Monday, November 17, 2008

Credibility kicks the bucket

I keep wondering if I should carve notches into some kind of trophy somewhere for having been banned or having comments suppressed on atheist blogs. It happened again late last week chez possummomma, who apparently can't stomach someone calling out cases of gross redundant question-begging assertions from her and from her commenters.

I had first posted on this issue of same-sex marriage on her blog, then posted one of my larger comments here, then continued over there. But this last comment, which I paste below, was suppressed.

Adam Slagle,

That would be a point in favor of the one who favors free religious expression in the public sphere. That's me; it might be you too, or it might not. But I thought being homosexual was an issue of being born that way - that's what everyone else here is saying. You seem to disagree, though, so I'm happy to know you're in agreement with me.


You seem to be very emotional. This issue certainly does seem to bring out the irrational in people. Could I ask you to calm down and stop being so nasty? For the sake of your own credibility, seriously.

No one is asking your church to recognize the marriage or perform any marriage they choose not to.

Not yet. But you contradict yourself in the very next two sentences -

As for non-religious workplaces having to provide benefits... sorry the bigots won't get to spit on that group of people selectively anymore.

Now wait just a second. Let's say I own a business, and let's say I'm a Christian who takes the Bible seriously. My beliefs extend to EVERY area of life, not just to what I do in church. You apparently want to force me to provide benefits to a SSM worker's "spouse", against my will. I have good, reasonable arguments for my position (which are pummeling the other side, if this combox is any indication), yet you want to call me a bigot, groundlessly accuse me of "spitting" on someone (which I would never do - again you, not I, prove to be the bigot here) and bring litigation against me if I don't break my conscience.
So, it looks like you don't even realise the full implications of what you're saying. You have to think these things thru, you know.

the issue of reciprocated consent

Which I responded to. Do you make a habit of responding to 3-day-old posts?

That's the whole damn point of a modern system of morality!

Then my question to you is the same I posed to Berlzebub - Who died and made you God?
Make your argument that that is the point, and why I should accept such a question-begging foundation for morality.

That and empathy, much as you casually dismiss that which makes it possible for there to be good people.

I made numerous arguments in the post I linked to about empathy. I know it's more comfortable for you not to even read those arguments and just throw out a "you casually dismiss our arguments", but you're certainly not fooling me. Read the post and interact with the arguments there.

completely ignoring any evidence or argument to the contrary

Pheh. Let the reader judge who is bringing substantive arguments to the table.

I don't think you are welcome here. (not to speak for you, PMomma, its your show, after all)

By all means, silence all dissenting voices. That's the liberal idea of "open-mindedness" and "tolerance", after all.

I am inclined to think of you nothing more than a troll, and a bigoted one at that.

There you go with the name-calling again.
Do trolls have dozen-page-long conversations?
I've made numerous arguments that you haven't even interacted with here. You might try that - name-calling and labels are poor substitutes for dealing with arguments.

homosexuals are not the enemy!

Where did I ever say they were?
Many homosexuals don't support SSM, for one thing.
I oppose the SSM movement. The idea. I know you want to paint me as someone who'd love to murder all homosexual people, but you'll have to take me way out of context or just not quote me at all to do so.

I'm sure there were lots of white business owners who didn't want to pay for health insurance for any of those blacks when that marriage alteration was passed

Once again you pass over an argument w/o comment. Pitiful. Go back and read what I've already said on this comparing SSM to the civil rights mvmt and then bring forth your response.


1) I already demonstrated that you personally advocate sthg that would affect me adversely.
2) And about the emptiness of the "love" argument.
3) Deal with the arguments I've made about an atheist's ability to make ANY moral statement and think it should apply to anyone other than themselves. Again, I've already said multiple things on this issue in this very combox. Is it too much to ask that you interact with things I've already said, that you progress the argument rather than take backward steps?


I then told possummomma my honest estimate of her actions:

You're not going to publish my last comment?
That is pitiful. If you're tired of the way I argue, here are two suggestions:
1) Actually answer the questions.
2) No one is forcing you to read the comments here, you know. If others want to continue the interaction, who knows to what interesting lengths it might lead? We'll never know now, b/c you've decided to censor.

It's quite obvious where the chips fell in this encounter. As for me, it's another "notch" in my "belt" of atheists who won't face up to actual arguments. It's not some war, as you have me thinking in your last comment, but it is a marketplace of ideas. Those who censor generally have the least confidence in their ideas to win the competition. It's obvious where you stand.

Thanks for hosting the conversation thus far. Too bad you apparently don't have the spine to let it go on and die a natural death.


Gotta love the intellectual honesty of the atheist blogosphere. She's a big-hitter too. It's got to make you a little bit sad.

Anyway, since that time, some more comments have appeared.

-Some of them rehash the consent issue. They are not advancing the argument at all, but just repeating the same old stuff over and over.

-A few other issues:

empathy, empathy, empathy

I had asked the atheists in the combox to justify their moral statements. I went in there and made NO argument based on my own morality; rather, I was arguing an ad absurdum - if we change this one element of marriage, might as well change them all under the same argument. They started saying stuff like "IT IS NOT MORAL TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE AND THAT LOVES THEM BACK! IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU ADVERSELY!" so I asked them to justify that. The same old question. And the same old failures to do so. I even did them a favor and told them not to say "empathy" (b/c I've already mercilessly pwnd that idea), but that didn't stop them.

possummomma said:
Equating homosexuals to pedophiles and criminals is unacceptable.

Which I didn't do, of course. She has a hard time following arguments, unfortunately.

If your religion or your God feeds your hatred, then it and/or he is unacceptable as well.

1) I don't hate homosexuals, nor did I say anythg that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
2) God, OTOH, does hate them, and their sin. He lovingly calls them to repentance, but He is their enemy, and they are His, just like all unrepentant sinners and partakers in perversion.
3) Notice possummomma, despite my direct request that she and at least 2 other commenters do so, never attempts to justify her moral statement. She just asserts it.

When I see a blogger say that (I went to stir up trouble) and then note that it's a point of pride, I lose faith in their argument.

A classic case of the poisoning the well fallacy.

I think it's summed up by a post he made on the Atheist Experience blog where he claims atheists are unable to have true ethics or morals.

Nope, never said that. Re-read my posts on that topic.

PerpetualBeginner said:
It was more of MY beliefs are true. I know they're true.

1) And I'm sure that she doesn't really believe that her own beliefs are true. How disingenuous to say sthg like this.
2) Around here, I do sthg that these commenters are evidently unfamiliar with - argue for my position rather than just assert it.

he's another of those creepy people that seem to think that belief in God is the only reason people don't roam the streets raping and murdering randomly

That is full of misunderstanding.
1) It is not belief in God, but rather God's existence and His common grace that He gives even unrepentant human beings that holds us back from these evils.
2) But of course, my actual argument wrt atheism is that, while atheists are in general nice people, nice to children and dogs, etc, they don't have a good reason to be, on atheism. There is no objective reason for them to think that being nice is morally preferable to being nasty.

Flatly, the bible provides no grounds for saying that raping little girls is always wrong.

This from a self-professed "Christian". I'll hopefully get to that this week. Her worldview is certainly far from biblical, and therefore far from Christian.

Terra said:
It's ironic to me that his profile says he's so loving of all things foreign, and yet he can't open his mind long enough to see he's being a bigot.

Terra provides no argument. I think I was called a "bigot" like 9 times in that thread.

evolveintobirds said:
in one of the longer arguments he is pushed to answer the question "if God told you to kill your child would you obey?" (they were discussing Abraham and Isaac). After much beating around the bush he finally admitted that he would not because it contradicts his understanding of the Bible.

No doubt s/he refers to this post. While I give him/her credit for driving down that far into my archives, I don't see an argument to back up this assertion. What a surprise.

No comments: