You and your commenters are a feast of thinking — great stuff.
-C.L. Dyck
I have no need to engage with racists, so will ignore cl’s further diatribes.
-faithlessgod,
CommonSenseAtheism
cl resists following through on a thought even to provide a solid opposing position, and thus stifles many conversations. It’s a shame since it seems like cl has some brain power that could be applied to the topics at hand.
-Hermes,
CommonSenseAtheism
[faithlessgod and Hermes] fit
my definition of trolling. I didn’t take any of those attacks against you seriously, and quickly categorized them as trolls.
-JS Allen,
CommonSenseAtheism
[cl] is, as many have noticed, a master of this warfare.
-Eneasz,
CommonSenseAtheism
This seems to imply that cl is, at least in part, disingenuous in terms of how he responds/what he claims. Is this most likely true, supported by evidence, or merely a subjective claim?
-al friedlander,
CommonSenseAtheism
...I wanted to get a message to you outside of the context of specific discussions on CSA. You make good, insightful contributions to that site, and since I often agree with you I'm glad there is someone else there defending my positions better than I sometimes can. However I don't think anything of value would be lost if you stopped engaging in personal combat with juvenile snipers.
-Zeb,
CommonSenseAtheism
Thank you for your wonderful response - so reasoned in the race of [Waldvogel's] blustering.
-Annie Laurie Gaylor
FFRF
Thanks for a great Op-Ed.
-Marianne Ratcliff
Ventura County Star
...as atheists we need to make sure that someone like cl and any Christian readers of [An Apostate's Chapel] don’t come away with the perception that the atheists caved in or were incapable of responding. I’m sure that a lot of Christians who find cl incomprehensible at times and don’t even bother reading him themselves will come away with an assumption that cl is that sort of rare intellectual theist who can prove that gods exist. And that’s how those inane rumors about the feared xian intellectuals start…
-bbk
An Apostate's Chapel
You are in so over your head here, you are embarrassing yourself...
I am well versed in many aspects of evolution biology, through my academic background, and my professional life. Unless your academic degrees and background match mine, cease and desist. Return to philosophy and rhetoric, or whatever it is you perceive your strengths to be. They are definitely not science, even at the high school level.
-R.C. Moore
Evangelical Realism
You're doing a fine job.
-Prof. Larry Moran
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Toronto
re: R.C. Moore & others
Phyletic change and vicariance (or, drift and selection versus population isolation), as cl points out, are much better ways of describing what are unfortunately more commonly known as micro- and macro- evolution, respectively.
-Dan
Biology postdoc
Univ. of Cyprus
re: R.C. Moore & others
cl says, “The minute you call yourself a
Christian or an
Atheist or whatever the heck else, you automatically get painted by other people’s interpretations of those words, which are almost always different and almost always distorted.” cl’s point couldn’t be more on. As cl points out there is an important reason for not claiming any real religious (or lack thereof) belief. It puts logical constraints on one's arguments due directly to the bias of the individual that is translating the English to mind ideas of what it means to be religious.
-Bobaloo
cl, I have to say, while I fundamentally disagree with you, you are an individual which I highly respect. I think your responses are always well thought out and your insights always well thought out and pertinently derived.
[Y]ou have made me a stronger atheist in my regards to critical thinking and debating. I really can’t wait to hear more from you. Hell, I’d even buy you a drink, good sir. Cheers!
-Parker
Evangelical Realism
Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.
-Lifeguard
I like it when [cl] makes me stop, think and question if I am making unfounded assertions or if I am being sloppy. What has been annoying me about cl of late is that he is being excruciatingly anal...
-seantheblogonaut
I really can't thank you enough for catching me on my error in rhetoric.
I always love a good debate! And I always enjoy your posts, as well! Keep up the great writing and the excellent eye
for detail!
-BZ
GLST 15
City College
of San Francisco
You make me smarter...
-Mike G.
..thank you, cl. I discovered your blog on a random web search and saw it as an oasis amidst a vast desert of seemingly intractable theist-atheist debate.
-Sung Jun
It's good to be able to discuss with people who are open and respectful, and know that disagreement does not mean disrespect... You are to be congratulated, not only for your patience, but also your ability to hold an ever-growing debate together with an impressive degree of structure.
-Ritchie
My tone is derogatory... [cl is] ignorant and credulous and deserves to be mocked... In the time he's been here, he's shown a consistent pattern of antagonizing everyone he comes in contact with, monopolizing threads, derailing discussions with perpetual complaints, quibbles and demands for attention, and generally making arguments that display a lack of good faith and responsiveness... it's become intolerable. I'm not banning him, but I'm putting in place some restrictions on how often he can comment.
-Ebonmuse
Daylight Atheism
This is no defense of the annoying cl, but what a self-righteous, prissy atheist you turned out to be, Ebonmuse. I'm disappointed in you, stealing a strategem from the theists.
-The Exterminator
to Ebonmuse
I certainly didn't get any bad impression about cl, and I can't relate his comments with any of the things (Ebonmuse) said above. I actually thought it was quite interesting to have him around.
-Juan Felipe
Daylight Atheism
Please continue to allow
cl to post his views and make it clear that he is still welcome. And let me be clear, cl is not a lunatic.
-Curtis
Daylight Atheism
With one exception, you are the most coherent and intelligent theist I've seen on this site...
-Steve Bowen
Daylight Atheism
I'm rooting for cl. I hope he perpetually manages to skirt the rules enough to do his damage, forcing rule revision after rule revision,
ad nauseum. Awesome! Let's watch as Ebon, ever more frustrated, continues to struggle to figure out how to keep his precious private blog neat and tidy as cl keeps messing up his papers while one by one, readers leave due to an every increasing administrative presence. Outstanding! Well I won't go. The thought of this sounds like the most entertaining thing that probably would have ever happened on Daylight Atheism. Hot damn!
-PhillyChief
Your visit has been something of a reality check to me. It seems that when you present rational arguments and criticisms, many commenters feel territory slipping and then work up vaporous or leaky responses. I also want to remark that your presence here has considerably moved me to try being a more careful and understanding debater...
-Brad
Daylight Atheism
I am not going to waste any more time parsing your comments to decide if they've crossed the line or not... So I banned you.
-Greta Christina
Be rude... cl invites rudeness. Would you want an incontinent little puppy coming into your house?
-(((Billy))) the Atheist
Note to all my regular readers: Since An Apostate’s Chapel is a free-speech zone, I don’t censor conversations.
As it appears that cl is a troll, please note that I will not be responding to him any longer. I ask that you refrain from doing so, as well. Please don’t feed the troll!
-The Chaplain
…I can’t reconcile being a "freethinker" with banning speech. [cl's] comments are not offensive in the normal understanding of that term, and he poses absolutely no threat except perhaps to some imagined decorum. Why can’t atheists lighten up, for no-Christ’s sake?
-The Exterminator
Is it going to distract from my meal when crazy uncle cl starts blathering out nonsense, pick his ears with a carrot or start taking his pants off? No. In fact, it might actually heighten the experience in some amusing way. So no, I don't see cl's work as damage.
-PhillyChief
I am beginning to suspect that you are a troll cl. Albeit an evolved troll, but a troll nonetheless. Perhaps we should all stop feeding the troll?
-GaySolomon
Evangelical Realism
[cl is] is either a sophist or an incompetent when it comes to the english language... (sic)
-ThatOtherGuy
Evangelical Realism
I’d say cl is pretty sharp... it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully... It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature.
-Deacon Duncan, 3-9-09
Evangelical Realism
[cl] cannot refute my facts, so he needs must find (sic) some scapegoat in order to claim that he has confronted the enemy and proven them wrong... cl, sadly, has proven himself to be the sort of guest who comes into your living room and sneaks behind your couch to take a crap on the floor, just so he can tell all your neighbors how bad your house smells and what an unsanitary housekeeper you are... an interesting case study in the negative effects a Christian worldview has on a reasonably intellectual mind.
-Deacon Duncan, 6-17-09
Evangelical Realism
I strongly discourage discussion of the character, abilities, motives, or personal ancestry of individual commenters, as tempting as such comments may be at times. I discourage the posting of comments that make frequent use of the pronoun “you,” as in “you always…” or “you never…” or “you are just so…”, when directed at a specific individual.
-Deacon Duncan, 4-9-09
Evangelical Realism
I won’t be publishing your most recent comment because it’s a return to the same sort of schtick you’ve pulled here before: re-writing other people’s arguments to make yourself look misunderstood and/or unfairly accused, taking “polyvalent” positions so that when people address your points you can claim to have said something else, distorting other people’s arguments, trolling for negative reactions, and so on.
-Deacon Duncan, 10-8-09
Evangelical Realism
[E]gomaniacal troll.
You win... You’re a disingenuous sophist through and through, cl. And a friggin’ narcissist to boot! Since I’ve thoroughly and purposefully broken the Deacon’s rules of engagement, I shall consider my right to post henceforth annulled, and move on -
dramatic pause, lights out.
-jim
Evangelical Realism
He either thinks in a very weird way or he's quite the con artist.
-mikespeir
I will gladly admit that I have a boner for cl. Maybe some day I’ll even earn a place of honor on cl’s Blog of Infamy.
-Eneasz
Evangelical Realism
Long time reader first time poster... I like reading what you
have to say over at Daylight Atheism so I figured I'd pop in here.
-Pine
He's just a jerk
that likes to argue.
-KShep
Daylight Atheism
You’re not a reasonable thinker in my book. You’re simply an arguer, for better or worse. I’m Michael Palin, you’re John Cleese. You’re just a disputation-ist, bringing everything into question...
-jim
Reason vs. Apologetics
Motherfucker, this is an interesting blog... Quite the group of commenters.
-John Evo
You are very articulate, and I can only assume that it's a result of high intelligence; an intelligence that's interested in, and can understand, healthy debate. However, at every turn, that's not what I or others seem to get.
-ex machina
Daylight Atheism
You are a troll, a liar, and a useless sack of shit. Not only that, but you're still wrong even after moving the goal posts and trying to re-write history. So, you can stop cyber stalking me now and trying to provoke me. I know what you are doing, and you are doing it so that you can whine about how I'm being irrational and mean to you and stroke your pathetic martyr complex. You're a pathetic attention whore and I've already given you too much attention. So, back the fuck off, stop following me around the
intarwebs and trying to provoke me, and fuck off.
-OMGF
Daylight Atheism
I would just like to say that, OMGF, having read the debate as a neutral observer, some of the things cl says about your style of argument are true, IMO. It is quite hasty, which means you occasionally haven't got the central point cl is trying to make...
-John D.
Daylight Atheism
...this is a difficult question that deserves more than a kneejerk reaction, not to imply that you're kneejerking. You're the least kneejerking person I've met.
-Quixote
If you’re here playing devil’s advocate, then, hey, you do a great job at it, it’s a service, keep us sharp... You’re a smart guy, but those are exactly the ones who give the worst headaches!
-Lifeguard
An Apostate's Chapel
You are a waste of time, cl. A big fat black hole of bullshit sucking in everyone who comes into contact with you.
-Spanish Inquisitor
As for all that harsh invective that's come your way, umm... I gotta say, I've seen some of the invective, but I haven't seen the behavior on your part that called for it. Maybe I've just not seen enough? I don't know... from what I've read, I can tell that you're a smart person, and whether you deserved any of that treatment or not is quite frankly immaterial to me; I just want to deal with the smart person at the eye of that storm.
-D
She Who Chatters
I now think that you’re an atheist, just having fun at other atheists’ expense. If that’s the case, kudos.
-The Exterminator
"It would certainly be within reason to expect the person experiencing this revelation to share it with others."
Well said, cl. If Hodges received a revelation, he'd be writing about it, instead of Atheist Foundations of Ethics. Who knows...it could happen, and it would be presumptive to think otherwise.
Posted by: MS | May 02, 2010 at 18:45
However, if Hodges were to receive a message from a divine being what would give him the motives to tell others. Unless the divine being said, do X and tell everyone else to do X then he would be compelled to 'spread the word.' But even if Hodges were to experience some sort of divine being, he would likely dismiss it as natural phenomena and go on writing his atheist memoirs. It seems to me that those who are opposed to supernatural events are also cognitively closed to them. I.E. I cant experience a ghost because I have deleted the possibilities of their being that sort of experience from my conceptual framework.
Beyond the objective worries there seems to be some subjective problems with this as well. CL you said "It could very well be that somebody else saw or experienced something far beyond that which my limited mind can comprehend. To judge them as "presumptively fraudulent" beforehand seems to me, well.. presumptive." Rational subjectivity requires that any individual must reasonably disqualify any statement that isn't intuitively justified. Its a very common state of affairs; whenever a statement is made and we think 'yeah, that just doesn't seem right,' we are simply being intuitively reasonable. Now im not saying that we should rely on this intuition but we should pay homage to this process as it seems to be a key component of our faculty of pure reason.
If and only if, Hodges is either intuitively subjective or cognitively closed about/to human interaction with a cosmic parent(s), then presumption of fraudulent claims by humans is logically permissible because Hodges is an objective skeptic.
CL your the man!
Posted by: Bobaloo | May 03, 2010 at 11:04
P.S. Sorry for the previous post's italicized second half, I'm still learning how to use the blogosphere. Either way CL is the man!
Posted by: bobaloo | May 03, 2010 at 11:07
Given the assumption that God knows his message would be given much more credence if delivered directly, and the assumption that God could've divulged his message directly, we would expect him to do this. That means we have a presumption in favor of direct communication, and conversely, a presumption against indirect communication. Anyone claiming the latter runs up against what we would expect, a priori.
I think it's a relatively weak presumption in an individual case, although applied to divine revelation as a whole it amounts to the more substantial problem of divine hiddenness.
Posted by: TaiChi | May 03, 2010 at 22:49
@TaiChi:
You wrote: "Given the assumption that God knows his message would be given much more credence if delivered directly, and the assumption that God could've divulged his message directly, we would expect him to do this."
You forgot a few assumptions. 1. That God wished to deliver the message in a manner in which it was most likely to be accepted. 2. That morality requires God to deliver the message in just such a manner.
Why is one presupposition better than another? It is just as easy to presuppose that God did not intend to reveal Himself (or His message) in the manner through which it would be most accepted, but rather in the way in which His purpose might be fulfilled.
I find it ironic that at times we claim to consider a Supreme God while at the same time thrusting humanity into the center of our thoughts. Our good is the highest good. That which preserves the most (numerically) of humanity is the best. Were there a Supreme Good in the universe, why should we expect their morality is exactly like ours? Doesn't everything which remains of our senses tell us the exact opposite? Hasn't history at least revealed our corrupt nature? But 'tell' and 'revealed' are not strong enough words. Screamed, thrust upon us with unrelenting undeniable truth... we are the broken ones and yet fit to judge God or His motives. But it is the theist who is accused of presumption...
Posted by: pine | May 04, 2010 at 06:23
Pine,
"You forgot a few assumptions. 1. That God wished to deliver the message in a manner in which it was most likely to be accepted. 2. That morality requires God to deliver the message in just such a manner."
1 is plausible and you can add it if you wish. 2 I don't think is relevant: if he intends his message to be accepted, then the reason doesn't matter.
"It is just as easy to presuppose that God did not intend to reveal Himself (or His message) in the manner through which it would be most accepted, but rather in the way in which His purpose might be fulfilled."
Why suppose that these two things come apart? He wants us to believe in him, doesn't he? Of course, he might have some other mysterious purpose which nobody can divine, but if that's what you're gesturing at, your essentially arguing that we should presume what we are necessarily ignorant of.
"I find it ironic that at times we claim to consider a Supreme God while at the same time thrusting humanity into the center of our thoughts."
I find it ironic that you're offering me information about God whilst simultaneously denying the ability of humans to make judgments about him.
"Our good is the highest good...Were there a Supreme Good in the universe, why should we expect their morality is exactly like ours? "
It may differ somewhat from ours, but it'd be very similar. Because if it wasn't similar, we wouldn't call it "morality".
"Doesn't everything which remains of our senses tell us the exact opposite? Hasn't history at least revealed our corrupt nature?"
I think you're confusing knowing what is moral with doing what is moral.
Posted by: TaiChi | May 04, 2010 at 23:42
@TaiChi:
You asked: "He wants us to believe in him, doesn't he?"
It depends upon how you mean "want". 1) I don't claim to know God's personal motives. 2) What He has revealed (via the Bible) points to a love for mankind which wants our best and certainly involves accepting His message. However, this 'want' is never portrayed as the end goal or even as the highest priority.
You wrote: "I find it ironic that you're offering me information about God whilst simultaneously denying the ability of humans to make judgments about him."
The irony is that the presupposition about God proposed is human-centric rather than being concerned with the Divine Being Himself. I merely offered you the opportunity to consider a more appropriate presupposition. After all, if we are to seriously consider what God is like, we must first assume He exists and approach Him as a Divine Being. I agree that this is beyond us, which is why revelation is necessary.
"It may differ somewhat from ours, but it'd be very similar."
Would it? Lay this out a little better for me please.
"I think you're confusing knowing what is moral with doing what is moral."
I find it suspect that I am to appeal to those who have failed to display morality as a guide for how I am to conduct myself morally. I thought hypocrites were fabled to exist only within the walls of a church...
Posted by: Pine | May 05, 2010 at 08:20
Wish I could comment on the thread but at the moment I'm busy.
Bobaloo,
Fixed it. The problem was due to unescaped closing tags. It can get tricky because some forums don't require them.
TaiChi,
I like your blog and hope you keep at it, though, design-wise, for me personally, black backgrounds and light text tend to strain my eyes.
Posted by: cl | May 05, 2010 at 13:54
@Pine
"However, this 'want' is never portrayed as the end goal or even as the highest priority."
So? Look, we can only go on what we know, and what we know is that God wants us to know and accept his message. That he has some other, higher, purpose which we do not know of cannot factor into our judgments of fact for the obvious reason that we do not know it. Based on what we know, there is a (mild) presumption that he should reveal himself directly to us.
"The irony is that the presupposition about God proposed is human-centric rather than being concerned with the Divine Being Himself. "
Since we're supposedly Imago Dei, this presupposition has biblical support, but nevermind.
"I merely offered you the opportunity to consider a more appropriate presupposition."
More appropriate, why? You've just told me that you have no knowledge of God's motives. You have no grounds to assert that it is "more appropriate".
"Would it? Lay this out a little better for me please."
You seem to think I'm claiming to know what God's understanding of morality would be. I'm not. All I'm claiming is that if we called his revelations, actions, or anything else which was indicative of his normative strictures "moral", then it would fall under the human understanding of the term "moral", and so would be similar other systems of understanding which we recognize as moral systems. Supposing that God's normative strictures are wildly different from our own and then calling them "moral" makes just about as much sense as supposing that there might be invisible unicorns which are pink.
"I find it suspect that I am to appeal to those who have failed to display morality as a guide for how I am to conduct myself morally. I thought hypocrites were fabled to exist only within the walls of a church..."
I can't see how this is relevant to what I've said. In fact, I'm not sure you're even addressing me with this.
Posted by: TaiChi | May 05, 2010 at 21:06
@cl,
Thanks for that advice - I'll see what else is on offer theme-wise. BTW, I think I may have temporarily disabled comments, but they should work now.
Posted by: TaiChi | May 05, 2010 at 21:08
I only had time for these right now; I'll get to the comments from Pine and TaiChi later today, hopefully.
MS,
Ha! I can hear certain [atheist] critics now: "Well yeah, but we could say that about anything. The sun could fail to rise tomorrow, and gravity could stop working, and pink unicorns could exist. This is just the argument from non-omniscience that you theists love to make.."
blah, blah, blah...
Then again, we have to take Hodges' worldview into consideration: he [presumably] really believes there is no evidence for God, and he [presumably] believes that claims lacking evidence can be assumed false. But I agree with you, MS, that it would presumptive to think otherwise.
Bobaloo,
The same set of facts that would give you motives to tell others if you found $10,000 on the ground: one would be naturally compelled due to the irregularity of the situation, no?
There, we agree wholeheartedly.
Uh, yeah! You hit the nail on the head there, buck-o. These types are no different than Fundamentalists who are cognitively closed to X, Y or Z [where X, Y or Z refer to claims that challenge their beliefs].
For me personally, that doesn't work, but I think it may just be in the way it's worded. I'd say that experiences are real regardless of one's disposition about them, and that in this regard, you most certainly could experience a ghost. However, as you said, it's likely you would just write it off as something natural.
Very well said, and I completely agree. That's why - contrary to the lies and defamations of my accusers - I emphatically DO NOT offer the video game incident as proof for things supernatural. However, because I pay homage to the intuitive process you allude to, I neither can I accept uncompelling explanations for the event, precisely because they violate this intuitive process.
If any atheist has a compelling explanation for what happened - one that does not involve the a priori assumption that I'm lying - I'd love to hear it. To this day, the "best" atheists have come up with is insult, and that's not explanation [except for NAL, who actually attempted a legitimate but ultimately unsatisfying explanation].
Hmmm... if Hodges is intuitively subjective about the matter, I think that might explain his presumption, but personally, I wouldn't say such logically permits his presumption. Similarly, what if we were to say something like, "Any claim of a switch 360 flip down Wallenberg is presumptively fraudulent?" I don't think we can logically permit such a claim, because we both know it's possible. However, if we say, "Any claim of a quadruple backflip down Wallenberg is presumptively fraudulent," I'm more apt to agree, because we both know such is at least much less possible than the switch 360 flip.
On the other hand, if Hodges is cognitively closed about the matter, I'd say he's already shot himself in the foot. There are things I'm cognitively closed to, but that doesn't justify a priori presumptions of fraudulence.
Great comment, though. Made me think, and for that, I say you're the man.
Posted by: cl | May 06, 2010 at 12:20
@TaiChi:
I wrote: "The irony is that the presupposition about God proposed is human-centric rather than being concerned with the Divine Being Himself."
To which you responded: "Since we're supposedly Imago Dei, this presupposition has biblical support, but nevermind."
Sorry, but being "imago dei" places the center of our thoughts on God, not on us. It would be like standing next to someone in the daylight and trying to enjoy the company of their shadow claiming that it (as a reflection of the person) were just the same as the person themselves.
More on the rest later...
Posted by: Pine | May 17, 2010 at 05:42
Are you still around?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 01, 2010 at 06:12