Thursday, February 02, 2012

Nick Singer for Oklahoma House Seat #87

Nick Singer, former president of the Oklahoma Atheists, is running for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, district #87.
He is a fair-minded man, a man of integrity and honesty, a man who will stop at nothing to make sure that he and his campaign remain above reproach.

As evidence for these sweeping claims of his great honesty and open-mindedness, I present the following photographic imagery.

Before:




After:




Hmm, where'd my comment go?
Oh, that must be what Nick Singer means by "freedom of conscience" and "asking questions that seek understanding".  Atheists have a great track record of each, so it's precisely what I should've expected from him. Substantive answers to such things are best left in one's imagination.

Go, Nick, go!

98 comments:

  1. Is this seat in Oklahoma City?

    ReplyDelete
  2. By your definition of God, let's see who else could not justify their Eagle Scout award:

    Muslims
    Buddhists
    Hindus
    Jews
    Mormons

    You take pride in this exclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know if I would vote for this guy or not- I'd need more than just this tiny slice of life to decide. But as nal implied, it is rather a silly question you posed. As a former Cub scout who knew the rules, and knew pretty much what the whole thing was about, I can say that belief in God is not the only thing going on here, for good or bad, so I don't really see any contradiction in an atheist mentioning his Eagle Scouthood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nobody claimed it was the ONLY thing going on there.
    My comment on his wall that he deleted speaks for itself, however.

    NAL is wrong in that I'm not using MY definition of God, but ANY definition of God as the Boy Scouts do.
    Singer doesn't believe in ANY God, so it would be 100% impossible for him to fulfill the Oath and the Law, by definition.
    Those other groups can do so.

    And it's not an issue of taking pride in the exclusion. It's a matter of doing the right thing.

    Yes, in OKC mostly north of I-40 and west of the Hefner Parkway IIRC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ANY definition?

    God is defined as Reality. I think most atheists believe in Reality.

    God is defined to be a concept that exists in the human mind. I think most atheists accept that definition.

    With those definitions Singer can fulfill the Oath. Unless those definitions don't meet YOUR criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do atheists believe in God?

    If so, how can they be an a-THE-ist?

    Ad hoc redefinitions of words into their opposite value doesn't do a lot for you in the credibility department.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Redefinition? How can I redefine something that the Boy Scouts didn't define in the first place?

    If you know the Boy Scout definition of God, perhaps you'll enlighten.

    The Boy Scouts, being a Mormon/Christian organization, probably define God to be the Christian God.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Probably"?

    And how does this answer the charge against Nick Singer (which he has in a cowardly fashion again removed from his FB wall)?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, rho, you've convinced me- I'm not voting for this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rho:

    And how does this answer the charge against Nick Singer (which he has in a cowardly fashion again removed from his FB wall)?

    It doesn't. I note the irony in Singer's exclusion of your FB comment highlighting the exclusionary policies of the Boy Scouts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Singer doesn't believe in ANY God, so it would be 100% impossible for him to fulfill the Oath and the Law, by definition."

    Please present us with evidence that he was an atheist at the same time that he was an Eagle Scout?

    "And it's not an issue of taking pride in the exclusion. It's a matter of doing the right thing."

    What is the right thing, in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did you read my first comment that I left on his wall?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, but I'm asking what you think the right thing for him to do is. And why, obviously.

    Also: where does he advertise his Eagle Scount award?

    ReplyDelete
  14. He does on his FB Info section.

    The right thing would be to repudiate his Eagle Scout award or explain that he wasn't an atheist at the time.

    Deleting my comment would be the wrong thing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The right thing would be to repudiate his Eagle Scout award or explain that he wasn't an atheist at the time. Deleting my comment would be the wrong thing."

    Which brings me to the second part of the question that I asked you - why?

    Also: classic move to blank out your name and photo in that screenshot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I explained the why also in the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What you wrote was not an explanation, it was snark. Do you genuinely not recognise the distinction between the two?

    Try and break it down. How does it infringe your freedom of conscience (or anybody elses') if he deletes your comment? Was your questionr really about seeking understanding, or was it just a cheap shot?

    Also: "atheists have a great track record of each"? I would have hoped comments like that would be below you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is it really that difficult for you to understand the shadiness of deleting the comment instead of answering the question?

    Tell you what, I think I'll start deleting your comments. Fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I asked you two simple questions. How does it infringe your freedom of conscience (or anybody elses') if he deletes your comment? And was your question really about seeking understanding, or was it just a cheap shot? (If it was about seeking understanding, what were you seeking to understand.)

    "Tell you what, I think I'll start deleting your comments."

    You can do whatever you want, because it's your blog - just like Singer can do whatever he wants on his Facebook page. What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  20. If you asked a question that you believed exposed a fault in my position or a hypocritical action of mine and I just deleted the question rather than answer, what would you think?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "If you asked a question that you believed exposed a fault in my position or a hypocritical action of mine and I just deleted the question rather than answer, what would you think?"

    I wouldn't think anything, I'd just go to another website. This is your blog, and you can do what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's his page so he can decide what comments are on there. Also, he worked very hard for that Eagle Scout honor so he doesn't have to refute that distinction for you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You have also missed the point, Chas.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have a question: Why would you take a screen shot immediately after posting a comment?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Because I was being sarcastic when I said in the original post:

    Oh, that must be what Nick Singer means by "freedom of conscience" and "asking questions that seek understanding". Atheists have a great track record of each

    I thought the chances were better than 50% that he'd delete my question b/c he didn't have an answer to it. I was right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I thought the chances were better than 50% that he'd delete my question b/c he didn't have an answer to it."

    And now you can play "gotcha!" just like you hoped. The way your mind works is just fascinating, just fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I see... So you posted a question fully expecting a negative response and then boasted about it? This must be an example of Christ telling us ridicule our fellow mankind who have stumbled in John 8:7, or perhaps the second commandment in Mark 12:31 instructing us to go forth and troll.

    ReplyDelete
  28. How dare Nick refuse to play host to a theological argument on his Facebook page. Rho should demand equal time on some sort of internet-based platform where he can express his own ideas about Boy Scouting and theism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As an atheist, I take offense to the implication that the Boy Scouts should only be open to Christians. That is not only biggotry, but a lie. I was a Boy Scout when I was young, and I am proud of it. Being an Eagle Scout has nothing whatsoever to do with being Christan, but rather with leadership and responsibility. He probably deleted your comment because he didn't want to have to deal with your ignorant and inflamatory comments. When I read this post, I see what is fundamentally wrong with religion in America: people can't seem to get over differences in opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I must admit, you keep the entertainment rolling here, rho. I will agree with you this far: I wouldn't remove a critical post on my blog either, unless it was just stupid and offensive; and your post was not just stupid and offensive.

    But that's just my personal preference, and I can't get too exercised about it. It's his blog, and what's more he's running for office: I'd be surprised if any main party candidates have no censoring whatsoever on their blogs, Christian or not, Democrat or not. That's politics. So it's not really a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  31. zilch,

    I agree, not a HUGE deal. It's merely worth noting. What's really funny is how numerous people are ripping ME for bringing it to light and not him for the hypocrisy he is refusing to acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  32. GodsNotDeadYet said:
    So you posted a question fully expecting a negative response and then boasted about it?

    I don't think I boasted. Maybe you use a different definition of "boast" than I, but I generally think of it as bragging, publicising how awesome one is, oneself. I don't think I did that.
    Rather, I exposed the hypocrisy of Nick Singer. That's quite different. Just b/c I expected him to act hypocritically should say sthg about atheists' (and/or politicians') track record, if nothing else.



    This must be an example of Christ telling us ridicule our fellow mankind who have stumbled in John 8:7

    1) John 7:53-8:11 is a textual variant of doubtful origin. You should probably pick a passage that probably IS in the Bible.
    2) The Pharisees brought a woman (and not the man, in violation of the relevant Mosaic Law) in front of Jesus, whereas they should have brought BOTH before the Sanhedrin. They were sinning in their attempts to catch Jesus in His words.
    3) I'm unsure how this situation is analogous even in what Jesus pushed back against. Am I proposing that Nick Singer be killed for his hypocrisy? I don't remember saying anything of the sort. Perhaps you can quote me.



    Mark 12:31 instructing us to go forth and troll.

    1) Do you believe that enabling someone in their hypocrisy is more loving than asking them to repent of it?
    2) What of loving anyone in District 87 that might read this? Shouldn't they know that Nick Singer can't bring himself to answer a simple question about his advertised CV?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dami0n said:
    How dare Nick refuse to play host to a theological argument on his Facebook page.

    It's not theological. Maybe you should read my comment again.



    where he can express his own ideas about Boy Scouting and theism.

    These aren't my own ideas. I explained pretty clearly the basis of my question when I asked it of him, and nowhere did it even imply that my own standards of judgment had anything to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. hawkeye said:
    As an atheist, I take offense to the implication that the Boy Scouts should only be open to Christians.

    Take it up with the BSA, not with me. I didn't write the Oath and the Law.



    I was a Boy Scout when I was young, and I am proud of it.

    OK. May I ask how this is relevant, though?



    Being an Eagle Scout has nothing whatsoever to do with being Christan, but rather with leadership and responsibility.

    1) I never said it had anything to do with being Christian. Believe me; after 7 years spent in Cub and Boy Scouts in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I know that better than most.
    2) Yes, it has to do with leadership and responsibility. It ALSO has to do with fulfilling the Oath and the Law. Would you mind rereading my original question on his FB page, please?



    He probably deleted your comment because he didn't want to have to deal with your ignorant and inflamatory comments

    1) I guess we'll never know unless he comes clean and actually interacts with us, now will we? Wouldn't that be nice?
    2) Since we're speculating w/o any basis in fact, I'm going to imitate you and speculate that he deleted it b/c he has become a member of the rare and reclusive Shaotokinian cult, which shuns all FB commentary. But he's not a very good member; he only deletes sometimes.
    3) What precisely is ignorant or inflammatory about my question? Be specific, please.



    I see what is fundamentally wrong with religion in America: people can't seem to get over differences in opinion.

    Don't you have a difference of opinion with me, here and now? And isn't it true that you haven't "gotten over it"?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "What's really funny is how numerous people are ripping ME for bringing it to light and not him for the hypocrisy he is refusing to acknowledge."

    That's because you haven't demonstrated that it's hypocrisy. As I asked before, how does a political candidate infringe your freedom of conscience (or anybody elses') by deleting your comment from a Facebook page?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I only just noticed: after your comment was deleted, he posted "Rule #1 of the internet: don't feed the trolls". Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  37. His hypocrisy I exposed in the first question. His deletion of it is just gravy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It was only hypocrisy if he pretended to be a Christian while he was in the Eagle Scouts. Since you have not demonstrated that he did any such thing, why do you think you've exposed any hypocrisy on his part?

    ReplyDelete
  39. It was only hypocrisy if he pretended to be a Christian while he was in the Eagle Scouts

    That's actually false.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I guess we'll never know unless he comes clean and actually interacts with us, now will we? Wouldn't that be nice?"

    Us? You could just send him a PM or e-mail if you really want to know whether he was an atheist back when he was active in Scouting. Supposing that he wasn't, where is the hypocrisy in listing the award now? Must one support every single aspect of the BSA as an adult in order to be proud of making Eagle Scout as a youth?

    I don't think this was ever about your curiosity about Nick's background, however. I think that he was right assume that you were merely trying to start an inflammatory thread on his FB page. Even a cursory skimming of this blog would convince almost anyone that theological flame-war is your non-professional avocation.

    So the BSA provides you with a nice wedge issue to try to get Nick publicly arguing about theism, which is something that you love to do. Now we'll all have to ask ourselves why someone running for office in OKC would think that publicly attacking theism is a bad idea. Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  41. "That's actually false."

    Yes, because saying it's false makes it so.

    "Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have." (dictionary.com, why not)

    Please explain what "virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc" Singer is pretending to have.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Damion, please be gentle with him. I think he genuinely doesn't realise that he's a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rho fairly recently posted a cartoon featuring the "trollface" as protagonist. I think he knows.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dami0n,

    Why would I want to PM him? He's a public figure. This is no private matter.
    I DO want to know whether he was. Maybe he wasn't. That's why I asked. His silence and deletion of my question make me think that it's not all on the up-and-up.
    If he wasn't an atheist back then, there's no hypocrisy in listing the award now. Why didn't he just say so?


    Must one support every single aspect of the BSA as an adult in order to be proud of making Eagle Scout as a youth?

    No. I've never stated nor implied such.


    I don't think this was ever about your curiosity about Nick's background, however

    You're welcome to speculate.



    theological flame-war is your non-professional avocation.

    That's a pretty biased and pejorative way of looking at it, and it's ironically lacking in self-awareness from a guy who lists half his podcasts as Explicit and spends schmammered Friday evenings ripping the Bible out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  45. merkur said:
    Please explain what "virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc" Singer is pretending to have.

    I'll retype my question so you can be sure to read it this time.
    Given that one of the values of the Scout Oath is "...to do my duty to God", and one of the values of the Scout Law is "A Scout is...reverent", how do you justify advertising your Eagle Scout award when you were once the president of Oklahoma Atheists?



    troll

    I merely laugh when anonymous snipers like yourself accuse me of being a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Given that one of the values of the Scout Oath is "...to do my duty to God", and one of the values of the Scout Law is "A Scout is...reverent", how do you justify advertising your Eagle Scout award when you were once the president of Oklahoma Atheists?"

    That's not hypocrisy. He's not pretending "to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that [he] does not actually have". He's merely pointing out that he was an Eagle Scout.

    I'm not anonymous, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And if he was dishonestly/negligently performing his Boy Scout duties, he was a hypocrite. Since he adverts his Eagle, he remains one.

    And yes, you are.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "And if he was dishonestly/negligently performing his Boy Scout duties, he was a hypocrite."

    And as I pointed out, it was only hypocrisy if he pretended to be a Christian while he was in the Eagle Scouts. You claimed that my statement was false, but now you are repeating it back to me as truth.

    COMEDY GOLD MY FRIEND COMEDY GOLD.

    "And yes, you are."

    I'm really not.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And just to remind you, you haven't actually demonstrated that he was an atheist while he was an Eagle Scout.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Why would I want to PM him?

    Because you really DO want an answer about his childhood.

    This is no private matter.

    His religious upbringing sounds like a private matter to me.

    I DO want to know whether he was.

    Yet you DON'T want to contact him personally to find out.

    If he wasn't an atheist back then, there's no hypocrisy in listing the award now. Why didn't he just say so?

    Possibly because he doesn't want one of his threads to end up looking like one of yours.

    ...it's ironically lacking in self-awareness from a guy who ... spends schmammered Friday evenings ripping the Bible out of context.

    First off, our drunken atheist Bible study is on Wednesday evenings and always has been. More importantly, it is not lacking in self-awareness for someone who personally greatly enjoys a theological flame-war to recognize someone else who clearly does as well. It takes one to know one, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "His religious upbringing sounds like a private matter to me."

    Not in modern-day America, it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  52. merkur,

    Yes, you really are.
    You say you're not. Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. His religious upbringing sounds like a private matter to me.

    But his public CV is not private.



    Yet you DON'T want to contact him personally to find out.

    Already did. See above.



    Possibly because he doesn't want one of his threads to end up looking like one of yours.

    Then he could've just answered the question and moved on.

    ReplyDelete
  54. ...he could've just answered the question and moved on.

    Would it have been unreasonable for Nick to assume, given the contents of your blog, that you would have allowed him to simply move on? Or would it be more reasonable for him to assume that you would pepper him with theologically loaded follow-up questions, fanning the thread into a theist-vs-antitheist flamewar?

    Since you know my answer, I'll leave that question for your readers.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous means:

    "1. without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like: an anonymous letter to the editor; an anonymous donation. 2. of unknown name; whose name is withheld: an anonymous author." (Dictionary.com)

    My name is Merkur, and I put it on every comment I write (unless I forget), so I'm not anonymous.

    I'm surprised you want to focus on this, rather than on proving that Nick Singer was an atheist while he was an Eagle Scout, and that your accusation of hypocrisy is accurate. Go ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  56. ...his public CV is not private.

    Did he publicly claim being raised as an unbeliever on his CV? If so, then surely your charge of inconsistency (as an unbelieving Boy Scout) has at least some merit. If not, why do you insist on publicly prying into his childhood? Maybe he was raised by Jews or Mormons or Bene Gesserit witches. What's it to you?

    ReplyDelete
  57. If Nick Singer is the Kwisatz Haderach, then we've got bigger problems than his Eagle Scout status.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Merkur you've just won the internets for the day, big problems indeed.

    As for Rhology:
    So that verse in John isn't part of the Bible? I'm sorry I am not as inspired as you to have such divine knowledge of which parts of the Bible are important commands, and which parts are "textual variants." I had thought you functioned under the premise off all of it being the infallible words of God.

    Sure, hypocrisy is something you should address in people you love. However your actions seem to show (along with the answers to these questions) that you had no such motives. As for the people in his district? How utilitarian of you to consider their understanding over his personal comfort. This could have been resolved in private as previously stated but then you wouldn't have protected those poor souls from the true Nick, nor created fodder for your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  59. merkur,
    2. of unknown name; whose name is withheld

    Your name is withheld. You're anonymous. Thanks!


    My name is Merkur, and I put it on every comment I write

    And your name is unlinked. You're much more of a troll than I was on Singer's FB wall.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dami0n,

    Would it have been unreasonable for Nick to assume, given the contents of your blog, that you would have allowed him to simply move on?

    Possibly.
    Politicians have to weigh this kind of thing, you know. He could do the right thing and answer, and if the answer is "I was an atheist while a Scout", the right thing would be to remove the Eagle Scout award from his public CV, since he earned it via deception, and take his chances with coming clean.
    Or he could answer and say his deconversion occurred after the Eagle Scout award. Fair enough.
    Or he could do the wrong thing and ignore, suppress, and silence questions that make him uncomfortable. He chose the worst path.



    Or would it be more reasonable for him to assume that you would pepper him with theologically loaded follow-up questions, fanning the thread into a theist-vs-antitheist flamewar?

    Like what do you think I'd ask him?
    Are you saying that the former President of OK Atheists would be put in an uneasy spot with some fair follow-up questions from some scrub like me? Is he thus fit for public office?




    Did he publicly claim being raised as an unbeliever on his CV?

    No. That's why I asked him the question.



    If not, why do you insist on publicly prying into his childhood? Maybe he was raised by Jews or Mormons or Bene Gesserit witches. What's it to you?

    1) Because I wanted to know the answer.
    2) Because he's running for public office.
    3) Because he put Eagle Scout on his public CV.
    4) Beacuse I doubt that he went from theistic to the President of OK Atheists in such a short time, but I could be wrong. All he has to do is say so.

    ReplyDelete
  61. GodsNotDeadYet said...
    So that verse in John isn't part of the Bible?

    It's doubtful that it is.



    I'm sorry I am not as inspired as you to have such divine knowledge of which parts of the Bible are important commands,

    It's not "inspired" knowledge. I've studied textual criticism of the Bible. Don't get all huffy just b/c you're ignorant on something and get corrected.
    It's not a huge deal; it merely defeats the one point you raised. Just learn the lesson and move on.



    I had thought you functioned under the premise off all of it being the infallible words of God.

    I do. What relevance does this question have? Am I supposed to accept ALL writing that anyone ever did as the Word of God?
    Of course not. I accept that which was originally in the Bible as the infallible Word of God. John 7:53-8:11 probably wasn't in the original. So it's entertaining, sure; helpful, definitely; authentic, probably not.



    However your actions seem to show (along with the answers to these questions) that you had no such motives.

    OK. Thanks for sharing your unfounded opinion.



    How utilitarian of you to consider their understanding over his personal comfort.

    Utilitarian and Christian ethics overlap in many ways. It's Christian of me to do so.



    This could have been resolved in private as previously stated but then you wouldn't have protected those poor souls from the true Nick, nor created fodder for your blog.

    Actually, Singer is the one who created the blog fodder by so predictably deleting my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  62. merkur said, before he got deleted:

    Your lack of self-awareness is the gift that just keeps on giving.

    Ah, so it's NOT OK to delete comments, eh?
    Are you saying that it's somehow shady, underhanded, and dishonest to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I love how I've been reasoning here for 60+ comments about this, all the atheists think I'm the bad guy for commenting and Nick is A-OK for deleting me. Then I decide to take Nick's approach and delete dissenting comments, and alluvasudden it's not OK to delete comments.

    I couldn't've scripted it any more perfectly. I can't believe you didn't see it coming.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Ah, so it's NOT OK to delete comments, eh? Are you saying that it's somehow shady, underhanded, and dishonest to do so?"

    No, you've missed my point almost entirely. I couldn't give a fig whether you delete my comments, and I don't make assumptions about your motives for deletion. You, on the other hand, do think that there's something inherently shady about deleting comments - so presumably you now believe that you've deleted my comment because you're trying to hide something.

    Okay, this is the difficult part: if you don't think you're trying to hide something, but just trying to get rid of an idiot troll, then why don't you think that Nick Singer might have thought exactly the same as you're thinking right now?

    I don't have great hopes for any sudden revelations on your part, but I'm just planting a seed, really.

    ReplyDelete
  65. so presumably you now believe that you've deleted my comment because you're trying to hide something.

    LOL
    But Nick wasn't trying to hide something. Right?



    Okay, this is the difficult part: if you don't think you're trying to hide something, but just trying to get rid of an idiot troll, then why don't you think that Nick Singer might have thought exactly the same as you're thinking right now?

    Ah, but I was thinking neither.
    And evidently the seed *I* planted didn't take root in your mind. Pity, but hardly surprising. You're too busy being nasty to think straight.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "But Nick wasn't trying to hide something. Right?"

    I have no idea, and neither do you. You were the one who was casting aspersions on him for deleting your Facebook comment. That was the entire point of your blogpost, accusing him of hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have no idea, and neither do you.

    I know I don't. That's been my point the entire time. We don't know b/c he deleted the comment and didn't tell us why.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "You're too busy being nasty to think straight."

    I don't believe that I've been nasty at all, but I apologise if I've hurt your feelings in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Rhology now: "I know I don't. That's been my point the entire time."

    Rhology then: "And how does this answer the charge against Nick Singer (which he has in a cowardly fashion again removed from his FB wall)?"

    If you didn't know why he deleted your comment, how did you know he was acting in a cowardly fashion? And if you know he was acting in a cowardly fashion, then why are you now claiming that you have no idea why he took it down?

    Turtles, all the way down.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Not knowing why != knowing it was done in a cowardly fashion

    Thanks, merkur et al. This has been fun but there's nothing more to be done here. Y'all have fun now.

    ReplyDelete
  71. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Incidentally: "That's been my point the entire time."

    We've shown that you have no way of knowing he's a hypocrite, and you've just admitted that you don't know if he's a coward. We've also established that you don't think that deleting comments is problematic, and that you don't rush to conclusions about peoples' motives just because they delete comments.

    So... what exactly has been your point the entire time?

    ReplyDelete
  73. We don't know b/c he deleted the comment and didn't tell us why.

    According to your screen grab, he did mention something about not feeding trolls. Presumably, he thinks you are hungry.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  75. From Nick's comment and from this helpful wikipedia article was can deduce that Nick assumed that the unnamed Facebook poster was "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages ... with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." It seems to me that he would be quite reasonable to assume this, given that the post looks like a fairly transparent attempt to kick off an argumentative thread about theology, the sort of thread specialised in here on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I'm not faulting the Facebook poster for trying to start an atheist/theist debate on Nick's page. That sounds like fun to me. But then I'm also not faulting Nick or calling him a coward for trying to constrain the debate to substantive political issues rather than theological debate or the details of his religious upbringing.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Even a cursory skimming of this blog would convince almost anyone that theological flame-war is your non-professional avocation.

    Maybe, Damion. But who knows what goes on under the counter? Doesn't God's promise for one of the better mansions in Heaven constitute a pecuniary interest? Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Rho,

    In answer to your questions on Twitter:

    (1) Nick knows how to Google

    (2) Having Googled you, he'd likely (correctly) infer that you are trolling for a religious argument at best, flamewar at worst

    (3) An open dialogue about his religious views as a child and an adult is a thinly disguised de facto religious test for office

    ReplyDelete
  79. So you see an honest question and default to "uh oh, pending religious flamewar". Hopefully y'all don't claim tolerance as a virtue.

    It's actually more about the topic of my question, not religious test for office. Do you even remember my question?

    ReplyDelete
  80. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  81. So you see an honest question and default to "uh oh, pending religious flamewar".

    Nothing default about it. Assuming that Nick sampled a few of your posts and threads on this blog, he would rightfully conclude that religious flamewar is your favorite pastime.

    Do you even remember my question?

    Of course, since you posted it here in your forum. BTW - Have you asked Nick off the record yet? If so, I might believe that you are more interested in knowing the answer than in causing a public row over his unbelief.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Now we're just rehashing ground already covered.
    You apparently think it's OK to avoid answering tough questions, as long as one uses the excuse that one doesn't want to engage in "religious flamewars", even though the question wasn't on that topic.

    I prefer to answer tough questions and stand on my principles. But of course you have no reason to do so, so it shouldn't be surprising you neither have unchanging principles nor stand on any.

    Why would I want to PM him? He's a public figure. This is no private matter.
    I DO want to know whether he was. Maybe he wasn't. That's why I asked. His silence and deletion of my question make me think that it's not all on the up-and-up.
    If he wasn't an atheist back then, there's no hypocrisy in listing the award now. Why didn't he just say so?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Now we're just rehashing ground already covered.

    Sorry, but it's hard to keep track when you've deleted so much of the thread.

    ...even though the question wasn't on that topic.

    Your original question wasn't about Nick's religious upbringing or lack thereof?

    I prefer to answer tough questions and stand on my principles.

    Ok, then, answer this: Did you intend to start an argument about atheism on Nick's page?

    ...you neither have unchanging principles nor stand on any.

    I say Nick was right to fear a religious flamewar on his site, and now you're just backing up my argument with more evidence. Flame on, Rho.

    Why didn't he just say so?

    Presumably because of your aforementioned propensity for starting arguments about religion and engaging in personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sorry, but it's hard to keep track when you've deleted so much of the thread.

    You owe me a new irony detector.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Your original question wasn't about Nick's religious upbringing or lack thereof?

    No. Tell you what, just so I can be sure you read it, could you please type my question in your next comment?


    Did you intend to start an argument about atheism on Nick's page?

    No, about his consistency.


    Flame on, Rho.

    LOL k.


    engaging in personal attacks.

    If your identification of personal attacks is anything like your identification of religious flamewars, I'm none too concerned that I did anything wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  86. No, about his consistency.

    His consistency as a non-theist who is also proud of his time as a Scout. No discussion of religion lurking in there? You've already admitted that "if he wasn't an atheist back then, there's no hypocrisy in listing the award now" and thus there is no problem at all with consistency so long as Nick wasn't raised without religious belief. Thus, your question leads immediately to a discussion about Nick's religious upbriging, as to whether it was secular or religious. Now that sounds like fertile topical grounds for a rhoblogy style thread.

    You could have simply saved yourself the trouble and assumed that Nick was indeed a theist back then, as almost all Boy Scouts are. You'll find that non-theist parents are not generally keen on the BSA for fairly obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Nick's religious upbriging

    No, his religious POSITION while he was a Scout.


    assumed that Nick was indeed a theist back then, as almost all Boy Scouts are.

    That may be the difference between us. I prefer simply to ask so I don't look foolish later. Like you and your cohorts are looking in this thread. I mean, complaining about deletion of comments in this thread? HAHAHAHA I couldn't've asked for better.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Who complained about deletion of comments in this thread? I was simply noting that you shouldn't complain about retreading ground that has been covered if you've eliminated the evidence that it has been covered before.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Now that I have another think about it, maybe Nick simply noticed that after running out of arguments you usually start calling people "foolish" or some other such epithet and decided that it is best not to start a conversation likely to end in such mudslinging.

    p.s. Matt 5:22

    ReplyDelete
  90. Who complained about deletion of comments in this thread?


    Why, you did, in your Tue Feb 14, 01:15:00 PM CST comment:

    Sorry, but it's hard to keep track when you've deleted so much of the thread.


    Next you're going to tell me that wasn't a complaint. I can feel it.


    I was simply noting that you shouldn't complain about retreading ground that has been covered if you've eliminated the evidence that it has been covered before.

    Don't worry; nothing of any substance was in those comments.


    Matthew 5:22

    Thank God you're not the first atheist to misuse Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Don't worry; nothing of any substance was in those comments.

    I seem to recall otherwise, but now I suppose that we'll never know. Just as long as you don't complain (again) about the ground that may or may not have been covered in the missing comments, I won't have to go out and buy yet another irony detector. It's a bit overwhelming to field complaints about the unfortunate consequences of comment deletion by someone who created a thread to complain about the unfortunate consequences of comment deletion.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Speaking of groud already covered, I forgot why you think Nick should disclose whether he was a theist prior to turning 18. Why exactly is that an issue of public concern all these years later?

    ReplyDelete
  93. I forgot why you think Nick should disclose whether he was a theist prior to turning 18. Why exactly is that an issue of public concern all these years later?

    It has to do with the question I asked him, which I'm still unconvinced you've actually read. It's captured in the screenshot on the original post.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Suppose Nick had answered you as follows "Well, Alan, I was raised by a loving of lesbian wiccans who taught me to honor the Mother Goddess, and therefor I had no problem fulfilling the Scout Oath." Would you have simply let it go at that?

    Suppose instead that he had responded that his particular Scout troop was much like the first BSA troop attended by Matthew Schottmiller, that is, one which did not actively screen out unbelieving children, even when they were forthright about their lack of theistic belief. Would you have let it go at that?

    Suppose instead that he responded that he was a closeted skeptic leaning towards agnostic in his youth. Would you have let it go at that?

    ReplyDelete
  95. I love how you're really picking on this "let it go" meme. Almost as if you're running political interference for the guy rather than seeking the truth of the matter.


    Mother Goddess

    I'd've asked him if he thought at the time that he was fulfilling his "duty to God" as it says in the Scout Oath by whatever he was doing in relation to Mother Goddess.

    If he'd said yes to that, I'd've made a smartaleck remark about how Goddess!=God and let it go. Not because it would've been funny, but because it's actually true that Goddess!=God.


    Suppose instead that he had responded that his particular Scout troop was much like the first BSA troop attended by Matthew Schottmiller, that is, one which did not actively screen out unbelieving children, even when they were forthright about their lack of theistic belief. Would you have let it go at that?

    I'd've commented that it doesn't answer my question. Because it doesn't.



    Suppose instead that he responded that he was a closeted skeptic leaning towards agnostic in his youth. Would you have let it go at that?

    I'd've asked him if he thought at the time that he was fulfilling his "duty to God" as it says in the Scout Oath by not knowing whether God existed.

    ReplyDelete
  96. If he'd said yes to that, I'd've made a smartaleck remark about how Goddess!=God and let it go.

    Looks like you would have found some way to turn the thread into a discussion about theology and your own personal views on the subject. Was Nick so unreasonable to conclude that this was your goal from the outset, given that he knows how to Google?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Looks like you would have found some way to turn the thread into a discussion about theology and your own personal views on the subject.

    No, not really. My views are irrelevant here, which is why I asked my question the way I did.
    You're not stupid; far from it. There's no way you're not seeing this. You're up to something else, other than the search for truth.

    ReplyDelete
  98. My views are irrelevant here...

    And yet you stood ready to kick off a theological discussion as to whether the Scout Oath should be so broadly construed as to include goddess worship.

    I'm guessing that just about any answer Nick gave, you'd have found some way to make a smart-aleck remark and thereby kick off a theological debate, eventually getting back to your views on how Nick has no way of knowing right from wrong. It's just what you do.

    ReplyDelete

When posting anonymously, please, just pick a name and stick with it. Not "Anonymous". At minimum, "Anonymous1", just for identification.