On his blog, he indicates that he is taking a break or retiring. I’m not sure which; I’m not even sure he’s sure which. But I hope things go well for him. But I think his main problems were that he was pushing too hard and that he was trying to get christians to “see the error of their ways.” This action is futile because fundamentalist christians do not actually listen and they do not really believe what they say. They are seeking money and/or power for themselves.
He claims that the presuppositional “argument” is not objectionable. Of course, it is. There are several objections. One is that he takes as axiomatic a claim that is in dispute — that his god exists. Another is that he dishonestly calls on people to “account” for something not in dispute — the ability to reason. Yet another is his endless squawking of “how are you certain?” like a broken record.
You can only try to persuade someone that something is ture by using axioms with which he already agrees. It does not bother me that he calls his axioms “presuppositions.” What bothers me is that he expects outsiders to accept axioms that either they believe are false or are undecided on. This will only generate a judgement that the “argument” is dishonest.
I do not condone this in any way. Any such call done out of concern for his well-being would have to come from someone he knows and trusts. The people making such calls are neither. What this really is, and how Dan will perceive it, is an attempt to suppress “heretical thought.” It is important that those who consider themselves freethinkers not try to bind the thinking of others by suppression of heresies. If, instead, they do, they become just one more dogma holding mankind down.
Fundamentalist christians have a rule that they must feign humility This goes along with their “good person test.” Their good person test is a complete sham. It asks if you ever told a lie before you knew any better, equates anger with murder, and claims that natural impulses are the same as cheating on your wife (even if you don’t act on them.) As they know, they could never pass their own rigged “test.” So they pretend they consider themselves worthless scum. But really it’s just a game they play amongst themselves. To call it a paper-thin mask would be to exagerrate its thickness. If you observe their behavior, you quickly see that fundamentalist christians are remarkably egotistical. And they handwave any misdeed they do (say gassing 12 million homosexuals) by saying they’re “not perfect, just forgiven.” While they assert that outsiders have “no basis for morality,” they demonstrate that they take no stock in morality at all. Strangely, I think of them as they pretend to think of themselves.
When fundamentalist christians get stuck, they deflect. One common deflection is to say “your argument is with scripture not with me.” Of course it is a lie. But that doesn’t bother fundamentalist christians. When I am engaged in an argument, my argument is with whoever takes a position contrary to mine. For my argument not to be with someone, he must be absent, in agreement with me, or neutral. When a fundamentalist christian uses this deception, he will often quote some verses from his bible to be used as a command to ignore those who would disagree with him. (Note: any bible verses given in response to this post will be deleted. Make your agruments for yourself. Don’t try to hide behind your “holy book.”)
Well, one rule that they follow is that they never admit that they are wrone about anything. Whem more honest people admit error, or even the possibility of error, the fundamentalist christian pounces on that to say that they could also be wrong about the horrid imagination that is the fundamentalist christian god. They will not admit that mistakes are things that all people make.
Apparently some people vandalized the side of a church with “atheist slogans.” Dan would have us believe that such people are “atheist leaders” — hence the title of his post. Given that whoever did it used the misspelling of atheist so common to fundamentalist christian, I am inclined to believe that christians did it in an effort to make atheists look bad. Dan goes on to say that all atheists implicitly support this behavior and that to deny that is dishonest.
Well, I have seen quite a few very public atheists. Not one of them encourages vandalism in general or vandalism of churches in particular. Oh, they often support a no-god or even anti-god message. But vandalism is not the way they pursue that message. They use public speaking, books, and paid advertising — methods which draw no objection when used by corporations and even churches.
Seriously, does anyone think that if someone spray-painted “Coke-Cola” on the outside wall of a Pepsi building, that it would be the Coca-Cola executives? Or even that they might support such an action? Yet that is the manner in which Dan wishes to portray the vandalism. It’s another case of fundamentalist-christians-gotta-lie.