This Is Getting Old: Meta-Analysis At SI’s, I

Motivated by the pursuit of clarity, I've decided to undertake a more thorough meta-analysis of various threads I've been on at SI's. By meta-analysis I mean that I'm going through the posts and threads to see if any sort of patterns emerge, because numbers don't lie.

The first post I looked at was This is Getting Old [thread: 50 comments as of 12-15-2009].

SI's post was about Phillip Garrido, and SI says,

Vjack has an ongoing series over at Atheist Revolution on the topic, continually pointing out the sordid news that occurs when religious people take their beliefs to extremes, something along the lines of “Know Them By Their Deeds”. He rightly points out Christian hypocrisy with real life stories of religious extremists who rationalize their bad deeds with their religion. It looks like another one looming on the horizon. (SI, bold mine)

By "another one" we get the clear implication that this should be a post about another "Christian hypocrite who rationalizes their beliefs with religion." SI then relays Phillip Garrido's story for a paragraph or two, concluding:

It sounds like [Garrido] was a bad boy, and his demons got the best of him. Then, once he realized what he had done he “got” religion.

In response to people praising religion for playing a role in the rediscovery of the lost girl, SI says,

..those of you who are inclined to point out that it was after he got religion that he fessed up, and therefore religion is actually the cause of the child being reunited with her family, ask yourself why religion is even in this news story. Shouldn’t religion have prevented this in the first place?

Now, if we're paying attention here, there appears to be some legitimate inconsistency in SI's reasoning: if Garrido "got" religion "once he realized what he had done" as SI stated, then religion couldn't have possibly prevented Garrido from acting in the first place, because Garrido hadn't "got" religion yet. How can this be "Christian hypocrisy" if Garrido "got" religion "once he realized what he had done?"

Still, I tried to give SI the benefit of the doubt, because online discourse is tough and we often hear something completely different than what our opponent is trying to tell us. The only possible explanation I could think of that would explain SI's odd question – besides SI just being in a rush to blast someone who calls themselves religious – is that maybe SI meant Garrido "was actually religious" the whole time, but only "got" [as in understood the true meaning of] his religion after the fact? The problem with that is, nothing in the news story SI linked seemingly supports that conclusion, so I asked SI here, in a very straight-forward, non-confrontational manner.

Instead of ever once attempting an answer to that question, SI chose to instead focus on a question I asked Chaplain, along with the "troll" and "Gideon" stuff. So clearly, SI preferred butting in on Chaplain and I, and focusing on "drama" over defending his own argument from criticism.

Now, check this out: anyone familiar with the dymanics of the relationship between Team Scarlet A and myself knows that I'm often criticized for "not being hard enough" when theists make ill-formed arguments. Yet in SI's thread, I took Gideon to task for what I felt were poor arguments he'd made against PhillyChief in a related thread on a theist blog. Further, I took the pastor to task, along with a small horde of theist commenters, when I felt they'd marginalized valid objections from PhillyChief (though, the pastor was spot-on when he told Philly, "there are none so blind as those who don't wish to see). So we see, I'll tell a theist when I think they're wrong, I'll tell a pastor and other theists when I think they're wrong, and I'll tell an atheist when I think they're right – even if I don't like the atheist in question. Not that I need a cookie or anything, I just want to dispel the misinformation.

Guess what SI said in response to all of that?

Why bother?

Does anyone see what I mean by "damned if you do, damned if you don't" yet?

Whether I criticize other theists or not, it doesn't matter. People either claim I don't, or they say, "why bother." Then again, I'm not in this for their reactions. As long as I can provide an electronic trail which provides irrefutable evidence for my impartiality and irrefutable evidence against their claims, I'm not worried about coming across like a Party Lines theist. Numbers don't lie, and I know I'm not. To contrast, I'd love to see SI come up with a list of comments where he's disagreed with his boy PhillyChief! Honest!

In closing, the first installment of Meta-Analysis At SI's revealed the following:
-One unanswered question from SI;
-One unanswered question from Chaplain (though, she never returned to the thread, so it's certainly possible she didn't realize she'd been addressed. SI, however, cannot appeal to such an excuse);
-One instance of me criticizing Gideon, the desert pastor, and a small horde of theists for marginalizing valid objections from PhillyChief – not because I like him – but because I thought some of what he said was right.

If anyone objects to any of these findings, by all means, please speak up.