Triablogue Lies About “Debunking Christianity”
26 April 2006 by SeanUpdate #2: Exbeliever from Debunking Christianity comes to tell us that our own Ron knows him in the real world. Exbeliever: please don’t go bury your head in the sand. Skeptics will be skeptics, and even assholes like the Tribble-Dogs sometimes stumble upon reality. Unless Ron comes on here and says he has no idea what the fuck you are talking about, please consider the re-titling of this post redemption (to use “their” terminology). The webernets are full of bullshit. Having a bullshit-meter constantly active is the sacred duty of any good skeptic. And Marcus: I never believed the Trial-Hogs, either. I just was — and still am — curious about some of the things I described in this post.
Update: Thanks to a little detective work and word from John Loftus over at Debunking Christianity, it is looking like this was probably just a nasty rumor created by the trustworthy folks over at Triablogue. Please see the comments on this entry, including Mr. Lofton’s response here.
Apropos of today’s regrettable domestic quarrels here at GifS over the validity of activities that could be seen as baiting, trolling or misrepresenting on the webernets, I came across this post on Triablogue that I have to admit gave me pause. We have linked to Debunking Christianity a number of times… And they originally put us in their blogroll.
Have we been had?
From the Tribble-dogs:
As any halfway observant individual can discern for himself, Debunking Christianity is a hoax
The Blogdom of God is abuzz with gossip and rumormongering over the true identity of the comic genius that did it.
At last count, the smart money was on Frank Walton.
The trick in hoaxing a weblog is to give it just enough initial consistency to hook the unsuspecting while planting enough discreet, but well-placed, clues to alert the attentive…
… As to Lippard, this is clearly a cut-and-paste concoction. Walton simply cooked up a fictitious profile, and stuffed the Lippard blog with Moveon.org hand-me-downs…
… Holman is another cut-and-paste job. All Wanton need to do was glean a few hortatory quotes from Ingersoll and string them together…
… But since some folks are slow on the uptake, Walton has favored us with another broad hint when Loftus highlighted the deconversion of “Dennis.”
If you click on the link, it takes you to a one-time member of notorious cult who’s currently working as a massage “therapist.”
Needless to say, no self-respecting atheist would cite such an all-around loser as a character witness for atheism…
But then check this out:
… One of Walton’s finest creations is Acharya S., a new-age quackster worthy to stand beside Miss Haversham.
Equally Dickensian in his mastery of eccentric characterization is “Stardust Musings.”
She’s no more real than Tinkerbell. Come to think of it — she is Tinkerbell.
Her literary pedigree goes back to Carl Sagan, when Mr. Walton bought a 50¢ copy of Cosmos (“Billions and billions”) down at the used bookstore, snugly sandwiched in-between Synchrodestiny and Out on a Limb…
Okay, wait. That’s our own Stardust, gang… She is neither a Tinkerbell, nor a fictitious character — nor is her love of Carl Sagan false.
But that doesn’t mean this Tribble-Frogs post isn’t onto something. The more I look at D.C., the more the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Something seems off when you look at it with new eyes. Am I falling for a Tribble-Hawgs trap? Or is something fishy going on over at D.C.? Go back to the site and read with an eye toward “scam.” What do you think?
26 April 2006, on 3:47 am
I’m not going to take anything the Dribbles say on trust. Period. If they’re serious with their allegations, they can put up a side-to-side comparison with DC’s postings with what they claim to be originals.
That said, I don’t keep “Debunking” on my OPML, because it’s not saucy enough for me. I like it better here
And as to attacking Stardust: if they had balls, I’d eat them for breakfast. As it is, I’ll have to be content with giving Star a high five: if they attack her that viciously, she must have hit a nerve. Congratulations, Star
26 April 2006, on 4:36 am
The founder of the site (John W. Loftus) just recently released a new book titled “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains” and I found an earlier one on Amazon titled “From Minister to Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind”.
They’ve got several prominent atheists listed as contributors on the site, such as Dan Barker and Ed Babinski. I’ve actually seen posts/comments from Dan (can’t recall seeing any from Ed).
And even though it may be a bit tamer than this site, they do seem to love the challenge of debunking Christianity. If it is a hoax site, then they have done their homework.
I’m interested Sean, what in particular makes the hairs stand up?
26 April 2006, on 7:32 am
All sorts of stuff, Bruce. That book, for instance. I just spent some time checking that out. It’s an on-demand, self-published book:
http://tinyurl.com/gllf9
Meaning no copies are in print until you order one. Read the introduction. By the end he is saying the flakiest things, almost as a nod to those who might suspect it’s a hoax. It’s quite subtle but there:
He talks about how there are lots of scholars who know better than he on any issue he covers, yet he is going to try and cover them all in a half-assed way, anyway. He mentions doing his best with the “metal equipment” he has. He talks about his own book as poisonous and equates it to pornography in really sly ways: “I thought about describing the book as pornography on the back cover. Pornography poisons the mind, too.”
Like they said… If you read it looking for clues left to people with that mindset, they seem to be everywhere. And the last bits in the intro straight up seem to be a hint that he believes in God after all and this is just the work of an idiot:
“I make no pretense at comprehensively covering an specific issue that I write about. For instance, while I understand and eventually agree (emphasis mine) with Dr. Craig on the Kalam argument for the existence of God, I just never wrote much about it, and chose not to do so now, since what I have written still gives a good sense of where I am at intellectually. And since I haven’t been reading a lot on these issues in the last six years I do not show an awareness of recent research and writing…”
Why would you write that in your intro? He’s basically saying “I don’t know my shit, and besides, I agree with Dr. Craig on the existence of God anyway. Rather than a doubter’s book, these seems like an extremely dry (as in, not funny, because they aren’t funny) satirical take on a deconversion.
Yes, real people are commenting on their blog now. And some of the people they are pointing to and are pointing back are real… But the Tribble-Dawgs are saying that their members, their main treatises about themselves, are made up, or cut-and-past jobs. I know how easy it is to set up a self-published book, so the existence of this book proves little to me.
Okay, maybe I am being paranoid… But it does seem weird the more I look.
26 April 2006, on 7:37 am
Shall we set up a site called “Debunking Debunking Christianity”>
26 April 2006, on 7:38 am
The Tribbledogs claimed they are using some fake names, some real names to create the illusion. There is no bio info under Dan Barker’s profile at all:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/20136430
Someone could be posting comments as him and not actually be him.
Babinski’s bio is extremely spare and lists movies like Dogma, Bedazzled, Saved and Army of Darkness as favorite films, which seems a straigt up joke on what sophomoric atheists might find enjoyable:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/7144515
Also, his other two blogs that are listed don’t exist.
26 April 2006, on 8:05 am
More:
There are more profiles among their supposed contributors that have no info at all. And they are right, something is wrong with Brother Danny’s site:
http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/11/shawshank-sunday-i-brooks-vs-red.html
Get Busy Livin’, or Get Busy Bloggin’
Usual stuff: opinion passed off as objective truth, ranting and bitching and moaning about stuff I can’t change…that kinda thing
Isn’t that a classic theist argument against atheists? That we are just expressing opinion when we point to science as objective truth? And isn’t “ranting and bitching and moaning about stuff I can’t change” not only outrageously self-ridiculing, but a direct to the Serenity Prayer? (”God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can’t change..”)
And the main slogan itself seems a crack at bloggers: if you are bloggin’, you ain’t livin’.
Also, in blog-scamming, just because entries look older, it doesn’t mean they are. One can change the time stamp on an entry any time.
Dan’s profile items are just pages on a student website at University of Florida.
http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmorgan/aboutme.htm
He lists his own blog as:
“My Blog (mothballed indefinitely, may resume writing at some point in near future”
Because it is meant as a static hoax trap?
His letter to Jim Nickels shows no proof of ever having been sent, and is also filled with an inordinate amount of self-deprecation:
http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmorgan/JN%20letter.htm
Dr. Marlene Winell, also listed as a contributor, has no links back to D.C. on her site. I just sent her this letter:
Dr. Winell: Are you in fact involved with the web site “Debunking Christianity”? There are a lot of rumors going around that this site is a hoax. I would love it if you could tell me whether your involvement is real. They have you listed as a contributor in their right column:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
Thanks!
We’ll see what she says.
26 April 2006, on 9:29 am
You know Sean, I was wondering myself recently and that is why I haven’t commented on there for a LONG time now. Why would you remove a link of a blog like this one that generates much more traffic for your own little blog? They spend a lot of time “catering” to Triablogue when I have banned them from mine. Taking off Gifs but allowing Tibbledogs? Doesn’t make sense to me either.
26 April 2006, on 9:31 am
Tribbledogs hate me because I banned them and deleted all of their stupid ass comments.
26 April 2006, on 9:37 am
Oh, correction on comment #7…I see we are still on their blogroll…I was reading like an xian and skimming…sorry.
26 April 2006, on 9:39 am
Maybe tribbledogs is a hoax? Maybe they both are a hoax to do kind of a gawd and satan “battle”.
26 April 2006, on 9:48 am
Sean,
They also take a stab at GIFS. I’ll take this with an ocean of salt.
26 April 2006, on 9:55 am
I just looked up John W Loftus’s book at the Library of Congress site and nothing comes up. I put in the ISBN number and nothing. That is a bit strange. If a book has a legit ISBN # it should come up at the Library of Congress whether it is in print or not.
26 April 2006, on 10:35 am
Stardust: Just a note on the LOC. I’m a librarian and I can tell you that not all ISBN’s will come up with a record on LOC. I routinely get in-print books that do not show up on LOC.
Sean: as for the legitimacy of DC… I haven’t looked at it before now, but it reads like an in-joke to me. Dead-end links, sketchy profiles, etc. If it’s making you skeptical, there may well be a good reason.
26 April 2006, on 10:46 am
heh…
They’re probably creating sock puppets so they can infiltrate atheist blogs and then bring them down from the inside.
But I’m not being serious so everyone can relax. Don’t get crazy!
26 April 2006, on 10:51 am
And as to attacking Stardust: if they had balls, I’d eat them for breakfast. As it is, I’ll have to be content with giving Star a high five: if they attack her that viciously, she must have hit a nerve. Congratulations, Star
For being Tinkerbell, they sure get pissed off at me and give me lots of publicity.
Xians hate being deleted or their comments messed with. It makes some of them insanely mad. They also hate it that I won’t get into a debate with them about xianity because I am not going to debate fairy tales with them and will not let them “pollute” my blog.
When one debates (instead of debunks) xianity, he or she is looking for the possiblity that Gawd might just be real. I adamently do not believe in the existence of gawds, goddesses or any other creatures of mythology and fiction. Tribbledogs know that I am a “lost cause” and that people at Gifs are not going to take them the least bit seriously. So, Tribbledogs resort to insults and slander. (I really think THEY are a hoax.)
An author said (I forget who it is now) it is the greatest flattery when you can anger your opponents with the written word. It shows your writing is effective. And since the writing by GifS members is excellent and has struck a nerve in nearly every post, it will also make Tribbledog’s “hated” list.
Even if Debunking Xianity is not a hoax, I don’t understand why they allow people like Evan May and Manata and others like them to repeatedly come on their blog and insult and debate in these circular arguments which lead to nowhere. I don’t understand the point if one is not going to really DEBUNK what they say they are Debunking…on their OWN blog. I don’t troll over to xian blogs, however, if they come to mine they are going to hear MY views and I will try to get them to see my side and I am not going to waste time talking about what some ancient dusty text says, or about the “warm and fuzzy” feelings someone has about some ancient crucified dead guy.
26 April 2006, on 11:02 am
Stardust: Just a note on the LOC. I’m a librarian and I can tell you that not all ISBN’s will come up with a record on LOC. I routinely get in-print books that do not show up on LOC.
Audrey, Thanks. I was hoping that someone more into research would comment on that.
I did a search for John W Loftus and found his comments against xianity in many places and I think all that would take a lot of time to “plant”.
26 April 2006, on 11:52 am
Sean:
I was having a discussion over at my blog, & I criticized Evan May’s ‘amazing story of induction into the loser’s club’ in my post, ‘Where is the Love, the Love they expound upon’, when a theist mentioned this:
“Regarding the “loser’s club”, I think you missed the context of their previous dialogues with “Debunking Christianity” and clarification of tactical responses.
I can’t speak for them, but here are a couple comments Hays has made on it:
“Loftus and his crew focus so much attention on their own personalities. If they are going to make their personal testimony such a large part of their case against the faith, then it’s only fair game to reply in kind.
iii) But they don’t respond to my issue-oriented pieces either. They prefer to characterize what I’ve written instead of quoting and rebutting what I’ve written.
And they characterize what I’ve written in very ad hominem terms even as they loudly profess to deplore ad hominem tactics.
I’ve mounted a two-pronged counteroffensive in which I respond to them on their own turf, whether in issue-oriented pieces or ad hominem pieces.
c) As to Christian ethics, we are not dealing here with some know-nothing teenager or confused collage student whose view of the Christian faith is based on hostile, thirdhand sources.
[snip]
No, what we are dealing with over at Debunking Christianity is hardened unbelief by those who sin in full knowledge of the light.
The Bible doesn’t treat everyone the same way. There are degrees of guilt and aggravating circumstances.
If you read what the Bible has to say about open apostates and false teachers, they come in for a very different treatment”
The topic was the ad hominem attack, but I find these commentaries most revealing.
26 April 2006, on 11:59 am
Ok guys ‘n dolls, I really enjoy coming here on a daily basis to see what you have come up with. Mostly I count on you to point me toward social and political events that atheists need to be aware of. I also click though to FSDT for a little light reading.
The beginning of this post is so much of an insider thing as to render me bewildered and speechless. Unfortunately at this moment I don’t have a lot of time to write a thoughtful and complete piece on what I observe here, so this quickie will have to do for the moment.
It is easy to get bogged down in the political minutia of the blog world, and some blog bogging is requisite. The energy and effort of the people both here and at FSDT is substantial and significant. I would warn of the dangers of excessive navel contemplation and commenting just for the purpose of ridicule alone (shooting fish in a barrel is self-serving and a tad self-indulgent (more of a FSDT thing than GifS)).
The human animal is in it adolescence and is experiencing hormones and undergoing a nasty bout of cultural teen angst. Belief in Santa Claus is adorable in a 4 year old and pathological in a 40 year old. Many parts of the world exist as they did hundreds of years ago, side by side with elements of the 21st century.
To out grow religion one must replace the valuable social functions it has provided for centuries. Death and marriage, rituals, counseling, community gatherings and focal activities have been provided by religious hierarchies in addition to the kowtowing, pledging of hearts and minds and the worship of deified dangly bits.
People will continue to outsource their children’s morality training, and avail themselves of the community benefits of religion, until there are alternatives in place those fill those needs. As an aside, I think that is why so many fundies are against public schools, it is one of the ubiquitous platforms available on which to build community services without all that nagging faith piling up.
I guess what I am trying to say is keep up this good work, but don’t waste all you energy preaching to the choir (where would we be without sports and religious metaphors) start undermining their hold on society by providing their benefits sans dogma, one must remove the roots to kill the weed. There are better ways to say this but I gotta go for now.
Thank you all
26 April 2006, on 12:21 pm
Babinski’s bio is extremely spare and lists movies like Dogma, Bedazzled, Saved and Army of Darkness as favorite films, which seems a straigt up joke on what sophomoric atheists might find enjoyable:
Well then call me sophmoric, because Army of Darkness is in my bio and that movie kicks ass! (On a serious note, some of the bios are extremely sparse and should be updated and filled in to give more credibility).
I just sent an email to Dan Barker asking him the same questions you asked Dr. Winell. Also, since Dan has supplied a blurb in support of John’s new book, I asked him if he wrote that blurb and if he could personally vouch for John’s credibility and the Debunking Christianity website.
26 April 2006, on 12:46 pm
Well, I didn’t hear back from Dr. Marlene Winell, so I actually just picked up the phone and called her.
http://marlenewinell.net/
She said that she is a real contributor to the site, though she has had very little to do with it and doesn’t know why there would be rumors of a hoax. I didn’t press her further about the other names on the site. I was just acting like a harmless, curious blogger. Didn’t wanna freak her out or anything.
So that one… I guess… In favor of “not a hoax.”
Why are all the testimonials and everything so wishy-washy then? Why so many dead-end links and stuff?
26 April 2006, on 1:53 pm
She said that she is a real contributor to the site, though she has had very little to do with it and doesn’t know why there would be rumors of a hoax.
That’s good to know.
Why are all the testimonials and everything so wishy-washy then? Why so many dead-end links and stuff?
Sean, I have wondered those things myself. I get the feeling as if they are still searching to find answers that maybe will lead them back to gawd or something.
Maybe I am missing something, but with their “army” of atheist members on DC, they don’t seem to be able to get the upper hand on their own blog. It just keeps going round, and round and round…they write stuff…Tribbledog Stevewhateverhisnameis and others go back and write bullshit about DC members…and so on and so on and so on. Unlike our “Lion Feeding” that moves on to something or someone else, it just is a continuous game of table tennis between Triablogue and DC.
26 April 2006, on 2:01 pm
Stardust,
I’ve noticed the same which is why I don’t read either.
26 April 2006, on 2:13 pm
Marcus,
I find it a big waste of time and they never accomplish anything and I can’t for the life of me understand why they let that Manata ass or other antagonist trollers to keep commenting and insulting them. That’s one of the big things that puzzles me.
Another thing…don’t they have anything else to debate or talk about except some mythological book and gawd? No politics, science, education, …pornography, funnies,…it’s almost a debate to see who is more “intellectual” than who on there.
26 April 2006, on 3:22 pm
I just got this back from Dan Barker:
As far as I know, it is all legitimate.
If not, then I am a victim of the hoax too . . .
I read one chapter of the Loftus book, enough to make a comment, which
I think he used as a blurb.
Yes, I joined the site . . . but I haven’t had much time to
participate. So far, I assume it is all honest.
I couldn’t find an email address for Babinski on his web site or I would ask him as well since he wrote the forward to Loftus’ new book.
I do agree that it did seem like they let the apologists get away with too much and at times lost control of their own blog. And for a while it did seem like a pissing match with TribbleDogs. I haven’t noticed as much of that recently, but I don’t read everything on DC like I do here because some of it is too esoteric for me. But the blog is about debunking Christianity, so I would expect that a lot of it is going to be very specific about the Bible and Christian theory and apologetics.
And definitely, they should clean up all the little loose ends in the bios and such to make the site look more legit (assuming it is not a hoax).
I’m not ruling out a hoax yet (just the natural born skeptic in me), but in the few discussions I’ve participated in, I didn’t see anything out of the ordinary.
26 April 2006, on 3:33 pm
Stardust:
Heh. They are the believers. Whenever they believe really hard, they make Ms Tinkerbell Stardust stronger
You said: “When one debates (instead of debunks) xianity, he or she is looking for the possiblity that Gawd might just be real.”
Harken to that!
Actually I think that there’s no need to debunk the Dribbles. Give them just enough rope to hang themselves, they do that better than any sane person could.
Loftus’ book turns up on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412046025/qid=1146082767/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2276876-1340743?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Unfortunately there is no account available from BugMeNot, so I have no quotes.
As to sparse bios, I’m sure that you all have noticed that I’m not exactly forthcoming with my real-life identity either, but I’m still not a closet Xian
Blogs are mined by marketing companies, intelligence services and fanatics (individuals and groups). I consider it wiser not to let on more than necessary and I wouldn’t hold it against anybody who did the same.
26 April 2006, on 3:41 pm
The responses back from Dan Barker and Dr. Marlene Winell, along with the many links to comments and articles by John W Loftus have pretty much convinced me DC is not a hoax. (Though I don’t see them getting anywhere with their current format.)
So xians have proven themselves to be great liars once again, and Triablogue has proven once again that they are a bunch of antagonistic, lying bastards.
Did someone here, or did someone else put that link to this GifS post on Triablogue??
26 April 2006, on 3:57 pm
I will respond on our Blog, and I only skimmed through these comments, but let me say a few things. In my earlier book I was a Existential Deista and I wrote as one. In the progression of my thought I became an atheist, and my new book reflects that belief, so there will be descrepancies between them.
Triablogue is just doing what they do to atheists. When they cannot answer our arguments they try to discredit us. And they are trying to make a point about the gulibility of we atheists. Don’t buy into it.
Also, if Frank Walton is the originator of DC then he’s doing himself and his faith a great deal of harm. Does anyone actually think Christians would be supportive of this site?
Also, Triablogue just wrote a post where they do the same things to themselves, calling their own site a hoax.
Would you please post these comments as a separate post for those who may be wondering? Thanks you. And thanks for visiting us at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
26 April 2006, on 4:26 pm
Triablogue is just doing what they do to atheists. When they cannot answer our arguments they try to discredit us. And they are trying to make a point about the gulibility of we atheists. Don’t buy into it.
John W Loftus – why do you allow these hateful, antagonistic trolling bastards to comment on your blog? Why do you give them the time of day? I have banned them from my blog and have deleted all of their comments and will continue to do so. They are not worth my time and I do not want them “polluting” my blog’s comment space.
26 April 2006, on 4:35 pm
Star
Right on I too have become very reluctant to have any debate with xians. They do not have a sense o being given new info and when debating them they are most likely to win. A debate is their style also because it is a win lose set-up. It is never win/win. I refuse to engage them any longer. The facts of our lives speak for themselves and we need to be about our living and less about being involved in the xian trap called debate.
I don’t know if anyone here is interested or not. On Thurs. at 11pm there is a program on CBS “A bible based government” . If I’m not mistaken it will be about this
http://www.theocracywatch.org/ .
I plan on watching and finding out if there is anything new that I am unaware of. It could be about the dominionist ideals and their manipulation of our gov’t.
So far as the DC is concerned I am not sure it is a set-up but why have xian debates that the xians can refer to and make hay from. Stardust has the right idea. Don’t give them even a bone to gnaw on except on their own sites. If we stay on target and rise to our highest level of blogging then we become the inspiration that people are seeking. Fighting people openly is at times fun and funny but of little overall long term benefit to us. In our daily lives we are sometimes overwhelmed with their idiocy and it gets hard to refrain from ranting. But that is when we as a group need to have other causes to devote ourselves to so that we are not wrapped up in the xian interactions. Their intent is to dictate to all how and what we will be discussing and what the issues will be. And we do not need to allow them that power.
26 April 2006, on 4:52 pm
Their intent is to dictate to all how and what we will be discussing and what the issues will be. And we do not need to allow them that power.
jimmer – this is absolutely how I feel. I will not allow them to come to my blog and dictate terms. They will not bait me with insults to go and comment on their shitty-ass blog. They can take their little game and shove it.
I have xian commentors on my blog…and lurkers…and do not mind. I welcome comments from everyone who takes the time to stop by even if we get into some intense debates sometimes, however, I will not deal with hateful trolls.
they are trying to make a point about the gulibility of we atheists
How gullible is it to believe in a supernatural sky daddy and all of the absurd mythology that goes along with it?
26 April 2006, on 5:00 pm
jimmer:
Very nicely said, it echoes some of my own sentiments.
Always either/or w/them. Agreed.
I’ve implemented the Creative Commons license on my site. I originally did it to prevent some of my stories on my blog from being stolen, but it also requires anyone borrowing content to ask my permission to use it. I have no idea if I can litigate w/it (chances are slim), but fingers crossed.
Hopefully, it’ll keep the crossfire at a minimum. The wolves at bay, so to speak.
That is, if any of them play by their own rules. ‘Thou shalt not…’ etc.
26 April 2006, on 5:29 pm
Star RA
Thanks I made those comments while I was still lucid. I have since visited Pharangula and had the misfortune of reading about Ann Coulters new book. I now have a sore neck from when it started spinning around and blood began shooting out my ears. Man does it hurt to read about that totally bullshit nonsense. And how most of her fans eat it up and ask for more.LOL
26 April 2006, on 9:27 pm
Hello all,
I have to say that I find it a little embarrassing (and a major blow to my atheistic ego) that the various posts I’ve written at Debunking Christianity can be read as hoax arguments. I feel that our team has done a pretty decent job engaging in debate with the various Christian bloggers.
If you need further evidence that our site is not a hoax (Jesus, I bet the Triabloguers are laughing their asses off about this), you can ask the founder of your own blog, Ron M. He has a real-world connection to me, and knows of my blogging at DC.
So, you can see that having my atheistic forays dismissed by you guys is especially humiliating.
I’m going to go bury my head in the sand now.
26 April 2006, on 9:50 pm
exbeliever,
I wasn’t fooled by the Tribbledoggers… I can’t believe half of what they’re saying anyway- heh.
How can you trust a website that features this guy?
26 April 2006, on 9:54 pm
exbeliever – I was really glad when I first found Debunking Xianity…I was glad to find a place to have an intelligent discussion and was impressed by the quality of the posts. However, as time went by and I saw what was repeatedly allowed by Triablogue members on your blog, and when they started coming over to my little blog and harrassing me, I kind of backed off from commenting on your blog.
I think what made me doubt you guys somewhat is because you choose to debate these clowns who are insulting liars and never have anything much to offer except the same old circular arguments. I would not give them the time of day. I would not even use them to “fine tune” my debating skills or whatever. They are LIARS and it seems that they are just doing this whole xian bit as a big fat joke. I would have no part of them. I do nothing to them and I have been “roasted” on their blog several times. They can kiss my ass. I refuse to bury my head in the sand and don’t think you need to either.
26 April 2006, on 11:47 pm
Sean,
RE: Update #2 above.
You know, I can’t be upset with you or Triablogue. I read their post when they first put it out, and I actually thought it was extremely funny. I didn’t think anyone would take it seriously because in the same post they said that the Secular Outpost was a hoax.
I can’t be upset with any of the people who commented here because they either find our site compelling or they do not.
It’s tough to find good debate partners on the internet. Though Paul Manata is sometimes brash for my tastes, I think he is a pretty good debater. I don’t address anything that any of the other Triabloguers say because I find that two of them (Evan and Gene) do nothing other than spit out Bible verses like a concordance and that Steve (who seems to have more time on his hands than any normal person should) simply insults.
I’ve really never felt that the Christians have “gotten the upper hand” on our blog, but that is not for me to decide, and if others feel this way, then we may need to work harder. I like that our site is a continuing dialogue with Christians.
Anyway, I’m not at all offended, just embarrassed that you and others found the Triablogue claim credible after looking at our site.
The humiliation is in having to prove it.
BTW, the Triabloguers are having a field day with this one. A few quotes:
It’s pretty revealing to see what so many unbelievers will fall for. All I had to do was post my little squares of satirical cheese and then sit back as one by one they went stepping straight into the mousetrap.
This is painfully and screamingly ironic from folks who pride themselves on their superior powers of rationality.
Is there something essentially paranoid or conspiratorial about modern-day atheism that makes them so easy to play for chumps?
I guess it’s okay to be a schlemiel as long as you’re a secular schlemiel.
Our secular suckers are just as gullible as all the patsies who sign over their Social Security check to float the lavish lifestyle of Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, or Peter Popoff.
. . .
No less striking was how quickly secularism turns cannibalistic as the mice from one atheistic blog instantly sank their ratty little teeth into the nape of a sister blog.
26 April 2006, on 11:48 pm
exbeliever:
Well, truthfully, I’ve not been to your site much. & I (almost) always wait until the dust settles.
Why does this entire episode remind me of this?
“One by one the instruments of torture have been wrenched from the cruel clutch of the Church, until within the armory of orthodoxy there remains but one weapon — Slander.” – Ingersoll
I’m guessing that the Triabloguers have now officially excluded themselves from the ranks of the ‘True xtians’. They just broke 1 of the 10 C’s – ‘thou shalt not bear false witness.’
& I’m putting you on my blogroll.
Because the best defense is a good offense, in some cases.
26 April 2006, on 11:57 pm
Is there something essentially paranoid or conspiratorial about modern-day atheism that makes them so easy to play for chumps?
Is there something essentially paranoid or conspiratorial about modern-day xianity that makes them total and complete assholes?
27 April 2006, on 12:42 am
Hey, you know, when we sink to the lows of Triablogue’s so-called “satire” (translation: “lies”), we call each other out on it and correct ourselves, because we know we are better than them.
They’re filled with sick Xian hate. I guess it’s because they have so little sex (if any).
You want to get some satisfaction watching us kick the shit out of these fag-bashing, woman-hating (and fearing), homosexual/self-hating, gangbanging, drug-dealing punks, Exbeliever? Check it out.
Paul Manata is a walking piece of steaming shit. Don’t give him the satisfaction of a compliment.
Oh, and speaking of satisfaction, don’t worry. Our traffic dwarfs theirs and the only spikes that have brought them close to us is when we have made fun of them. They clearly aren’t even sophisticated enough to post an image, register a domain name, or hell — even compel a woman to contribute to their site. Trog-lablog.
Which means, like the KKK, I guess going forward Stardust is dead right. Let’s just ignore the fuckers.
27 April 2006, on 1:55 am
PS: It is beyond ludicrous that people who believe in a book written thousands of years ago by primitive desert nomads would call us gullible. That’ll make you laugh your lungs out if you think about it too hard.
And RA is right. They have violated one of the 10 Commandments by bearing false witness. They are apparently shameless and godless.
27 April 2006, on 6:05 am
[...] Anyway, in the interest of avoiding putting my foot in it again, I will keep this one short. [...]
27 April 2006, on 6:50 am
Unless I missed it somewhere, why is it you no longer link to our site? We are partners, not opponents here. Thanks.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
27 April 2006, on 8:08 am
John… We do link to you… Right at the beginning of this post, after the updates.
Might I add something, please? Despite the viciousness of the Trialbloggers, a number of people in this thread raised some legitimate concerns about the appearances given by your web site and other material. For instance, I had some serious questions of conspicuous ambiguity in the introduction to your book. We are nonbelievers here — who, quite frankly, consider Christian apologetics just that… Pathetic excuses.
Please read through this whole comments thread to see some of the questions we raised. We have been pointing to your site for some time now and a number of us have engaged in discussions there. Yet, rather than give the Tribble-Dogs the satisifaction of thinking that they “played” us (which is entirely Anti-Christian), can we turn this into a positive thing and try to learn from each other?
I would encourage you to take some of the critiques — the things that made people go “hmmm” laid out in this comments thread — and work a little bit on bolstering your site’s credibility. I know you are trying to do something very different from us. If this site was only about arguing Xian theology, I’d shoot myself, but that’s your thing and I respect that — from your background, you can do it far better than most of us anyway. Just know that, although we welcome all atheist friends, as atheists we don’t just partner with people because we’re atheists. Triablogue called us “sister sites” gnawing at each other.
I think that’s an unfair assessment of how atheists befriend each other. In my experience, we approach other atheists with the same caution that we do anyone else. To assume we are “sister sites” gives us a lock-step thought process that is the antithesis of our values. Christians projecting their mono-thinking on us again.
Anyway, that’s what theists do. One big Circle Jerk for the Lord. For us free thinkers, it would be better that we compliment each other’s work in appropriate ways.
Again, please read the thread above and let us know what you think. Sorry if this has been upsetting on your end. Certainly wasn’t my intention. But like I said, I and others raised questions here that would be nice to hear from you about.
27 April 2006, on 8:42 am
Thanks Sean. But I don’t see our link in your side bar anymore.
Yes, freethinkers, I agree.
We’re trying. You keep on keeping on.
27 April 2006, on 9:20 am
Thanks Sean. But I don’t see our link in your side bar anymore.
Hey, I just noticed that my link isn’t there either guys!
(just kidding, I don’t care)
John W. Loftus….I am keeping your link on my blog. Though I don’t understand why you waste time with Triablogue, I still pop in and read the posts you guys write and was excited to see Dan Barker added to the list…but he wrote one post and no more yet.
I just don’t comment anymore because I don’t care to debate an ancient book of mythology with a bunch of mean bastards. I don’t find Triablogue or Manata funny at all.
27 April 2006, on 9:32 am
John: I’m not responsible for the sidebar. Don’t know what happened there. I was talking about this post. Contact Ron at the contact address if you are concerned about the sidebar.
27 April 2006, on 9:42 am
I do have a connection to exbeliever in the real world, as he says.
All seems well now.
27 April 2006, on 12:06 pm
Stardust1954, I understand, I really do. I liked your comments too. We’re trying to carry on a decent and civil conversation with people who malign us at every opportunity. But there are always Christians who visit out site and are learning and thinking because we’re not offensive (for the most part). And we have banned Frank Walton and warned a couple of others. I think some of them are jackasses, of course. But I try to refrain from blasting back at them ’cause it only escalates things, and I want a serious Blog for serious thinkers, if I can.
One thing further, I do not believe the title to this post is reflective of what the folks at Triablogue did. They were just poking fun, much like what you do to others you disagree with. They were not spreading lies about us…of that I am assured.
27 April 2006, on 12:23 pm
48.
One thing further, I do not believe the title to this post is reflective of what the folks at Triablogue did. They were just poking fun, much like what you do to others you disagree with. They were not spreading lies about us…of that I am assured.
John: You are very forgiving, but we’re a little tougher over here. They lied — even claimed that there were rumors all over the religious blogs that your site was a scam. Doesn’t that outrage you?
27 April 2006, on 12:44 pm
We must be missing some kind of special inside relationship that Tribbledogs and DC have going.
We’re trying to carry on a decent and civil conversation with people who malign us at every opportunity.
I don’t understand the point of “turning the other cheek” repeatedly. When we “feed xians to tbe lions” we are not going to pat each other on the back and pretend it’s all a joke, because all jokes aside, fundamental religious belief is a real threat to our rights and freedoms as individuals and as a nation.
27 April 2006, on 12:52 pm
Exactly, Star. Fundamentalists aren’t funny. Not here, and not in the Middle East. They are a threat to us all, no matter which sky daddy they think they follow (all the same one).
27 April 2006, on 1:59 pm
Sean – I guess I am puzzled because it appears that both sides are debating Gawd as if this sky daddy really exists…(for instance in one of the most recent posts titled “The Problem of Evil: What Can God Do?”) My answer would simply and immediately be “I do not believe in the existence of invisible sky daddies and your ancient text you wish to use as “evidence” is written by mere humans and is a book of mythology, bits of history, poetry, Aesop-type fables, etc. and proves nothing to me.”
27 April 2006, on 2:03 pm
In addition to #52, I would point those arrogant xian bastards in the direction of Evil Bible.com instead of getting into confusing debate with xians who are dicks.
http://www.evilbible.com/
27 April 2006, on 2:14 pm
It’s like we always say, Star. Arguing theology is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
The only thing worth arguing with these turds about is politics. As in, “Keep your fucking Bile out of it!”
27 April 2006, on 2:22 pm
Hmmm… I am left with a number of options here.
Do I attempt to prove my validity? That I am an actual person, other than some creation? Or, do I cleverly play along with the gag, and pretend to be fake, to keep the skepticism going? Do I defend my posts on Debunking Christianity, or perhaps not even respond to this at all?
That is what is so great about life—options. I, personally, tend to be polite in debating Christians. Insults don’t bother me in the least. I work with clients that insult me, judges and lawyers that insult me, and more than a few that actively hate me. Further, having heard about every insult in the world, when lawyers insult each other we try and do it cleverly enough that one is left thinking, “Was that an insult?” Much harder to do, and a lot more fun.
Also, when they are insulting, but not responding to my arguments or a question, that tends to send the signal that they have no argument. Ask the question again, and show, again, the lack of ability to respond. I tend to keep the lurkers more in mind, rather than the players.
I think there is most certainly a place for throwing Christians to the Lions. There are blogs where it is appropriate to delete comments from vicious Christians. It shows the spice of variety, and how we have options.
Just not what I am about. Not sure, how, to incorporate any suggestions. I will keep my anonymity for the reasons I stated in my introduction on the blog. I will continue to be polite to even the most rabid Christian, because that is my style–I like being the calm one in an insult binge, with perhaps an occasional outburst of unrelenting bile. But if there is something else, I would love to hear it.
27 April 2006, on 2:28 pm
I argue with people about ideas that can and are dangerous. True. But by treating them as if they are bastards I will make no headway with them. And I think humor is good for everyone. After all, if you can joke with someone it lets them know that you are not some idea out there to malign. It tells them you are human, with human feelings. And I don’t turn the cheek every time, either. But by calling them bastards and fuck-ups I only reaffirm what they think of us atheists, and they have a very low opinion of us–which isn’t true of us. They think that if they allow themselves to doubt they will end up like we are, and if we ourselves treat them like they are assholes, then they will not allow themselves to doubt for fear they too will turn out to be pricks (and murderers and rapists and the like).
I want a serious discussion, that’s all, and you cannot fault me for that. Many of us were where they are. Can you remember what you believed and thought at that time? Calling people names and ridiculing them may have their place, but doing so is not offering an argument. They are in their own little world, and perhaps you are in yours. Each side is too offensive with the other side to be taken seriously by either side.
And while I am an atheist and our site seeks to debunk their faith, the attitude I present is the halfway house where we can all try to have a civil conversation (more or less, as far as I can help it) .
27 April 2006, on 3:04 pm
Dear John:
Those are noble and lofty goals and I applaud you for it. Of course, this site has a different mission — as the upper right column suggests. It is mostly a site by atheists for atheists. A lot of what we do here is blow off steam at the outrages we see around us. It has been described as cathartic for many who come here to read, post and comment.
You’re a far more patient man than I. Keep on keepin’ on with what you are doing. Someone’s gotta do it, you’re right, or precious little will change. Go for it…
27 April 2006, on 3:09 pm
John – I understand your purpose for your blog, and like I said I still like to come by and read the posts. You seem to enjoy debating biblical texts and are very good at it since you have a lot of knowledge in the area of theology that many of us do not.
For the record…I only call those xians names who are deserving of it. As I have said before, I have regular xian visitors and commentors on my Stardust blog who are very cordial. I also don’t just dwell on religion. There are so many things to talk about in the world…and I have one xian fan who comes to my blog regularly just to share in the wonders of the universe that I post. We both can look at that in awe and not even bring religion into it. (Probably why Triablogue calls me “Tinkerbell.”)
As for GifS, it brings to light current events and issues that affect us now. It is my opinion that rehashing an ancient mythological text with stubborn xians is only going to encourage those who think they have a chance of converting their opposition.
It is my experience that if xians cannot convert the heathen they will still have their opinions that atheists are “evil” and immoral and lost souls who deserve gawd’s eternal punishment no matter how sweet and gentle we are towards them. No amount of “civil” discussion will change that unless we reconvert to worshipping Jeezus.
Anyway, I wish you peace John W Loftus and will keep stopping by your blog from time to time.
27 April 2006, on 4:28 pm
Why is it that the more some so-called “xians” are engaged, the less xian they behave? Does publicly announcing their xianity (in itself preached against by at least one passage in the bible) mean that they no longer have to follow their own religion’s rules? I guess believing in Jesus means for them that they’re automatically forgiven for whatever they do, so they can do whatever they want even if it violates xian precepts: e.g., lying, cheating, bearing false witness against others, seeking to interfere in government, keeping busy doing everything except good works, etc.
What a convenient religion this is and always has been. Its orthodox sacred book allows for practically anything depending on what passages its followers choose to look at and how they choose to interpret them. And what powerful fuel for weaponry it hands them: justification for indoctrination, slavery, sexism, violence, war, and so on ad nauseum.
Triablogue, thy name is Hypocrisy.
27 April 2006, on 4:48 pm
I meant “Hypocrisy, thy name is Triablogue.”
27 April 2006, on 4:52 pm
Eve…same thing
27 April 2006, on 5:01 pm
Thank you, Star
I debated about correcting myself, but figured *I’d* take the higher moral ground and actually practice what I preach – since they don’t.
27 April 2006, on 8:16 pm
Thanks Sean and Stardust1954. We each do what we do. Keep on keeping on.
27 April 2006, on 11:41 pm
“Why is it that the more some so-called “xians” are engaged, the less xian they behave? Does publicly announcing their xianity (in itself preached against by at least one passage in the bible) mean that they no longer have to follow their own religion’s rules?”
I’ve noticed that time and again but have never heard it put quite like that. Of course, none of them can agree on the rules. But each one is right, just ask him or her.
28 April 2006, on 7:17 am
I’m quite surprised that you guys didn’t realize the satire in their post. I thought you were smarter than that.
28 April 2006, on 8:27 am
Hey, Dan-O, Amber is hot- you wouldn’t mind if we made some nude photoshops of her, would you?
28 April 2006, on 9:36 am
Shit, Marcus, let’s not start a war, here. That sucks, man.
28 April 2006, on 9:48 am
Ex,
This is his first comment here and he insults our intelligence- I reserve the right to reply in any manner I wish.
Do you crap on the carpet the first time you visit someone’s home?
28 April 2006, on 10:02 am
After some further research, I apologize- he came off a bit “Xian Troll” if you know what I mean.
28 April 2006, on 10:17 am
I’m quite surprised that you guys didn’t realize the satire in their post. I thought you were smarter than that.
I don’t find Triablogue’s “satire” the least bit humorous. I still find it a bit odd that DC members make so much effort to defend and accomodate them. Like I said before, DC must have some kind of special inside relationship going on there…maybe even friends who agree to disagree. I dunno.
28 April 2006, on 11:43 am
No, Stardust1954. We do not accomodate them, if by that you mean bowing to them or refusing to take them to task for their ideas. We are freethinkers. Will you allow us to be free? And since I’m trying to have a civil discussion with Christians, the best way to create that climate is to treat them like I want to be treated, to agree when they are right, and inject some humour so they know I am a real person with feelings, like I know they are too. I do not like being demonized, so I refuse to demonize my opponents. But like I said, that’s just me.
Thanks for linking to our site again.
28 April 2006, on 12:26 pm
John: Okay… I would really like an explanation of some of the things I questioned in this thread at the outset. Especially in regards to what I read in your book:
http://tinyurl.com/gllf9
Read the introduction. By the end he is saying the flakiest things, almost as a nod to those who might suspect it’s a hoax. It’s quite subtle but there:
He talks about how there are lots of scholars who know better than he on any issue he covers, yet he is going to try and cover them all in a half-assed way, anyway. He mentions doing his best with the “mental equipment” he has. He talks about his own book as poisonous and equates it to pornography in really sly ways: “I thought about describing the book as pornography on the back cover. Pornography poisons the mind, too.”
Like they said… If you read it looking for clues left to people with that mindset, they seem to be everywhere. And the last bits in the intro straight up seem to be a hint that he believes in God after all and this is just the work of an idiot:
“I make no pretense at comprehensively covering any specific issue that I write about. For instance, while I understand and eventually agree (emphasis mine) with Dr. Craig on the Kalam argument for the existence of God, I just never wrote much about it, and chose not to do so now, since what I have written still gives a good sense of where I am at intellectually. And since I haven’t been reading a lot on these issues in the last six years I do not show an awareness of recent research and writing…”
Why would you write that in your intro? He’s basically saying “I don’t know my shit, and besides, I agree with Dr. Craig on the existence of God anyway.” Rather than a doubter’s book, this seems like an extremely dry, satirical take on a deconversion.
I wonder if folks like Daniel Morgan can see what I found puzzling about all that. I haven’t read a lot of scholarly works that set out in the intro to extablish a) that the author may not have the mental abilities to even tackle this subject, b) the author has not been informed in this field for six years, c) the author in fact already believes in an argument that is the antithesis of everything he is about to put forward, d)the author uses the language of the extremists in the very field he is about to debunk (”pornography poisons the mind”).
Explanations would be wonderful, but this was what go this particular atheist going “What the heck??”
28 April 2006, on 1:51 pm
Sean, my response is this: Bullshit. Sorry. I explained such things at my Blog. Read the book for yourself if you want to. How anyone can read such things into it is beyond me. No wonder you failed to understand Triablogue.
28 April 2006, on 2:09 pm
Oh, and another thing. I don’t know who you are or what your credentials are or why you’ve been invited on this Blog. But scholarship is something that recognized people say you have. I was being humble, okay? But several people have bestowed that label on me after-all. But my point is that practically no one can be a scholar in every field and every topic I dealt with in my previous or later books. My idea of scholarship is higher than what I myself am, especially on so many issues surrounding Christianity, but others think I’m a scholar. Now what?
I think you are not skeptical enough. I think you are a gullible person. Strange isn’t it? You’re supposed to be a skeptic, a freethinker, an atheist. And you think that by calling yourself those words de facto means you are a skeptic? Not at all buddy. You are a skeptic in that you do not hold to a set number of beliefs that religious people believe. But you are a gullible person, because being gullible means you lack the necessary thinking skills to distinguish truth from error, to distinguish between satire and seriousness. You have a presumption towards conspiracy theories–Christian ones, and so you saw one where there wasn’t one because you were not skeptical enough.
28 April 2006, on 2:09 pm
John: You put things in print in which you make yourself sound like a rank amateur who doesn’t even believe what he is preaching, and then tell me I am full of shit for questioning why you said it?
I asked you a direct series of questions and you were unable to answer them, instead chosing to curse at me and tell me to go do my own research about what you believe on your blog, without even giving me the courtesy of a link or two where my questions are directly addressed.
I’m sorry, John, but the Life and Faith of John Lofton is not at the top of my reading list. If you can’t explain yourself clearly and concisely in response to my straightfoward questions, your statement that you desire to have a serious debate obviously only applies to the parameters you want to debate within.
Clearly, you are still caught up in the delusions of your faith, as others have suggested here. All you really want to do is have a giant circle jerk with other Xians and let them convince you to come back into the fold.
As Stardust has said, you and Triablogue make bizarre bedfellows. Perhaps you deserve each other.
You just lost all credibility with me — not because your site is a hoax, but because you are dishonest with yourself. Your preaching about having a more civil discussion just went out the window.
Ciao.
28 April 2006, on 2:15 pm
A civil discussion is the goal. But why should that goal apply here on your site, which is where I am? And why should I be civil when I am personally attacked? You can debate with me all you want to, but you’re questioning my integrity at every turn. That makes me mad, idiot. You would feel the same if I said you were a Christian in disguise and forced you to prove otherwise. How would you do it? Once questioned you would always be suspect. I have been unusually polite up until now. But you didn’t let it die. So you see why I’m upset.
Are you sasying that I am unable to answer your questions? Haaaaa Unable? You really think this, or you do not know what you’re talking about. Unable?
28 April 2006, on 2:22 pm
I must have hit a nerve with Johnny-boy. He came back to call me more names, and still hasn’t answered my questions.
Because he has no answers. He is a closet Xian pretending to be an ex-Xian and waiting for someone to beat him at his own arguments so he can go back to confession.
I don’t have any public credentials, John — at least not as an active atheist blogger — other than the writing I have done for this web site. I choose to post anonymously so as to keep my private life safe from zealots and freaks.
A web site, which, by the way, has a largely satirical bent to it. Sorry that you are still so caught up in your god that everything is so serious for you, even satire.
28 April 2006, on 2:24 pm
“And since I’m trying to have a civil discussion with Christians, ”
And ONLY xian, evidently.
“I do not like being demonized, so I refuse to demonize my opponents.”
Ah, well clearly this noble intention is only applicable to xians:
I think you are not skeptical enough.
I think you are a gullible person.
You’re supposed to be a skeptic, a freethinker, an atheist.
But you are a gullible person
You have a presumption towards conspiracy theorie
Five insults in one paragraph. So much for civil discourse.
Perhaps we’ve been spending a little too much time with Tribalogue? Just a suggestion. (feel free to write another five insults directed at me)
28 April 2006, on 2:26 pm
Let’s see, satire. Can you recognize it when you see it? Hmmmm. This whole discussion is about the fact that you can’t. And since I now know about your credentials, I’ll stop picking on a boy and let him ride his bicycle home for some cookies and milk before being put to bed for a nap.
28 April 2006, on 2:29 pm
John. The questions are there. You have not answered them. Why did you say this?
“I make no pretense at comprehensively covering any specific issue that I write about. For instance, while I understand and eventually agree (emphasis mine) with Dr. Craig on the Kalam argument for the existence of God…” (Woah! Stop the presses!)
So you agree with an elaborate argument that basically says God exists. Or if you don’t, why did you write that? And if you do, why are you running a web site called Debunking Xianity? I am challenging your credibility based on your own words, nothing more.
And you’re starting to sound like a raving lunatic. It is I who has been more than civil to you.
Idiot.
28 April 2006, on 2:32 pm
Let’s see, satire. Can you recognize it when you see it? Hmmmm. This whole discussion is about the fact that you can’t. And since I now know about your credentials, I’ll stop picking on a boy and let him ride his bicycle home for some cookies and milk before being put to bed for a nap.
And so my questions go unanswered, Lofton deflates his entire ethical stance about having a civil discussion and he is reduced to whole posts that are merely ad hominem (Come on, throw in one thing that’s not… I do you that courtesy, don’t I?)
Lya said:
Perhaps we’ve been spending a little too much time with Tribalogue? Just a suggestion.
Ha. Clearly, the crazy-making rubs off when you deal with those guys too much.
I think I’m done here.
28 April 2006, on 3:17 pm
All right, I am not done. One thing that does irk me is when people throw their credentials around as if that somehow makes them superior to you. As an autodidact, I find it offensive, and innacurate. John’s credentials (from his blog):
John majored in the “Philosophy of Religion” under Dr. William Lane Craig at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and graduated with a Th.M. in 1985. John’s book Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains is now available. John is the Debunking Christianity Blog creator.
Well, John. I work in media and have won numerous national and international journalism awards. There, that’s the most you are getting out of me. People on this site who know me know this to be true.
So stop throwing your so-called credentials around. I don’t see where yours are any better than mine. Especially when it comes to skepticism. I realized Xianity was bullshit when I was 12 years old. Look how long it took you.
I get paid to be a skeptic for a living. And I win awards for it. Yet I never felt a need to bring it up, because credentials are not what make the person. It’s who they are right now and what they are willing to contribute to the conversation that matters.
28 April 2006, on 3:32 pm
I’m just evaluating your one performance here. Perhaps you are as you say, but I don’t see it here. And as far as research goes, I don’t suppose it’s too much to ask that you go to my Blog. Do you want some help finding it? Then just click on this link. Is that too hard for ya? [Just take your mouse (the hardware not a little furry critter) and press down on the left button when the cursor is over the words “click on this link.” That’s all you would have had to do to find out my response.
I am cordial with people no matter what their beliefs. But I get irrate when someone messes with my integrity.
28 April 2006, on 3:38 pm
I realized Xianity was bullshit when I was 12 years old. Look how long it took you.
Really? I suppose at that age you could’ve answered anyone who said otherwise, with the proper scholarly documentation? Are you saying that because it took me a whole lot longer to do so my rejection of Christianity is somehow intellectually inferior? That I am not now as smart as you were at the age of 12? That I don’t know anymore how to refute it than you did then? Amazing the way your mind thinks. Does it?
28 April 2006, on 3:40 pm
The only way to rise to the occasion when someone challenges your integrity is to give them a straight answer. I have seen your post on your blog. It does not answer my question as to why you say you agree with Dr. Craig on the Kalam argument for the existence of God.
28 April 2006, on 3:42 pm
How long have you been an atheist, John, because your mind still works like a theist. I knew at 12 years old that it wasn’t my job to refute the claims of Xianity. The burden of proof was on them. Then, as now, no proof existed, and so I rejected it.
28 April 2006, on 3:47 pm
You are an idiot then! Did you click on the link? Did you read the post? Do I have to tell you how to read? It says I used to agree with it, numbnuts. I don’t agree with it any longer.
Are you done now?
28 April 2006, on 3:50 pm
I have been an atheist for less than a year. My mind requires some deep thinking to come out of something I once embraced. It was very difficult for me.
28 April 2006, on 3:59 pm
There you go again, Mr. Civil Discussion, calling me names on our blog. I don’t come to your blog and call you names, do I?
So you revised your book. And you no longer agree with Dr. Craig. You could have tried saying that, oh, 88 comments back??
28 April 2006, on 4:25 pm
Ha, I was away all day, and look what I missed:
Marcus wrote — Hey, Dan-O, Amber is hot- you wouldn’t mind if we made some nude photoshops of her, would you?
Marcus, you didn’t need to follow that up with an apology. That’s a compliment, man! She is a hottie, and thankfully, she only wants me to see her naked.
Anyway, no hard feelings guys. Let’s all just move on and let it go.
28 April 2006, on 4:44 pm
I have only one more thing to say: Triablogue may have “satirized” DC in good fun, but seems they were trying to get even with GifS members for the Lion Feed thing we did, so guess that is why we here at GifS fail to see the humor in it. It has nothing to do with intellect or ability to understand satire. It’s purely a matter of perspective.
28 April 2006, on 4:45 pm
And I, for one, am movin’ on.
28 April 2006, on 5:19 pm
Holy mother fuckers- I’m gone for most the day and look what happens!
/grabs some popcorn
//anyone got any beer?
28 April 2006, on 5:36 pm
John, Sean:
I hesitate to intrude here, but I feel I’m partially responsible, as I offered the Triablogue to the Lion Feed in the 1st place, thereby sparking so much of the controversy. My apologies to all.
I must admit, those at the TB are probably congratulating themselves and breaking their arms patting themselves on the back.
Note my post from April 26th, 2006 at 11:52 am:I’ve mounted a two-pronged counteroffensive in which I respond to them on their own turf,
They see this as some sort of holy war, & will do anything in the furtherance of their cause. I get the impression that certain blogs & certain members are ‘assigned’ (maybe I’m just being paranoid, but I get that vibe).
& what does any general, self-styled or otherwise, do?
Fight a guerrilla war. Fight a war of attrition. & most of all, ‘divide & conquer’.
I understand both your perspectives (I think). Sean fights fire w/fire, while Mr. Loftus is trying to break the stereotypical chains we all suffer.
We all are on the same side. Finger pointing does no 1 any good.
& again, multiple & profuse apologies.
28 April 2006, on 6:19 pm
RA: No apologies necessary. We would have run into Triablogue eventually, anyway (they harrass Stardust, for instance).
And you know what, I don’t give a shit what they think. They’re a bunch of trogs who will spend their lives obsessing over a fairy tale. Blah. I don’t go to their site, I don’t read it, it’s filled with hatred for the underserved in society, like all fundie ideology, and they don’t amuse… So what’s the point? Meantime, they are clearly still fascinated with us and DC. So let them come lapping at our door, looking for scraps to feed their teeny brains and boost their fragile egos. If I was Paul Manata (the man comes from drugs and crime and hasn’t the heart to show sympathy for a 14-year-old rape victim), I would hate myself so much, any chance at schadenfreude would be welcome.
Anyway, I am sorry for the exchange here with John Lofton… But if back in post 3, or before he wrote post 73, I just got this answer: “That’s an old book of mine that I have since revised and no longer believe”, none of that exchange would have been necessary.
And DC folks: please stop calling us gullible or lacking in understanding of satire. That’s just disrespectful. We didn’t know vicious fuckhead fundies like Triablogue were capable of satire, and most of us, including me, don’t spend our time watching these neat little trends on their site. What they represent to most of the people here at GifS is hate speech — towards women, towards homosexuals, towards a host of things they hate, like all fundies hate, so forgive us if we take a harsher view of them and have a hard time “having a little fun” with them.
28 April 2006, on 6:36 pm
Sean, well stated.
And if it was just these posters, I would probably ignore them entirely. But my concern is always the lurkers. What of a person questioning that happens to wander along? So I respond to make sure the lurkers are perfectly aware that Christianity has no viability, and that Christians must resort to name-calling and insults, whereas atheists do not. (Although, being human, we do.)
And this would be much more amusing if it wasn’t for the fact they are promulgating hate towards gays, hate toward women, hate towards any person they cannot bend to their exact belief.
1 May 2006, on 6:37 pm
dagwoods: And this would be much more amusing if it wasn’t for the fact they are promulgating hate towards gays, hate toward women, hate towards any person they cannot bend to their exact belief.
Agreed, and don’t forget trying to force even those who disagree with them to live according to *their* hateful rules.