What follows is the recent Twitteraction between Dave Fletcher, of the Reasonable Doubts podcast (@DoubtcastFletch), the Reasonable Doubts account (@doubtcast), and me.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @DoubtcastFletch Hey, lookie here - another review you'll probably mock rather than rebut!
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/reasonable-doubts-podcast-on.html
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch we have a response on the way. We promise to be nice!
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Doesn't have to be nice. Does need to be substantive.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@doubtcast @Rhology I make no such promises of niceness, but I have much less tolerance for people who intentionally miss the point.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch "Missing the point"; like when ppl claim they're doing internal critiques & proceed to do only external critiques?
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology A perfect example of what I'm talking about. You ignored everything you couldn't refute and focused on small tangents.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology We did an internal critique. You choose to ignore that because you cannot refute the arguments.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch Ah, right, even though Beahan made sure we knew multiple times that the strength of the show was that you were doing...
...INTERNAL critiques; you're refuted but don't want to admit it, so suddenly that question is 'tangential'. Right, sure.
Reasonable Doubts @doubtcast
@Rhology @doubtcastfletch They were largely based on misunderstanding. We will do a written response instead of dedicating episode to straw.
Rhology @Rhology
@doubtcast @doubtcastfletch Written is fine; whatever suits you. But I should think a Christian is a better judge of whether a critique...
...is internal or not. You've shown no significant familiarity with the Bible. I'm not "ignoring" anything.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology @doubtcast And this is the point where I vote for not responding at all. No reason to dignify every asshat with a response.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology The point is, you didn't respond to our points and you believe yourself entitled to an official response from us. You are not.
Rhology @Rhology
@DoubtcastFletch @doubtcast I love how I respond reasonably to your points, pointing out errors, and I'm an "asshat". Well played.
Dave Fletcher @DoubtcastFletch
@Rhology Unless you were making relevant points or were an apologist of note, I see no reason why your ramblings should get a response.
================================
Well, I'm certainly not an apologist of any note, but I honestly don't know what these Doubtcasters are talking about.
They claim they did an internal critique. I've not seen more than a couple of isolated examples of internal critiques; most of their critiques were well-seasoned with their naturalistic assumptions, or at best, most charitably speaking, by simple ignorance of the Scripture. I've pointed out several examples and reasons for those examples of critiques that were simply not internal.
They claim that I "focused only on small tangents"; wut?
I identified the main themes of their show, I did my level best to write down and interact with their most prominent arguments, I am going to deal with every single biblical passage they mentioned in the "God is a liar" excerpt and episode and in my most recent post dealt with one of the principal ones. It would appear that asking them to clarify what "small tangents" they have in mind, however, will simply result in more insulting language and small-minded well-poisoning. That's cool with me; these reviews are not primarily for the Doubtcasters' benefit anyway. It's just sort of funny how we see a pattern developing with these guys. They're not the fair-minded reasonable chaps they make themselves out to be. My initial opinion of them has turned out to be more favorable than was merited by reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment