A Snapshot of the Thinking Skills on TWeb

If anyone wants to know why I don't link to TWeb where Holding squats, check out the thinking skills they exhibit. Here is a thread where Holding asked people to come up with mock slogans about DC. He's fixated on us. I'm Doubting John. You can pick up the debate that ensued on this page, and read though the next few pages by successively clicking on the next numbered one.

13 comments:

Insanezenmistress said...

oh how entertaining.

pages and pages of good holy men and wemon of god vollying epitaphs of who is more stupider, and who can say it the most stupist.

At least here there is an open forum for people to come and opinionize and bring up some of those "disputed arguments" and rehash them.

People like me who dont have to be on either side can even throw in a few disputs. And have them tested by both sides. That is very valuable in the search for understanding and truth.

So, thank you John and thank you ye who flail words of disdain form over yonder link. I am comming to see no end to the sickness spewing out both ends.

Least here, they are intelligent enough to question their own crap too. And seem to concider an argument on its merits as precented. And i have seen debators here exchange information and modify themselves. Rather than string together lists of insults in responce.



Izm.

Anonymous said...

I entered the fray one page earlier than I linked to where I provided my own slogan for DC:

Give us the guilt ridden, the brow beaten, the outcasts, the wounded soldiers, and we shall heal thee. Give us the religiously wicked, the victimizers, and the defenders of Biblical atrocities, and we shall beat thee down. Give us the brainwashed, the superstitious, the ignorant, and we shall teach thee. Give us the masters of gerrymandering who are exhausted from intellectual feats like spinning several plates up on several sticks, and we shall give thee rest.

exapologist said...

Anyone who has to use rolling smiley faces to strengthen the impact of their words typically has nothing of force to say. Similarly with long passages where every, or every other, statement is an insult -- yeah, that's not a good sign that they have much to say. People who know their way around an argument don't do that sort of thing, because they don't need to.

Delete the rolling smiley faces and the insults, and what's left in what the TWeb folks have to say. Sad, really.

Anonymous said...

If anyone takes the time read further they will see that the moderators deleted some of my comments because I accused Holding of lying. The sad thing is I don't have any evidence to prove it. But he did. I consider him to be a liar. Then they deleted another coment because I argued against deleting my prior comment. There's no fairness there. They are a pack of hyenas; idiots.

And if you read further you'll see where Holding supports one of his ignorant followers when he argued that in order for me to criticize God for creating this universe I must be able to create a better one...in one week! Is that not ridiculous? I can criticize a contractor for his work without being able to build a house! But rather than telling this stupid supporter of his that he was wrong, which is the decent educational thing to do, Holding thought his argued was a good one!

That's idiocy. Holding likes idiots. He caters to them. He feeds off of them. They think he's something else. Well he is; he lives in the sewer.

Almost every time I go there I say to myself "never again."

Unknown said...

Oh, give it up, John. Anybody with strong arguments and a confidence in their position would laugh off the tWeb rhetoric. The only reason our words cut to the bone is because you don't have any good arguments to shield you. Every word hits you dead in the face, and you stumble away with a fat lip and a bruised ego every single time. And yet you keep coming back for more. I know you're a narcissist, but I wonder if you're a masochist, too.

Seriously, John, I've told you this before: do some homework, come up with some good arguments, have the ability to bolster your position with evidence and relevant scholarship, and, most importantly, learn to laugh at yourself. Then come back and talk to us. You might be surprised. Or you can keep wading in over your head with the same, tired arguments that have been refuted countless times over the years and leave bitter and frustrated like you always do. Or just stay away. Your choice.

Unknown said...

John Loftus: If anyone takes the time read further they will see that the moderators deleted some of my comments because I accused Holding of lying. The sad thing is I don't have any evidence to prove it. But he did. I consider him to be a liar. Then they deleted another coment because I argued against deleting my prior comment. There's no fairness there. They are a pack of hyenas; idiots.

You're being disingenuous and hypocritical, John. You are well aware that tWeb has a strict policy against unsubstantiated accusations of lying, and you admit yourself that you don't have the evidence to back up your accusations, so what did you think would happen?

As for deleting your comments about the moderation, I know you're also well aware that tWeb has a strict policy against arguing with moderation in the thread in question. In fact, the warning notice that moderators use clearly states this rule and tells you where you can voice your grievances.

But as I said, you're well aware of this. You're also well aware of the fact that the tWeb moderators are fair and treat everybody the same. Anybody who breaks the rules gets moderated, even if it was JP Holding himself. You know this. To pretend that it is otherwise is dishonest. Big surprise.

Shygetz said...

I perused that thread. Why bother, John? If that thread is indicative of the level of thought or the calibre of character at TWeb, then it is part of the vast radioactive wasteland of the Internet. Spend more time at the oases. Your sanity will thank you.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Darren, I mean Holding, 'cause that's who I think you are. You're the same one who called Hector Avalos, a credentialed Biblical scholar, “Dr. Stupid.” Over there everyone is stupid who doesn't agree with you. That level of understanding is actually what IS stupid on the level of a Jr. High kid. Just look at your comment. It speaks volumes.

If you're not Holding your comment is indicative of the fatal disease at TWeb. You're infected and you don't even know it.

And there is no fairness over at TWeb when it comes to skeptics, in my opinion.

The greater one's understanding is about the issues that separate us then the more one realizes that it's not about ignorance and the less someone calls a person ignorant merely because he disagrees. I am clearly NOT ignorant, and neither is Dr. Avalos.

Former_Fundy was over there recently and he told me he experienced the same thing.

It's better for my sanity to stay away. But as I said, it would seem to me that if you people want to defend your faith you would welcome me over there, for until you actually try to understand what people like I think, rather than shoe us away with all of the rudely offensive talk, you can't deal with our arguments effectively.

We here at DC are not offensive because we truly want a dialogue. We're not afraid of it. We welcome it. Because we know we're not always right. Because we know there are many things we can learn from each other. Because we're strengthening our case in the heat of a polite debate. You cannot find a better site to discuss these issues with very often. Usually you'll find sites on both sides of the fence railing at each other and foaming at the mouth in vitriolic riposte. We are much different, better, than you in this. If our arguments are lame then show us why. There is nothing much in that link that seriously tried to deal with what I actually said. And you KNOW I have had some fun over there in the past. You know this. So the claim to laugh is disingenuous. And I can, and will argue with the moderation if I feel like it.

Anyway, for now, I'm returning to a sane forum, DC. Any sane person who compares us to you knows the difference between us. Your site is ugly to the core, and it's because of Holding and Co., the hyenas of the net.

Anonymous said...

Holding’s position on insulting people can be found here, and especially here. Such an ignorant and childish way to treat people is adopted because that’s the kind of person he is, that’s all. It’s ignorant, and based upon imitating some ancient superstitious people, like Elijah, Jesus and Paul, whom he holds no candle to. Charles Sheldon's 1896 book, In His Steps Where it's asked "What Would Jesus Do?" has been widely criticized for demanding that Christian people do what Jesus did, but we cannot do what Jesus did, since he was Jesus. Can we perform miracles? Should we overturn the money changers’ tables and thrash them with a whip? Jesus also shunned a Canaanite woman and called her and her people “dogs,” too (Matthew 15:26). There are a host of things Holding wouldn’t try to imitate, like Paul telling women to be silent in the churches (I Cor. 14:34), or sending a slave back to his slavery (Philemon). Holding merely picks and chooses what he wants to do based upon who he is, a egotistical blowhard.

Here’s what Jeff said over at TWeb:

What is the deal with Christians using John's past mistakes as a cheap tactic to win debate points?

We are constantly told that the insulting personal rhetoric that is used so readily in some circles at TWeb is justified because it accomplishes a larger strategic goal, namely to publicly shame opponents of the Gospel so that (a) they will be quiet and (b) they will discredited in the eyes of the "audience". Now both of these seem like very flimsy justifications insofar as (a) never actually happens and (b), I think, overestimates the size of the putative audience and underestimates its intelligence, but nevertheless, ok, fine, I'll accept it for argument's sake. But what, exactly, is the rhetorical advantage that is gained by criticizing and condemning someone for having sinned? It seems to me that to argue that John has sin in his past says nothing more or less than that he is human like the rest of us, and it's far from clear how that in some way discredits his arguments. Can you imagine, in a debate between, say, Witherington and Ehrman, if Ehrman were to finish a lengthy case for his view and Witherington's response was "unfortunately, Bart, your position has no merit because I have hidden-camera footage that shows you kicking a puppy!"

Good grief, people. If you want to argue vehemently against John's position, by all means do so, and if you think that calling him a moron or a poopypants somehow puts you on the lofty pinnacle of unassailable intellectual rigor, go ahead and indulge your belief in the validity of that notion. But don't suppose for a second that because his sins have been publicly disclosed and yours have not, that you are somehow justified in presuming to stand on some sort of moral high ground and wield his sin as a debate broadsword with which to win an argument. Even if you could win a debate that way (and you can't), your victory would be hollow, because with your own words against him you convict yourself -- just replace his sin with yours in your epithet, and you'll find your sword turns in your hand to stab its master with alarming speed and accuracy.

Anonymous said...

A Christian named Jeff also said, ...my remarks were simply a call to good manners. When someone is transparent enough to disclose personal information, particularly when it is potentially embarrassing to them, it's a betrayal of that person's trust to then throw that admission back in their face; to use it as a polemical barb is intellectually bankrupt.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Darren, you've just got a taste of your own medicine. I moderated your comment becuase of rudeness and for making unsubstatiated accusations.

Come up to the civilized world if you plan on commenting here, because that's what we expect from people.

Anonymous said...

I'm closing this discussion down. It's simply not worth my getting frustrated over it any longer.

Only an idiot would think I did this because I can't handle your arguments, but I'm afraid the people over at TWeb will claim I did. This ia a waste of my time. I have more valuable things to do.