I began this series with several goals in mind. I will outline them, in no particular order of importance-
1- As I alluded to in the introduction to these debates, the ‘rules of engagement’, cl represents the school of modern Christian apologetics more than adequately, in my view. That being the case, I’m very interested in deconstructing his arguments; since, after all, the title of my blog is ‘Reason vs. Apologetics...an ADVERSARIAL Relationship.’ This is a fight for truth, folks, plain and simple. I think cl might agree with me here. However, cl’s style is to start and maintain ‘flame wars’ within the comment threads whenever possible. I’m sure he would DISagree here, but that’s not the way I see it. Nevertheless, his posts by-and-large reflect a mindset regarding certain philosophical issues that I feel like addressing here on my little blog. I decided to implement my new format-my critique to one of cl’s post, followed by an unchallenged rebuttal by cl- in hopes of zeroing in on the actual points of discussion, rather than letting the conversation be waylaid by cl’s pedantic antics (for those unaware of how cl tends to operate, check out the numerous threads he invades and sidetracks). I believed that by limiting his ability to constantly readdress and reiterate over and over and bloody over, again and again, playing all sorts of nefarious games along the way, we might actually have some fruitful discussions that wouldn’t devolve into...well, whatever you’d call the mess things become whenever cl is present. I call it horseshit, pure and simple.
2- I thought this new format also presented both of us with a writing challenge different from the blogging norm. Speaking for myself, I was forced to better consider possible loopholes in my arguments, since I only have one shot to make my presentation, for better or worse. I even yielded the debating advantage to my opponent, in offering him the unanswered last word. This isn’t the way things are generally done, I know; but on the other hand, I have much better material to work with. You know...reality? And if he caught me here or there in a bad argument or presentation, so much the better! Live and learn.
3- From a more mischievous standpoint, I wanted to shut cl down according to his own standards of clarity and non-ad hominem affectation, which I’ll admit I engage in from time to time just for fun. Not that my arguments are formally tainted by ad-hominem, since the personal stuff is just icing on the cake for me. But I’m not so sure cl actually knows the difference, especially since he engages in the stuff all the time while pretending not to(thus his 'affectation', or pose of being reasonable). Did I say pretend? That might not be altogether fair, since I’ve come to the conclusion that cl suffers from a real cognitive disconnect. Honestly, he can’t follow an argument worth shit sometimes! I’m not sure if the cognitive problems feed into his fairly severe personality disorder, or if it’s the other way ‘round. Either way, I seem to have accomplished this particular goal somewhat strikingly, as can be witnessed in the post previous to this one. Read his reply carefully, with the format rules in mind, and I think you’ll see what I mean.
4- From the actual presentation standpoint, I thought this format offered the reader a much superior ratio of substance-to-noise than exists in the general threads, especially when cl’s around. You read the argument, my critique, and cl’s reply. Period. What could be simpler? Naturally, I knew cl would be averse to these rules, and that it would take some cajoling to get him to play along, including the already mentioned offer of last word. cl likes a crowd. He likes to play commenters off one another through nitpicking statements apart, and also seeks allies wherever he can get them. He seems to feel more at home in a circus, and the more raucousness, the better- all the brouhaha tends to camouflage the paucity of his arguments somewhat, as people take their eyes off the prize and get swept up in the flaming and side-issues. It’s happened to me many times.
Anyway, I think all my targets have been reached, and I’m feeling...satisfied. Not joyous, because even though I knew in my heart of hearts just how this would end doesn’t make me feel better in being right. Not too much, anyway :) I truly would have liked to see cl man-up to the challenge. However, he failed...and quite predictably. Naturally, in cl’s mind this is just more confirmation that I’m a ‘hater’ (his word, and in contrast to a ‘non-hater’ who celebrates in fantasies of rape, murder, and incestual relationships *see Gideon*), but I can do nothing to change his mind on that count. He is what he is, and most of the readers of this blog know what he is- a hypocrite, a liar, a sockpuppet, a troll, and a piss-poor thinker at best. Nothing new here, I suppose. And I truly, truly wish it would have gone differently vis-a-vis these dialogues.
However, I intend to continue critiquing his posts whenever he writes something suitably convoluted or otherwise off the charts of reasonableness, and he’ll still be allowed to offer a rebuttal if and when he feels like it (Offer withdrawn. See UPDATE). For one thing, since I’m the one doing the critiquing, I think it only fair to offer him a response. Beyond that, exposure to bad apologetics (and they’re ALL bad, aren’t they?) can’t be a bad thing for folks who like to think along these lines. It’s good mental exercise, and a hoot-and-a-half besides...ain’t it?
UPDATE:
The TWIM/RvA dialogues are suspended, and probably for good, in that I'll probably change them to monologues. My change in attitude since I wrote the above comes from my absolute disdain for cl's lack of integrity. His dishonesty just runs too deep, as seen here (see comments). It's an emotional decision, I'll admit. Not being a pathological liar, I often tend to grant the benefit of the doubt to people who don't deserve it. This policy usually winds up biting me in the ass :); especially since I then feel it's my ethical duty to expose the liar for what he really is (plus, it pisses me off to no end!) An exercise in futility, I suppose. In fact, I'm almost sure of it! LOLOL! Who the hell else cares about liars on the internet, anyway? That's what the internet's for, right? Right???
However, dishonesty exposed is also valuable, I think. I shall continue to deconstruct his poor and reprehensibly deceitful argumentation as time and interest allow, because that's a GOOD thing! (isn't it? maybe so, maybe not. either way, knowing myself as I do, I probably will). Doubtful any minds will be changed, but truth for truth's sake is enough for me. Hm, 'truth for truth's sake'...not bad. I wonder if it's already been claimed.
Just call me Don Quixote! Onward!
BTW, here's a sample of cl's latest dissembling, from the link I provided just above. It's particularly amusing, and is a good example of why he gets censored and/or kicked off so many blogs. People can usually take only so much bad faith before they act. Here's the pertinent part of cl's email to me...
"although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it."
In light of this obvious decline to respond to my post, I decided to go ahead and post our entire email exchange to expose cl's motivations...
i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.
although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.
would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.
Since this isn't an official response, but the last in a series of email bitching, I will include my response to cl here, as follows-
cl:
The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.
Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!
Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.
Put up or shut up, ya wuss.
P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
Note the mean-spirited reaction (sucks ass) and absolute paranoia regarding a post that simply addressed the issues of his article, but which he seems to have interpreted as a personal attack (don't let him kid you, it's ALWAYS personal with cl.) Admittedly, I reacted in kind. That's what I tend to do, especially with bullshitters like cl.
Now, of course, he's putting the usual TWIM spin on things, reaching its nexus with this statement from his blog...
"I said, "Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one." You (addressing me) interpreted that to mean, "there would NOT be a response forthcoming."
In other words, when cl said
"Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one."
what he really meant by that was
"I've already drafted a response, and I WILL be responding to this one."
LOL! Oh, and then there's this...
Moreover, re-read my comment. Not only does it state that a response was already drafted at the time of the email, IN NO MANNER did I "state quite clearly that there would NOT be a response forthcoming." I simply shared my lack of motivation in responding.
So, let's get this straight. Using cl-speak, "I started with an attempt..." translates to "a response was already drafted." And "I see no use in responding to this one" REALLY means "A response is forthcoming."
I wonder what color the sky is in cl's world. Wouldn't do much good to ask him about it, I suppose. He'd just lie.
NOTE: The reason I feel it was necessary to go into this much detail (and perhaps more will follow, depending on my mood) is because cl operates by throwing so much shit into the fan, that some people who aren't paying attention forget which direction it's coming from. Most folks lose interest in conversations such as these pretty easily. Frankly, I can't say I blame them. Then again, nobody's being forced to read this :) From my angle, I see this kind of stuff as just an extension of apologetics in general. Convolute. Obfuscate. Re-direct. Lie. Blame others. And never, ever say you're sorry. And so, I choose to confront this shit from time to time, and if it takes a little time, and bores some people *shrug*. Go watch 'I Love Lucy' :) And for those who would lump me in with people like cl, simply because I match verbosity for verbosity, I'll sign off with a little adage I picked up from who knows where...
When you have one guy pushing old ladies in front of speeding trains, and another guy pushing old ladies out of the way of speeding trains, what you DON'T have are two guys who just like to push old ladies around.
fini (for now)
0 comments:
Post a Comment