Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Monday, September 1, 2008

Credulity

Hi guys,

Well, I have been waiting for a set of long posts by Dan "debunking atheists," and he is finally done with it.

Now, before you jump to Dan's blog to destroy his arguments, this is what I really want to share with you today:

I started blogging to Ray because I saw the "evolution" video. I felt furious because these guys were lying blatantly to the Christians, and I could not believe it. Well, this is what I detest, the way the likes of Ray, Kirk, Ham, the whole of answers in genesis, and all, abuse the trust of the fundies.

In the case of Dan, well, the guy does an awful job mostly because what he does is ... he trusts these guys! So, he simply copies from some creationist web site whichever propaganda he finds. Thus, he does not even understand properly what he is posting (he admits to it), and yet, he expects us to just believe that he gave us a good "debunking." Setting aside how foolish this is, the guy exposes himself to ridicule, and when I warn him about this possibility he thinks I am insulting him, which he often calls an ad hominem.

So, where is this going? Well, Dan is an excellent example of why I detest Ray and the like. There you have it. A guy who candidly posts stuff that has already been shown to be fallacies and lies, thinking he is doing a good job. The guy gets a good beating, but seems not to notice, but I bet he will notice one of these days (though he seems to forget what we say from one thread to the next, so this might take a while).

I do not know, maybe I am too compassionate, but I truly think Dan is somewhat naïve, and that in his innocence he is risking to have his trust in humanity destroyed because, if you cannot trust those you should be able to trust (aren't Christians supposed to be guided by high standards of morality, especially if the issue is their deeply held beliefs?), then what is left? Those "amoral" atheists? (unless he also gets to understand that atheism does not lead to lack of ethics).

Dan does not seem to be brilliant, but he tries to be honest. Still, either he will become a cynic, just like Ray and the like, or he will understand. What is your bet?

G.E.

29 comments:

  1. Cynic.

    It's incredibly difficult for most people to give up the theistic mindset that they feel is responsible for everything positive in their lives and the only remedy for anything negative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like Dan for the most part, despite the differences we have had and have. I check his blog from time to time, but haven't responded to any of the recent posts because evolution has absolutely zero to do with my atheism and it's just frustrating when he posts all that anti-evolution nonsense.

    I think he has learned that he can't just pigeonhole all atheists which does put him a step ahead of Comfort and the gang.

    I really think Dan has a good heart and sincerely wants us all to believe in Christ so we won't go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My bet is he's related to Terry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Maragon probably has it pegged as to the strength of the theistic mindset.

    mike:
    I really think Dan has a good heart and sincerely wants us all to believe in Christ so we won't go to hell.
    I suspect that may even be true of Comfort...I don't see him getting all that rich out of what he does.

    He's just arrogant and willfully ignorant, is his problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point Reynold. I guess I just know Dan better because he's more likely to respond to me with a personal answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Reynold,

    I do not think Ray is sincere. He seems to just bait for his blog to get hits (and I fall for it), repeating what he already knows is false (or at least he knows we will tell him that he is lying, again, and he will not have any answer to that, again). So, cynical and willful liar.

    True, he is also arrogant (almost never apologizes, and the only one time he did, he made it appear as if he was justified in his mistake.), and willfully ignorant too.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But do you guys think it is possible for someone who believes in a god, to be first a fundie, but given the arguments and the realization that the fundies have been lying to her/him, then, perhaps, think that maybe her/his belief in a god is well founded, but (s)he just got the wrong particular religion? Take Rob Penn for example? He claims that his family is deeply fundie.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't see any point in replying to his copying and pasting of Philip Johnson. Johnson has been refuted before. I like the part of his site, on the side, where he has a list of those who have been "rebuked". And the "Expelled Exposed" pic he photoshopped; he looks like a petulant little boy about to go crying to mommy. Or to his sky daddy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree Rufus, he does look like that, and I often feel like he is exactly like that.

    I also felt very lazy to answer his copied/pasted stuff from Johnson. Not just because it is recycled material, but because it is truly impossible to choose where to start. The whole concoction is fallacies and lies, almost word to word.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GE said: "I truly think Dan is somewhat naïve, and that in his innocence he is risking to have his trust in humanity destroyed"

    Monolithtma said: "I think he has learned that he can't just pigeonhole all atheists which does put him a step ahead of Comfort and the gang"

    I just stumbled onto Dan's blog as a result, and from what I've read, I completely agree with Mike; Dan does appear to be different from teh Ray Fan Club1One1!JesusRules!!

    Dan appears to value reason. Although I haven't read enough to safely make this conclusion, I think he's someone I can talk to.

    More seriously, care only if you think he/it is worth caring about. If you don't care enough, you don't necessarily have to lump him in with the idiots either.

    As a quick followup, I don't think Ray is sincere - at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. G.E. said: "But do you guys think it is possible for someone who believes in a god, to be first a fundie, but given the arguments and the realization that the fundies have been lying to her/him, then, perhaps, think that maybe her/his belief in a god is well founded, but (s)he just got the wrong particular religion? Take Rob Penn for example? He claims that his family is deeply fundie."

    I'm a cautious deist, so I really shouldn't be trying to speak for atheists; my perspective is fundamentally different.

    Exposure to other religious beliefs, and careful consideration of other viewpoints can lead one to accept that God may exist, but that theistic dogma is flawed enough so that "faith" is better kept personal (as opposed to being used to explain the natural world).

    Dan appears to me to be the kind of person that might understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've just read through his 6 posts and the comments and I disagree with you guys.

    I think he's an arse.

    When he gets all whiney about the "tone" of the responses and threatens to ban people for "geez".

    When he submits a link to a shoddy paper and then crows that he's debunked everyone.

    A nasty little whiney YEC turdburglar. And that probably IS an ad hominem attack

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stew,
    "A nasty little whiney YEC turdburglar. And that probably IS an ad hominem attack."

    You took the words right out of my mouth. This Dan is an ignoramus.

    I hate to do this because it is speculation, but I find that in most cases, people like Dan sucked up their belief systems with their mama's milk. Totally culturally conditioned by the age of six years old. It is pathetic at best.

    People like this don't stand a chance of ever understanding logic.

    Also, they are totally tied into their belief system by their family and social circle. To take exception to their teachings, these people would end up a pariah in their social circle, and frankly, they know they have not developed narmal coping skill like most people. They are a pathetic and desparate ilk that must have perpetual validation from the tribe. They do not do well alone, in fact they are afraid to death of being alone.
    Without their support system they would flounder psychologically and they subconciously know this. They cannot imagine how someone cannot believe what they say because they do not know and never will know how to think for themselves. They depend 100% on their authority figures.

    On the other hand, my Dad always told me, "only where there is doubt is there freedom."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dale said: they are totally tied into their belief system by their family and social circle. To take exception to their teachings, these people would end up a pariah in their social circle, and frankly, they know they have not developed narmal coping skill like most people. They are a pathetic and desparate ilk that must have perpetual validation from the tribe. They do not do well alone, in fact they are afraid to death of being alone.

    I agree, but I put a slightly different spin on it. I don't think the fear of losing your social circle keeps you stuck in institutionalized religion. I think, however, that verbal attacks on that religion's tenents tends to make the believer feel as if his/her social circle is being attacked.

    This leads the believer to being defensive, or perhaps going on the offensive as a result of the perceived affront to his/her friends.

    To the point, I'll read more of Dan's blog, and stop speculating about what it might reveal :p

    ReplyDelete
  16. Having read all of his entries on that blog, I'm going to maintain that he's still not in the same boat as Ray and Kirk and those who shun reason in lieu of faith. Certainly, he's guilty of doing that too. But he also displays some evidence that he values reason.

    I can't quite tell how many of the arguments he's making come directly from himself or other sources, so I may be off-base about that. However, it seems as if he's trying to make logical arguments for his case, rather than simply asserting that his faith = fact (which is exactly what Ray does).

    His problem lies in failing to recognize how his biases lead to faulty conclusions. As an example, he suggested that scientists are afraid of admitting that a Creator may be a valid explanation for creation. If this were true, he (Dan) would be very happy should all of science declare "We now accept all Creator models as valid for exploring causality".

    ie. science treats all religions as having an equal chance of being "correct".

    It's obvious that Dan is complaining about science not considering the Christian God, rather than God in general.

    But around this bias, I think he tries to express coherent ideas. Ray doesn't even come close to this.

    Just my 2 cp

    ReplyDelete
  17. But whateverman, He rebuked Talk.Origins.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not an apologist :)

    The only exposure I've had to the guy are those "debunking atheism" entries; I've left a number of replies which I hope he'll address to some limited extent. Beyond that, he may have made completely insane arguments elsewhere, and I wouldn't know about it.

    My opinions are never meant as statements-of-fact.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ha ha.
    To be fair though, I took his word for it (He claims to have rebuked Talk.Origin).

    BUT- Reading one of his posts makes me aware that much rebuking and debunking isn't to had here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Maybe I should create a new blog-
    "Debunking I.D.",

    where I debunk idears from the IDers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The sacrifice of the cross seems absurd. It does. The Bible is in agreement."

    - Ray Comfort.

    =^.^=

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nice skills.

    Let's see if I can quote mind something funny from his recent thread...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dang it- I couldn't.

    But I got one one from his last post on the absurdity of christianity...

    However, the Bible says that any sacrifice we make is an abomination to God.

    Guess we can't take sacrifice time out of our schedule for charity work...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks guys,

    My perception of Dan is of a perhaps well-intentioned guy, but quite foolish (in that sense an arse). His lack of intellect does not allow him to see any different. He tries sometimes, but I agree, not easy for diagnosis because he is not coherent. The "reasoning" of his series of posts is a copy from this "johnson" ass-hole.

    Maybe he is not worth our rebuttals whatsoever, but I leave it to you guys if you want to "pay him a visit."

    As a quick followup, I don't think Ray is sincere - at all.

    I completely agree!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  25. GE,
    That was very generous of you but fuck you,
    Dan is a phoney and a coward. I hope I have offended you equally.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow dale,

    OK, sorry for sounding like I was giving you permission.

    Just in case I also "won" your comment for the other post, I said I noticed the implications of YOUR post, and was waiting for them to say that science changes to use YOUR post again to show them they change too.

    As of Dan, well, actually you win. He just posted this:

    Sure was a nice couple of days away from all of this. So we all agree that ad hominem attacks doesn't render the statement or subject false so this article still is truth even though Johnson was attacked personally. that great monster called the evolution paradigm must be fed to stay alive.

    With that, he killed all my arguments in his favor. So, yeah, maybe I deserved it.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  27. May I ask why you hope you offended me equally? As much as you offended dan, or as much as I offended you? If the second, why take so much offense?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan if a definitive asshole. I posted my final answer to him at his blog, which he is going to delete:

    Dan,

    First and foremost, I will insist, and I do not care if you ban me out:

    You missed everybody's points. I will just answer to the part that you pointed to me, but LEARN TO READ! You are making Christians look like perfect examples of idiocy. (Fortunately for Christianity, I know lots of educated and intelligent ones.)

    I appreciate you proving Johnson's point

    Johnson has no point, his stuff is rhetorically arranged lies.

    "as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact.

    Bullshit, conclusions are considered as believable as the facts that lead to them. They hold until other facts contradict them. No conclusion makes it into scientific literature until data are convincing enough for it.

    What is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief...

    Bullshit, what we cannot test cannot be considered science because it explains nothing and stops people from searching for an answer. I gave an example before. If we "put God into the mixture," and we are confronted by a difficult problem, such as cancer, what we do with godidit? Nothing. That stops the whole process. Cancer was such a mystery to begin with. Yet, scientists did not just say godidit and went home, they started working from whichever point they could, formulated hypotheses, tested, and today there is a much better chance of recovery than just a few years ago. There is still a long way to go, but we would be nowhere with a godidit. I repeat my question from the other thread ("truth"): what do we do if a results contradicts, clearly, YOUR GOD (actually your bible)? We reject it no matter how conclusive? We hold it until we find a way to not reporting it? Is that not a bias? What a jerk.

    Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection."

    Evolution explains biological diversity and speciation, besides complexity. What you are actually suggesting is that instead of searching for answers we should just say godidit, and forget about finding answers. This is exactly what you are saying. While I am not against any source of inspiration, in the end you need the experiments, the facts, and the knowledge beyond godidit.

    I know you are not reading Dan, but I am quite tired of the level of not just ignorance that you display. You are also IGNORING the answers, and you are not willing to even think about what is said. Stan's point was that where you are born influences your beliefs. That you would have been a nazi if you were born in Germany during those times, just like he might have been. Instead of understanding the point (circumstances influence what you believe), you miss it, say you would not have been a nazi, and that he would because he has no moral anchor. What a way of being dumb Dan.

    I hope you all understand the necessity of the posts now.

    No Dan. What I do understand is why you posted them. You have no idea about anything, and thus, you buy into this idiotic charlatanry. However, you are incapable of understanding anything above high-school level (or you pretend you are incapable).

    I know you are erasing this post, but that is ok. You take the liberty of being offensive by ignoring, blatantly, everything we all said, yet take offense for the most minimal "tone" we use. What a jackass.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.