I was reminded on Mastodon that I used to live in Eugene, and shared the city with a particular creationist that I debated, once. Then I was reminded again how old I’m getting because that debate happened in 2008, fifteen goddamned years ago. Bleh. It was a boring debate and I wasted my youth on it.
Anyway, here’s what I wrote about the debate with Geoff Simmons, way back in, I remind you, 2008. Some of you may remember that because you’re getting as old as I am.
It was a radio debate on KKMS, the regional Christian talk radio station, back when they’d occasionally bring me on to humiliate local Christians (they learned their lesson, eventually). I grabbed the recording before the station deleted the archive, and posted it on YouTube so you can enjoy it now.
Jesus, but he was stupid and dishonest. I was wise to finally give up that ugly habit.
So, it was the year Obama won. Wait, wasn’t that, like, six months ago??
.
If you feel like debating a non-fundie Christian apologist, maybe try David Wood. I do not know which aspect of Christianity or atheism you might choose, the important part is that he seems honest within the frame of his beliefs.
He is kind of hardass. He leaves islam alone when he is left alone, but when an ex-muslim friend died and various hateful muslims wrote taunting messages, he retaliated by making a lot of unflattering (but true) podcasts about the theology of islam.
He got threatened, he retaliated with more podcasts about the koran.
This tit for tat has been going on for years.
What I admire is, he sticks to pertinent facts no matter how provoked he gets and he makes a difference between serious muslim debaters and the assholes.
Someone taunted him online about the recent death of his 15-year old son, he didn’t rise to the bait and just got on with debunking islamic myths.
While I don’t share his belief or his politics I am still impressed.
That was painful to listen to; I had to stop.
There are schoolchildren who know more about the evolution of whales than this published author. In his ignorance he’s so convinced he’s right about his claim that there’s no evidence for blowholes, but all he has to do is go look at the collection on display in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.
You think that was painful?
I listened to a podcast once with the sentence “no, water does NOT get sad if you yell at it”.
Creationists are practically “normal” if you have weird reference groups.
@1 So you like this ex-atheist Christian apologist (a fundamentally dishonest enterprise) godbot dickhole because he’s hard on Muslims?
What could that possibly mean? Someone whose frame of beliefs is Nazism could honestly say that “Hitler didn’t do anything wrong other than kill himself and not finish the job” — an actual example I read today.
Even from your own description this is clearly not true.
Just looking at the titles and images of his videos (https://www.youtube.com/@apologeticsroadshow/videos) shows how absurd this claim is. Try getting past the first smarmy grossly dishonest minute of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMTWnd5BhxI where he touts the views of Jordan Peterson.
As Richard Carrier says in http://www.richardcarrier.info/contrawood.html,
So much for Wood’s honesty.
This video where Wood first castigates Mark Zuckerberg in his usual mocking/deriding manner and then fawns over some stupid shit that MZ says about the babble makes clear what an unsufferable intellectually dishonest asshole David Wood is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv0qtYOL4Xc
insufferable
No way I’m going to spend 45 minutes listening to remedial education of some creationist idiot, but I did catch this nonsense from the hosts:
“Today we’re going to debate DaRwIn’S evolution with ReSpEcTeD aUtHoRiTiEs On EaCh SiDe Of ThE iSsUE.”
Simmons is neither respected nor an authority … and what “issue”? The hosts are ignorant incompetent imbeciles too.
I listened to it, although I’m a bit baffled that i did so. I too used to be a “debate evangelist” (a term i just made up), when i discovered a work humanist society and how we (humanists) would often get provoked by the religious societies at work into debates that in hindsight should probably have been shut down.
At first, I was a big believer in the “testing of ideas” in the arena of debate. I wanted to talk about everything with everyone. And then over time i realised that good debate requires intellectual honesty, integrity and curiosity (you have to accept upfront you might learn something). And that those ingredients were often missing from debates between theists and atheists.
Fundamentally though, I realised, as PZ stated, that “debate” often lends one side of the argument an undeserved legitimacy and equal standing.
I was curious how Simmons would respond to having his assertions about missing whale transitionary fossils, and sure enough he confirmed the behaviour I remembered from my own debate experiences way back when. That he admitted his own ignorance of the very subject he has written books about and yet still continues to debate without embarrassment or being called on it by the hosts of the show, just proves how toxic and unfit for purpose this debate format is.
Regardless, I learnt something new, as I hadn’t known about the evolution of the whale, and the transition of the nostrils from the front of the skull to further and further back until they became the blowhole. So there’s that.
OK
Another possible christian candidate for debates, Eric Wilson, a former Jehowah’s Witness elder who was disfellowshipped by the cult for thinking too much.
I think he is still a believer, but he seems to have integrity (although having more integrity than the bosses of JW is a low bar).
At least he could bring a perspective of hanging on to some critical thought while being inside a very hierarchic church/cult.
.
On the muslim side, Mufti Abu Laith seems like a decent fellow. He got his home invaded by hardline muslims once for being too liberal, he is definitely no fundamentalist.
Under no circumstances engage with David Hiqaqitjou, he is a true believer including things like child marriage and other crap.
Why bother? As PZ explained, it’s a bad idea.
Jim Balter @ 9
Creationists, yes.
Non-crazy, non-dishonest religious people, who knows.
I am personally interested in those that have the spine to go against the dogma of co-religionists.
We cannot expect all religious people to become atheists, but as society matures and becomes more liberal we can hope remaining religious people increasingly adopt values the rest of us can live with in harmony.
For instamce there is an imam in Sweden who officiates marriages between muslims and non-muslims, which was not a thing before.
The more toxic congregations and cults will not go away completely, but shrink as religious people find better options.
birgerjohansson,
So you look at it as people saying other’s religious dogma is specious being interesting, but thing is when whoever says it is themself dogmatically religious, it’s kinda hypocritical, which contrasts with a non-religious person saying it, which isn’t.
“I am religious, they are superstitious” type of thing.
—
In passing, I reckon that was the origin of monotheism; first, it was like “our deity is more powerful than your deity” (cf. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”).
OT
This is interesting
“Mormon Church has 100 billion clandestine hedge fund”
Big church not being honest about their assets? How odd (s)
https://theguardian.com/world/2023/may/15/mormon-church-whistleblower-taxes-hedge-fund
“Spent on for-profit initiatives as a tax dodge”
So the LDS church is serving Mammon.
birgerjohansson, OT emeritus:
Old news. Interesting to you because you’ve just become aware.
cf. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011
(Updated Feb. 8, 2020)
I dunno why you imagine you’re somehow breaking news.
You do get that each of us reading this blog is already on the internet, no?
John @11: If I’m parsing your clunky first sentence correctly, you seem to be saying that a liberal Anglican (say) criticizing a misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, racist fundamentalist is being a hypocrite. That sounds awfully dogmatic, and counterproductive. Does that mean you could never consider any theist as an ally?
@16 He said religious dogma, not personal bigotry. You slipped down the strawman slope to create the most extreme case of misrepresentation. What JM responded to was nonsense about someone like David Wood having “the spine” to go against the dogma of “co-religionists”, which is absurd–Islam is Wood’s competition and he only goes after it as part of his project of promoting his own dogma as the one truth–just listen to some of Wood’s dreck and you will see how deeply hypocritical (and spineless) it is of him to go after anyone else’s dogma … e.g., he criticizes Islam’s Ramadan as stolen from Lent, the one true fast.
I do … after perusing Eric Michael Wilson’s Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@BeroeanPickets/videos) a bit, it’s clear to me that it would be profoundly stupid and pointless for PZ to engage in a debate with him.
birgerjohansson did not specify Wood or his criticisms of Islam as an example of ‘having “the spine” to go against the dogma of “co-religionists” ‘, and Wood, as a Christian, is not a co-religionist of any Muslim. In the context of the thread, it seems more likely that the phrase referred to Eric Wilson andor Abu Laith (see #9).
You’re mistaken.
KG, see #1.
(And the following discussion in relation to that aspect)
birgerjohansson is not a native speaker of English; by “co-religionists” he clearly meant “other people who are also religious”, not the dictionary definition, which makes no sense in context … going against the dogma of people in your own religion would be going against your own dogma. Both KG and Grigjanis ignore that the comments are about dogma, not behavior. Of course we are allied (within these limits) with theists who call out misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and racism.
birgerjohansson’s initial example of a “non -fundie” “honest” theist was David Wood. When I challenged Wood’s honesty he said “OK Another …” and mentioned both a xtian and a Muslim and then characterized them both as “Non-crazy, non-dishonest religious people”, exactly how he had characterized Wood. It’s ludicrous to think, as KG does, that his statement “I am personally interested in those that have the spine to go against the dogma of co-religionists” is a whole new discussion that has nothing to do with the one he started with David Wood. I wrote “someone like David Wood”–by birgerjohansson’s formulation, Eric Wilson, Abu Laith, and David Wood all fit that description.
“Abu Laith” -> Nahiem Ajmal, aka Mufti Abu Layth, another person that it would be completely pointless to debate. He’s sort of the Bishop Spong of Islam. It’s fun to watch these liberal heretics throw monkey wrenches into theological debates (https://christiancourier.com/articles/john-shelby-spong-anglican-nightmare), but they’re still theistic loons with thoroughly intellectually dishonest rationalizations of their beliefs … and to the degree that they aren’t, we can simply nod our heads.
JIm Balter, John Morales,
I’ll leave birgerjohansson to say what he meant by “co-religionists”, if he so chooses, but I thought his #9 did mark a shift of topic, as he describes both Eric Wilson and Abu Laith as disagreeing with those who are their co-religionists in the correct sense. To be clear, I’m not defending David Wood or the idea that he (or either of birgerjohansson’s other suggestions) are worth debating. In general, debates are useless as ways of getting closer to the truth about anything, or convincing third parties.
Jim Balter @22:
If you think bigotry and ignorance can’t be dogmatic, you haven’t been paying attention. Dogma is a characteristic of ideologues; it can be religious, political, social, economic, scientific, etc. And birgerjohansson refers to “the dogma of co-religionists”, not “the religious dogma of co-religionists”. You (and John) assumed he meant “religious dogma”. I’ll leave it to him to say exactly what he meant, but I read “dogma” more broadly.
@ 15 John Morales
You blithering idiot. Anyone can follow the link and see it’s literally the same date as your failed snark. I ask again, “Do you ever think before you type?”. Like ever. Or is being a public bufoon your hobby?
Hi Silentbob.
Are you having a nice day?
Fuck you, you stupid dishonest asshole. Of course I don’t think that and didn’t say it.
Jim Balter @28: Sure, you said “He [John] said religious dogma, not personal bigotry”. But birgerjohansson didn’t say “religious dogma”.
You’re such a ray of sunshine, Jimbo. It’s always nice chatting with you. Hope you can sort out your rage issues.
Silentbob:
Heh. Sure, my snark was made literally the same date as the old news Birger felt impelled to tell us about. Having known about it for years, imagine how interested I was in the novelty of it.
Now, if you want to think that Feb. 8, 2020 is literally the same date as May 15, 2023 (my link vs his link), go ahead.
My online nym has been Yorick since the early 80s. (Alas!)
Rob, do you have a mental block or something?
Not in those exact words, no. This was the initial claim:
“He [David Wood.] is kind of hardass. He leaves islam alone when he is left alone, but when an ex-muslim friend died and various hateful muslims wrote taunting messages, he retaliated by making a lot of unflattering (but true) podcasts about the theology of islam.”
“He got threatened, he retaliated with more podcasts about the koran.”
“Someone taunted him online about the recent death of his 15-year old son, he didn’t rise to the bait and just got on with debunking islamic myths.
While I don’t share his belief or his politics I am still impressed.”
The Koran (should be capitalised), the theology, Islamic (same) myths.
Not religious dogma, in your estimation.
John @31:
Yes, I try not to make sweeping assumptions based on a few sentences. You could call that a block, I suppose.
Anyway, carry on, John. You, Jim and the seriously weird Silentbob make an interesting triangle of WTF.
As you wish, Rob.
So.
“he retaliated by making a lot of unflattering (but true) podcasts about the theology of islam”
“just got on with debunking islamic myths”
“he retaliated with more podcasts about the koran”
No inference to be made there, in your estimation.
May just be about bigotry, not about religious dogma.
Oh yeah, and “He leaves islam alone when he is left alone”.
And “While I don’t share his belief or his politics I am still impressed.”
…
Want me to carry on some more?
ad infinitum if you want, John. It’s all the same to me.
Sure, Rob.
OK, so birgerjohansson tells us he is impressed by this religious person who leaves Islam alone unless provoked, whenceupon he retaliates by dissing Islam, the Koran and Islamic myths a lot. So impressed, indeed, that he suggests that PZ should debate him, if anyone. On a thread where PZ asserts he’s given up that ugly habit.
Remarkable. Probably why I remarked upon it. :)
—
On a more meta matter:
Your #16 indicates interest, since it was unsolicited, and that would not be the case were it all the same to you.
I get that a lot, you know. People interject, I respond, they back away.
(Grapes were too sour)
It’s always nice calling out dishonest scum like you.
The only time birgerjohansson explicitly used the word “dogma” was in “the dogma of co-religionists”. The whole post and thread is about religious dogma.
is a stupid shitty vile transparently dishonest bad faith word game from some stupid disgusting maggot shithole … and this low worm, this piece of dishonest trash, complains about me not being a ray of sunshine after he lobbed that glob of shit at me? My contempt for people like this is limitless and thoroughly deserved. FOAD.
I rage against what deserves rage, maggot.
I think Silentbob and Jim Balter make a nice couple.
@chigau
They do share the ability to be continuously furious about nothing very much.
John @36:
FTFY.
Yes, Rob. I can tell by the way you ignore me.
I never lose interest in you, John. Just some of the topics you rabbit on about.
I saw https://davidsimon.com/die-of-boils-mr-sparky-car/ and thought of this post of yours.