Another Pattern Observed, Indeed: Anti Intellectual Censorship At Vox PopoliThis post is a request for Vox Day (or anybody) to explain how one can reliably discern the condition of another Christian’s heart. I can’t, and when I asked Vox how he can, Spacebunny returned to her customary pattern of deleting my comments for no good reason. Here’s the story: Vox wrote a post titled Another Pattern Observed in which he not-so-temperately attacked Christian leader John Piper as “an intemperate attacker of other Christian leaders,” accusing Piper of an “insincere apology” over his use of the phrase “kicks some ass” at a particular evangelical convention. I and other commenters felt Vox may have been too quick to grab the tar and feathers, so I asked Vox how he could possibly know that Piper’s apology was insincere. I mean I get that he’s a “superintelligence” and all, but can Vox Day really know the condition of Piper’s heart?
Probing DD’s Standard: Truth Is Consistent With ItselfI recently stopped by DD’s blog to see what sort of arguments are on offer, as I usually do every few months or so. Today, I’d like to raise some questions relating to DD’s standard of evidence as delineated in his post, Alan Roebuck and the Covert Materialism. DD writes:
…if there is some evidence that is better than the rest, believers could and would bring that evidence to the forefront. This fact invalidates the Courtier’s Reply because if there were good evidence, then the dialog between believers and unbelievers ought to focus on that. If good evidence does exist, then there’s no point in complaining that skeptics have failed to study the bad stuff. Bring out the good stuff, and let’s see how they deal with that. And conversely, if it’s all equally bad, then an exhaustive study of all the bad evidence would be merely a waste of time.
First off, we seem to have differing opinions about why people use the so-called Courtier’s Reply. I’ve never been of the opinion that the Courtier’s Reply is for skeptics who haven’t studied the bad stuff. Rather, any so-called Courtier’s Reply I’ve given is usually towards skeptics who’ve failed to study the good stuff.
“In Defense Of Free Speech” = Banned From Daylight Atheism!Cost of a Typepad Pro account? $149.50 per year.
Cost of freedom of speech? Hundreds of thousands of American lives.
Cost of banning me in the thread from In Defense of Free Speech, and then closing comments so those who really value free speech couldn't criticize Ebonmuse like they did last time? Priceless!
On Atheists & CensorshipI was on an atheist website the other day when the following remark caught my eye:
Why is it that the only blogs which seem to moderate dissenting comments are Christian ones?
-Yunshui, on Superstition Free
That's one of the most inaccurate claims I've heard in the blogosphere, by far! Granted, there's no authoritative study on who censors speech more between atheists and believers, so of course people can only address this question from their own personal experience along with what they've heard from others, which makes our judgments subjective. Still, it's obviously beyond denial that Yunshui has seen a significant number of believers censor speech, else that comment wouldn't have been made.
Don't get me wrong: I agree that a significant number of believers practice censorship; I've seen it with my own eyes. This thread at DefCon is a perfect example, where the Desert Pastor deleted questions from PhillyChief, along with a supporting comment from SI, yet for some reason allowed Gideon's disparaging remark against PhillyChief to remain, even when DefCon's own "rules of engagement" state that "demeaning" or "insulting" comments will not be tolerated. Apparently, demeaning or insulting comments are tolerated, when made against atheists. So yes, I concur with those who point out that believers are prone censoring others, and I concur that it stinks.
Response To DD’s Unscientific AmericaHmmm…. I'm not sure, but I believe Deacon Duncan considered my response to his Unscientific America trolling, and deleted it. I suppose time will tell. What is it with atheists and censorship, anyways? Do the dissenters now fear the dissent they were once so fond of championing?
DD's post was about the great American intellectual decline, and of course, he blames religious influence – and only religious influence – for the current problems facing our education system. I've noticed that many otherwise educated individuals erroneously brand religion as the convenient scapegoat for society's ills-du-jour, and for me, such usually comes across as rhetorical stretching, just like when religious individuals blame evolution for society's problems.
I felt DD's argument had a tincture of merit, but was also grossly oversimplified. I figured I might as well post my thoughts somewhere else they be wasted, so my response follows. I'm mostly interested in your thoughts on the great American intellectual decline, but I'd also like to know if anyone can speculate on why this comment might have been deleted.
Comment PolicyTWIM values free speech. Ads get cut, that’s about it. Comments and criticisms from readers, writers, logicians, freethinkers, believers, skeptics, atheists, agnostics,
scientists, theologians, philosophers, cranks, haters and trolls are welcomed. As in the flesh, inflammatory vitriol is subject to harsh rebuttal.