Jesse Helms, my friend and long-time senator from my home state of North Carolina, was a man of consistent conviction to conservative ideals and courage to faithfully serve God and country based on principle, not popularity or politics.
In the tradition of Presidents Jefferson, Adams and Monroe -- who also passed on July 4th -- it is fitting that such a patriot who fought for free markets and free people would die on Independence Day. As we celebrate the birth of our nation, I thank God for the blessings we enjoy, which Senator Helms worked so hard to preserve...
From a comment following Graham's disgraceful encomium: "Jesse Helms fought for FREE PEOPLE??? (emphasis mine) Would those be the white people who wanted to be FREE of having to associate with black people?" Uh huh. Seems fitting that a homophobic, racist piece of shit should be eulogized so fulsomely by an anti-Semitic piece of shit, eh?
Whoops, there goes our Cuss Rating.
The use of Jefferson and Adams especially pains me. Unless the biographies I've read of these men lie completely, they would be just as happy as I am to see Helms gone. Even Jefferson, who never set free his slaves in his lifetime, nor Adams, who considered the women and the poor unworthy of voting, should have matured if they'd had the opportunity to live in our modern society. Helms had that opportunity, yet clung to bigotry and ignorance. I bear his memory no respect. In short, fuck him and all who apologize in his name.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah. We got all that in Oklahoma, too. Sometimes one would slip 'controversial' into their descriptions, but they were otherwise glowing tributes.
ReplyDelete*puke*
These glowing tributes to this POS are especially troubling, knowing the world we live in today.
ReplyDeleteThe more religious someone is, the more intolerant and less intelligent they are, generally.
He was a god freak- so I'm not really surprised by his feelings at all.
Good to see him gone.
As soon as I heard the news, I had to listen to MC Hawking's Why Won't Jesse Helms Just Hurry Up and Die?.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Athesit Experience has been "reviewed" here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christiancrosstalk.com/review%20the%20atheist%20experience.html
And PZ is next! Lolz!
Heh, yeah, Edward tried to post that link too, but as he's been banned, I didn't let it through. Like we all care so much what some petulant git who thinks Pascals' Wager is a great argument thinks of us. I'm sure his "review" of PZ will really just decimate Pharyngula's million-readers-a-month.
ReplyDeleteCookie jar.
ReplyDeleteYou just can't get away from moralising, can you?
Given your basis for morality (which is personal stipulation), I simply stipulate the opposite. Impasse.
You have a brilliant knack for overstatement that your worldview can't back up.
Shorter Rhology: People who I don't agree with should not be allowed to express their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling with how to respond to that, it's so absurd.
ReplyDeleteI'm refuting speech, not suppressing speech.
Maybe you could offer an argument, Tommy.
Maybe you could offer an argument, Tommy.
ReplyDeleteI did not accuse you of suppressing speech, as if you could ever have such power.
You made a knee-jerk response without making it clear to whom you were responding and what specifically you disagreed with. And you didn't refute anything.
I'm assuming Rhology is disagreeing with me, since it's become something of a fixation with him.
ReplyDeleteHe's capable of little more than straw men, though. Even if Rho were right about "personal stipulation" being the basis of my morality (and he's been corrected about that banal oversimplification many times), I could simply point out that if it leads me to a correct conclusion — e.g., it's bad to be racist — then QED, my "personal stipulation" must be a better basis for morality than the theism of Graham and Helms, who embraced racist views without any apparent qualms. If there are devout theists who are racist, and devout theists who are non-racist and anti-racist, then their theism plays no role in determining their morality, and they must be applying "personal stipulation" as well. It's only down to whether the "personal stipulation" of the individual in question is rooted in reason (as I think mine is, as well as those of other anti-racists) or unreason (as is Helms', Graham's, and Rhology's).
Further criticisms of my "worldview" by Rhology can be dismissed, as he's shown as poor an understanding of that as he has most other things.
I could simply point out that if it leads me to a correct conclusion — e.g., it's bad to be racist
ReplyDeleteThat is a complete and utter question-beg, one of the worst I've seen.
HOW do you know it's bad to be racist?
Martin has answered several times and it always reduces to personal stipulation, but perhaps he'd like to try to spin it a different way today.
Well, in the south, they say you should always speak good of the dead.
ReplyDeleteHe's dead.
GOOD!
One less homophobic bigot to make things harder for me and people like me.
(sigh) Rhology, you just can't advance past these little intellectual sticking points of yours no matter what, can you?
ReplyDeleteLet me guess: you're going to say that if I claim to know racism is bad for any reason other than "God told me so," then I haven't got a sound basis for the view, right?
So how, when you encounter a moral precept attributable to your God, do you know that it's a good or bad moral precept?
when you encounter a moral precept attributable to your God, do you know that it's a good or bad moral precept?
ReplyDeleteGiven that I'm currently involved in an overly-long discussion over at christianforums.com, where people more reasonable than ρ are defending the Bible's attitude toward slavery, I'm going to venture a guess that he falls on the "virtuous things are virtuous because the gods say they are" side of the Euthyphro dilemma.
arensb is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMartin,
Even if Christianity is untrue, you still have to provide a basis for making a moral claim like you did, and then for that question-beg you just performed.
Let's see you actually defend your position.
In what way am I wrong? Do you fall on the "the gods say things are virtuous because they are virtuous" side?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then you don't need any gods to tell you what is or isn't virtuous; all you need to do is figure out how the gods came to the conclusion that such-and-such is good or bad.
Which, I think, answers your your question: Martin answers moral questions the same way you (hopefully) do, minus the religious bits.
Rhology, seems we've already had this discussion in this thread and perhaps a number of others I don't have time to re-read now. We've explained time and time again about the roles empathy and reason play in morality, and how moral precepts develop in cultures based on an understanding of the consequences of actions, and you still just don't get it. You can't get it. It's apparently a set of concepts utterly outside your experience and understanding. Fine. Why not try defending your position? Again, how do you know the moral precepts that you attribute to your god are good or bad? Is there a single example you can give of a moral precept that is comprehensible solely from a theistic perspective, and utterly incomprehensible from a secular one? How is a morality based on following divine rules in the hopes of a reward better than one based simply on empathy and compassion for your fellow man, especially as the former seems entirely motivated by self-interest? We have defended our position here, in many previous threads, despite the limitations in your understanding that cause you to dismiss everything we say as "question begging." I think you need to defend yours now. Do you think racism is good or bad? And why?
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming Rhology is disagreeing with me, since it's become something of a fixation with him.
ReplyDeleteHe claims he refuted you, but he did not even address your claims. You claimed that Billy Graham was anti-semitic and Jesse Helms was a racist and a homophobe.
If Rhology had offered evidence to the contrary, then he could claim to have refuted you. Instead, he attacked you for simply writing a post expressing your opinion on a blog that you co-administer. That was the meaning behind my opening salvo towards him that he "struggled" to respond to.
As for Billy Graham being an anti-semite, the link you provided is evidence that arguably he was in 1972. Whether or not he consistently displayed such tendencies throughout his life, I can't say. Were his remarks addressed to Jews that he perceived were secular and liberal, or did he feel that way about all Jews? In spite of my atheism, when I was growing up, I was inculcated with the media portrayal of Graham as a paragon of decency and benevolence. He does not seem to have been in the habit of making publicly divisive remarks like Falwell or Robertson.
As for Jesse Helms, no question he was a hateful and bigoted man.
What say you, Rhology? Was Jesse Helms, to use your lingo, on "your side"? Was he a "true" Christian or someone who merely tried to use Christianity to cloak his bigotry? If you believe he was not a good fellow, was Graham right to praise him as he did?
As for Billy Graham being an anti-semite, the link you provided is evidence that arguably he was in 1972. Whether or not he consistently displayed such tendencies throughout his life, I can't say.
ReplyDeleteThat is a fair point, Tommy. Graham apologized for the comments when they were made public, though one always wonders with public figures like himself, whether the apology was because they were made public. As in Swaggart begging forgiveness for his whoremongering... once he got caught.
The distinction between whether Graham was attacking secular liberal Jews or all Jews is, I think, immaterial, since why attack them as Jews at all unless anti-Semitism in some form is involved?
But it's true I ought to consider the likelihood that Graham was sincere in his apology. When my father was a young man, like most young men his age in the 1950's he was deeply racist. He's outgrown a lot of those attitudes but finds it hard to avoid lapsing into those offensive ways of thinking at times (and if I'm around to call him on it, I do). People can change. The difference I find is that when someone is convinced they're an official spokesman of God's, there isn't much incentive to change. That's fundie "morality" for you.
When my father was a young man, like most young men his age in the 1950's he was deeply racist.
ReplyDeleteYeah, my dad was very similar. He used to spout a lot of racial epithets about blacks when I was growing up, but fortunately it did not rub off on me. I credit it in part to my having a major crush on Lieutenant Uhura on Star Trek and watching "Roots" when I was a kid.
To put a funny ending on my dad's death (he died two years ago in the hospital from complications from surgery), my brother told the hospital staff to have a Catholic priest come to read my dad's last rites. When the priest showed up, he turned out to be a black man, African I think.
As I stood there watching the priest perform the rites, a part of me chuckled at the thought of how my dad was reacting to it if there was some part of him floating overhead and looking down on us.
As for Jimmy Swaggart, you reminded me of a cartoon I saw after he was busted again with a prostitute. It showed Swaggart and a prostitute in a car, and a police officer standing next to them. The police officer is saying something like "You should be ashamed of yourself for consorting with a person like this."
In the next frame, Swaggart starts to stammer an apology and the police officer cuts him off and says "I was talking to the prostitute, Mr. Swaggart."
Hi Martin.
ReplyDeleteDo me a favour and look up "fulsome" in the dictionary. Even an American dictionary will do.
Then, please, use a little more discretion in your choice of words.
We don' wanna look stoopid, do wee?
TIA
Jeff R.
Here one definition.
ReplyDelete3. excessively or insincerely lavish: fulsome admiration.
Is my usage inappropriate in that context? I need to know, because I clearly need your assistance if I don't want to look stoopid.
Briefly,
ReplyDeleteYou may have explained your ideas of how morality developed, but you never answer the question of how you know those moral ideas are right. You just assume they are; since they dictate how you are to behave and b/c you slapped the label "moral" on them, automatically they are right. Then when you're challenged on them, you repeat yourself. That's what I mean by begging the question.
From the Christian worldview, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human. There may be different ethnicities, but so what? There is no basis to judge anyone based on their ethnicity in the Scripture. There is every basis to love everyone as oneself.
Fundamentally, it is b/c God's nature is not like that. God has created us equal before Him and commanded us to love each other as we love ourselves.
Tommy said:
If Rhology had offered evidence to the contrary, then he could claim to have refuted you.
Um, giving a so-far-unrefuted argument that the very statement that anti-Semitism or racism are evil is meaningless and inconsistent for an atheist to state IS a refutation. You're still struggling with this issue of presuppositions. Keep at it - you might get there.
As for Jesse Helms, I know virtually nothing about the man. Based on the intellectual honesty mostly on display at this blog, I have good reason to be skeptical about your claims about him. But I have long since been disabused of the notion that Billy Graham is a great example to follow for a Christian.
Peace,
Rhology
Um, giving a so-far-unrefuted argument that the very statement that anti-Semitism or racism are evil is meaningless and inconsistent for an atheist to state IS a refutation. You're still struggling with this issue of presuppositions. Keep at it - you might get there.
ReplyDeleteUm, let me see if I got this straight here. You believe that racism is wrong. Martin believes that racism is wrong. So you attack Martin for expressing his opinion about a deceased politician who he believed was racist. You admitted that you do not know enough about Jesse Helms to determine if you think he was racist, so instead you offer your subjective opinion that Martin has no right to express his opinion about Jesse Helms. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
From the Christian worldview, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human. There may be different ethnicities, but so what? There is no basis to judge anyone based on their ethnicity in the Scripture.
Well that's just wonderful Rhology. From a humanist point of view, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human. There may be different ethnicities, but so what?
In the combox on another post, I offered a hypothetical scenario which I don't believe you responded to. Here goes again. You're driving alone one night on a deserted rural road and your car breaks down. I happen to drive by a short moment later and offer to help drive you home. At that moment, are you going to care whether or not I am a Christian or an atheist before accepting my offer?
The reason I ask (because I can just anticipate your response "So what's your point, Tommy?") is that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking atheists for having the same positions that you have (racism is wrong, child rape is wrong, murder is wrong, etc). Maybe it makes sense in Rhology world, but it doesn't make sense to me. While I am an atheist, I don't begrudge someone who credits becoming "born again" with helping him or her kicking drug addiction or some other destructive habit. I'm just glad that the person is not addicted to drugs anymore.
Yeah, what a terrible person I am.
you offer your subjective opinion that Martin has no right to express his opinion about Jesse Helms.
ReplyDeleteWhere did I ever even mention "right"? Strawman.
He has no rational justification to make moral claims like he did. Deal with my actual argument.
From a humanist point of view, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human. There may be different ethnicities, but so what?
Tommy, the Pope of Morality, hath spoken.
You're gonna have to do better than a naked assertion.
You're driving alone one night on a deserted rural road and your car breaks down. I happen to drive by a short moment later and offer to help drive you home. At that moment, are you going to care whether or not I am a Christian or an atheist before accepting my offer?
No. So what? Virtually all atheists (in the US) borrow from the Christian worldview in forming their morality, so...
you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking atheists for having the same positions that you have
I'm interested in people seeing the conclusions of being consistent with their stated positions. Helping people be more rational. So sue me.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteYour constant reliance on "reason, empathy and altruism" for your moral basis has been deconstructed.
Here's hoping you can do sthg other than beg the question in your response. I haven't seen anythg but that from you thus far.
Peace,
Rhology
Tommy, the Pope of Morality, hath spoken.
ReplyDeleteYou're gonna have to do better than a naked assertion.
I don't have to do better, because I don't need to defer to anything you have to say in how I conduct myself. And if anyone here is acting like the "Pope of Morality", it is you, because you act like it is your exclusive domain.
I'm interested in people seeing the conclusions of being consistent with their stated positions. Helping people be more rational. So sue me.
You're not helping, because I do not consider you to be a rational person. But since you and I are never likely to encounter each other personally, I don't have to care very much either. However, if you ever plan to be in the NYC area and want to witness your Christian faith to me in person, feel free to let me know on my blog. But if you are just as arrogant and condescending in person as you are in the blogosphere, don't expect to get very far.
Then again, I strongly suspect based on what you write and the tone you use is that you don't want me to convert to Christianity because it benefits me but rather that it feeds your own ego.
Here's a little tip. If you want to get people interested in what you have to offer, you don't convince them by mocking them or being derisive or dismissive of their values and morals that might happen to coincide with yours. Instead, you highlight what you have in common and try to build on that.
If by some remote chance I were to find myself at a point in my life where I came to believe that Christianity was right and true, it certainly would not be from the efforts of the likes of you.
From Rhology:
ReplyDelete"Your constant reliance on "reason, empathy and altruism" for your moral basis has been deconstructed."
Oh. You mean your blog post where you lecture us about begging the question with a heaping helping of . . . begging the question?
From your blog:
"In reality Christianity is true, and God has put this desire in people's hearts. "He has bound eternity in the hearts of men" (Ecclesiastes); "they show that the requirements of the Law are written on their hearts, their consciences alternately accusing, now even defending them" (Romans 2). The EMA has no evidence that it is truly the case that his moral dogmas are right for anyone other than himself. But he acts like they are b/c he is borrowing from a theistic worldview, where a transcendent Lawgiver exists and has given commands for people to follow. He rejects the Lawgiver but wants the Laws (airbrushed to fit his own desires, of course). This is a common human theme - we reject the Giver but want the gifts. We want His power but not His face. We want His mercy but not to strive to be worthy of it."
Project much Rhology? If this was an attempt at deconstruction, then I would have to say - EPIC FAIL!
Tommy said:
ReplyDeleteAnd if anyone here is acting like the "Pope of Morality", it is you, because you act like it is your exclusive domain.
1) Show me where I have made even one statement that would ascribe authority to moralise to MYSELF. Have I not instead referred constantly to TGOTB?
2) You, by contrast, tell us how it should go, and the statement "From a humanist point of view, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human" is no exception.
3) I notice that you made no argument that I was mistaken; you merely tried to throw the same back on me. Is this not a concession on your part?
I do not consider you to be a rational person
And you're on my Wall of Shame, so... touché.
However, if you ever plan to be in the NYC area and want to witness your Christian faith to me in person, feel free to let me know on my blog.
OK, I'll do so. We can block out three hours or something to pick each others' brains over a beer or latté, hopefully.
Of course, I don't know what good you think it would do since you don't think I'm rational.
OTOH, Bertrand Russell kind of agreed: "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." We're both men, though, so...
I strongly suspect based on what you write and the tone you use is that you don't want me to convert to Christianity because it benefits me but rather that it feeds your own ego.
Now you're a mindreader.
Why do you think I'm arrogant? B/c I dare to point out to people where they're mistaken? Where they've made intellectually dishonest and wrongheaded arguments? Where they've failed to back up their assertions? Where they've made huge exaggerations for the sake of emotional impact (as Lui is fond of doing)?
B/c I claim I'm right? Don't you claim you're right?
I don't know you but I want nothing better for you than to come to know Christ. Think the worst of me if you like; you evidently have no moral basis beyond your own whims to think the worst of me rather than to think the best of me. It's like reasoning with the wind - it can change direction at any moment. That's the problem with humanistic philosophies.
you don't convince them by mocking them
Quote me mocking someone rather than their argument.
being derisive or dismissive of their values and morals
I didn't write this post, you know. Maybe you could remember what Martin wrote:
"From a comment following Graham's disgraceful encomium: "Jesse Helms fought for FREE PEOPLE??? (emphasis mine) Would those be the white people who wanted to be FREE of having to associate with black people?" Uh huh. Seems fitting that a homophobic, racist piece of shit should be eulogized so fulsomely by an anti-Semitic piece of shit, eh?"
the efforts of the likes of you.
"the likes of you" is a fairly pejorative statement as well, you know. You're not the spotless angel whose airs you're putting on.
And I agree 100%. It wouldn't be b/c of me at all, but b/c the Holy Spirit of God had mercy on you and illuminated your spirit.
Kyle S said:
begging the question?
1) Was this a post over whether God exists or is it over someone else's moral framework?
2) When you say "there's no God" in passing, is that begging the question?
3) Even if I did beg the question, the points I made in that post stand unrefuted on Martin's stated moral framework. Did you ever consider trying to answer them?
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology your reading comprehension is some of the worst I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteTry this again: you accuse all of us of begging the question when it is you who is actually guilty of that.
You keep repeating this assertion that the only valid basis of morality is basically "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Those aren't the exact words you used but they do reflect the spirit of what you are saying. And you couple that with an assertion that any morality that isn't based on "because God says so" is baseless and arbitrary. We reject your claim that the only valid stances when it comes to morality are to either "surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ" or be a morally nihlistic atheist.
And contrary to what you claim, we can and do have a valid basis for our morality. It's called living life. Our basis comes from our experiences, from interacting with other human beings, from sometimes making mistakes and by learning from them, all of which develops in us the qualities that make living amongst our fellow man possible: empathy, altruism, and respect for others' boundaries. I know you reject empathy-based morality, but we don't. It the most valid morality around with tangible, testable, verifiable results.
1) Show me where I have made even one statement that would ascribe authority to moralise to MYSELF. Have I not instead referred constantly to TGOTB?
ReplyDeleteI am referring to your condemnation of atheists expressing moral opinions, even when they agree with you! You act as if it is your exclusive domain based on your religions beliefs.
2) You, by contrast, tell us how it should go, and the statement "From a humanist point of view, racism is wrong b/c there is one race - human" is no exception.
I am merely pointing out to you that we arrive at the same conclusion through different points of view. Again, we both believe that racism is wrong. So what's your problem?
3) I notice that you made no argument that I was mistaken; you merely tried to throw the same back on me. Is this not a concession on your part?
Hey, as long as you condemn racism, that's all I care about. I don't care how you come to that conclusion. It is not a matter of me conceding anything.
And you're on my Wall of Shame, so... touché.
Actually, I found that rather amusing when I noticed it. I even updated the masthead on by blog:
A Proud Member of the Jahiliyya Society and Rhology's Wall of Shame.
I didn't see any context to inform your readers what is shameful or sad about me, but of course they are free to click on the link to my blog and see for themselves. I mean, it's not like there are that many atheist bloggers who do posts like this or this. Imagine that, an atheist blogger defending the rights of Christians! Lots of criticism of Islam too!
Where they've made huge exaggerations for the sake of emotional impact (as Lui is fond of doing)?
And if you noticed, I did subtly rebuke him for it in that Thermodynamics thread.
It's like reasoning with the wind - it can change direction at any moment. That's the problem with humanistic philosophies.
Trust me, there is nothing whimsical about the values that guide me in my life. They act as a check on my impulses, whims, and desires, not as a justification for them.
Quote me mocking someone rather than their argument.
Does this sound familiar?
Tommy, the Pope of Morality, hath spoken.
You're not the spotless angel whose airs you're putting on.
Oh, I never claimed to be a spotless angel. I am a flawed human being who makes mistakes and I am my own worst critic. For example, I admit it was wrong of me to use some inflammatory language towards you in exchanges we have had in the past both on this blog and on a couple of others, and I apologize for that. But I suspect I am hardly the worst offender in the blogosphere in that regard.
Regards,
TK
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteMocking your argument or statements is not the same as mocking you.
As for defending Christians' right to display their faith publicly or rebuking Lui for his outlandish manner of self-expression, it is appreciated.
Kyle S,
Please see here for a rebuttal of your "empathy" argument as basis of morality.
Pol Pot "lived life". Timothy McVeigh "lived life". Charles Manson "lived life". If you're looking for begging the question, this is a great example. Why not look to those guys as an example of life to be lived?
It's b/c you have some other unstated moral dogma behind what you have stated here. Either you haven't thought it all the way thru, in which case I"m more than happy to help, or you're being disingenuous, not laying it all out on the table when asked to do so in an argument.
Another example of begging the question is your statement:
And you couple that with an assertion that any morality that isn't based on "because God says so" is baseless and arbitrary.
It's begging the question b/c it fails to deal with my statements, on which I've already written (and to which I've linked multiple times around here in the past) and which lie unrefuted.
Peace,
Rhology
I intend for this to be my last word on it, but I won't promise.
ReplyDeleteRhology I have never seen more cases of projection from anyone than what I've seen from you.
And your comments show me that you don't even know what begging the question means. You simply pin that label on any statement someone makes with which you disagree.
And, your comments and repeated bleatings aside, people have refuted your arguments regarding morality. You just don't like the answers, so you keep repeating the question, apparently until someone replies with something you want to see.
Or, worse yet, you seem to have made up your mind that there are no valid refutations of your contention that Christian morality is the only one with a sound bases and anything else, especially what comes from atheists, is baseless and arbitrary. So when we've tried time and again, you simply repeat "You haven't answered my question. My claims stand unrefuted." You seem to take it for granted that the only intellectually honest response from anyone is something like "Rhology, you're right. I have no basis for believing that ___ is wrong. I don't want to go through life that way without God's moral compass." Then there's a chance that you have this longing that at least one of us would come crawling to you (in the internet sense of the word) and ask you to lead us in the 'Sinner's Prayer'.
And lastly, I frankly don't give a shit about sociopaths like Pol Pot or Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh. Two of the three believed they were doing the right thing, but they were delusional. Don't bother asking me on what basis I can say that. I will not get bogged down with that. The other (Manson) more or less was carrying out some of his impulses.
In all three cases, they either didn't think through the consequences of their actions beforehand, or they did and just didn't give a shit and decided it was indeed worth the cost in human lives.
Two of the three believed they were doing the right thing, but they were delusional.
ReplyDeleteSo much the worse for your argument, since naked assertions do not a case make.
they either didn't think through the consequences of their actions beforehand, or they did and just didn't give a shit and decided it was indeed worth the cost in human lives.
But it just couldn't be that there is no way to know whether they were right or wrong! That's just out of the question for you apparently.
But obviously anyone can play that game. Atheism is out of the question for me. Therefore, according to your logic, atheism is untrue.
Wow, that was easy.
I urge you to actually think about this topic, Kyle S. Let's interact on it. So far you're throwing out emotions right and left in a hate-fest. I hope you'll reconsider and approach this reasonably.
So much the worse for your argument, since naked assertions do not a case make.
ReplyDeleteI did not make a naked assertion.
But it just couldn't be that there is no way to know whether they were right or wrong! That's just out of the question for you apparently.
But obviously anyone can play that game. Atheism is out of the question for me. Therefore, according to your logic, atheism is untrue.
Wow, that was easy.
This makes absolutely no sense. "My" logic has nothing to do with this statement.
I urge you to actually think about this topic, Kyle S. Let's interact on it. So far you're throwing out emotions right and left in a hate-fest. I hope you'll reconsider and approach this reasonably.
1. I've actually thought about this topic more than you will ever realize.
2. To the contrary, I've actually been quite calm. Just reacting like so many others do here and on your own blog to your rhetorical sleight of hand.
3. My pointing out that you are guilty of projection over and over again still stands.