Table of Contents
Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist)
Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us
Opposable Thumbs
Steve's 4th response:
Hello Frank,
I am sorry you continue to be
condescending towards me. I asked how
much you read of my website and if you read the links I gave
you, but no
answer. I still think that a better reading of my website may
make you
realise I am not the enemy you appear to have me down as, or
even a
good target for a laugh. There are a lot of people with serious
life
changing events that come through my site. You can laugh at that
and make a parody of it if you want to, but it's a pretty hollow
laugh
considering what some of these people have been through.
The Ontario Consultants on religious
tolerance consider an
exhibition of religious intolerance as "spreading misinformation
about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy
of that information could have been easily checked and corrected."
See http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol.htm#dict
(Editors thought: I wonder what The Ontario Consultants on religious tolerance would say about exhibiting supposed bible contradictions "even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected."?
Hmmmmm? HMMMMMMM?!)
If you are intent on mocking
me and others on your website then you should
spend more time finding out what we really think, and not rest
so easily
on your evaluation. So, what have you read of my website and
have you read
the links I have previously given to you?
I explained at least twice that
personally I am a "weak atheist." My
position is one of no longer being convinced of theism, not of
having any
knock down proof of the non-existence of deities, just some explanations
for why I no longer find Christianity tenable for me.
Ignoring this, you continued
to claim that atheists are rarely able to put
up non-contradictory arguments for their positions and still
seem to see
me as the person to argue this with. Your fire is all rather
misplaced.
Even so, have you read the secular web's pages on attempts at
atheological arguments? What do they say? What did Jeff Lowder
have to say about this? You sarcastically wrote:
<< About finding (much dross . . . on the Internet), we
here at Blind
Fools wouldn't know anything about that. >> So is the material
I refer to
above dross? If so why?
As I mention on my site, some
Christians uncharitably mock Christian
apologists, priests, missionaries and theologians etc. (e.g.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs) who
deconvert
at university after years of study as "a bunch of college
drop-outs." (See
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2sup/asym.html).
Are
Michael Goulder, Gerd Lüdermann and Don Cuppitt and their
like "a bunch of
college drop-outs?" Are they included amongst the dross
you are familiar
with? On my site I quoted one particular (very intelligent, studious
and
serious) aspiring apologist because he did precisely what some
Christians
claim they themselves do not need to do, e.g. to make a proper
study
of the Jesus
Seminar's historical critical writings (see my resurrection
debate at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html
and
the account at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/kevnjoy.html).
This is
such a common story - a committed Christian decides to examine
the "other
side of the argument" in order to become a deeper Christian
and better
exponent of the faith, but instead their studies convince them
that they
were wrong. That particular apologist took his deconversion very
badly and
was depressed for years, even to the point of considering suicide
because
he so doubted his thinking abilities for having been so profoundly
duped
for so long. After much talking to those who had been through
deconversion
before him (myself included) he gradually became a lot better.
I have also
had thanks from everyone from the ordinary ex-Christian in the
pew to
ex-priests who have come to find Christianity untenable and are
mightily
relieved to find rich resources putting them in contact with
others who
have already been through all this - to find that they are not
alone and
"abnormal" (let alone evil and hell-bound) as the Christians
around
them would have them believe. It is very uncharitable of you
to ask me
to remove my site so that there are less resources for such people.
But
then, as I asked, how much did you read of it before forming
your
opinion?
Can you imagine what it is like
for a priest, theologian or apologist to
come to the conclusion that they were mistaken about Christianity
to the
extent that they deconvert? Let's laugh at these poor fellows
as their
whole world comes crumbling down! Let's ask the webmaster to
remove these
stories - great stuff for a parody site isn't it. Try reading
Lüdermann's
"Letter to Jesus" in his book "The great deception"
(ask your library).
Did you read Richard Carrier's testimonial like I asked at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html
? Do
these things make you laugh? Is this fit for parody
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/emailed_stories/anon1.html
? How
about these...
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/tsr11.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/tsr16.html
Previously I wrote:
"Let's sort this first issue you raise first before going
onto other
matters as I can't manage too many long emails at the moment,
and it is
frustrating to let things go unresolved. Later I hope to show
that I
really do not think that I am making the double standards you
accused me of later in your email or that I have really made
contradictions."
As I said, I do not think you
are being fair with me. Given the above
paragraph how can you justify your following comment?
<< You said that you were not aware of any contradictions
by yourself. I
gave a whole list of some from your previous letter, yet in this
last
letter you didn't respond to a single one. >>
Please answer this.
Your
"contradictions" that you picked out were quite ridiculous.
For
instance, you claimed my comment:
"I am critical of Christianity though, as is obvious on
my site - more on
this below"
was in contradiction with:
"That is not what my site is about."
As I said, an exhibition of religious
intolerance is "spreading
misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though
the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked
and corrected." I'm sure you think your site is funny, but
when it
spreads disinformation I think it is disturbing.
My comment "That is not
what my site is about" referred to "proving
something does not exist" as is obvious if you read my email
again. As
I explained to you previously about 9% of ex-Christians go on
to be
non-Christian theists. I am critical of Christianity on my site,
not
theism in general.
Do you agree now? When we sort
this one out we can go on to my
next supposed contradiction. Note as I explained last time, I
am
not avoiding facing anything, just trying to stay focused. All
can come in
time.
Return to "Opposable Thumbs" main page.
You wrote:
<< All sound logic is based on sound evidence, of coarse.
So where would
the evidence be that the sun had indeed been made out of cheese?
(And
evidence that ALL pigs can fly?) Without the evidence the logic
is flawed.
>>
Contrast this with your previous
claim:
<< we trust someone else's conclusions because their logic
is sound (not
containing contradictions). >>
Can you see the contradiction
in your claims? First you merely claimed
that if logic is without contradiction then it is to be trusted.
Now you
are claiming that non-contradiction within the logic is *not*
sufficient but also correspondence with the real world is required!
<< where would the evidence be >> as you said.
This is precisely what I was
getting at. So like I asked do you agree with
me now? I claimed "Obviously you will have a better reason
for believing
that the moon is not made of cheese" and you duly provided
that better
reason. So we agree that your previous claim was not sufficient!
You wrote:
<< Anyway, it is evident that we both have different standards
from which
we operate. You seem to think that truth contradicting itself
may not be a
big deal (unless a deity is involved). >>
Again you do not appear to have
understood me. I explained my views
on contradiction quite fully and quoted you as saying:
<< This is the problem with my beloved atheism today -
too many
self-described atheists being inconsistent! >>
From your quote can you see you agree with me? i.e. according
to your own words, the truth of your "system of thought"
of atheism
is not falsified by other atheists using (in your opinion) false
arguments. (Always assuming you're not a Christian pulling my
leg).
You also stated:
<< we can't trust the bible because it's full of contradictions
and an
all knowing God would/could not do that. Therefore, logically,
the
bible was not written by God. I am not at odds with you on this.
>>
We agree.
And you state:
<< Notice that I said that the "logic/argument/statement"
should be
dropped, not the conclusion. >>
Again precisely what I have been arguing! Will you admit we agree
now?
Again, you wrote:
<< Whereas I believe in the law of non-contradiction (that
truth cannot
contradict itself - ever), and any logic or argument or statement
that has
contraditions is deemed as untrustworthy until the contradiction
is
removed. >>
Haven't I said as much myself?
I said "If I am meant to be a perfect being
and make a contradiction then I am not a perfect being. If I
am a human
and make a contradiction then I have argued incorrectly. The
truth of the
world is completely unaffected by my ability to apprehend it
or describe
it."
I hope it has been obvious that I also think that 'truth cannot
contradict
itself - ever.' As I have argued and as you have also said, it
is obvious
that an incorrect argument is merely an incorrect argument, the
conclusions of which may or may not correspond to the world.
It's obvious, and you have stated it yourself:-
<< the "logic/argument/statement" should be dropped,
not the conclusion.
>>
So, again - you agree with me really don't you?
Just to ram this home, here it
is juxtaposed in summary. You wrote:
<< This obviously does not argue against the "conclusions"
of the flawed
argument, but does argue against the argument itself. >>
and
<< Notice that I said that the "logic/argument/statement"
should be
dropped, not the conclusion. >>
It seems to me that we agree! Will you admit that now?
You wrote:
<< The bible is full of contradictions.
The Humanist Manifesto II is full of contradictions.
Your last letter was full of contradictions. >>
Or so you assert at least. I
am yet to see you prove one of the
claimed contradictions in my last letter.
Nevertheless, neither humanists or I make the claims for ourselves
that inerrantists make for the bible. Remember you admitted regarding
a perfect being: << we can't trust the bible because it's
full of
contradictions and an all knowing God would/could not do that.
Therefore, logically, the bible was not written by God. I am
not at
odds with you on this. >>
and you admitted regarding humans:
<< Notice that I said that the "logic/argument/statement"
should be
dropped, not the conclusion. >>
See, you yourself are admitting that there is a difference in
the
importance of (supposed) contradictions between divine and human
documents. Just like I have argued. So your claim << And
you want to
make excuses for the Humanists >> can be pointed exactly
at yourself!
We have said nothing that is different on this!
As for me, << And you want
to make excuses for the Humanists >>
I don't, instead I argued against the times when you appeared
to state
that the ramifications of contradictions for perfect deities
versus humans
were identical. I also wrote (regarding humans):
"There merely has to be a good argument, not that everyone
with
web access is able to think clearly! Even more than this though,
even
if all arguments failed, that would still not prove the impossibility
of a
sound argument being possible."
I think you should be able to
see that this agrees with your claims:
<< This obviously does not argue against the "conclusions"
of the flawed
argument, but does argue against the argument itself. >>
and
<< Somewhere down the line there has to be a certain amount
of credible
logic (which includes sound evidence) behind what someone believes
in. >>
Obviously I am just here for
your amusement and an attempt to get material
for your website. Nevertheless a bit more thought and charity
would show
that we are actually in agreement. So much for your point in
writing to me
(whatever it may really be).
Again,
<< And you want to make excuses for the Humanists. >>
I very consciously used the terms "(or anyone)" and
"(or they)" in my
sentence. i.e.
"So in summary, the things I (or anyone) might believe can
still be true
even if I (or they) were to use a false argument. "
This was deliberately to show that nobody (i.e. including Christians!)
changes the facts of the world by using a false argument. All
false
arguments may do is to fail to convince, as indeed they rightly
should not convince. I as sure we are agreed on this and I hope
that is clear now.
<< That is why I am a "true"
atheist. >>
Congratulations. So what am I? Am I a theist? - I haven't noticed
myself
believing in the existence of any gods for a long time now. What
exactly
are "false" atheists? Do they believe in deities?
<< This will be my last
letter as I know you are busy, as am I. >>
You are not getting away that easily! You mocked me for not answering
your
questions so you must answer mine and give me the opportunity
to answer
the rest of your comments which I have not finished doing. As
I explained
to Dr. Garrett, when he found the conversation was getting difficult
for
him and claimed he did not have time for it anymore, you too
can wait
until your work slows down again, there is no time limit on which
you
need to reply by. I have three other email conversations/debates
that
have been going on for well over a year now, with replies sometimes
months apart. I am quite happy to do this with you too.
Although I do have a life and
many more interesting things to do, if you
accuse people of stupidities then you need to have the courage
to face up
to cross-examination and answer our responses!
<< By the way, I don't
believe you will be called a blind fool by the
fundies around here. >>
I wasn't referring to fundies, I was referring to you. I wrote:
"If you
wish to lampoon me as a "blind fool" on your website
then you are
welcome to do so."
So what is *your* opinion - am I a blind fool?
Also, if I understand your "who
are we" page
http://www.oocities.org/BlindFools/who.html correctly, one of
your
"open-minded" and "bumbling Christian scholars"
as you put it is Robert
Turkel aka J.P. Holding of
Tekton fame. This is part of what he had to say
to me in private email in response to him finding
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html (only
a few
hours after I uploaded it!):
<< If you're in hellfire, that's your choice. Getting disturbed
about it
won't help, but at least if you want to remain stubborn we can
keep you
from dragging others with you....deceive others into jumping
into hellfire
with you? I have a REAL problem with that! >>
You wrote:
<< They foolishly think that the bible (as well as Jesus,
if he is indeed
God) has the authority to call people blind fools, whereas mortals
don't.
>>
So do *you* think *they* are fools?
Obviously by now I realise that
you are largely after parody and the hope
for a serious conversation is rather futile. Nevertheless it
is a shame
that you have trouble doing parody without coming over as arrogant
and
that you feel laughing at support sites is a good use of your
time. It
is also irresponsible to tell people that they should "lay
off" the
crusades at http://www.oocities.org/BlindFools/i03frank.html
Should we lay off the Holocaust
for the same reason we should lay off the
crusades? After all according to you we only need to look at
genetics,
upbringing, location and brain processes (and aren't these simple
and
well understood!) Should we lay off the Nazis
just as we should lay off
fundies? Or should
we criticise harmful behaviour and misleading
and dangerous belief systems?
Do Christians believe their god
is regulated by genetics, upbringing,
location and brain processes when he inspires them? Whether they
are or not, do Christians believe they are automatons?
You mentioned:
<< The Editor in Chief says that you may be the "Opposable
Thumb" in the
next issue (quite an honor). And since you said so, he will use
your FULL
name and gladly link to your website. >>
Please do use my info and give
links to my site. Also include a link to
our conversation which I will give verbatim (just incase you
tinker with
your copy!) at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/frank/1.html
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html