(Interestingly enough, after a Google Images search for "rejected," I got this image from a blog called "Theology Forum." Is this a sign?)
Unfortunately, my challenge has been rejected. I can't say that I'm surprised. A lot of the wild claims made by the poster are indefensible. I did, however, get a response--a response that assured me I wouldn't get a response. The response came in the form of two Facebook posts on the original thread (I posted a link to the blog entry there). I'll take the opportunity to post the responses and add a bit of commentary.
Facebook post 1:
"Oh come on! Staggering ignorance of history of evolutionary biology? You mean that bullshit I learned in my sophomore EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY class at UD? Fuck outta here they told me global warming was real too."
Evolution, history and theory, cannot be fully covered in one sophomore class any more than astronomy, calculus, capitalism, or any other extensive field of study can be covered in a fourteen-week lower-level course. To suggest that this is the case is to further demonstrate an ignorance of the theory and its extensive history. Saying, "I took a class" doesn't prove knowledge. Knowledge must be demonstrated. I have yet to see it demonstrated.
Facebook post 2:
"Challenge not accepted lol. The thing about truth is that it's the truth. It is intolerant. If the sky is blue then its fukkin blue. No matter how many "facts" you throw at me saying its red. You might have everyone backing you up and all the data in the world. Nigga the sky is still blue. Same thing applies to what I'm saying. Now I don't wanna be the stereo typical intolerant christian who thinks they know everything just because of the fact I'm christian. Cuz I don't know everything, but i am intolerant tho, so I don't gotta accept your cheap shot rebuttals to informally laid out argument. You know why? Cuz the sky is fukkin blue lmao ... I'm out dis bitch."
Here we have the poster simply asserting that what he says is the truth. He offers no evidence, no argument; he seems to be offended by the very notion that he should have to give evidence for his claims. The color of the sky is an interesting (read: silly) analogy. The poster can take me outside, and show me what he says is true. Can he produce that kind of evidence for his claims? He can merely assert that his position is analogous to the sky being blue until he is blue in the face, but this doesn't pass for an argument. It is just another empty claim, and the most dishonest and immature one I've seen yet.
If his claims were as evident as the sky being blue, why would he waste his time talking about historical accuracy, scholarly consensus, trustworthiness of certain texts, etc., in his first post? No one ever feels the need to back up claims about the sky being blue with so-called historical evidence, scholarly consensus, etc.. But the poster obviously does feel the need to defend his claims or he wouldn't have posted such a long rant in the first place. Now that he's been challenged, he wants to pretend that it's ridiculous to expect him to argue for his position, although he's the one who already began arguing for his position. How am I out of line for simply taking up the indirect offer?
It's interesting that the poster wants to dismiss the fact that I have people backing up my claims. I would like to remind readers of the poster's attempts to show that he has people backing up his claims:
“Well simply put it is the most trust worthy of all the religions. Do more research on that any self respecting Academic Scholar not restrained with bias will vouch for that statement.”
If he doesn't care that I have people backing up my claims, why should I care about the people who supposedly back up his claims? He likes the consensus game, but only when the consensus is on his side.
It's also interesting (read: hypocritical) that the poster dismisses any evidence I present, all while alluding to supposed historical evidence for his own claims:
"From the accuracy of both the old and new testaments to the legitimacy Jesus Christs existence.”
This gave me the impression that the poster wanted to play the evidence game, but it's obvious that he doesn't care about evidence. He only likes evidence when it supports his beliefs. Otherwise, evidence is silly and worthless and should be ignored. This is the very definition of delusion. It's amazing how much random Christians on the internet have in common with "sophisticated" theologians:
Why are these "cheap shot rebuttals"? I was going to ignore his post, but I issued a formal challenge because he is obviously passionate about his beliefs, and the claims were so outrageous that I assumed that he must have done some research. I offered a formal challenge because the poster put a lot on the table, and I figured we could have an interesting debate. Although he doesn't feel the same way about me, I believe that he is worthy of a conversation. I was actually looking forward to getting into the discussion of free will and the historical accuracy of the Bible. I've seen the claims in the "informally laid out argument" (code for "unsupported hit-and-run argument"), and now I want to see if the poster can give me the second half: the evidence. Don't leave me hanging, here.
Alas, I have been dismissed with the class and open-mindedness of a stubborn five-year-old who holds his hands to his ears and shouts la la la la la.
I think I'll end with another Biblical quote:
"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
1 Peter 3:15
Dear Facebook Christian, I am asking you to give a reason for the hope you have. Are you willing to do this with gentleness and respect, not profanity and intolerance? To dismiss the challenge is to ignore your duty as a Christian.
No comments:
Post a Comment