Who would have known that when Al Gore created the Internet that it would cause the demise of Christianity and your family! David Pack caused a stir in the COG and on the Internet when he banned the youth in his cult from access the Internet and using Facebook. Flurry has prohibited his cult members from using the Internet to access information outside the approved Church doctrines and PCG's beliefs. Other splinter cults of the COG have also had a lot of negative things to say about the Internet.
The Internet had a huge impact for the break up of WCG and the myriads of splinter groups. Various web sites and blogs flooded information around the world as it happened during the 1990's. Starting with the Good News Grapevine in the early 1990's, WCGnet, alt.religion.w-w-church-god newsgroup,and others, it blossomed out to every imaginable topic, both pro and con. Nothing was sacred, much to the chagrin of various COG leaders. Their agendas and blabberings have been immortalized forever. From Flurry's drunken arrest record, GTA's sexual exploits on film, Meredith's bragging about spanking his wife, to UCG's recent break-up.
Now, entering the fray is Josh McDowell, a Christian apologist best known for his anti-evolution books and myriads of apologetics books on Scripture Discrepancies.
Atheists and skeptics now have equal access to our children as we have, which is why the number of Christian youth who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity is decreasing and sexual immorality is growing, apologist Josh McDowell said.
“The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not,”
“Now here is the problem,” said McDowell, “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”
McDowell, who lives in southern California with his wife Dottie and four children, said atheists, agnostics and skeptics didn’t have access to kids earlier. “If they wrote books, not many people read it. If they gave a talk, not many people went. They would normally get to kids maybe in the last couple of years of the university.” But that has changed now.
83 comments:
It's the most wonderful tool since Gutenberg invented the printing press. The Vatican was horrified that the Bible was suddenly being made available to the masses so they could read and interpret for themselves. They were no longer beholden to the priests to tell them what was what.
Despots always try to stop the masses from having informaation that will free their minds from oppressive control. It goes on all the time. Murdock is a good example. Finally, he's being brought to task.
Yea for the internet. Bombastic deceivers with millions in support taken from deceived followers now have competition that can't be silenced.
The internet sure has a lot of crap and bad things, but that happens with the free flow of information. We get all the good as well.
I'm sure of lot of ex cultists wish there was an internet earlier. Skepticism isn't necessarily bad, Josh. It has a lot to do with how you apply it.
Unfortunatly there are some who don't have computers and don't have access to the internet. However these people are becoming less in number.
The average age of those still traped in armstrongism is rising due to the youth having more access to the internet then older people and being liberated from armstrongism.
Anyone feeling the need to decry how the Internet is wrecking their children should consider that they didn't do a very good job raising them.
"Anyone feeling the need to decry how the Internet is wrecking their children should consider that they didn't do a very good job raising them."
Besides all that, any good cult member worth their salt is a terrible parent for simply bringing a computer into their god-fearing home to begin with. Such things are obviously tools of the debil, right? ;-)
Given the ways in which my own mind functions, and, as a truth seeker, I'm glad to be able to digest information from various sources and opposing views.
As an example, I've deeply enjoyed and have been enriched by some of the things Josh McDowell has published. However, I'm a bit nonplussed by his position on this, because it seems to be a bit controlling. Personally, I happen to be of the point of view that in the course of discussion, truth will emerge. The obviously bogus stuff is going to pass by the wayside, and there is going to be plenty right in the middle which could go either way.
But, seriously. Who else objects to such freedom of information? Communists and other totalitarians, mostly. Christianity thrives in an atmosphere of freedom. We got warped because Armstrongism is totalitarian Christianity (with most of the emphasis on totalitarian!)
BB
My belief is that children should be free to explore. Kill curiosity and life isn't worth living. Cults love to hook you with curiosity and then when you are in, kill it so you won't go elsewhere.
All the people who complain that children may (gasp, choke) discover truth out there which disagrees with the parents' belief should consider that THEY should go looking at their own belief system.
Those parents who complain that the Internet has ruined their children need to consider that if it is their children, they did a terrible job instilling the kind of values which represent their family. Of course, in some cases, it may be quite appropriate for the children to abandon the values of their parents, if those values interfere with well-being.
On the other hand, if the parents are complaining about other parents' children, well, they can have their opinion, but outside of the children violating the law, there's not much recourse.
I have recently subjected myself to the scathing and viscous attacks by some of the athiest writers at Armstrong Delusion in an effort to see where they are coming from. What makes them tick and why.
They have the technique down and know how to skewer the commenter if they disagree or challenge atheism in any way.
I have never been called so many vile names in my life but it has given me a lot to consider and made me even more resolute in my beliefs.
This would only be possible with the internet and freedom of information that we enjoy.
As far as children having access to these kind of sites, I say no. When they are mature teens maybe.
Adults, then it is up to them and hopefully they are well grounded by then and can filter the information and not be damaged by it.
If a weaker person went to AD they could be destroyed. To me it is entertaining stuff..I guess I am too thick skinned to be effected.
If I had had the Internet as a kid, I seriously doubt I would have gone on to be a church pastor anywhere but rather gone on to the Univ. of Penn to become an obscure paleontologist. I believe i would have specialized in Neanderthal studies and on time off, roamed the glacial margins in Europe hoping to find that well preserved neanderthal covered 30,000 years ago in snow and ice.
Even the Bible says "my people are destroyed by the lack of knowledge,"
Today we might say, "While ignorance is bliss, knowledge is safer."
The internet is banned over here at Bob Jones University. Get caught and out you go. Of course, living, loving and personal choice is also banned.
One of the problems with too much information is that in the West we have anxiety over wondering if we have all the information we need to make informed decisions. That is why it is better to call all truth "Present Truth" rather than "Plain Truth"
While truth may not ultimatly change, no one has ultimate truth or the corner on the market for it.
"When and how did you come into the truth?" I haven't, but the search is the fascination of it all. If I ever found it, I'd keep looking for a better version.
I will say that proof textiing all over creation and through the Bible is not the way to truth. I was reading a LCG article on whether the Bible has errors or contradictions in it. Of course, it does not really even if it appears it does seemed to have been the conclusion. They do need to do their homework a bit better but the fear of more up to date information has always terrorised those stuck in rigid belief, magical thinking and storytelling.
Oh, now, you know the drill -- it's called Fanagle's Law:
Draw the curve and pick the points to match.
I thought believers were supposed to be wiley but harmless.
Not sure how that works out... but if you have stumbled, pick up, search the Internet and go onward.
Currently my 3 personal laws are:
1) Never knowingly argue with a crazy person;
2) Listen to your enemies because they may have something useful for you;
3) Never trust a con.
Speaking of my personal law #3, I have a new favorite series on USA Network: White Collar. It's the story of the FBI Agent, Peter Burke, using the con, Neil Caffery to help with investigations of white collar crime. While the first season held out hope for redemption of Neil, the first episode of Season 2 made it so very clear that con men never change and you can never trust them.
It reminds me weekly of the Armstrongists.
Michael..I did notice you went out of your way to call Darris a "liar" and both the UCG ministers "cowards" etc. You made their names into jokes etc.
How is this different from the feelings of others expressed towards your perspectives???
You seemed very offended at all the vile names put on you. Then you turn right around and pass it on to others. Or don't you see it this way and somehow your name calling and labeling is different?
Just askin
Good ole Dennis! Always ready to defend his old "minister" buddies.
"Good ole Dennis! Always ready to defend his old "minister" buddies."
That's bullshit. I was pointing out that Michael is complaining about the same treatment he dishes out. It has nothing to do with the ministers. I'd even mention it to him if he did that to you.
I am too thick skinned to be effected.
Oh is that what you call bringing it up at every possible chance? "Unaffected"?
While you're at it, lets hear this laundry list of "vile names" you were called?
Over exaggerating a hobby or just a habit?
"Good ole Dennis! Always ready to defend his old "minister" buddies."
Dennis blurted: "That's bullshit. I was pointing out that Michael is complaining about the same treatment he dishes out. It has nothing to do with the ministers. I'd even mention it to him if he did that to you."
MY COMMENT: Hit a soft spot, did I? Come now, Denny, you did the same thing over at Ambassador Watch. Everyone was swooning over you way back when. I think I said something nasty about one of your old pals and you climbed all over me.But, hey, I'm sure you WOULD defend me. :-)
Michael,
I'd encourage you to see atheism in others as a stage of development, because it is often not a final destination. It can be a final destination, but just as often it is not.
Secondly, many people who are extremely outspoken are later seen to have been vocalizing or externalizing their own internal conflicts. Again, some are not, but many are. While they are doing this, it is not unusual for opinions to be dogmatically and wishfully expressed as fact.
It is probably a good idea to allow atheists some space. Missing ingredients to our lives can often become very conspicuous by their absence, and then the motivation to reclaim them kicks in.
I don't know whether you ever smoked, or could relate to this, but the more people ride a smoker's back about his or her favorite habit, the more he or she will defend and embrace it. This same dynamic can often apply to belief or non-belief.
BB
Well I can't speak for everyone obviously, but here is one Atheist who doesn't plan to succumb to Biker-Bob/Purple-Hymnal syndrome.
And quite frankly Bob, I cannot understand how you could ever go back to religion in the first place, but that's not my concern. At least you never returned to Armstrongism itself, as did Aggie the "atheist". The lesser of two evils and all that ;-)
"I guess I am too thick skinned to be effected."
You misspelled "skulled".
Maytard, you never offered a valid argument for your position. We had to skewer something, and so it was your obvious stupidity, blatant sophistry and intractable obstinacy, the only stuff you offered. You're an incompetent fool when it comes to supporting your beliefs and an incorrigible bullshitter when it comes to recounting your experiences on our site. Are you going to come back and shoulder that burden of proof or not?
"As far as children having access to these kind of sites, I say no. When they are mature teens maybe.
Adults, then it is up to them and hopefully they are well grounded by then and can filter the information and not be damaged by it."
Bingo. You're talking about indoctrination. Of children. And you are proposing its use by any group or belief system, not just by your own illusion of orthodoxy. Or do you mean that only the children of "True Christians" should be thus constrained in their educational opportunities? Either way you are living up to your well-earned reputation as an idiot and an ethical retard.
"I'd encourage you to see atheism in others as a stage of development, because it is often not a final destination. It can be a final destination, but just as often it is not."
It seems to me that this is more true of Christianity than of atheism. People are fleeing organized religion in droves these days. It's not often you hear of an atheist converting to some religion, except among those atheists whose atheism was, how shall I put this, stupid--i.e., not well-thought-out, not reasoned to.
You theists need to realize that most atheists do not conform to your fantasy version of atheism: the confused, just going through a phase, angry at God, estranged from daddy version. We who have come to our atheism by the steadfast and honest employment of reason in the pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead, are far more numerous than you would find comforting. Short of senility, the arguments for theism (with which we are all intimately familiar) have no persuasive power over those who have seen them for what they are. That is something that can't be unseen. Truth that can't be untruthed.
In other words, you are engaging in wishful thinking. But that's par for the course, really.
"It is probably a good idea to allow atheists some space. Missing ingredients to our lives can often become very conspicuous by their absence, and then the motivation to reclaim them kicks in."
Does anybody else find these comments to be terribly patronizing? "Don't worry about those silly atheists; they'll come back when they miss Sky-Daddy." Imagine you're wrong, Bob--about the whole undetectable man in space theory. Imagine that he doesn't exist. Imagine that atheists have good reasons for being atheists. Imagine, it could be said, that atheists are people--grown, adult people who have come to a grown, adult conclusion, based on grown, adult reasoning. Can you just imagine that for one second? Got it? Okay, now if you want to stop being a bigot, hold that thought in your mind indefinitely and behave accordingly.
I appreciated your comments AD. I am not as aggressive by nature as you are. We've had different experiences leading to the same conclusions.
There is so much to learn in life that is discoverable. God does not seem to be discoverable to me. Jesus seems now as hearsay and even Thomas Paine noted how unfair it is to expect others to believe in something they have no way of having a direct experience with.
Knowing the origins of the Bible, it's books and even who or who didn ot really write it has been a disturbing transition. Yet also a fascinating one.
I do agree with BB that one can filter through several degrees of skepticism and disappointment back into another belief as well. It's deeply imbedded in humans to find meaning. The cheeky or snarkiness of both the religious and the atheist is grounded in anger and fear, IMHO. It's human.
Anyway, I only have to know what's in my heart n soul (is there a soul:) We all have our own journey. It's that group journey that tends to blow up in one's face.
I may (or may not) have some divergence in beliefs from atheists, but I find their candor and honesty refreshing -- in fact, they seem to be more trustworthy than the religious folk these days.
I often cringe a bit when I deal with a "Christian" businessman, because experience suggests that there may be a level of disappointment with the product or service rendered -- only direct experience serially will confirm any confidence. I've been ripped off by them. With other kinds of folk, no expectation is set up front.
As long as there is a basis of honesty, logic, fact, science, integrity and competence, there can at least be a reasonable dialog which may be beneficial to all parties.
There is objectively serious flaws in religious belief systems, not all of which can be covered by faith.
"Does anybody else find these comments to be terribly patronizing?"
Yes. Most definitely.
BB seems to have that smug attitude I've come to recognize and despise -- "I have something you don't have, poor thing. You'll be back when the emptiness becomes unbearable."
When the emptiness becomes unbearable, I have a good laugh with Chewie the Shih Tzu....She is hilarious
Aren't they? We get an unbelievable amount of joy out of our two Pomeranians and the little Pomchi female and her adorable chubbiness.
"The cheeky or snarkiness of both the religious and the atheist is grounded in anger and fear, IMHO. It's human."
I can speak for non-accommodationist atheists when I say that we are often angry, and for good reason. We also have good reason to be fearful. Given modern trends in the West, reasonable concerns about theocracy should not be exclusive to Middle-Eastern nations. People vote based on erroneous beliefs and bigoted dogma all the time. Furthermore, closest to home, there is a concerted effort among Dominionists to flood U.S. governing bodies with true believers who will represent Jesus instead of doing their job. They are also working very hard to get their superstitious nonsense taught in high school science classes--and sometimes succeeding!
I'd like to be as winsome as you are, I really would, but there are some inconvenient facts I can't ignore.
By this I don't mean that we are in a panic. I merely mean that we have reasons for being uppity, for speaking our minds so audaciously--it isn't an irrational response as you claim.
Our secular system depends upon the eternal vigilance of the people. And it's a damn good thing a lot of those people are a bit angry and not afraid to be snarky when the opportunity presents itself (or, God forbid, to engage in cheeky activities like protest rallies or blogging, etc.). As Allen said, germane to the OP, "Yea for the internet. Bombastic deceivers with millions in support taken from deceived followers now have competition that can't be silenced."
And we're mad as hell. For good reason. That's not all we are, but, yes, we are angry. I suspect theists are angry too, but for them it's because of the cognitive dissonance our arguments evoke in them. That's the kind of indignation that is worthy of your dismissal.
I have a cat. She's an atheist, too, as far as I can tell.
By the way, my remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of Armstrong Delusion or its staff. It's just me, Casey. I should stop using this handle for things like this.
I think there's a difference between atheists who are such _because_ they used to be Armstrongists, and people who are ex-Armstrongists and happen to be atheists as well. Not familiar with BB, but have had dealings with Purple Hymnal for several years and really wasn't surprised when she chose to become an ex-Atheist, but was a bit surprised that she returned to the vomit of Armstrongism.
Someone who is an atheist because there's no valid reason to believe in a deity is likely to remain an atheist, but someone who becomes an atheist as a reaction to Armstrongism is more likely to become something else.
By the way, thank God for Marshall McCluhan! I'm listening to a remembrance of him right now--coincidence?
@Mike
Exactly.
And the Internet is a great tool for doing the kind of research that leads to serious atheism. Google is like an intellectual appendage now; I feel disabled without it. In fact, I was disabled without it in a relative sense. Technological progress is a subset of our cultural evolution.
I am not an aggressive personally. My ENFP personality tends to see both sides of the issues. That's why being a negotiator, minister, counselor or even massage therapist fits me. Those are the careers listed ...who knew..ha.
I don't do drama and ultimately don't care what others think and can also be entitled to. How I ended up in WCG does puzzle me..ha
"We also have good reason to be fearful. Given modern trends in the West, reasonable concerns about theocracy should not be exclusive to Middle-Eastern nations."
Yes, we have great reason to be fearful, angry and confrontational.
Alternet had this piece last week, showing just how vulnerable the US is to extreme religionists who are dead set on turning this nation into an inquisitional theocracy: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151751/christian_jihad_why_we_should_worry_about_right-wing_terror_attacks_like_norway%27s_in_the_us_/
Greta Christina has published a very good blog article showing why we atheists have every reason to be angry and outspoken: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Theists assume they have the right to demean and condemn us any time and any way they see fit. Just let us point out the obvious supidities of what they believe and they are ready to tie us to a post and bring out the faggots.
I'm very worried about the extremists among them. They think they can do anything in defense of their god. The obvious question: why does their all powerful god need their puny defense.
"Someone who is an atheist because there's no valid reason to believe in a deity is likely to remain an atheist, but someone who becomes an atheist as a reaction to Armstrongism is more likely to become something else."
That's why you will never find me back in religion. I went through the usual slow withdrawal, absolutely sure that WCG and anything that came from it was BS in the extreme but experimenting in several area (devine science, reincarnation, agnosticism, etc.).
I came to atheism as the result of detailed study and analysis. None of the arguments for theism held up under scrutiny. As a lifelong history buff, the historical facts demolished theism totally.
Dennis Diehl said, "How I ended up in WCG does puzzle me..ha"
MY COMMENT - You ended up in the WCG because you were young and impressionable and the Armstrongs had ALL the answers in life including God's own time table for Christ's return and the end of the age.
The Armstrongs used slick marketing and a charismatic media presenter who stated "all literature is absolutely free of charge. There is no follow-up, and no one will ever call on you".
Once in the WCG, the Armstrongs appealed to our intellectual vanity "as God's one and only true church"; "We know the truth"; "called by God"; "sons of God in the God Family - God as God is God", etc.
In exchange, we gave the Armstrongs and their successors a lifetime income stream. They "dined with the classes" by lying to the masses. We were "a peculiar people" for sure.
There really is no mystery why many of us ended up in the WCG.
Richard
"If I had had the Internet as a kid, I seriously doubt I would have gone on to be a church pastor anywhere but rather gone on to the Univ. of Penn to become an obscure paleontologist. I believe i would have specialized in Neanderthal studies and on time off, roamed the glacial margins in Europe hoping to find that well preserved neanderthal covered 30,000 years ago in snow and ice."
I also engage in this kind of wistful "what-if" fantasizing--and I probably would have ended up in a similar field. As a child I was fascinated with dinosaurs and paleontology. I remember one book in particular that would have been a good primer on evolution if Armstrongism had not been pressed upon me instead of a scientific worldview. Life Story is a classic and a beautiful example of what children's literature can be.
Michael..I did notice you went out of your way to call Darris a "liar" and both the UCG ministers "cowards" etc. You made their names into jokes etc.
"How is this different from the feelings of others expressed towards your perspectives???
Really Dennis, Pot calling the Kettle black? Your crusade is calling the WCG, Armstrongism, and Christianity one big lie. You have named X-WCG ministers and brought ridicule on them as well. Now you are sticking up for a couple deceivers (true in both our views just different reasons) just because I pointed them out?
So Dennis, is McWhellie a liar or is he not? He teaches the Bible is true, you write continually it is not. He teaches God created all things, you call Him "lettuce."
Which one Dennis? Liar or not?
Me Offended? Read all of the comment. "I find it entertaining stuff"...no offense taken. I figure if you can dish it out you better be able to take it too.
Just like your writing, It is entertaining and I take it with a grain of salt even though you are attacking my core beliefs much of the time.
I have benefited from your perspectives on what you experienced in the WCG and as a minister there. I have benefited also from being slandered, liable, ridiculed, at Armstrong Delusion.
I also am enjoying the journey of learning, searching, growing...
"I'd encourage you to see atheism in others as a stage of development, because it is often not a final destination. It can be a final destination, but just as often it is not."
Bob, my concern is this:
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not a forgivable offense, Mark 3:29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” NIV
Atheism may lead to a final destination..if one has knowledge and throws it away.
However, Paul said he had blasphemed out of ignorance but repented of the things he had done against the church...but where is ignorance in the equation when someone grows up in Christianity?
Every man is free to accept or reject, believe or not. We also have been taught that God chooses who He calls to Christ and when, so no one knows if anyone has been truly called unless the fruits demonstrate they are.
In the larger view, why should I actually believe that anyone who was called to the WCG were actually called in the Biblical sense..they were not being called to the true Christ and actually rejected the true Christ?
I apply this last part personally not to judge others by.
Dennis,
"That's bullshit. I was pointing out that Michael is complaining about the same treatment he dishes out. It has nothing to do with the ministers. I'd even mention it to him if he did that to you."
You did not mention that Steve and I were one the same page on that issue. Or maybe you missed his comment?
I mean if you are being so conscientious and all...
Just say'in.
Dennis, Maybe you missed that Douglas actually called McWhellie and Mliars "Liars" where I didn't even use the word. His comment was far superior to mine, as usual
"Douglas Becker said...
What a couple of sleazes. Truly wolves in wool suits. They lie to you and take your money. Subtle though. It's like seeing a garbage dump for the first time after pretty newly fallen snow. Watch where you step.
Darris McNeely and Steve Myers spoke freely of financial responsibility and managing your finances responsibly. I didn't hear one word about tithing, let alone three tithes. They deliberately exercised deception, being all smarmy, looking every bit the ministers of the sweet Jesus Christ to bring Evangelism to the world. It looked and sounded good. It's too bad we don't have smellavision."
Just say'in again.
armstrongdelusion.com said...
I have a cat. She's an atheist, too, as far as I can tell.
Does she ever crap where she eats?
They never do...instinct is an amazing thing.
"Bingo. You're talking about indoctrination. Of children. And you are proposing its use by any group or belief system, not just by your own illusion of orthodoxy. Or do you mean that only the children of "True Christians" should be thus constrained in their educational opportunities? Either way you are living up to your well-earned reputation as an idiot and an ethical retard.
Casey, for such a high IQ you can be a real dumb ass. I said nothing about indoctrination or any of the things you put in my mouth. I proposed nothing.
My point was "Filter." To be able to discriminate and think critically and separate the bull from facts. The internet is full of information and a lot is pure crap wrapped in an attractive wrapper. I said nothing about religion. Whether my children choose Christianity or share my religious views is between them and God. I don't need to agree with their choice once they are adults.
If, God forbid, you have kids, do you want them viewing bestiality or kiddie porn at ten or eleven years old (or ever for that matter)? What about pictures of bodies blown apart in a bomb blast at six.
You know nothing about my ethics. Before you go using more words you don't understand learn the correct meaning of "ad hominem."
I think that there are personal instances of Christianity being a stage of development, as well as personal instances of atheism being a stage of development. I've seen it happen both ways, although from what I've observed, the former is more common.
It depends on the person, with his individual circumstances and individual personality.
I can certainly understand that a person, such as Byker Bob, seeing a positive transformation of a family member due to religious conversion, might also be inclined to convert to whatever belief-system caused his loved-one's positive transformation.
I know a man whose son was on a very bad path. While in prison, his son converted to Islam, and is now out of prison and living a happy life, running a very successful business and enjoying his new wife and family, and the much-improved relations with his parents and extended family.
Does this mean that I'd want to convert to Islam? Hell, no!
But at least the son has not told me(or anyone I know) that my life will "totally suck", be "without blessings like car transmissions" or be a "void" if I don't convert to his belief-system. That's the type of thing a person is more likely to hear from proselytizing Christians.
I'm poking a bit at Byker Bob here because he claims Jesus led him to a car transmission, and he's used the words "totally suck" and "void" to describe the lives of those who have not converted to Christianity.
(Byker Bob's son was also converted while in jail, and according to Bob, has turned his life around- seemingly much like my friend's son whose life changed positively[with a heapin' helpin' of blessin's] after converting to Islam.)
It makes me cringe when anyone who's proselytizing(or "testifying" or whatever they want to call it) claims my life will "totally suck", be "without blessings" or be a "void" if I choose to not convert to his or her's particular belief-system, whether it's Christianity or anything else.
I'll add one more point. The minute someone identifies themselves as a Christian (or uses the buzz-words) when wanting to do business with me, I realize it's better to cross them off the list(no pun intended) and move on to others who make no such claim and use no such buzzwords.
And could I add one last comment? If I could, it would be a small bit of advice to Michael Maynard:
Michael. You are very proud of being out of "armstrongism" for the past year. Please consider that one year (or so) is a very small amount of time to get one's mind stabilized after leaving a cultish environment. (I've been out for 30 years, fwiw.)
I read through them, and noticed significant logical fallacies in what you've put forth in your arguments over at Armstrong Delusion, and I was thinking you may need more time to adjust before it's actually good arguments that you're making.
Norm
Norm said:
"I read through them, and noticed significant logical fallacies in what you've put forth in your arguments over at Armstrong Delusion, and I was thinking you may need more time to adjust before it's actually good arguments that you're making."
Norm, Thanks for the advise. Have you ever heard a debate between an atheist and a believe where either side really shut out the other. It is an endless argument no matter how excellent the logic is, Christianity is based upon faith...you can't give a non believer faith so they can suddenly see things your way.
The athiest's always make up their facts or quote famous scientists who made up theories that fall apart upon close scrutiny. Then the atheist rejects the Bible as factual so you get no where.
I broke my own rule against arguing with atheist's to get information for my book, which I did get, and more.
Norm, I have known that HWA was wrong since 1998 and started moving away from that theology. I probably should clarify that more in my blog.
So Maynard, let me get this straight. You "have known that HWA was wrong since 1998 and started moving away from that theology." but you still stayed Armstrongism until finally leaving UCG in 2010?
Why? Thats a very long time to sit and listen to sermons about doctrines you probably didnt agree with. Seems a bit dishonest really, be it to your fellow church members (at the time) or yourself, but I suppose that's not a big surprise.
"The athiest's always make up their facts"
Whatever you say Maynard... Whatever you say.
Norm:
"You are very proud of being out of "armstrongism" for the past year. Please consider that one year (or so) is a very small amount of time to get one's mind stabilized after leaving a cultish environment. (I've been out for 30 years, fwiw.)"
You know, I think about this every day. I only stopped attending in April of last year, and by December had rejected Armstrongism entirely, identifying myself at that point as "agnostic" which, in hindsight was only to avoid the stigma associated with the term "atheist". Didnt take me very long to see I was only fooling myself.
Anyway, my point is: 30 years?! You've been out for thirty years? Please don't take this the wrong way at all, but why are you here man? What's the purpose? I'm thrilled that you are, but I gotta tell you man, I dont plan to be dwelling on Armstrongism 30 years down the road. Hell, I tried to give up Armstrongism blogging back in December. I was given pretty good arguments to continue, and so I have, but eventually I'll be through with it. Probably by December of this year I'll be throwing in the Armstrongite towel.
Maybe I'm just fooling myself thinking that I can forget and walk away. Do you think about your time in the cults often? Does it just stay with you through the years even though you've moved on? I suppose each of us is "wired" differently, so all results are not typical but I'm just curious.
Anyone who's been to my (much neglected, recently) Blog can tell pretty easily that it's not an Armstrong blog. That's in the bio, but the focus is Atheism. I see myself blogging about that for the rest of my life, but Armstrongism simply wont be a factor in that dialogue.
I really hope I'm not posting here in 30 years though. Or 10, or even 5years time lol.
Onward...
Maynard said: "It is an endless argument no matter how excellent the logic is, Christianity is based upon faith...you can't give a non believer faith so they can suddenly see things your way."
Faith will trump logic and reason _every_ _single_ time.
Maynard said: "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not a forgivable offense, Mark 3:29
.....
Atheism may lead to a final destination..if one has knowledge and throws it away."
It's not possible to blaspheme something that doesn't exist.
Hi Jace,
It's a valid question. Yup, it's been 30 years for me. In that time, I've seen people I care for die and others' families become blown apart, and others become more OK.
I haven't stopped caring for those that are "in", maybe because that's the religious org that, in my life, has affected me most deeply.
I still dream regularly about my old WCG friends and me, often interacting in "feastish circumstances" (or otherwise church-related circumstances).
Heck, whole movies could be made of some of my dreams, but I'm feeling guarded about them. They're personal.
But I'll say this: Often it's about going to a "church-place" for a Church event, (or trying to), and things don't go well, with me ending up in a crazy hotel with a bridge across some water (or a housing complex with many planks between the various units) while I try to communicate with my church-friends while coming and going.
Here's a sampling- Losing my keys for my car, losing my car, losing my hotel room, and losing my keys for my hotel room, losing a camera, etc while any efforts to recover such things were futile and yet somehow transferred to tensions associated with communicating with my WCG friends..
Last night's dream had a really incredible cave, barn, and old house in it.
Norm
"I broke my own rule against arguing with atheist's to get information for my book, which I did get, and more."
BOOK! You're writing a book!? I strongly advise against it. You need to learn how to write first. Take a few classes or something. Geez.
"The athiest's always make up their facts or quote famous scientists who made up theories that fall apart upon close scrutiny. Then the atheist rejects the Bible as factual so you get no where."
You know what theists always do in a debate? Run away. Like you did. There are valid arguments (based on faulty premises) out there, but you don't know them--and I'm not going to lead you by the wrist to them. Like I said before, you're an amateur at this: you have no good reason to believe what you do, and that's why you can't defend your position. I'd suggest you procure for yourself a basic education in this subject--especially if you're going to write a book about atheism, for fuck's sake.
"I said nothing about indoctrination or any of the things you put in my mouth. I proposed nothing."
I think you should review the title of the OP--it had nothing to do with porn and everything to do with religious indoctrination. If you were talking about porn and not the subject under discussion, maybe you should have said as much.
Besides, I suspect you're up to more of your bullshitting. Are you telling me you will allow your children access to atheist literature? Will you refrain (i.e., have you refrained) from pushing upon them your own religious views and supernatural beliefs while they are children?
If you answer "no" to either of these questions then, yes, you are indoctrinating your children, and my comment still stands as accurate.
You think no one can see through your bullshit? Most people are not as stupid as you, you know.
"The minute someone identifies themselves as a Christian (or uses the buzz-words) when wanting to do business with me, I realize it's better to cross them off the list(no pun intended) and move on to others who make no such claim and use no such buzzwords."
I'm wwith you. The minute I hear sanctimoniouness and the buzzwords you refer to, I'm outa there.
"my point is: 30 years?! You've been out for thirty years? Please don't take this the wrong way at all, but why are you here man?"
I've been out even longer, and I'll be here as long as there are deceived people needing the benefit of my accumulated knowledge and understanding.
On my own blog, I concentrate mostly on atheism and debuniing the folly of religion. Even in my comments here and elsewhere, I try to avoid the theological nonsense and get back to the trunk and root of the tree, as my most recent blog pointed out.
What you do is your business. I don't care if you're here next year or tomorrow. I'll still be putting in my two cents worth and throw in a few dollars once in a while. That's how I roll.
Quoting you:
"I have recently subjected myself to the scathing and viscous attacks by some of the athiest writers at Armstrong Delusion...They have the technique down and know how to skewer the commenter if they disagree or challenge atheism in any way...This would only be possible with the internet and freedom of information that we enjoy...As far as children having access to these kind of sites, I say no."
You say no to "these kinds of sites." Now, tell us again that you weren't talking about sheltering children from information that is contrary to your views. Tell us again you were talking about porn and violent images. You're a bullshit artist without the art.
"When they are mature teens maybe...Adults, then it is up to them and hopefully they are well grounded by then and can filter the information..."
The information. Yes, exactly. You don't let them have access to it until after their minds have already been warped to view it the same way you do--with a bias for confirming your own beliefs (some call it faith).
Everyone here knows your holy book promotes indoctrination, and it even goes so far as to say why: "Train up a child in the way that [you want him to go], and when he is old he will not depart from it."
Saying you'll let your kids think and investigate for themselves once they're all grown up is about as absurd as bending a sapling and tying it down to a stake, and then saying, "I'll untie it when it's fully grown--then if it wants to grow straight, it will be free to do so."
You're so full of shit, you should change your picture to one of a big, juicy cow pie.
@Maytard
Quoting you:
"I have recently subjected myself to the scathing and viscous attacks by some of the athiest writers at Armstrong Delusion...They have the technique down and know how to skewer the commenter if they disagree or challenge atheism in any way...This would only be possible with the internet and freedom of information that we enjoy...As far as children having access to these kind of sites, I say no."
You say no to "these kind of sites." Now, tell us again that you weren't talking about prohibiting your children access to information that is not favorable to your delusions.
And saying that you'll let your children think and investigate for themselves when they are all grown up is like bending a sapling and tying it to a stake, and then saying, "I'll untie it when it becomes full grown, then it can grow straight if it wants to."
We all know how your holy book promotes the indoctrination of children. It even goes so far as to say why: "Train up a child [in your religion] and even when he is old he will not depart from it." Don't pretend like you don't follow this injunction. After all, doesn't the baby Jesus want you to be honest?
You're no follower of Christ: you are just a bullshit artist without the art.
"I read through them, and noticed significant logical fallacies in what you've put forth in your arguments over at Armstrong Delusion, and I was thinking you may need more time to adjust before it's actually good arguments that you're making."
Don't you know? May-tard's logical fallacies are actually an advanced form of reasoning that only a mature mind like his can appreciate. Those who insist on valid argumentation are stuck on elementary stuff. May-tard is way, way beyond that.
And, if you can believe it, that's actually what he said. He said it better than I did, though:
May-tard to me: “You approach everything backwards, you are presenting the elementary lessons in logic and reason and you try to show where the commenter is or is not following those kindergarten rules. I am way beyond kindergarten, I work and function very successfully in the real word and don’t need lectures.”
Isn't that precious? Gods, I wish I could have posted that quote in comic sans.
@Anonymous:
"The average age of those still traped in armstrongism is rising due to the youth having more access to the internet then older people and being liberated from armstrongism."
Orly? Citation please! It sounds plausible, but I doubt the one posting it really knows it for a fact. I'd love to be proven wrong. Anti-Armstrong blogging isn't exactly a data-rich enterprise.
Anonymous said,
"but you still stayed Armstrongism until finally leaving UCG in 2010?"
It takes a lot of time to overcome cognitive dissonance and have the confidence to believe that what you are reading in the Bible is what it actually says.
In the WCG we did not believe in seeking outside help so the change took longer than it might have. We thought the ministry actually had all the answers and if we did not understand something biblical it was because WE individually were not close enough to God. I refused to believe that the ministry and HWA were all clueless.
They were clueless and I made the decision. Not easy either when you may loose everything you hold dear. I have lost everything by doing this..not a single friend to talk to except my Mother. I had thousands before this. My home was frequently full of people having fun fellow-shipping and eating my BBQ. Now it is all quiet and I am alone with mt keyboard and my thoughts. And I would do it all over again. It is not about me it is about those thousands that I love still that are deceived by Armstrong's half-truths and outright lies.
Would you have the guts to do what I did, I know many have to get out of that cult.
"It is not about me it is about those thousands that I love still that are deceived by Armstrong's half-truths and outright lies."
You still haven't come out of the half-truths and lies, though. You've just traded them in for different ones. And it makes sense, too, since you have exhibited a pretty low opinion of truth in general.
You brag about how you've been brave in dealing with your cognitive dissonance. Bullshit. You haven't done anything. You're still clinging tremulously to those delusions you find so comforting, doing anything you can to protect them from falsification, or even from mere challenges to the invalid verification you've claimed for them. Your response to cognitive dissonance is to grasp ever tighter to your unsupported beliefs and to lash out at those who assail them so reasonably.
I'm afraid you have to go a little further in the direction of the truth before you can start bragging. If you think you've sacrificed comfort on the altar of truth, try being an atheist. Then you'll know why I think you're such a hypocritical coward.
On the other hand, resolving cognitive dissonance in the direction of what is reasonable and objective is a liberating experience. You may be letting go of something you find comforting, but letting go is exactly what you have to do if you want to be free.
There's another pearl for you to grind into the slop.
@Casey
"I'd suggest you procure for yourself a basic education in this subject--especially if you're going to write a book about atheism, for fuck's sake."
Dude, that chip on your shoulder...wow, you need some therapy or a change in your meds. You are making stuff up to create an argument over...sick man.
I am not writing a book about atheism. Just a chapter or so. But now that you mention it keep writing and pretty soon I will have all the education I need to know why I disagree with atheism. I just might write a book on the dangers of atheists featuring you.. You need to get a reality check. If you are putting this much time into trying to defeat my position...wow.
If you want to convince others that my belief in God is wrong, have at it. It is not me you are trying to battle and defeat but God. It won't change my mind in the least, so why are you wasting your time. I already told you it is your journey but that is not enough.
Your behavior is that of a psychopath, only concerned with winning, with trying to make others subject to your whims and desires...for control. Well, you are barking up the wrong tree with me and you know it and I think that is what has you teed off...you can't win no matter what you say.
LOL @ Maynard
Now you're a psychologist?
You really should go back and read all of your posts, it's really quite amusing!
Just to set the record straight, my son did not convert to Christianity while in jail or prison. He was a student of the Aryan religion while inside, and had commented to me while I was visiting him in a halfway house upon his release that that was what he planned to pursue on the outside. He was actually doing "88" tattoos and FTW tats on fellow parolees at that point in time. He seemed to write me off right about then, and I feared for the worst.
When I heard from him again months later, he had become a Christian, had a job and seemed to have gone through a total transformation. Believe it or not, being a confirmed non-believer, I actually hated this at the time. In my mind, I'd simply switched from losing my son to a lifetime of criminality to losing him to Jesus. Same end result as far as I was concerned.
I'd been around hardcore people most of my life. I know about the high level of hypocrisy and manipulativeness of jailhouse conversions. This was not that. It was totally different. And, no. If he had converted to Islam, there is no way I would have gone along with that.
I've learned the hard way that our own personal "miracles" and "blessings" rarely have credibility with others. Personal experiences are just that. It's actually relatively rare when others are influenced by them, or derive vicarious joy or inspiration from them.
Frankly, I've held back with my sharing here. There are many more blessings in my life. It sure wasn't easy to start a business during the recession, either, especially in a state that people have lost their shirts in, and left! God has most certainly poured out His blessings on our little business venture, though! You won't find a fish or cross on my business cards, because action always speaks louder than symbols or labels.
Why do I post this sort of thing? Others did the same thing, very enthusiastically, way before me. I just didn't believe or appreciate their contributions until much later. Also, I don't believe that it is any accident that some of us who were once atheists together on these forums are now Christian. There have been a number of such occurrences, but not everyone chooses to publically share. This can happen to anyone!
BB
@Maytard the sophist:
"If you want to convince others that my belief in God is wrong, have at it. It is not me you are trying to battle and defeat but God. It won't change my mind in the least"
You don't care that you can't support your delusion. Yeah, I knew that; I was just trying to get you to concede it. And now you have. Good job.
QED.
"If he had converted to Islam, there is no way I would have gone along with that."
Why not? No evidence for Allah? What?
"I've learned the hard way that our own personal "miracles" and "blessings" rarely have credibility with others."
No kidding. Do you know why that is? Do you actually think non-believers don't have experiences that more credulous people would inflate in their minds into miracles? The difference is rational people know about and avoid the various traps of irrationality and magical thinking one may fall into in their assessment of such experiences.
"Also, I don't believe that it is any accident that some of us who were once atheists together on these forums are now Christian."
I'm still trying to parse some meaning from this. Maybe your answer to this question will help: How do the current atheists on here fit into this paradigm?
"It sure wasn't easy to start a business during the recession, either, especially in a state that people have lost their shirts in, and left! God has most certainly poured out His blessings on our little business venture, though!"
Bingo. That's the paltry reasoning I'm talking about. It's a non-sequitur. How do you get from "my business succeeded where others have failed" to "God did it!"? There are a thousand and one natural explanations for this "miracle" and you'd have to be stupid or insane not to admit it. Then if you could eliminate all the natural explanations (somehow), you'd still have to contend with the weighty fact that even such a "miracle" would not necessity any specific god--or indeed any god at all! It could be magic. Invisible aliens operating for some mysterious reason on your behalf. Unicorns prancing around in the core of Neptune, thereby sending undetectable success rays your way, because you are their spiritual descendant. Nothing about your business success can be used as a valid argument for Yahweh (ex-junior executive in the Canaanite divine council) or Jesus or Allah or any god.
Wow! The bullets are really flying this evening on the Banned by HWA website. Is it safe to come out from hiding under my desk yet?
Well Golly Gee Garner Ted Armstrong, judging by the tone of some of the comments, its hard to believe we all sat as brethren in the same Church, and even washed one another's feet - and believe me, some of you needed your stinky feet washed :)
Richard
Pastor General
Lake of Fire Church of God
P.S. Please send in your tithes and Offerings. And whatever you do, don't forget the Building Fund.
Casey,
I'd say hang around for the next ten years. Take a mental picture of what is being posted today so that you'll have something with which to compare it in 2021. Remember the names, and who seems to be speaking the most and the loudest. This is all a snapshot in time. Opinions and beliefs do not remain static in live human beings. They grow and expand with knowledge and personal experience.
The arguments supporting a stance of belief, and the arguments supporting non-belief really have not changed significantly on these forums since 2,001. Neither has the personal articulateness or magnetism of certain individuals. There really is nothing new, although perhaps there is a bit less flaming and name calling now, as people have learned how to moderate forums and blogs.
Over the past ten years, some individuals have changed profoundly, and often in ways we could not possibly anticipate. I suspect the same will be true over the next ten.
BB
Well, All I've gotta say is:
Casey, Allen & Dennis:
I for one will be VERY disappointed if any of you three return to religion.
And I say that in the loudest way possible. Take the snapshot, I'll see you in 10 years to confirm I still hate the very idea of "god"
"The arguments supporting a stance of belief, and the arguments supporting non-belief really have not changed significantly on these forums since 2,001."
Go back a little farther, Bob. The arguments for theism have been around since ancient times and you're right, they've always been bad. I notice you never addressed any of mine. That's always the same too. Theists always turn into the most predictable cowards anytime their ridiculous statements are challenged with clear thinking. Then, out come the red herrings! Speaking of which...
You say people's beliefs change over time, fair enough, but guess which position regarding the existence of God enjoys the support of superior arguments and all the evidence that can be considered relevant to such a question. That would be atheism. And as far as I can tell it always will be. At any rate, rational people will always follow the superior arguments and the evidence, wherever they lead, and theists, to protect their assumptions and remain theists, will always ignore all of that. If you didn't notice, I drew a distinction between rational people and theists.
I don't want to denude you of your comforting delusions, Bob; it's just that I can't let pious, self-important nonsense stand unchallenged. Theists make statements that directly imply they have ways of knowing things the rest of us poor schmucks are not privy to; but this vain, fanciful claim is built on obviously fallacious reasoning.
The irony is too much for me. I have to point it out...
Those who think they are so special that they know things that can't be known will tell you all about what their god has supposedly done for them, and when you point out they are using flawed logic, or if you ask for evidence, they call you arrogant! Or, as in the case of Bob, here, they at the very least insinuate it.
One final point: it isn't who's beliefs prevail by 2021 that matters, Bob, it's whose beliefs are true, and sometimes very popular beliefs turn out to be untrue. So, among reasonable people, truth claims require some kind of support, whether it be objective evidence or logical argumentation ("You'll see" is not an argument).
Even if I convert to Islam by 2021, it will not change the fact that your (let's face it--juvenile) statements about your god enjoy zero support. How do you account for that? "Wait and see" does not help your case. You can say "I have faith." That would be an acceptable answer--it would prove my point, though.
"I for one will be VERY disappointed if any of you three return to religion."
Aint going to happen here. Been there. Done that. Totally burned out.
Nobody is going to get any of my meager funds for shooting off their mouths about the big sugar daddy somewhere "up there" that they're just sure comes through for them every time.
Funny, those benevolent occurences still happen for me in spite of my unbelief, as they happen for the most backward savages on the planet. Reading supernatural meanings into them is fun, but I'm not impressed.
Byker Bob, my memory failed me......sorry for mis-stating when your son came to Christianity. I thought I'd remembered you saying that it happened while he was incarcerated.
In your correction of what I wrote, you mentioned that he'd gotten into the "Aryan religion" while in jail. So I looked up the "Aryan religion" page on Wikipedia, at---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_religion , and see that the term has different meanings, including some Islamic religions and some forms of occultism.
I realize that "Aryan Nations/Church of Jesus Christ Christian" is different from "Aryan religion", so I'm assuming he wasn't a Skinhead/Christian type.
In any event, who knows what different people here will believe in the future.
Heck, when it comes to people converting to "this or that", nothing surprises me any more.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you or anyone else were to become a Muslim, Canadian, or even Raelian!
Norm
Casey, there is a concept somewhat new to me, and it may have a bearing on the topic of theism vs atheism.
I've been reading a book about the subconscious mind, and what I am learning ties in nicely with something brought up by Ralph Hauck in the early days of the Painful Truth Blog.
This subconscious mind, or collective intelligence seems to be designed into all living things, and constitutes a pool of knowledge and experience collected since the first life came out of the big bang. All creatures seem to be able to access this pool, meaning that there is an interrelation amongst all things living, including humans. This explains parallel evolutionary events amongst the species with seeming coincidences which defy probability. It is as if one species "pre-knows" what is developing in another species, as often, mutual needs are conveniently met, just in time for survival.
Especially within the past ten years, I've realized that none of us really embraces the total spectrum of knowledge. All of us, either deliberately or unconsciously, do tend to filter incoming information to a narrow band (our comfort zone), and to select that which we recognize as supporting our most deeply held beliefs. That is one of the hugest challenges to truthseeking.
BB
Norm:
That you, Tweet? I think I recognize your writing style.
The Aryan stuff people learn in jail is pretty racist and brutal. People embrace it, while there, for survival. The reason why I was so concerned about this is that it is almost a guaranteed ticket right back into the system. Thankfully, that did not happen.
BTW, we can laugh about my transmission resulting from answered prayer, but it's still working, and I got to enjoy that little car once again over the weekend! To me, that's a blessing.
Hope all is well with you! How is this year's peterpepper crop coming along?
LOL,
BB
@Bob
I'm trying to figure out just what you're trying to say. You seem to be very confused and you use a lot of weasel words.
Let me first point out that according to my understanding "knowledge" is not the sum total of beliefs, since beliefs can be inaccurate (i.e., fail to reflect reality), and therefore cannot be said to be "known." You seem to be conflating beliefs and knowledge and that's a false equivalence.
Secondly, you seem to be promoting (as one of these beliefs you consider knowledge) the hypothesis of collective consciousness, which is as scientifically supported as British Israelism.
Next, you apparently don't understand how evolution is proposed to operate, i.e., as a non-teleological process: organisms do not have any foreknowledge about how they should be evolving. There is no direction in evolution, no strategy, and no collective intelligence upon which to draw for making "decisions" about which way to evolve.
The best way I can think of to respond to your comment is with a big, "citation please."
As for this logical leap you make from rambling pseudo-scientific pablum to the very real and demonstrable problem of confirmation bias, I just have to ask: Are you admitting it of yourself or accusing me of it?
At any rate, this is really nothing more than a red herring. What do you have against directly addressing the challenges put to you? I know: you've ignored it all before, right? Well I've seen obstinacy before. It fails to impress me every time.
Maynard said: "If, God forbid, you have kids, do you want them viewing bestiality or kiddie porn at ten or eleven years old (or ever for that matter)? What about pictures of bodies blown apart in a bomb blast at six."
Three things that young children should not be exposed to:
-- porn
-- violence
-- religion
Casey,
From the time you first began posting on these ACOG forums, I had you pegged as a legend in your own mind. You know, the type of individual that machine guns unveiled put-downs at anyone who attempts to conduct a discussion with you. Frankly, you really remind me of a typical WCG minister, with the exception that you apply that personality to the advancement of atheism.
The barrage of elitism you direct at others is some kind of smokescreen. It is a coverup for some inadequacy, I just can't tell what as of yet. Until you lose the corncob, I'm not going to dignify any of your posts with comment.
BB
"The barrage of elitism you direct at others is some kind of smokescreen. It is a coverup for some inadequacy, I just can't tell what as of yet. Until you lose the corncob, I'm not going to dignify any of your posts with comment."
Figures you'd respond that way. You know, I sure wish I was as good as some of your ilk at armchair psychoanalysis, so I too could do the ad hominem shuffle. I guess I'll just have to stick to making valid arguments that will continue to be ignored in favor of sophistic tricks. Kiss my ass, Bob. You're as much of a bullshitter as our friend, Maytard; you're just smoother about it. I would surmise that it is because of your marginally higher social intelligence--but then, I wouldn't want to tread on your area of expertise.
@Bob: And don't lay your charge of elitism on me until you can account for this:
"Those who think they are so special that they know things that can't be known will tell you all about what their god has supposedly done for them, and when you point out they are using flawed logic, or if you ask for evidence, they call you arrogant [or elitist, in this case]!"
Now, don't respond to this; you wouldn't want to botch your flounce.
"You know, the type of individual that machine guns unveiled put-downs at anyone who attempts to conduct a discussion with you."
Ignoring everything someone says and refusing to respond to it directly is hardly a discussion, Bob. Stop bullshitting.
Christ, it is so annoying trying to have a "discussion" with people like Bob and MM, it's a never ending cycle of having questions ignored, left and right ad-hominem bullshit, and going off-topic into psych eval they're not in any way qualified for. And yet they still have the balls to think they're winning the debate. Unbelievable.
This comment series has taken on a life of its own. I choose not to descend into it, and by "descend," I mean exactly that. As I stated on my blog, discussing theology is a waste of time. Nobody wins because nobody will admit they could be in error. Faith does that to us.
I have closed off comments on this topic.
Post a Comment