Comments

  1. Zaphod says

    Really? No comments? I didn’t think this episode was THAT uneventful…

    Sure, it was almost all atheist callers, but I would’ve thought it would spark some sort of discussion at the very least.

    I guess every show doesn’t have to launch a debate here. Or perhaps everyone else that normally comments here is embroiled in conversation elsewhere?

  2. frankgturner says

    Really? No comments? I didn’t think this episode was THAT uneventful…

    I am not complaining, but given that this blog did not get posted until 4 days after the event, it is not exactly fresh in people’s minds. (Although I admit, I did not listen to it live so it probably would have been a couple of days until I would have commented anyway).
    .
    Is there anything you fouind interesting or debate worthy about this episode Zaphod? If you comment I am sure that you might get a response or two at least (you ARE getting one now).
    .
    I have one question to ask, given that the last caller was an atheist (allegedly at least), wouldn’t it be kind of strange that the roomate was as hard core orthodox Xtian as he claimed to be? Did anyone else get the impression that they were Poes or was it just me?

  3. Ethan Myerson says

    … Did anyone else get the impression that they were Poes or was it just me?

    No, I definitely thought we were going to be seeing the return of The Mad Screamer. I was frankly dismayed that another week went by and we didn’t hear from “Mindcraft”, though I see now from the other thread that he apparently tried and was unable. I’ll take that at face value.

    Mindcraft, if you’re reading, try again next week. Or at the very least, take up Narf’s offer to review your arguments. It can only help your game.

  4. Monocle Smile says

    @Zaphod
    I’ve been waiting for someone to bring something up, actually, since I have no real feedback of my own concerning the show, save for one thing:

    The term Dalton was looking for is “axiom.” He was right that axiomatic logic trumps the other options in the Munchhausen trilemma, although the formal terms of the concept weren’t explored. Matt was right as well; the idea is to hold properly basic axioms and no more. Who knows if anyone can accomplish this, but it’s a goal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

  5. frankgturner says

    @Zaphod and Monocle Smile
    The main thing that I can think to bring up is with regard to the first caller and the hypothetical “end of theism.” I have been proposing lately that theism comes from a primate ancestry, a primal need for an alpha authority in one’s life that is shared by other primates (mostly apes) and presumably our ancestral ape precursor. I have proposed that “God” is essentially a projection of that need that may have developed as a survival mechanism. In time the survival mechanism became vestigial and drift started to occur (presuming that there is a gene or group of genes that codes for this alleged survival mechanism).
    .
    Hence why I don’t think theism is going anywhere myself (though I am open to the idea of it diminishing). I can see though why some would think it was a basic human need (even though I don’t agree that it is).
    .
    I keep wondering if there are any studies on this mentioned in talkorigins.com or another website and I proposed by email that this be a shop topic as well.
    .
    Any thoughts?

  6. Zaphod says

    The fact that this post is many days later than the episode was a bigger factor than I thought. I’m a lurker. I admit it. I rarely if ever comment, and instead like to read the conversations going on here. Most of the time, I come in after the conversation is over and any points I would have brought up were covered, but this comment thread being empty surprised me. Kinda like walking by a familiar loud restaurant to find it open as always, but dead quiet. Eerie, ya know?

    And yes, I shoulda probably brought up something from the show to discuss but I guess it caught me flat-footed on that one, so I had to re-listen to the show to remember what was covered.

    To the point concerning pre-sups asking if you can know anything with absolute certainty, I always thought decarte’s point was valid. Matt seemed to disagree, and I just don’t see why it isn’t a valid thing to be absolutely certain about: knowing you exist. Am I missing something? Perhaps I just don’t have the philosophical language to defend it.

  7. Matt Gerrans says

    I was frankly dismayed that another week went by and we didn’t hear from “Mindcraft”…

    I was’t too surprised or dismayed. Based on the comments Mindcraft made in this forum and more especially the few videos on his youtube channel, I don’t think it’ll be very interesting if he does call in, except from the standpoint that he might get a bit of instruction (and thus similar listeners might as well) on the elementary techniques of logic, application of evidence and critical thinking in general. For those who already have even the barest grasp of these, it will only be an opportunity to see how well the hosts perform the babysitting assignment. Maybe I’m being too harsh, but I think even at his age, he should have done a bit more homework on the most rudimentary basics before throwing down the gauntlet in the rather pompous and impertinent way he did.

  8. frankgturner says

    @Matt Gerrans #7

    Maybe I’m being too harsh, but I think even at his age, he should have done a bit more homework on the most rudimentary basics before throwing down the gauntlet in the rather pompous and impertinent way he did.

    .
    I don’t know if you are being too harsh or not, but I will point out in all fairness that based on his youtube videos this is likely the first time Mindcraft has dealt with individuals with a viewpoint significantly different from his own. He reminds me of that scene in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn where Jim fails to realize that not everyone who is human speaks English (Anyone read that, “Why doesn’t a Frenchman talk like a Man?”). As I pointed out in the other post, he might even have come from such an isolated community that he did not even realize that the Bible was not originally written in English, or that other languages were spoken by people a long time ago. What he is coming across might be pretty shocking to him.
    .
    @Zaphod # 6

    I always thought decarte’s point was valid. Matt seemed to disagree, and I just don’t see why it isn’t a valid thing to be absolutely certain about: knowing you exist.

    .
    It isn’t that Descarte’s point isn’t valid, it is that you cannot go much of anywhere with it. The axiom that because you feel and think is a demonstration of your existence does little more than provide a basis for solipsism, if that, and maybe an acceptance of the existence of others, if you can get beyond the solipsism. The idea that because I think therefore I am does not mean that anyone else does, it only opens the potential that you do. How can I be absoluetly sure that you exist? (Can’t really egt there with Descartes).
    .
    And that is not really absolute certainty either, if there even is such a thing. The idea of having axioms that we accept without proof is that on some level, they allow us to function. Yes the acceptance of the axiom that I exist allows me to function, by presuppositionalist Xtians are going for something more than that. If you remember, presuppositionalist Xtians are trying to convince people that they have absolute certainty of the Xtian god and that only they have such absolute certainty and won’t tell anyone else what it is or even describe it. I would say that the reason they can’t describe it and dodge the question when asked to describe it (StB’s debate with Matt D was a perfect example) is that they probably don’t really have it. Given that they are making the claim to have said knowledge but can’t provide evidence, in the absence of evidence the default position is that they don’t.

    Essentially that is what the pre-sups do, try to get you to believe that they have something for which they have no evidence by sounding more confident and intellectual than they really are, which is emotional manipulation and in a sense, bullying. That’s politics essentially, not science or reason. Accept nothing but hard physical evidence, something repeatable or at least physically demonstrable.
    .
    If pre-sup Xtians had a practical technology upon which to aid huamnity directly somewhere in there, that might be of value. And for some I am not beyond the idea that their mentality is incapable of handling a life purpose without a belief in their imaginary friend, so religion allows them to function, is valid. Not everyone needs that though and if you need others to believe for you (beyond a small isolated community that is) because you are THAT insecure about yuour beliefs, then you are going to be shit out of luck no matter how practical that belief is for you.
    .
    Does this make any sense?

  9. frankgturner says

    @Matt Gerrans # 7 (Continued form number 8 as I thought of a related issue).
    Then again maybe it is not Mindcraft’s first time dealing with this, but I could imagine him suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome and not realizing when he threw down the gaunlet that he was essentially making a shitty argument to begin with. I would not be surprised if his arguments are againsta straw man.

  10. Matt Gerrans says

    Yes Frank,

    Your speculations seem reasonable and that’s why I think the atheist smack-down “debate” that Mindcraft promised will be a rather mundane affair of the hosts giving him a list of resources to go back fill all his knowledge gaps on logic, philosophy, argumentation, history and even theology. He may have heard or Dawkins and maybe Hitchens or Harris, I dare say he hasn’t heard of Erhman, Doherty, Carrier, Dennet, Loftus and many others, much less read any of their work.

    – Matt

  11. Narf says

    @1 – Zaphod
    I tend to be more reactionary, myself, jumping in on subjects from the show that others think are interesting enough to bring up. I’ve been a bit behind on things, and I haven’t actually listened to the show yet. I’ll probably get to it tonight.

  12. Narf says

    @2 – frankgturner

    I have one question to ask, given that the last caller was an atheist (allegedly at least), wouldn’t it be kind of strange that the roomate was as hard core orthodox Xtian as he claimed to be? Did anyone else get the impression that they were Poes or was it just me?

    I haven’t listened to the call yet, but from what you’re describing here … no, it doesn’t sound strange at all. In the past, I’ve roomed with a fundamentalist, Young-Earth Creationist and an anti-skeptical, new-agey Buddhist who thought he was a ninja, at various times. It’s more important that you find someone you can trust and who respects personal, territorial boundaries, when selecting roommates.

    Reading a bit between the lines, I’m guessing that this guy’s roommate is a particularly obnoxious Christian who pushes his shit onto everyone around him? *shrug* Sometimes you misjudge, when selecting roommates. I guess someone could make up anything and be a poser, but what I’ve read of the scenario so far, it doesn’t seem particularly implausible.

  13. Narf says

    @11 – Matt Gerrans

    Your speculations seem reasonable and that’s why I think the atheist smack-down “debate” that Mindcraft promised will be a rather mundane affair of the hosts giving him a list of resources to go back fill all his knowledge gaps on logic, philosophy, argumentation, history and even theology.

    I’d take it a step back even from that point. I think the “debate” will end when the hosts inform him that appealing to the authority of the Bible without justifying its authority is a logical fallacy.

  14. corwyn says

    @9:

    It may also be occurring to him that since he claimed his god was on his side, that the only way he could lose is if his god doesn’t exist. And he isn’t quite as confident as he makes out, that his argument is that good.

  15. Narf says

    @15 – corwyn
    He … pretty explicitly said that, I think. Let me track down a quote …

    Ah, here we go: comment #67 from the post for episode 900.

    Also it will work Christ is on our side and kids that trust in God can beat any atheist.
    And this will be over why we believe in Christ and why they believe in no God

    That was pretty early in our interactions with him/them, so perhaps he’s come at least a little way back down to reality, since then.

  16. Matt Gerrans says

    Or maybe we prayed harder to “no god” than he did to Christ.

    Anyway, Mindcraft is doing the right thing in trying to defend his faith with rational argument. He is on the first step of a long journey, but I wish him the perseverance to stick to it for the long haul. Every believer in every religion should be so diligent. If what you believe is true, then it should stand up to scrutiny and be easy to defend with facts and argument.

    People who are too lazy or indifferent to even explore what exactly they believe and why they believe it are much more annoying, perhaps even more annoying than presuppositionalists or pompous purveyors of sophistry like WLC. And those weird cults like Scientology that have such nutty and indefensible beliefs that they are not even willing to admit them in public — much less try to defend them — are the worst.

    So, bravo Mindcraft! Bring your arguments and see if they can, with all of Christ’s help, vanquish those foolish atheists! Then we will all accept Jesus Christ as our Risen Lord and Savior and be awash in his blood. Sounds kinda gross really, but whatevs.

  17. frankgturner says

    @Narf # 13
    I was not saying I was sure that they were Poes, only that I got the impression. It seemed like grounds for a prank call. Get the hosts all talking about atheism and logic etc. then jump in with the Hardcore Xtian stuff. I would almost go so far as to say maybe the roomate was not realy hardcore Xtian but just wanted some attention but the caller said that he was so I don’t know. It just seemed too well planned to be an accident that the call would end that way. Then again, stranger stuff has happened.

    Just continuing on in general from Matt G, Narf, and corwynn, it sounds like Mindcraft has (or had, don’t know were he is in his thinking at this point) no idea what atheism or anything other than the type of Xtianity he grew up with was all about. You know, the kind of person who thought that atheists and agnostics sacrifice and eat babies? (The kind of stuff in the Bible that the cherry pickers don’t like ot talk about). It might have even been a surprise to him that many of us as agnostics and atheists had even read the Bible, much less knew anything else about it. Regarding not knowing who writers like Carrier are (among others), I knew a guy whose jaw dropped when he listened to Carrier do a lecture on the Old Testament.
    .
    He said to me, “How can he know so much about the Bible, he’s an atheist!” And I said to him, “yeah, how do you think he got that way, maybe by studying the Bible?” You hear stories like that all the time nowadays.
    .
    At Matt Gerrans,

    People who are too lazy or indifferent to even explore what exactly they believe and why they believe it are much more annoying, perhaps even more annoying than presuppositionalists or pompous purveyors of sophistry like WLC

    .
    I have a lot of weird thoughts on that and I get kind of wordy in my analysis of the situation, pardon me if I am getting deep but I often get interested in what motivates people to act the way they do. lease hear me out as I would appreciate your thoughts on this. (Actually ANY of you can comment, this is something I think corwyn, Monocle Smile, and EnlightenmentLiberal might have thoughts on).
    .
    If an indifferent believer (I have heard them called, “apathetic theists”) does not try to use their relgious (or lack thereof) beliefs to motivate their lifestyle or political views or how they treat others, I tend not to care. For example, a supposed Xtian Southern Baptist who is more of an apathetic theist who votes in favor or allowing same sex marriage as they seem oblivious to their religion being officially against it despite a claim that they believe in the Xtian God and their family’s religion (I have met people like that). Even upon learning things like their church’s offical viewpoint it does not sink into their psyche that they should be against it if they follow their religious leaders as they are too indifferent to their official religious position, probably because they simply project their own ideas unto their church and follow a reflection of themselves rather than what is actually there.
    .
    Pompous presuppositionalists who do try to use their bullshit beliefs to influence others are more annoying to me than that. Particularly if the pompous presuppositionalists are going to be those apologists who will twist themselves in knots trying to claim that something in scripture must translate into factual correctness despite lack of any independent evidence from an unbiased source (much like WLC).
    .
    If what you are getting at when you say is that people who don’t explore what they believe or why they believe it are the type who don’t bother to read the Bible for themselves, or just read some cherry picked guide / version of the Bible and ignore all the vicious nastiness pointed out by skeptics but just go with their preacher’s interpretation of the Bible and what it means, I am with you on that. For example, someone who claims that the Bible is not in favor of slavery and refuses to read for themselves becuase some guide tells them that the Bible does not condone slavery.
    .
    That is basically no different from being unwilling to entertain ideas of falsifiability with regards to demonstrable proof though, sort of like WLC does with his “Divine Vision throught he Holy Spirit” bullshit. So perhaps people who are too lazy or indifferent to even explore what exactly they believe and why they believe it are JUST AS annoying as presuppositionalists or pompous purveyors of sophistry like WLC , given that from a certain standpoint, they are doing the same thing, just with a different motivation. In one case it is a refusal to entertain ideas of falsifiability despite demonstrable proof of being wrong and in the other it is being too lazy to educate oneself because you might find demonstrable proof that you are wrong about your beliefs and why you believe them and have to deal with it.

  18. corwyn says

    I sometimes think that certain people’s philosophies on their god could have come entirely from their own minds, given a single seed pronouncement. Such as “God created the Universe, is all-good, and wrote the bible.”

    From that it is easy to determine on any subject, what his opinion is on anything. It must agree with what they think (even if they ‘stray’ from that). Nor is it necessary to even read the bible, since they know what it must (and must not) contain. Notice how they will always give chapter and verse for those *few* inspirational sayings they spout, but when they not when they make their biblical pronouncements. And it *can’t* endorse slavery, since they don’t agree with that.

  19. StonedRanger says

    Wow. That was almost painful. Dixon (Mindcraft) didn’t pay attention to one thing anyone said except for trying harder to get on the line. Kudos to Matt for being as nice to the kid as he was, but Im going to bet that Dixon doesn’t have a clue what happened. Dixon, the bible is just the assertion. Take some time to think about what YOU think and why YOU think it. Don’t use the bible as an explanation, because its not an explanation for anything. That’s what we’ve being trying to get you to do before you called. Good luck.

  20. Narf says

    Oh, nice, did Mindcraft finally get through this week? I didn’t listen to the show. Had too much crap going on, earlier this evening. I’ll have to pull that up as soon as they get it posted.

    I take it he fell flat on his face by not being able to get past the argument from the authority of the Bible, huh? I told him to run it by me first, so I could point out the more blatant logical issues he was certain to have, so he didn’t make as much of a fool of himself. Oh well.

  21. Matzo Ball Soup says

    Re frankgturner’s point at #5: This is so not my field of expertise, but it seems to me like this would be plausible if religion were, by default, monotheistic (or at least monolatrous). However, since there are plenty of polytheistic and animistic belief systems out there, I would wonder what the primal alpha-protector instinct was being directed towards in those cases.

  22. Narf says

    @18 – fgt
    Always possible that it’s a couple of pranksters, yeah, but I got more of the impression that the first guy wanted the people from the show to reason with his nutty roommate, and he didn’t anticipate how his roommate would act. *shrug* Can’t be sure one way or the other, from that brief bit.

    I get the impression that the Mindcraft guys are in the same sort of place that I was in when I was 8 or 9. I knew of other religions, but I knew absolutely nothing about them. The few I had been exposed to were basically Catholicism without the pope: Episcopal and Lutheran churches, mostly. I think I thought that the differences between religions were some sort of political thing, not an actual difference in beliefs. The other religions I had seen were like that, so how different could any other ones be?

    You could say the same sort of thing about Mindcraft’s sort of people. There are Christians like him, and then everyone else worships Satan in some way. ‘Cause, you know, we all know that God is real, because He’s written it on our hearts. So, not an actual difference in beliefs, just a political difference between choosing to worship Satan’s Muhammad persona or Satan’s Dawkins persona.

    Of course even at the age of 8 or 9, I was already beginning to reject the brainwashing as nonsense, even given a this-religion-or-no-religion dichotomy. So, clearly they’re not in entirely the same place as I was.

  23. Ton Schell says

    I’ve been off of YouTube for quite some time, aside from a few comments here and there. It’s amazing that you folks are still preaching the same message. What’s the point? I mean REALLY? Religious fervor is alive and well. The atheistic perspective is just as arrogant and self-serving as any other group or viewpoint. Your message is not expansive or evolving (I glanced at one of the topics — “Should God be capitalized?” Seriously?). I understand your wanting to avoid the nastiness of YouTube comments, but you’re doing what I’ve seen other groups do: filter and control the comments and possibly use them as a manipulative advantage.I probably won’t visit your site again, but I suggest you post a clear, concise video of the goals and desires of “The Atheist Experience.” And please don’t say things like “We’re here to educate the masses.” Empty and trite.

    Personally, I wish all of you the very best.

    T.S.

  24. Narf says

    @24 – Ton Schell

    It’s amazing that you folks are still preaching the same message. What’s the point? I mean REALLY? Religious fervor is alive and well.

    You don’t pay much attention to public polls, do you? Things are moving in the right direction. Secularism and the non-religious category in the US are increasing. We just have a ways to go still, after the way that the country was broken, after the evangelical push that started in the 70’s.

    And you have a pretty absurd idea, when it comes to messaging. So, you think that what’s best for the atheist community is to shut up and allow the fundamentalist, evangelical Christians to be the only religious message on the American airwaves? Are you fucked in the head or something? Do you really think that would make things any better?

    The atheistic perspective is just as arrogant and self-serving as any other group or viewpoint.

    So, anyone with a group identity or a viewpoint is arrogant and self-serving, you seem to be saying. Well, fuck you, too. You have a really shitty way of talking to people, if you expect them to give a damn about anything you say.

    Your message is not expansive or evolving (I glanced at one of the topics — “Should God be capitalized?” Seriously?).

    The atheist position is a response to the theistic one. Nothing more. The theists haven’t got shit in the way of new arguments. Until they make up more shit, our responses are fine.

    And check me on this. You’re judging the entire content of the show, based upon a small piece of one episode? Is this really how you do things?

    I probably won’t visit your site again, but I suggest you post a clear, concise video of the goals and desires of “The Atheist Experience.”

    So, you admit that we’re never going to hear from you again, but you expect us to give a damn about anything you have to say? What’s wrong with your head? Good riddance. You won’t be missed, troll.

  25. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Ton Schell
    A drive-by free-speech troll? Meh. Yo Ton, let me know when you decide to invite strangers into your house and let them stay there no matter how they behave, including if they start just yelling random obscenities with absolutely zero connection to anything, which prevents you and your friends from having a meaningful conversation.

  26. Narf says

    Oh, jeeze, I pretty much missed the filter and control complaint, when I first read his little rant. Ton, they let YOUR bitchy ass through moderation. Clearly that disproves your little whiny fit.

  27. frankgturner says

    @Narf # 25 and EL # 26
    Meh, I have heard of trolls like him before. He wants it all wrapped up in a nice little package that is short and easy to comprehend. That way he doesn’t have to look into it all that deeply to understand things.
    .
    The news for him is that human beings are complex because nature is complex and adapting to it is complex. It took a long time for beings with our level of sentience to develop and it takes a lot of hard work and time to understand things.
    .
    If he wants the goal wrapped up in a nice tight little package that he does not have to work to understand he will be at a loss. Things like The Atheist Experience and The Thinking Atheist (it should be a clue that you will have to work hard and use your brain with the word “Thinking” in the title) are not going to be easy to understand.
    .
    I will give him one little goal that The Atheist Experience looks to accomplish (and has if you read some of the comments). It gets people who are on the fence, showing doubt about their faith, to actually look into what their religion is about. A lot of people stay on the fence about their faith and never educate themselves about their own religion by doing things like, I dunno, READING THE BIBLE!
    .
    A lot of people (myself included) came from faiths like Catholicism and either did not read the Bible, or if they did (myself included) did not understand the context of a lot of the stories. I was always skeptical, an agnostic theist from a young age (say 6) actually read the Bible and did not understand it. A part of me knew that the creation story was bullshit as far as factual correctness is concerned and I asked my family about that and never got a clear answer. I got the lame excuse that I was not old enough to comprehend the complexity of a non literal story. (Which is complete bullshit, if I was old enough and smart enough to recognize the faults in said claims, I was old enough to understand that it was not meant to be taken as fact if that is what my family really believed).
    .
    In the past couple of years since I have been listening to the show I learned more about the Bible and the context in which some of the stories were written by listening to shows LIKE the Atheist Experience (among others) who didn’t try to sugar coat the stories. THAT is what “Educating the masses” is about. It is an opened forum where people (for the most part) don’t try to bullshit you with some claim that if you took a time machine and went back to witness many of the events that you would not see many of the events that are documented in scripture occurring as written. And there is no “Divine witness of the Holy Spirit” claim that these things could have occurred despite witnessing events that are in direct contradiction to what would be the result of said events. The “Ivine witness of the Holy Spirit” claim is just a snide and arrogant way of saying “I can’t ever be wrong / falsified by demonstrable evidence.” Of course trolls like him want the OPPOSITE to be true, that un-falsifiable claims like those given by “Divine witness of the Holy Spirit” are NOT arrogant and that demonstrable open mindedness and willingness to analyze falsifiable claims by demonstrable physical evidence is arrogant (you know that black is white and up is down type of thinking that politicians do?).
    .
    If trolls like him have not learned anything about the purpose of what TAE is about that is because he is not looking hard enough or long enough because he does not want to look hard enough or long enough. He isn’t interested in anything that might contradict his beliefs because he isn’t opened minded so TAE is not for him. It IS for people who are open minded, doubters, people on the fence who realize that they have been presented with bullshit. Like Dixon I suspect Ton needs a course in epistemology and a LOT of hard introspective analysis on skepticism to comprehend models and pattern recognition to understand where a lot of TAE is coming from, but he doesn’t want to do that.
    .
    I mean, Ton “glanced at one of the topics” and seriously believes that this is a clear enough way to get an understanding of what is going on? And he claims that the atheist perspective is arrogant? I seriously doubt that he has even looked into understanding what the atheist perspective is about but THINKS that he gets it.
    .
    One has to LISTEN TO THE EPISODE!! Ton might realize that by listening to a few of the episodes, most of the individuals who became atheists, USED TO BE BELIEVERS! And they did read the Bible, which is better than one can say of a lot of Xtians. Many even read analyses of it to put the stories in perspective and understand more about scripture than those who claim to be Xtians. That is how many of them came to be atheists.
    .
    Years ago, when I was a believer, I spoke with a Mormon individual who made some huge claims against evolution. As a biology student and chemist, I asked him flat out (several times before getting a clear answer of “No”), had he ever read “On the Origin of Species.” Him actually reading it and having me explain it to him and how it applied to biology really did a lot to show what an arrogant prick HE had been. Of course Ton doesn’t want to think that does he?
    .
    I would not be surprised if Ton was another individual who is unaware that the Bible was not originally written in English. Maybe he does though.

  28. Narf says

    Now, if only he ever comes back to read that, as he has declared that he won’t be.  Even then, people like him usually don’t actually want answers, just want to hear themselves ask questions … like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort like asking these gotcha questions of people who accept evolution, and then they never actually listen to the simple, straight-forward answers.

  29. Narf says

    By the way, Frank, 6th and 7th paragraphs … good to see you lose it, every once in a while.  😀  Helps relieve stress to let yourself freak out at the more idiotic people, from time to time.

  30. frankgturner says

    @Narf # 30
    Tone does not carry well in text, I was not “loosing it” as much as you thought, but relieving stress does make sense. A good amount of thought went into what I said there.
    .
    While the Kent Hovinds and Ray Comforts of the world cannot be reached (actually I think they could but it would require the “Clockwork Orange” treatment), others who are on the fence can. While Ton and his type may not be listening, the people on the fence who I spoke of before are listening and sometimes they do read this without the “I can’t possibly be wrong bout anything that I say” chip on their shoulder that Ton and Ray and Kent (and WLC especially) bring in to the fray. I was one of those people on the fence.

  31. Narf says

    Well, maybe not losing it, as much as letting loose. You’re normally far more reserved. It’s good to see you unload on some idiot who greatly deserves it.