“Holy mackerel!….all sorts of stupid,
that Christian philosophy is!”
—Ex-Christian.Net commentator [ellipses in original]
Since my baptism by fire at ExChristian.Net began by my informing them that evilbible.com has been discredited and by providing them the evidence; any other issue was superfluous. As you recall, I even pointed out to them that even if I grant that God does not exist and therefore, the Bible is man-made malarkey the point was the text of the Bible and how evilbible.com mishandles the text. According to the context of this particular discussion bringing up the Bible’s origins and or God’s existence are red herrings.
I commented as follows until such time as I posted the first installment of this parsed essay so that I could thereafter provide them the URL:
Friends, I have been preparing a point by point response of every comment made to me above.
Even though they are 99.9% red herrings I will treat you all with enough respect to respond.
I will drop by in a little while to provide the responses.
Not even this went unchallenged; following are some of the responses that I received:
If the subject is religious philosophy, we are most certainly NOT “friends”…
He is NOT my friend. [emphasis original]
In any regard, they continued thusly,
Show me some objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of any invisible, conscious “creator-being”, or **** and get off this website, because your “point by point” responses are completely meaningless, otherwise. [emphasis in original, expletive removed]
From the very beginning ExChristian.Net’s adherents were urging me to just go away as this would allow them the psychological comfort of not having to confront opposition but merely keep patting each other on the back.
Note that this comment demands objective and verifiable evidence without defining objective or verifiable and without providing a premise upon which to request for objective and verifiable evidence. Moreover, and again, this is a red herring as the issue is the text of the Bible and evilbible.com’s misrepresentation of its contents, concepts and contexts. It is also an ad hominem of sorts to state that unless I can provide such evidence for the “existence of any invisible, conscious ‘creator-being’” my “‘point by point’ responses are completely meaningless.” This is because my responses are not premised upon God’s existence or God’s authorship of the Bible but have been logical dissections and the ascertaining of the Bible’s actual text (regardless of its origins).
Next, they took it up a notch from recommending that I simply go away to inciting a movement to force me to go away,
I will drop by in a little while to provide the responses.Move to ban Mario, Luigi, and their dime-a-dozen, apologetic *******.
To this comment someone commented the following,
Move to ban Mario, Luigi, and their dime-a-dozen, apologetic *******.I agree. If troll does return, I will ignore him. He is NOT my friend.
It is interesting that it is only when I inform them that I will respond to everything that the call for banning begins. By the way, in keeping with the general level of maturity I encountered at ExChristian.Net “Mario, Luigi” is a reference to the line of Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers related video games and harkens back to someone who wrote, “Mario-Brothers Aplogetics.”
I also encountered many likewise talking point references to “sky-daddy….imaginary friend…Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.” These only go to demonstrate that they correlated the concept of a transcendent creator with childish notions. Yet, this only goes to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of natural theology which I discussed in On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
I went on to add another comment which reads,
I am understanding correctly? Comment after ExChristian comment fails to meed [sic, I meant “meet”] the argument on the argument’s own grounds and now that you learn that I am preparing a response to absolutely every comment made to me you respond with further ridicule and call for me to be banned.Why?Are you afraid of the responses?Do you not want me to have the ability to let you now [sic, I meant “know”] where the reposes are posted?FYI: just because you feel an emotion of anger or hatred or outrage does not make you right.Love always, Ken
The reference to the felling of emotions was due to the fact that this particular person consistently displayed heightened levels of uncalled for belligerence expressed as personal attacks and various besmirchments which were peppered with expletives and generally demonstrated outrage without substance.
This, of course, brought about further comments by this person which read, in part:
I implore you to try to grasp this simple concept: my argument to you, and every Theist, is that you have no argument—that is, you have no argument that supports the existence of your respective invisible creator-beings. Moreover, you each think that you are right, and that the other’s guys “God” is a figment of their imagination. Compartmentalize much?…You are here DEFENDING your religious beliefs. Yoo-*******-hoo??? “Apologeticus”?…FYI: just because you feel an emotion of anger or hatred or outrage does not make you right.I never said or implied that it did. The fact that >>>I