The boorish, mocking behavior of the atheists combined with their stubborn refusal to answer even basic questions and their numerous pathetic tu quoques really served to raise my blood pressure by several percentage points while listening to it, so it's great road fuel.
I decided to let Alex Botten know about that.
@theealex Just wanted you to hear from a listener. @erichovind and SyeTenB wrecked your position. #podcast #fundamentallyflawed
@theealex Oh, and you and your friends were among the rudest and most closed-minded atheists I've encountered. Cheers! @erichovind
Then, from Alex:
@Rhology really? You think that? Well, thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to tell me! Sye and Eric don't have an argument tbh
From me:
@theealex It's so funny you mention that, b/c while I heard a lot of "we sense what we sense" from you, I heard quite a bit of argumentation
@theealex ...from Sye and @erichovind.
From Alex:
@Rhology ahahaha! Just looked at your blog! You're a YEC??? Come on! You may as well tattoo 'idiot' on your forehead
From me:
@theealex tattoo 'idiot' on your forehead>>Oooh, someone's ignorant of scientific antirealism! Maybe you think insult=argument, though.
From Alex:
@Rhology No, I think that was an insult. Here's another, you believe nonsense and are a credulous moron. And now you're blocked.
From me:
@theealex you're blocked>>LOL! From your own blog: "Feel free to write what you want, I don't moderate, delete, or ban...often". Guess not.
In between somewhere, I left the following comment on his blog:
Since you had the courtesy to visit my blog and then fling a cheap insult my way, I thought I'd go ahead and return the former favor (but forego the latter).
I'd like to ask you about this statement, which you repeated quite a bit when you were on with SyeTenB and @erichovind; that is, you expressed moral outrage several times.
It is insulting in the extreme to have someone else claim to know what you think
So what? Is it a morally bad thing to insult someone?
I'd like to know how you know that.
Also, you said something that's unintentionally funny:
In fact, the ONLY way you could possible know what I'm thinking and what I do and do not believe would be if you were omniscient.
Pair that up with:
I do not believe in ANY of the 4000+ gods mankind has invented during his time
...and we have the makings of a serious irony vortex.
For one thing, it is unbelievably bizarre to me how Sye could tell you at least twice on the show that we're not claiming all knowledge but rather to know someone who does have all knowledge, and you still don't want to take that into account. That says something about your willingness to be honest.
Hmmm, what do we call someone who's not honest? Oh yes, you helpfully provided some colorful verbiage: hollow, lying, charlatan.
Also, you claim to know that mankind invented these gods. To repeat (again) what Eric said to you, how do you know mankind invented them? Wouldn't that require omniscience on your part?
And don't retreat, I beg you, to the tired move-the-goalposts-quick canard of "what I mean is I haven't seen any evidence of any of those gods". That also requires omniscience, for there are many things that evidence things you (and the rest of mankind) don't yet understand. To claim knowledge that none of those things are evidence for a god (since that would mean you'd know all the things for which the things you observe are evidence) would thus require omniscience.
You also haven't seen any evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth (EGW). So, since you believe EGW without evidence for that assertion, isn't that blind faith?
And if you believe in EGW and think you know it to be true, why do you violate EGW in that most fundamentally important of cases?
So, you'll have to come up with something else. I'd very much like to see you back up your harsh polemic with something other than mocking laughter. You sounded like a fool on the radio. Perhaps you're better in writing.
Peace,
Rhology
Alex responded to the comment with a new post:
Really? That's a novel take on the chronology of what actually happened, isn't it?
Oh, not really.
Maybe Alex means that he FIRST flung the insult and THEN visited my blog. I'm not sure how that fits in with his knowing I'm YEC, though...
Not going to mention the fact that you popped up, uninvited, in my Twitter feed?
Oh no35!!!!!!1
Does Alex not realise that public Twitter feeds are just that - public? Is he aware that Twitter has an option to make Twitter feeds private?
If so, why is he complaining? He's the one who followed SyeTenB around and showed up -uninvited- where Sye had been.
I'd asked: Is it a morally bad thing to insult someone?
I think the best thing to do at this point is refer you to your own Bible
Alex still doesn't get TAG.
Alex doesn't believe the Bible is true, so I'm asking based on his own grounds why it would be morally bad to insult someone. Hopefully he'll realise his error and actually answer the question.
Seems that your own god has a bit of a problem with insulting people
1) Same question - he still needs to prove it's a morally bad thing to insult people.
2) Alex is also trying to delve into Christian theology, and if he's anything like 99% of atheists I've encountered, he has no idea what he's doing.
This instance is no different. Perhaps Alex can tell us why, given Christian presuppositions, God "insulting" someone is a bad thing. And what it means when God gives His thoughts about someone, given that He is the omniscient creator and they are a rebellious creature.
I find it offensive that you belittle me (and everyone else who doesn't agree with your transcendental bullshit) by claiming that we hold a view that I can assure you we do not
So?
Maybe it will be helpful if I explain it differently. In 200 years, a mere eyeblink, an infinitesimally small fraction of time given the age of the universe (according to Alex's thoughts), we will all be dead, and so will our children and grandchildren. Who will remember GreatGrandpa Rhology and GreatGrandpa Alex?
So what? We are collections of atoms banging around, and the chemical reactions in my brain caused me to think that Alex knows the God of the Bible exists but suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. So, is there some moral quality here I'm missing? Atoms SHOULD act differently toward each other than they do? Based on what?
I'd asked: I'd like to know how you know that.
I'd like to know how YOU know that, without recourse to your viciously circular TAG....
Here we go again. Alex cannot answer questions. He's addicted to avoiding them. It's maddening to watch, really, but more pathetic than anything.
I'd said: For one thing, it is unbelievably bizarre to me how Sye could tell you at least twice on the show that we're not claiming all knowledge but rather to know someone who does have all knowledge, and you still don't want to take that into account. That says something about your willingness to be honest.
Are you sure? Because you're claiming to know an invisible super being who sacrificed himself to himself after knocking his own mother up so she could give birth to himself, who then decided that the only way to remove the 'sin' that he'd created (being the source of everything) was to 'die' for a mere three days as some kind of symbol....have I got anything wrong? You claim to know this individual, right? And you don't think this is wholly ridiculous?
Again, he gives no answer to his misrepresentation. No indication that he'll correct himself in the future. No apology for the strawman. He doesn't seem to care about rational dialogue.
I'd said:
Also, you claim to know that mankind invented these gods. To repeat (again) what Eric said to you, how do you know mankind invented them? Wouldn't that require omniscience on your part?
Do you believe that all those gods are real? If not, why not?
1) Alex could stand to read a bit more outside his own circle.
2) Also, this doesn't answer the question. Again.
I'd said:
To claim knowledge that none of those things are evidence for a god (since that would mean you'd know all the things for which the things you observe are evidence) would thus require omniscience.
And there's the rub. YOU want to claim to have access to knowledge that the rest of us don't have,
Actually, so is Alex! He's claiming to know that it's unreasonable that God exists, whereas I claim to know that it's reasonable that God exists. Alex again demonstrates his cluelessness.
I'd said:
And if you believe in EGW and think you know it to be true, why do you violate EGW in that most fundamentally important of cases?
Yawn, this is just the same, tired old bullshit, that Sye churns out.
Yet another unanswered question.
Here's an idea, why don't YOU come back with an argument that isn't dependent on circular reasoning and wish thinking?
Does he mean like the what I just reminded him about asking for evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth?
Why doesn't he just answer the question? The most immediate conclusion that jumps to mind is that he can't.
I would be grateful if you don't bother returning.
Clearly Alex let his emotions get the better of him here. The inability to answer so many important questions will take a toll on anyone's good mood.
