The Warfare Is Mental

TWIM On The Atheist Blogroll?

July 1, 2009

Yep, you saw that right. First I somehow won a shared award for "Best Atheist / Skeptic Site of 2009", and now this. The other day, I emailed Mojoey from Deep Thoughts and said:

Hey, quick question: I think your Atheist Blogroll is an excellent service. I'm not an atheist, but certainly consider myself a rationalist / skeptic / freethinker, and was wondering if I could get added to your blogroll? Technically, I consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe, but will not know until I die… I make a distinction between belief and knowledge… [I later elaborated] I don't know that God exists, but I sure do believe it. So in that sense it's understood by many of my readers that I'm somewhat agnostic. I hope that makes sense. I usually try not to call myself anything, preferring for others to make their own assumptions, as we know they will.

How Skateboarding Helped My Intelligence

June 27, 2009

This post was originally going to be titled "How Skateboarding Helped My Education," but by the end hopefully you'll see why education was swapped for intelligence. Though related, the two are not the same thing.

One way people learn things is by observation, which humans have been using to test claims long before science arrived on the scene. Science and its tools merely extend or accentuate our observational abilities, with the added bonus of providing a somewhat reliable filter for false claims. How does this relate to skateboarding?

Power Commenters On DD’s (So-Called) Evidence Against Christianity

June 22, 2009

Here are a few previews from the initial dialog between myself, Lifeguard, MS Quixote and Dominic Saltarelli, continued from here. Brad is currently absent:

…I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes.(Dominic Saltarelli)

I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer…

…it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity… the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. (MS Quixote)

Although by no means do I imply my Power Commenters agree with me in full (actually, Quixote does), we can still clearly see that it's not exactly the same story as over at DD's, right?

Respect, Or Coddling? Issues, Or Personalities?

June 21, 2009

Before we begin looking at the MGH and Genesis next week, I'd like to address a lingering issue that I'll need closure on before I can proceed: when his guests first began their assault on my character a few months back, DD seemed to support my complaints, and said to his guests:

It’s not “respectful” to treat people like spoiled children who can’t be trusted to acknowledge differing ideas without throwing a tantrum. Nor is it respectful to assume that believers are constitutionally incapable of handling the truth.

It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature. I have to say, though, that in my experience atheists like Dawkins are far less likely to make such accusations than to be the target of them. And while it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully, which (as Daylight Atheism points out) means presenting your case honestly, openly, and with a view to the facts. (DD, March 9, 2009, bold mine)

I'd say that's quite interesting in light of some of DD's more recent comments…!

The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: Strategy

June 20, 2009

First, in light of yesterday's definition of the MGH, I submit that the following describes DD's GH's problem summarized: It includes just enough baseline doctrine for DD to make his case, but not enough baseline doctrine that his Myth Hypothesis constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity. In short, DD's disproved DDanity – and among others who've said the same – I don't care.

“…by demonizing those he seeks to refute and ignoring their valid criticisms, DD’s authoritarian approach begins with and proceeds by disagreement in a spirit of hopeless futility that agreement will somehow ensue."

The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: An Introduction

June 19, 2009

The basic concept behind the Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis (hereafter MGH) could be summarized as going to the source. Let's face it: the Christianity that many believers argue is indeed a moving target. Although I think it's an intellectual cop-out, I sympathize with atheists and unbelieving skeptics when they accuse believers of trotting out Courtier's Replies. Who wants to get bogged down trying to harmonize all the differing opinions of mainline religions and lesser sects, each of whom claim to be eating from the same salad bar called the Bible? Certainly not me. On the other hand, I sympathize with believers when they accuse atheists and unbelieving skeptics of gross negligence in their characterizations of religion.

TWIM Receives Best Atheist & Skeptic Site 2009 Award

I occasionally Google "The Warfare Is Mental" and the following surprise was interesting and ironic: it turns out TWIM is #26 on this site as one of the 61 Best Atheist and Skeptic Sites of 2009.

In what is a welcomed dose of encouragement, TWIM is referred to as a "great site that the [host] enjoy[s] reading," and as a site in which the host has "found some little piece of wisdom or information that inspired" him or her. I always respect someone who realizes one need not be an atheist to be a skeptic or freethinker. Thanks!

More Responses To DD & Co.

June 18, 2009

As stated earlier today, I'm now responding to DD and company here to thwart DD's perceptions of my personality and hopefully force a return to the issues. Remember, what better way to disable your accuser than to steal his bullets, right? Refusing to comment there should swiftly undermine DD's whining about me being an "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. I can't fairly be called any of that if I cease all rapport on DD's blog, and once his bullets have been stolen and his emotions return to a steady equilibrium, once he's exhausted and done contradicting himself by addressing his perception of my personality, I'm hoping DD will return to the issues.

I encourage anyone and especially TWIM's Power Commenters to butt in here. I'm especially wondering who agrees with me that DD's clarion calls for vigilance on addressing issues vs. personalities and not feeding trolls seems contradictory juxtapozed against The Heckler's Defense which is effectively tantamount to armchair psychoanalysis in a troll trough. I'm also especially wondering who feels the Bible's claim that humans cannot see God the Father and live effectively challenges DD's claims that God should be right here, right now, in person.

Is This Conducive To The Pursuit Of Truth?

I was still waiting for the last Power Commenter to respond to Pt. 3 in my response to DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity when, after a most exuberant and joyous night out enjoying life with my friends (yes, some people actually like me, no I don't pay them, no I don't mean MySpace friends and no, I'm not referring to prostitutes) I hopped online to find 631 very flattering words titled The Heckler's Defense which – like The Loser's Compromise – I fully expect DD to deny are about personalities.

I decided not to respond on DD's blog for a few reasons. Although I disagree that I'm a troll, and I feel that my arguments at EvangelicalRealism are both well-reasoned and made in good-faith, some who disagree are likely to see anything I say as further evidence that I'm indeed a troll. Like a shark to blood, I can sense that DD's just about to his breaking point, and although getting banned from atheist blogs is always flattering, it's also always annoying because it's honestly never my goal – my real goal is the pursuit of truth which entails either emendation or procuring agreement from reasonable individuals that my opponent's argument is not cogent as formed. I hope our new Power Commenting experiment can offer something standard threads seem to have difficulty delivering. At the very least, I can proceed with confidence my Power Commenters won't call each other "mealy-mouthed pricks" or "intellectual cowards," and that they're committed to issues as opposed to personalities. That can't be a bad place to start, right?

Introducing TWIM’s Power Commenters

June 16, 2009

As stated in the introduction, the eBate is a real-time, one-hour long online debate between myself and another writer. I'm saddened to say, my opponent for eBate #1 – Deacon Duncan – has eschewed my invitation.

Nonetheless, life goes on, and without further adieu, I'd like to introduce TWIM's first four Power Commenters: MS Quixote, Lifeguard, Brad and Dominic Salterelli. As stated before, neither Brad, Lifeguard or Dominic Salterelli argue belief: All three are skeptics of the atheist variety, as the last thing I wanted was a bunch of Power Commenters who argue belief, inviting charges of padding the jury. Better, all three of them have shown a consistent and objective willingness to both agree and disagree with me, in the complete absence of insults and personal remarks. The same goes for MS Quixote, only he does argue belief – Calvinist Christianity in particular.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →