I ran across the Dale’s Husband site and found that it listed me amongst personages who are “Enemies of Truth and Justice” and who the author considers “to be twisted troublemakers that should be brought down to ruin for their intellectual and ethical crimes.” Before delving into my apparent crimes, this is actually great news it implies an absolute standard of truth and ethics and thus, I will seek to discern if the standard is viable.
Now, the author self-identifies as “An Honorable Skeptic” with honor being based on ethics of course and we share something in common since I too am a skeptic (we shall get to this specific point in part 2). The author then lays out “my ethical philosophy” the bottom line is that “I doubt everything!” and goes about “demanding proof, evidence, and corroborations before I accept something as true.” Moreover, “Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of HONOR, which I hold more dear to me than my life” whence comes the list of “Enemies of Truth and Justice” as “If I see someone who comes across to me as a liar, a bully, or just plain rude and stupid, then I usually try to fight back…picking fights” and more good news, “I believe in consistent standards of right and wrong…I do see my battles as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, or ignorance and knowledge.”
So, what is all this about—just what are my crimes?
Well, Dale’s Husband posted Covering up a discredited Baha’i prophecy in which it is noted, “When I was a Baha’i” they read “the classic introduction to the Baha’i Faith, Baha’u’llah and the New Era by J. E Esslemont” which “contained a reference to 1957” which is a date upon which a failed prophecy was hung. Thus, they approvingly cite and quote my detailed research on this issue, which I posted as Missing Prophecy. So, if I wrote an article with which they agree, which they appreciated, etc. what is the problem? The issue with the Baha’i is that the published a prophecy and when it failed they simply edited it out of subsequent editions of the text. I wrote, “In conclusion…Obviously what we have is an attempt to cover up a false prophecy with an equally impotent explanation that is meaningless, its only meaning is that it demonstrated some degree of Bahá’í manipulation.” But since this is agreed to then what is the problem?
Well, it begins with Dale’s Husband’s comment, “Gee, did it ever occur to this Christian apologist that simular [sic.] stunts of making false prophecies and covering them up could have been done to passages in the Bible as applied to Jesus?” Now, since this was, in part, about intellectual crimes: note that this comment is a form of the tu quoque logical fallacy. Also, note that no citations or quotations are offered as “proof, evidence, and corroborations” which the author claims to demand but this was merely an assertion.
Now, beyond my conclusion I posted a comment I had received and my reply. About this, Dale’s Husband wrote, “Well said!” so what is the problem? “But again, I wonder how he would react if a Jew or atheist made simular [sic.] arguments against Christianity. This is the problem with investigating other religions; too often, the investigator is not looking for objective truth, but seeking to undermine one religion to promote another. But if the other religion is also severely flawed, what’s the point?”
Note that this comment is based on the perception or generalization that “too often, the investigator is not looking for objective truth” and as to “what’s the point?” Well, the point is exactly what Dale’s Husband is doing by writing about my crimes, they are investigating, asserting even if only by implication that they are in fact looking for objective truth (upon what premise I wonder) and also seeking to undermine both Baha’ism and Christianity to promote their view of truth, ethics, right and wrong, good and evil, etc. upon the backs of their view of how and why these two religions are severely flawed.
There is a bit of discussion of the topic within the comments section and Dale’s Husband notes the following after agreeing with my research, “I have now identified that blogger above…What he seems to be is a pathological liar, bigot and hypocrite, like most Christian apologists tend to be. I will make a new blog entry about him later.”
Note another paining with a brush mere assertion: most Christian apologists tend to be pathological liars, bigots and hypocrites. Now, compare this to the statement made within Dale’s Husband’s “about” page, “Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush” well then, this was less than honorable and I still eagerly await upon what ethical premise lying, bigotry and hypocrisy are being condemned.
In part 2 we proceed to referenced “new blog entry.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.