On TektonTV today, I offered a followup vid as a reply to the same emergent
Christian to whom a prior vid and Forge post was addressed (link below). There
was little in the way of new argument from him this time; what he did offer was
mostly a sustained rant, peppered with personal accusations, vacuous slogans,
and angry re-assertions of defeated premises (I spent a lot of time referring
to prior arguments he ignored or was unaware of!), but this gave me a chance to
make a few things clear about my use of harsh language towards certain
opponents, as well as address a few other issues.
“All the Time.” The emergent made the rather vague charge that I used harsh
language “all the time”. How this is rated is not explained. Obviously, since
e.g., comments on YT engage me less than a total of 15-20 minutes a day, and at
least 70-90% of those on any given day are not to fundy atheists, “all the
time” seems hyperbolic to say the least.
In reality, most of my time these days is spent on writing projects such as
an e-book on the atonement and articles for my e-zine (the current article on
my docket is on Orthodoxy). It seems rather that the emergent is so obsessed
with the idea that it is all he thinks about “all the time.” As I explain in
the vid, though, my use of harsh language is governed by occasions brought TO
me. I don't go looking to pick fights with fundy atheists in the YouTube
comments. In every single case, they come to MY channel -- or to one my work is
hosted on -- to pick fights with ME.
This simple point erases a good number of
complaints from the be-nice bellowers:
Those who comment know very well from watching the vids that they're not
going to be given a free ride with a song and dance. Most (not all) of the vids
contain sarcastic humor, so there's very little chance fundy atheist commenters
do not know what they're getting into.
In contrast, a point I do not address in the vid: Although I don't go
picking fights in comments, I do sometimes appear to do so when I produce vids.
Of the current set of 175 vids, a fair number are directed to a position held
by someone who made another vid; of that, a fair number are directed towards
persons who "threw the first punch."
Some, however, are towards persons who had nothing to do with
me before -- mostly, two YT users designated ProfMTH and NonStampCollector.
But
hold for the caveat: I picked those two as targets on request of YT users who
were distressed by their arrogance and the bullying. So however you look at it
-- I'm almost never, if at all, the one looking for trouble. My work is almost
completely reactionary.
That's how it was when I wrote articles for Tekton years ago, too. Nothing
has changed. If you're an atheist who does civil discourse, and doesn't go out
of your way to do poor research or to deceive, you have nothing to worry about
and will get the red carpet from me. If you do get called down by me, and
acknowledge your mistakes and show a willingness to dialogue and improve your
effort -- as has happened with a few atheists over the years -- the same carpet
comes rolling out.
But if you're a fundy atheist who doesn't care about the truth, who
continues to use sources like Wikipedia or Acharya S or Robert Ingersoll; who
makes excuses such as "Christian scholars are too biased so you can't use
them" -- I'll roll up that carpet and knock you over the right field wall
with it.
As noted in that last entry, Christians like this emergent one who enable
such behavior are no better. You'll see in this vid samples of comments from
such fundy atheists, who this emergent lunatic has the temerity to say are just
"asking questions in the name of God." Which god, I ask? Loki? Eris?
(Is there an Aztec god of discord and destruction they're following, maybe?)
And I also point out a great irony: By enabling these wolves, the emergent is
actually insulting honest seekers and being a “poor witness” to them.
Offensive Christianity. I allude to Christianity being profoundly offensive
in its social context. This is the sum of what I call the Impossible Faith
thesis. There’s a link below explaining some of the points made in the vid.
This thesis formed the basis for one of the sections in my book Defending the
Resurrection. It’s been criticized by a couple of atheists (including one who
was paid $5000 by another atheist to write a refutation of it!), and I have
replied in turn.
Personal Testimony. There’s a link below to a series on my other blog about
evangelism and apologetics, and how Christians have placed themselves in a trap
of sorts by making personal behavior a judging standard for the truth of the
Gospel.
Reading Lists. The emergent coddled a fundy atheist who refused to do
assigned reading I offered so that they could comment more intelligently. I
should note that I did this specifically to this critic precisely because they
were not willing to learn and be inquisitive. Most viewers will not have done
the reading before commenting; but most readers will also not rail off with
misplaced objections, either. There’s a difference between the way I treat
willing learners and those who steadfastly remain willfully ignorant.
To address a related point: I don’t attack disagreement. I attack willfully
and stubbornly unintelligent, misinformed, tendentious disagreement. And fundy
atheists specialize in that (as is to be expected, since that was their mode as
fundies, too).
Seeking Weak Christians. One thing the emergent fails to grasp – being too
ensconced in his role as an enabler of bullies – is that the set of fundy
atheists I deal with are “anti-evangelists” who are specifically seeking weak
victims. Very few openly state that they are out to deconvert Christians; John
Loftus is one of those who does. This set of fundy atheists has a strategy set,
which includes the “guilt trip” of declaring that you sure are unloving if you
don’t just accept their manipulative ways and become their doormat. They also
tend to use “reason, logic and evidence” – the words, not the actual products –
as a bludgeon. Used their way, this becomes an insult in itself (as it
indicates to the Christian, “you are oblivious to reason, logic, and
evidence”).
There’s no basis for doormat Christianity. Even acts like giving your
clothes away to someone who sued you was in fact an act designed to shame your
opponent – just like Gandhi shamed the British with his non-violence (which I
expect escapes the emergent sorts as well). The emergent uses the Message
“translation,” which, as the vid notes, offers the ridiculous rendering that
you are to “gift wrap” your item of clothing and make it a present. That not
only adds a great deal of words to the text, it also adds our cultural
presuppositions.
As part of their anti-evangelism, I noted, these fundy atheists will even
leave comments on vids that are just devotionals. Now I imagine it will be said
that Christians will also evangelize on vids that have to do with eg,
evolution. And that’s true. But it’s also just as inappropriate and not an
excuse.
Millennial Change. In close -- as TektonTV approaches 1000 subscribers, I
have decided on a solution to the problem, one that will shut down the
complaints once and for all -- though not in a way you might expect. You can
look for that once TektonTV passes the magic number. My final note on this is a
clue – I design my riposte such that those who take themselves least seriously
will have the least problem with it. That’s all I’ll say – those who have ears
to hear, will hear.
