Banned In DC!

February 16, 2011

Sorry, I couldn’t resist! Skateboarders, old-school punks and other misfits will certainly appreciate this parody! Besides, a half hour in Photoshop on a rainy night was more than worth the uproarious laughter I enjoyed while doctoring this little gem! Just look at the Loftus, black hat and all, his right hand raised almost too conveniently in the appropriate salutary position associated with one of history’s most famous demagogues—who also wasn’t much a fan of free speech!

For those not privy, Banned In DC is the name of one of my favorite Bad Brains songs. They wrote it after finding themselves the victims of an “unofficial” ban in the nation’s capital. As I explained here, the moniker also describes my fate at the hands of the Loftus, das Führer over at the “critical thinking” blog, Debunking Christianity, often referred to as DC. Banned in DC! Get it? You might not think it’s too funny, but I assure you that I’ve been laughing so hard I practically wet myself! So, there you go: even cl stoops to mockery when it seems appropriate, and here, it seems appropriate: censorship is un-American, and antithetical to free thought. Feel free to use this image on your own blog or website, or anywhere else for that matter. If you decide to make T-shirts or stickers, gimme gimme.

In all seriousness though, since when has censorship brought us any closer to the truth?






Debunking Christianity: Index

February 13, 2011

I’ve been commenting at Debunking Christianity since the beginning of this year. As I did with Common Sense Atheism, here is the index of my substantial conversations there [substantial meaning more than just a passing comment or two]. As was the case with the CSA index, this list is not exhaustive, and I’ll be updating as the discussions proceed. I provide these lists for a few reasons: 1) They help me keep track of my arguments and meta-debate; 2) They provide an easy reference for anyone who wants to investigate my arguments; 3) They indicate good faith and confidence in my own arguments. I want to be held accountable, and a list such as this is an invaluable aid to anyone interested. So, I encourage people to make the most of it. Let me know where I do well. Let me know where I do bad. Let me know whether you think comments like this and this respect the art of critical thinking. Get involved, that we might all learn!

1. What Positive Evidence is There for God’s Existence? 1-13-2011

2. Quote of the Day, by Desertbarry 1-15-2011

3. The Mind/Brain Problem 1-15-2011

4. The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 2 1-17-2011

5. CFI Extraordinary Claims Panel: Christ 1-22-2011

6. A Listing of Cognitive Biases 1-25-2011

7. Why Religion is Persuasive by Adam Lewis 1-25-2011

8. Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations 1-26-2011

9. The Gloves are Off Now! Slavery? NO, A Thousand Times NO! 2-08-2011

10. Deceptive Apologetic Strategies 2-09-2011

11. Quote of the Day 2-12-2011

12. Another Failed Attempt to Disabuse Me of the Outsider Test for Faith 2-12-2011






Carol Should Have Partied! Proof Of God’s Existence, 6

January 25, 2010

This is my sixth response to jim's series, Proof of God's Existence.

jim spent the first few paragraphs of The Party arguing that science arose from our need to perceive the world as it really is. For example,

All of us want to be objective. That is, we all want to see the world for what it truly is.  …  This is why we have science. Science is that small part of us that wants to get a handle on how the world REALLY operates. To garner a bird’s eye viewpoint unclouded by ignorance, or purely emotional concerns, or simply by the unwieldiness of way too much information. Science is a process by which we seek to see more clearly and completely.

I would agree with jim there, and would add that granted the methodologies are different, I believe that's why we have philosophy and religion, too. jim went on to create what I saw as a meaningful distinction between the commonplace "little science" normal people use every day, and the not-so-commonplace "Big Science" that professional scientists engage in under controlled circumstances. I took jim's "little science" to be categorically analogous to the "common sense inquiry" he alluded to in the Introduction, and all of this built to the following question:

Read More →






If I Say Food Is Cheap, Especially Meat…

January 4, 2010

Lately I’ve been looking for new strategies in my discussions with atheists. I’ve come to realize, that which people need to see has often already been said, so sometimes it’s best to just restate things exactly as they’ve already been stated, and keep my commentary to a minimum.

I recently spent some time dissecting the 200+ comments in the thread of SI’s I Wish I’d Written That, and I’ve noticed that demands for clarity and accountability are very annoying to many atheists, for example PhillyChief:

Read More →






Why I Do What I Do

December 21, 2009

Every now and again it's helpful to ask oneself why one does the things they do. Recently, I found myself asking myself why I actually blog, and more particularly, why I comment on other blogs. I encourage you to skip this post, actually. It's not about epistemology or consciousness or potency or any of the more stimulating things we've been talking about these past weeks. I just needed to think some stuff out, and figured, why not do it in public? [weird little interview with myself follows]

Read More →






A Pact Of Ignorance

December 20, 2009

My ears had been burning: I just knew on faith that ol' jim had somethin' nasty brewin' over there! He'd been way too quiet lately. He's written a letter to Team Scarlet A, an open invitation to a pact of ignorance amongst the likeminded:

What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded – the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us – to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him.
jim, reason vs. apologetics

Well, where to start? First, I like the use of the word "likeminded" and think it's an especially useful adjective for describing Team Scarlet A. Second, jim saying that I lack the ability to play well would be hilarious were it not for statements like these from him:

You're nothing but a big baby, cl. Put up or shut up, ya wuss… Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
jim, reason vs. apologetics

Read More →






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

December 15, 2009

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].

Read More →






A Response To bryce

December 13, 2009

So, the usual haters are at it again, but in between the name-calling and flanking I noticed a rather composed comment from somebody by the name of bryce. I liked the response his comment provoked, but it got a bit long, so I figured I'd post it here. Who knows? Maybe bryce will come by, maybe we'll have a fruitful discussion, or maybe he'll even become a regular commenter? Weirder things have happened. Here's bryce's comment in its entirety:

Read More →






Response To The Exterminator

December 10, 2009

Two times lately, Exterminator asked me to define terms I'd used in various statements I'd made around the internet. The first time was at Chaplain's, and when I asked if he was serious, Ex didn't reply. The second time was at SI's, and I decided to give him a formal response here, just for the sake of establishing a record. As for how he and I got to this point, well… SI wrote a post called I Wish I'd Written That in which he re-posted a few questions from Greta Christina's essay, Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence?

In accordance with my reaction to Greta's original post, in SI's thread, I argued that the reproduced questions were fallacious, which provoked criticism from some of his readers. Here's that conversation summarized:

Read More →






TWIM / RvA Dialog II

November 29, 2009

jim at RvA has responded to Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, Pt. II, and once again, my response follows.

Read More →