that, have some fun; learn something from each other, and disagree all you want to here at Debunking Christianity. But if you’re a Christian, be forewarned that your faith may just take a hit.

Here at Triablogue we allow anyone to comment on what we write. We like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people.

We will respond to the posts we choose to respond to if and when we have the time. But don’t assume that because we don’t respond to a post that we agreed with it, or that we didn’t respond because we didn’t want to offend someone by disagreeing with it. When it comes to posts we disagree with, don’t assume that if we haven’t responded that we won’t, and don’t assume that if we don’t respond that we can’t, and don’t assume that if we can’t respond that our opponents are right. There are always people who agree with us that will be able to answer the objections that our opponents might have. No one can claim to be an expert on all of the relevant issues between Christianity and atheism, although, our focus here is merely to debunk atheism.

Atheism is wrong, false, and incorrect as a system of belief and as a basis for behavior. And since any system of belief that is wrong will produce ill effects for the believer, his or her family, their country, and the world as a whole, then we oppose it. It’s that simple.

Other than that, have some fun; learn something from each other, and disagree all you want to here at Triablogue. But if you’re a non-Christian, be forewarned that your faith may just take a hit.

Evan May.

5 comments:

  1. Fine, if we agree and disagree on the relevant points, then that's what I want. Copy our policy and I'll be okay with that. Then we can all discuss these issues reasonably.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John:

    Your missing the point of this post. What motivated you to script this "policy" was because your atheistic worldview had been disassembled. But then you state "But if you’re a non-Christian, be forewarned that your faith may just take a hit," to which I can only reply, "But if you’re a non-Christian, be forewarned that your faith may just take a hit."

    Your comment to Paul, and yes, it was a "stupid comment," betrayed the ludicrosity of your worldview. This ludicrosity was further demonstrated in Paul's response to you. The reality is, your faith "took a hit." And now you are upset.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What? Where? Again, I'm trying to be civil here. I think you are wrong. I do not think you are stupid.

    And why in the world would you think that I thought my faith took "a hit" because of one of his posts, much less that I am upset with him because I thought he showed me to be wrong?

    No, No, No. It's the uneducated arrogance, and the offensiveness with which he writes.

    You can disagree with me on this all you want to, but this is the truth.

    Educated and intelligent people know otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your "policy" post was obviously a response to statements Paul has made. I have followed the comments intently on all three blogs. I can practically read what was in your mind as you typed this out.

    You are upset about the fact that others have called your "you'll beat your wife comment" stupid. But that is what it is. And Paul patiently offered a response to your comment and showed its lack of justification, as well as deconstructed your worldview altogether. Your response, however, was to create this "policy" post.

    I notice that you removed the "Link to this post" display from your template, as well as the command that automatically displays posts that respond to your post. Why? I can understand that you are not able to respond to everyone who critiques you. But why are you hiding their responses from the public?

    John, if you’re a non-Christian, be forewarned that your faith may just take a hit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again, if Paul Manata wants to argue that he has changed from an evil person (by his own standards) and that his life changed as the result of the Holy Spirit, then I have every right to offer up a critique of his argument, and I did. The timing is the thing you suspect, I suppose, but I guarantee you that I would have offered the same critique had I just met him or if we were friends for years, especially if I could see evidence he hadn't changed, or if science tells me he probably hasn't changed (as in the case of molesters and wife beaters).

    In a way, I was helping him, but he will not recognize this, because I was the only one who was telling him the truth. I hope that he doesn't beat his wife, and I hope that my comments will help keep him from doing so, because he will never want to admit, that of all people, I'm right about it--I really honestly do. But in order to help achieve those ends I had to come across as a bad guy, even though he was the one who introduced his story as an argument for Christian conversion. Just look at his profile description and you'll see it there. The Apostle Paul's conversion was used in the same way. So once presented it's legitimate to discuss what that conversion shows, if anything, by examining, and even psychologizing the person's present exhibited behavior along with what the probabilities tell us.

    Besides, if my comments help keep him from doing what he probably would've done, then I am to be thanked. The rest of you have merely dropped the ball by turning it around on me.

    There is no argument off limits when it is used as an argument, and it was used as such. If, however, he was confessing some personal problem and needed some help on it, I would have tried to help him without a critique. This is what you don't understand and this is why I won't allow comments on the policy at Debunking Christianity about it, because you want to personally attack me merely because I offered an argument. That's what I object to. If, however, you'd like to deal with my argument, then have at it, because that's what it was. It was not a personal attack.

    You can disagree with me on this all you want to, but this is the truth.

    Educated and intelligent people know otherwise.

    ReplyDelete