Atheists, Hypocrisy & Cowardice
Posted in Blogosphere, DBT02, Debate on | 14 minutes | 15 Comments →
I imagine nobody really cares too much about this—then again, the thread in question received over 120 comments so maybe I’m wrong—but either way there are some things that need to be clarified about the recent fiasco with JT Eberhard. First I’d like to post all of our emails that I could find:
Seriously, we’ll hit it off great. I already went after you in the “Science and Religion Are Incompatible” thread, I figured you were just busy but I actually had in mind to challenge you to a letter exchange anyways. I also left a few short comments in your “Emails That Annoy Me” thread. That post rocked. It’s the same in every world. It’s worst in screenwriting. Anyhow, have a decent day, hope you’ll accept the offer. cl
Accepted (was hoping for you or Jayman). If we’re doing the existence of god, you wanna go first? JT
I was just thinking about that. Why don’t we try thinking outside the box a little bit? It’s just that, I’ve seen so many of these things go down before, we’re both a little off the beaten path as far as (a)theists go…. look, I gotta run and take my daughter to music class, I’ll get back to you a little later today. FWIW, I think atheists get off too easy, because they have a negative position. I’d like to see an atheist take up a POSITIVE case for once, you know what I mean? Thanks for the interest, talk soon… cl
What would a positive case for the non-existence of something look like? The best I can think of is, “I know of no evidence to support the existence of this thing.” What more could someone possibly do? If I need to lead off with my positive case, that would be my opening. This is why in structured debate the affirmative side always leads, otherwise the negative side would stand up, say they know of no evidence to support the opposing side, and sit down. If you’re the one who believes the thing exists, shouldn’t it be on you to provide whatever evidence has convinced you (and supposedly whatever evidence you think should convince me)? I guess a parallel would be this: what if I asked you to provide a positive case for why you aren’t a thief? How would you go about it? JT
Hey let’s have this conversation publicly if you don’t mind. If we discuss all the details in public, we can save ourselves a lot of suspicion. At least, that’s been my experience. I created a post on my blog that has all the content of these emails. I’m trying to wrangle up a few judges to supply commentary, and I also asked commenters for topic suggestions. Hope to see you over there… cl
I will likewise post it to mine. Let’s keep it to email with the understanding that all emails will get posted to both blogs. JT
Sounds good, I’ll keep in touch. What’s your schedule like? Any real limitations? Anything you’re absolutely off-limts to as far as debate topics go? Lastly, I think we need to define some key concepts like “evidence” and “warrant” etc. before we get going… your thoughts? cl
I had said in my post that I’m looking for a discussion on the existence of god. As long as that’s the subject, no, go any direction you wish. I think the only term that really needs to be defined here is “god”. The audience, I suspect, will be a good enough means of accountability if people get dodgy with the two you suggested. JT
Okay… good to know… I’d say I’m firm on the definitions thing, though. Since you’ll be arguing the position “there’s no evidence for God,” you need to define just what you mean by evidence. I want to start this exchange with clearly cemented goalposts. Otherwise we’re both just moving targets. cl
I’ll be arguing that there’s no good evidence for god. Important distinction on the *good*. There’s plenty of bad evidence for god. Do you really need me to define evidence? JT
Yes, not only do I want you to define good evidence, I want you to provide examples. Context is key. “Reproduced in a laboratory” simply does not apply here. Most importantly, since we’re arguing two metaphysical positions here, you have to step outside your comfort box of logical positivism. Meaning, history comes into play, logical arguments come into play, etc. This is like painting a house: the more time we spend prepping, the better the end result. cl
*sigh* Dictionary.com says…
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.Bad evidence example: tacos are tasty therefore grass is green. Good evidence example (For the claim “I own a baseball”, since I know of no good evidence for god): pictures of the baseball, history of people owning baseballs, videotape of baseballs, etc. If this gets too absurd, I’m dropping out of not wanting to waste my time. I suspect our own standards of not wanting to be gullible as well as the audience’s similar standards will suffice for what constitutes good/bad evidence, since I suspect you and I will not see eye to eye on that (but you never know). JT
Your criteria aren’t absurd, they’re just incredibly naive and subjective. Remember what you said about Bible prophecies not being specific enough? That’s what I’m trying to avoid here: wishy-washiness on *YOUR* part. The whole, “Oh, I know good evidence when I see it” crap that atheists love to pull. I’m going to define exactly what I mean by “God” and that’s what I’m going to argue for. Similarly, I want you to plant firm goalposts here and now so I know exactly where I have to kick the football. What I DON’T want is a debate where “good evidence” REALLY means “evidence that makes JT Eberhard give a public concession thus overturning his entire career as an atheist apologist.” We both know that’s not going to happen, right? Really, we should have this discussion in the threads on either of our blogs. Why email, then copy and paste? It’s extra work, think about it. It’s not like you believe you have an eternity of time to waste… Lastly, I’m beginning to sense a lack of patience here… if you really don’t want to take the time to cement some goalposts, fine, I’ll still oblige, but realize that’s exactly what you fault the Bible for and you’re coming off looking like a golden example of that which you criticize. The choice is yours. cl
I’m dropping this blogalog with you. Explanation here JT
Hey look… you don’t need to email me twice. I get it. You’re over it. Drop it already and quit emailing me. Also, relax a little. I’m not going to waste any more time commenting on your blog. All you had to do was say “stop” and I would have saved it all for a debate. You, Greta, Adam and the rest of the “freethinkers” on your site are acting like high school cheerleaders. You’re not the first atheist to chicken out, and you won’t be the last. If you can, just let me know if I’m allowed to post a link to my critiques of your so-called “arguments.” Best of luck to you. cl
I think you should have a vote, personally, but if you want to go the fascist authoritarian route, so be it. It’s your world, JT. Either way, I’ll have my say. I’ve been systematically dismantling your writings for 48 hours now. Maybe you could at least do this: will you at least post links to my pieces when I write them? There were people on your blog who were interested…. I’m sure you’ll hear from some of them in the thread. cl
No. You get no links and no further attention. You’re a troll. JT
Hey am I banned or not? Last I asked, you said I wasn’t even allowed to post a link to my critiques of your “arguments,” and you withheld the only comment I tried to post on the “Ban Hammer” thread. Did you change your mind? Can you give a straight answer please? And if I’m not banned, can you release the only comment I tried posting? cl
No links to your blog. I’m not giving you any more attention. You are presently not banned. If you keep with the same behavior you’ve exhibited so far (de-railing threads with endless tedium, trolling), you will be banned. This will be entirely at my discretion. JT
Okay… so did you cool off enough to pick the debate back up? I’m ready. I’d rather do that than comment on your blog anyways. This isn’t about attention. This is about truth. cl
It’s not a matter of cooling off. It’s a matter of not wasting my time. JT
How would it be a waste of time to confront both my positive arguments for the God of the Bible, and my critiques of arguments you’ve already made? C’mon, you offered… let’s do this. cl
That’s where it ends. JT challenges me to a debate, then scurries off into the sunset. Pretty simple. Several of JT’s cheerleaders are saying that I’ve “dodged,” or that I “wasn’t interested in actual debate,” or that I was “unable to respond.” This is laughable. It should be plainly obvious that JT is the one doing the dodging here. I’ll debate him or any other atheist, any time, any place, any topic.
It’s my personal opinion that any blogger who resorts to censoring genuine dissent is a wimp. Plain and simple. I mean, I think Stephen R. Diamond is the most unsavory character I’ve ever met online, but if he wants to come here and keep posting lies and making baseless accusations, whatever. I don’t care. I’m not going to censor him, and although I’d love it if more people would challenge his vitriolic libel, I trust that my commenters will simply ignore him (and most do). I might start screwing around with him, but I’ll never resort to censorship or banning. That’s for wimps.
That said, I fully support JT’s right to run his “freethought” blog however he wants. Sure, I think he’s shown disdain for the concept of free speech in general, but I don’t think he’s violated my right to free speech in any way, shape or form—even though he banned me. It’s his blog, if he wants to run it like a wimp that’s his prerogative.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think JT has proven his hypocrisy and cowardice beyond all reasonable doubt, as have other bloggers in his little atheist support group. Like I said, when it comes to atheists criticizing Christians, these same atheists endorse the confrontational approach. They endorse Hitchens, they endorse Dawkins, and they allow their own commenters to be as rude and brash as they want—provided the recipients are members of the outgroup.
Yet give them even the smallest dose of their own medicine, and they’ll whine and cry. They’ll resort to censorship. They’ll denounce their challenger as a “troll,” providing a convenient excuse for their inability to engage: “Oh, we all know cl’s a troll, why debate him?” Now, all JT has to do is hide behind his accusations, and he’ll never have to face my arguments head-on. Perfect, isn’t it? In fact, I have to give him props for such a well-executed dodge. He’s got the sycophants at his echo chamber lapping out of the palm of his hand! Better yet, they really believe that I’m the one dodging!
As for the claim that I “trolled” JT’s blog, it’s pure puffery. The common denominator in all acceptable definitions of “trolling” is leaving inflammatory comments purely for the sake of disrupting a thread. That is not my goal, ever. These “critical thinkers” simply lack the intelligence to understand the difference between strong criticism and trolling. I don’t take crap from atheists, or anyone else for that matter. As I did on Daylight Atheism, I simply sit back and laugh at the selective enforcement of the rules. These group-thinking bloggers allow atheists the right to say whatever they want to Christians—be it profanity, outright insult, or both—and that’s not trolling, but I hold my ground against the flippant—without profanity, without name-calling and with actual arguments—and that’s trolling. Go figure.
I think this is cognitive dissonance, plain and simple. I believe JT Eberhard is afraid, and my claim is testable. He can prove that he’s not afraid by actually continuing the debate that *HE* initiated. How is he any different from the Pope if both hide behind glass?
Last but not least, there were a handful of snippets in his “Ban Hammer” post that I agree with, and I wanted to repost them here:
Maybe CL does piss everybody here off, doesn’t that:
1. Provide opportunity to learn how to control one’s temper, and engage in cold logical, rational debate.
2. Provide a witness of your genuine toleration of ideas that may be fundamentally opposed to your own.
3. Allow you to criticise those regimes where free speech is not tolerated, without hypocrisy.
4. Allow your readers to apply and develop their own critical faculties in judging CL for themselves.
5. Prevent this forum from become any kind of echo-chamber, or at least prevent people from becoming nervous to freely express themselves, lest their ideas be to far from the status quo. joseph
If you can’t tolerate his drivel, advise your readers to ignore him. If your readers lack the self-control, get better readers. Free speech in the legal sense isn’t involved, but principles of free discussion are, as well as a healthy, anti-totalitarian hatred of blacklists. More than anything, banning him is an assertion of the importance of your property rights, which triumph over free discussion… The main reason the practice of banning is anti-intellectual is that it creates a destructive dependence on the moderator. It fuels any community’s primitive cultist urges by creating a subtle fear of the moderator and vesting unnecessary authority in that position. In short, it infantilizes participants and makes the forum insipid. Stephen R. Diamond
The atheists call people names and swear at them how is that not trolling? All I saw was CL trying to hold ground against like 10 atheists. (I can’t remember the name) complimented him as rational. Marshall and CL were on the way to good talk. There were apologies and kind words IIRC. That hardly ever happens. Why not let the debate go on? What’s the real problem? Why invite CL to debate then just bail? MattDonald
I think asking for your definition of “evidence” is a fair request. If evidence is to be your standard of truth in a debate, it is important to quantify it. One of Goodrich’s points is that you never give a definition of what’s “reasonable.” Again, an unknown quantity. Considering your criteria for banning, it would appear that attempting to nail down your core belief is the catalyst. Mark
Personally, I don’t see how he was worse that the likes of Icy Cantu, or those guys who seem to think every post is an opportunity to comment on JT’s penis size/mental health/what have you. Banning him, and not those guys, strikes me as odd. Drakk
I concur. Kudos to y’all. Apparently there are a few genuine freethinkers ’round those parts. That’s encouraging.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...The dictionary definition of “evidence” isn’t “naive.” What one deems evidence is something that must be argued for, not stipulated. I can’t say I blame him for withdrawing after you began proposing unreasonable terms. He was probably looking for an excuse, but you sure gave him one when you unsheathed your obnoxious personality. Your stupid attempt to “define” evidence prior to debate is exactly what’s naive and superficial.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Basically, you’re like that guy from Daylight Atheism who blacklisted you. Even your diatribes are nothing more than pre-cached generic insults. I’d love to hear from your commenters too. In particular, I’d like them to demand you disclose what you mean by your threat to “start screwing around with [me].”
Supposedly you believe in free expression, and so do your commenters. But threats to “screw around with” a commenter is every bit as inimical to “free speech” as threats involving bans. Surely this is obvious. Having committed yourself to noncensorship, you’re occupied with finding an alternative form of thuggery. And since you can’t come up with anything, you must rest satisfied with vague threats–still threats, still equally destructive to the free speech you demand when it suits you.
George Henry Shaft
says...tl;dr
cl: let’s have a debate about evidence for God. Let’s define evidence so we have some basis of judgment (and you won’t scamper away like all atheists do on this part).
JT: evidence is, uhm, erm, *sanctimonious sigh* The Dictionary Says…
cl: …you don’t get to define “good evidence” as “whatever doesn’t point to God”.
JT: U OBNOXIOUS TROLL
Ironically, the atheists’ refusal to speak honestly and admit their cluelessness is some of the best evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible I have ever found.
Asking is unnecessary. All he would need to ridicule you is to quote you accurately. For example…
Like this. You just declared that asking for the terms of a debate to be clarified before the debate is “naive, superficial and stupid”.
And you boldfaced that statement. Wow. The very fact that you believed such a declaration was not just important but the cornerstone of your statement gives you a coveted position among the dumbest people that walk this Earth.
Should I even continue?
The concentration of stupid in this statement reaches black-hole levels.
First, the very statement “what one deems as evidence needs to be argued for” is stipulating what evidence is, by claiming it is purely subjective for starters, making the whole thing nonsensical.
Second, if the dictionary definition is an acceptable argument, it begs the question of what makes the dictionary an acceptable source of truth.
Third and most devastating, because the dictionary’s authority descends from a societal approval at best, an argument that accepts a dictionary definition is an argument open to being ended in a single move: divinely inspired or not, the Bible has an equal level of authority from society as a dictionary, at least, therefore what it says must be accepted.
Fourth, and not least, the idea that what constitutes the truth is individually arguable defeats the very concept of debate; either part could just say, “well according to my point of view I win” and nothing would get solved.
Which is exactly the fastest way out of admitting defeat for atheists, which is why they resort to doing this ALL THE TIME, which is why cl asked for a definition, and which is almost certainly the reason why JT dropped out and started blathering unreasonably about trolling.
(As a side note, I’d love to see an atheist argue that while the dictionary is a respectable arbiter of the definition of anything, the Bible cannot be trusted.
If only to see someone argue that the dictionary, whose only authority is given by a society, is intrinsically more reliable than the single most authenticated historical text for its age. That should make some heads pop.)
Given that all it takes to screw around with you is pointing and laughing, you’ve just equated pointing out how massively stupid you are to the curtailment of free speech. Something quite expected for someone of your intellectual non-level.
You should be first in line in favor of curtailing your free speech, by the way. It’s pretty clear you’d look much more intelligent if you spent a lot more time being quiet and listening.
cl
says...Diamond,
LOL! Apparently you haven’t figured it out yet. Why go a coward’s route when there are such funnier options?
dale
says...It’s not like you believe you have an eternity of time to waste… ROFL
But cl, in all honesty, be kind in your words on high school cheerleaders. You might choose music lessons for your daughter now, but she might choose pom-poms some day. ;-)
Matt DeStefano
says...Perhaps it is best this debate didn’t happen. If JT was so put off by you asking him to clearly delineate the terms of the debate, imagine how put off he would have been by you countering his positions.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Matt,
The breakdown wasn’t necessarily due to the e-mail preceding it: other events intervened. What was actually decisive, to the extent I can quickly discover, is the debate on the JT board. In philosophical debate, an atmosphere free of hectoring and breast beating is essential. While JT’s “warlike” attitude is rather similar to cl’s, it looks that cl is the one who first lowered the level of discussion in that thread. (http://tinyurl.com/7ybx75r)
Here’s the critical exchange:
To which cl replied:
cl’s incessant breast beating” is what rightfully drives most potential opponents (and judges—if you recall). When CL gets into theoretical trouble, he personalizes the discussion–here, breast beating about how he hurt his opponent’s butt (the homosexual implications aren’t lost). The opponent raised a strong point, that what cl could support based on his own definitions was very thin to the point of almost being tautological. CL retorted that this definition didn’t constitute the whole of his conception of the deity. But that’s beside the point, which was that cl’s argument, even if as successful as claimed, establishes very little.
Sensing (without truly understanding) that he was cornered, CL resorted to provocation to distract from the weakness of his position.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Dale,
“It’s not like you believe you have an eternity of time to waste… ROFL”
Theft of intellectual property! He got it from my response to him at http://tinyurl.com/18r
Stephen R. Diamond
says...All this before this dodo even gets around to telling me why I’m supposedly wrong in this claim. I stopped reading here. Someone who is capable of no more than pre-cached generic insults isn’t worth consuming brain cycles on.
But for those eager to get the picture of the kind of “debates” these theists (and many atheists, like JT) engineer, the point isn’t this poster’s inability to understand why you can’t negotiate a definition of evidence. It’s that no argument is possible for such a person. It’s all show. All form. All pretense. (Which is not to say some atheists, eager to practice their arguments, may not use them the way tennis players use automatic ball machines.) All phrases and putdowns–without even the slightest concern for one’s credibility among other than true believers.
joseph
says...CL
Well as the poster of 41 (?) of the comments I definitely cared! Is there a missing e-mail? This comment:
Seems to indicate so, I’d hazard a guess that it was a repeat?
I see what you were attempting to do in establishing goal posts, but at the same time I wonder how a lay person, such as myself, would attempt to go beyond a dictionary definition of evidence. May I ask if you yourself had anything specific in mind, or if it was merely a case of establishing JT Eberhard’s thoughts on the matter?
cl
says...joseph,
Yes, he sent one of them twice.
Establishing JT’s thoughts on the matter. If I hadn’t tried to do that, I wouldn’t have been able to falsify his claim there is no “good evidence” for God.
dale
says...RE: “It’s not like you believe you have an eternity of time to waste… ROFL”
Theft of intellectual property! He got it from my response to him at…
Stephen R Diamond,
Theft of intellectual property?
No.
I haven’t caught any ©’s on this sight so far. Actually, as satire, that’s constitutionally protected free speech in this country, at least so far.
Conceptual appropriation or referencing an opponents comment in order to highlight an opposing point of view in a debate?
Yes.
Or, to be more neutral…
Maybe or so what?!?!
You’ve never block quoted cl in a rebuttal?
Chill, man.
I appreciate your point of view, though I don’t really agree with you on it.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Dale,
The “theft” of intellectual property was the theft of my joke counterposing cl’s belief in eternal life with my belief in life’s shortness. Of course, it’s not theft … that was supposed to be my joke.
My apologies if it wasn’t funny enough to tell.
dale
says...Stephen,
In that case, sorry I didn’t get the joke. That’s my fault. :-)
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Dale,
Not really, Even my wife usually doesn’t get my jokes. I should learn.