The more I talk with people about guns (especially those on the left), the more I am accused of supporting extreme points of view simply because I a pro-gun rights. My stance is quite simple. It is a right just like the freedom of speech. (Washington DC v. Heller) I defend it just as I do the freedom of speech or religion. Gun control has failed to stop crime because it doesn't address the cause of the problem which is the lack of value for human life. People don't kill because it is perceived to be easy. I should also mention that "Assault rifle" is clearly defined by the military as a fully automatic rifle which has been banned in the United States since 1968. This means when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until the magazine is empty. The extreme left use this as a vague term to mean anything that looks scary. In fact, no two people have given the same definition. (Despite being attacked for asking them to define the term) I will address this more in a later post.
The latest propaganda is from the NY Times expressing what a success Australia's voluntary 1996 buy back program was which was really a failure that even anti-gun groups in Australia despise.
There's articles like this one which is hypocritical and a perfect example of the line of thinking the anti-gun crowds have. It cherry picks crimes that only deal with guns and ignores everything else. The weapon or method doesn't matter because murder and violence are still bad regardless if they crime was performed with a gun or not.
It specifically says
that firearm suicides have fallen as a result of the ban which is the specific type of "correlation is causation" argument they accuse the NRA of. I will address this claim later in more detail.
Their
next claim is that homicide rates are different between the two
countries but it doesn't show how banning guns turned Australia from a
"wild west" shoot out to a peaceful utopia. Not only do they fail to show any such trend in Australia, but they fail to show the actual cause for the difference in rates which could be any factor in
the USA like a failed drug policy, lack of education, lack of
healthcare, or too much religion.
The last statistic they mention is a quote from the Wall Street Journal [10] about how the trend of sexual assaults and violent crimes has gone up. The Wall Street Journal never claimed the gun laws caused any trend. In fact, they state the opposite that strict gun laws have not made people safer which is the claim made by those pushing for such laws. They counter by talking about the types of weapons used as if that was relevant when talking about overall trends. They are attacking the Wall Street Journal for a claim they didn't make.
Their last discussion is since gun laws have had no impact then that doesn't
mean gun control fails. Actually it does. If you can't claim the gun laws have caused Australia's upward violent crime trend then you also can't
claim the opposite somewhere else. We have plenty of information about gun control in the United States that show gun laws have no measurable impact on crime. [7] This level of cognitive dissidence is what makes having an honest discussion impossible.
Obviously the two countries are nothing alike. Australia has never had a "right to bear arms" like the United States and most Australian states have had restrictive gun laws since the 1930s. (Although some restrictions were relaxed so they could compete in the Olympics.) Since the late 80's most citizens had to first obtain a license to own a firearm.
Australia buyback scheme in 1996 was a complete failure as a method to prevent crime. It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting and intended to remove guns from the population. The issue was that law required compensation for property taken by the government. It was completely voluntary and only about 25% of the gun owners participated with a price tag of 21 Million [1]. It was not a ban as some would have you think and this was despite the fact the killer in Port Arthur said bought his guns illegally without a permit. [3] New restrictions won't stop killings which seems to be the goal. This doesn't mean laws are worthless. Laws are meant to deter and punish bad behavior, not stop it. If laws were effective at deterring crime then there would be no murders or drug trade anywhere.
The buy back in 1996 was for specifically for semi-automatic rifles which in the United States would include many rifles used for hunting and not scary "Assault Rifles". The left's vague definition of "Assault rifle" accounted for about 3% of the rifles. The majority were simple .22 LR rifles. [2] The buy back also didn't stop the incident in 2002 where a two students were shot.
The 2002 incident also lead to more restrictions on hand guns. This is where the "slippery slope" argument could be made. The failure of the 1996 scheme to prevent crime was not seen as a failure of that policy but that more restrictions were needed. This implies either that only crimes committed with guns are bad or people only commit crimes because guns are available.
The reason why this becomes a "slippery slope" is quite simple. The new restrictions always target the type of weapon used. If someone uses a rifle then rifles will be banned. Then if someone uses a handgun then handguns will be banned. Then if shotguns are used, they will be banned. The target of the restrictions changes depending on what the current scape goat is.
I'm sure the next assertion by the left is that the gun law changes some how made Australia safer. This simply isn't the case either. Australia has never had a major violent crime problem and homicides have been in decline for decades prior to 1996.
Five years after the ban, a policy analysis found that violent crime in Australia has gone up over 40% [4]. Later research has found that gun ownership has increased in some states and the gun restrictions have had no impact on crime rates. [5] Some claim that suicides (by gun) have dropped as a result but they didn't look at other methods of suicide in those studies. At best, the suicide rate was not impacted by the laws in 1996 even though suicides increased in 1997. [6] [11]
I do not claim that more guns would mean less crime although some studies have shown exactly that effect. [8] The fact is that gun control has failed to produce any measurable result on crime in the past. Guns are the favorite scape goat when bad things happen. [9] We should stop wasting time on failed policies and look for the real cause of the violence.
In my opinion, improving healthcare and fixing the failed drug policies.
Source:
1. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/31/1075340889254.html
2. http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
3. http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant
4. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
5. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall
6. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf
7. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns
10. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
11. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde
(Revision 3)
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Rape: a crime against men
I think feminism is a term that is no longer relevant today. We should be concentrating on human rights as a whole. It
shouldn't matter if the human is women/man or black/white. Equal rights
isn't the same as special rights.
Rape will be the main topic here since I have recently heard rape argued from a perspective that it is a crime where women are the only victims or the male aspect is completely ignored. I am not suggesting crimes against women are any less important. There are many facts we can see from statistics like women are more often the one who files for divorce and receive custody 84% of the time. ("A voice for men" list a lot of information on male victims with sources.) However, rape of men is not so clear. So are women the only ones who suffer from rape? I define rape as one person forcing a sexual activity on another without informed consent.
One issue when researching rape is that until January 2012 the FBI didn't include rape of men as victims which means than any crime statistics you see only report women victims with male rapist. Even those numbers are problematic because the old 1927 definition required that the victim physically resisted (IE: forcible rape, think "legitimate rape").
This means that the 10 victims of Sandusky were not reported as a crime because his victims are male. Of course, Sandusky was found guilty of the crime but his victims are not reported as a part of crime statistics for rape. However it is still a problem because even the updated definition doesn't include women as the rapist. According to the FBI you must have a penis to commit the crime of rape. Imagine if Sandusky had been a woman and what the general attitudes toward the victims would be. I have often heard male victims of female rape as lucky especially if their rapist is attractive. Even when those women are brought to trial they often receive lighter sentences for their crime then a male with similar offenses.
Almost every where that talks about male victims is using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. (This is where the 1 in 10 men victim comes from.) In 2010, there were 85,000 recorded rapes in the USA by the FBI UCR. The National Crime Victimization survey recorded 189,000. Why is there a large gap and how many of those are men? This is not as reliable as crime statistics because there's no way to tell if all the male victims disclose their assault to the survey. Another issue is the survey ignores female-male and female-female rape. Thus the survey can only be used as a guide and not as fact. The problem seems to be wide spread according to Lara Stemple of the U of California's Health and Human Rights Project, of the 4,000 International nongovernmental organizations (NGO) reports addressing wartime sexual violence only 3% mention male victims in passing.
In the Congo men were often the victim of rape and sometimes the aggressor was a women. In addition, these male victims were often castrated and/or penetrated with tree branches. However, we usually only hear about the women victims. In the Congo, 22% of men and 30% of women were the victim of rape. We should expect a higher percentage of men when you consider that men were more likely (2 to 1) the victim of violence. Homosexuality is also illegal in the area (men who are raped could be found guilty of homosexual crimes) and with the social stigma its difficult to determine the exact number due to under reporting by the victims.
Denise A. Hines has done a lot of research in the last 5 years on this topic and she shows the genders are largely equal when it comes to abuse in relationships. This information is largely based on surveys because statistics are not available.
So are women the only ones who suffer rape? I don't know. Technically no one can say much about men because there's almost no data. No one can even say how often men are raped without large margins of error. It's difficult to say how often a crime occurs when the action in question it's not considered a crime.
The absence of evidence for male victims of rape should raise concerns since the information we do have indicates that men are the victims of rape. The only way to fix this is to treat rape the same way for both men and women.
Rape will be the main topic here since I have recently heard rape argued from a perspective that it is a crime where women are the only victims or the male aspect is completely ignored. I am not suggesting crimes against women are any less important. There are many facts we can see from statistics like women are more often the one who files for divorce and receive custody 84% of the time. ("A voice for men" list a lot of information on male victims with sources.) However, rape of men is not so clear. So are women the only ones who suffer from rape? I define rape as one person forcing a sexual activity on another without informed consent.
One issue when researching rape is that until January 2012 the FBI didn't include rape of men as victims which means than any crime statistics you see only report women victims with male rapist. Even those numbers are problematic because the old 1927 definition required that the victim physically resisted (IE: forcible rape, think "legitimate rape").
This means that the 10 victims of Sandusky were not reported as a crime because his victims are male. Of course, Sandusky was found guilty of the crime but his victims are not reported as a part of crime statistics for rape. However it is still a problem because even the updated definition doesn't include women as the rapist. According to the FBI you must have a penis to commit the crime of rape. Imagine if Sandusky had been a woman and what the general attitudes toward the victims would be. I have often heard male victims of female rape as lucky especially if their rapist is attractive. Even when those women are brought to trial they often receive lighter sentences for their crime then a male with similar offenses.
Almost every where that talks about male victims is using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. (This is where the 1 in 10 men victim comes from.) In 2010, there were 85,000 recorded rapes in the USA by the FBI UCR. The National Crime Victimization survey recorded 189,000. Why is there a large gap and how many of those are men? This is not as reliable as crime statistics because there's no way to tell if all the male victims disclose their assault to the survey. Another issue is the survey ignores female-male and female-female rape. Thus the survey can only be used as a guide and not as fact. The problem seems to be wide spread according to Lara Stemple of the U of California's Health and Human Rights Project, of the 4,000 International nongovernmental organizations (NGO) reports addressing wartime sexual violence only 3% mention male victims in passing.
In the Congo men were often the victim of rape and sometimes the aggressor was a women. In addition, these male victims were often castrated and/or penetrated with tree branches. However, we usually only hear about the women victims. In the Congo, 22% of men and 30% of women were the victim of rape. We should expect a higher percentage of men when you consider that men were more likely (2 to 1) the victim of violence. Homosexuality is also illegal in the area (men who are raped could be found guilty of homosexual crimes) and with the social stigma its difficult to determine the exact number due to under reporting by the victims.
Denise A. Hines has done a lot of research in the last 5 years on this topic and she shows the genders are largely equal when it comes to abuse in relationships. This information is largely based on surveys because statistics are not available.
So are women the only ones who suffer rape? I don't know. Technically no one can say much about men because there's almost no data. No one can even say how often men are raped without large margins of error. It's difficult to say how often a crime occurs when the action in question it's not considered a crime.
The absence of evidence for male victims of rape should raise concerns since the information we do have indicates that men are the victims of rape. The only way to fix this is to treat rape the same way for both men and women.
Sources:
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
- http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2012/05/13/the-untold-story-of-raped-men/
- http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
- http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/facultybio.cfm?id=687
- http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape
- http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/about/
- http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2012/08/transcript-of-are-vaginas-in-house.html
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPxRYWpglQ
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
A Summary of Atheist+
Atheism+Theism
Atheism+ is an attempt to hijack the online atheist/skeptical community for the purpose of promoting a radical political agenda using questionable methods. The idea has probably been simmering on someone's back burner for sometime but was born after the "ElevatorGate" controversy by radical feminist who blame all their problems on men. Their claims of sexism or harassment are often exaggerated.ElevatorGate (James Onen)
So this installment begins with Rebecca's claims of harassment which I believe were overly exaggerated if the event occurred at all. Those who pointed out she and PZ Meyers attacked. This fueled a fury of fighting online.- http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/
- http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/
"Elevatorgate" hits bottom
Several media outlets have picked this up aside from causing a division within the Atheist/Skeptic Community. Some popular skeptics/Atheist have also fallen into Ms. Watson's web. When someone asked about the other side of the story from the guy in the elevator (Elevatorguy) his existence was dismissed with general assurances that it happens all the time sprinkled with some insults. Claims need to be proven not asserted.
Even the theist, who are usually our debating partners, took notice with a large page at conservapedia. Like most things on Conservapedia, the information is incomplete and inaccurate. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Elevatorgate)
The divide widened as people started to choose sides on the issue. This created the problems with ERV/Freethough/Slime pit as the factions developed. (http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/letter-to-the-slime-pit/)
Methodology (Kafkatrapping)
The cause of "elevatorgate" as well as the reasoning by "radical feminism" as used here seems to be kafkatrapping. Basically you are guilty of the crime without question and refusal to admit your guilt confirms it. The alleged crime is usually a thought crime of some kind. Maybe your guilt is because you may have benefited in some way. This reasoning is the basis of why all white people are guilty of slavery even if you never owned slaves or advocated the practice.Ad Himinem (Thanks becky)
Definition: Argumentum ad himinem is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it. Closely related to ad hominem, literal Latin “to the man”, this is instead “to the male” and removes gender ambiguity. It is however equally applicable to females who inexplicably defend argument as though cum testiculis, or seek to defend indefensible and erroneous male perspectives. Antonym to ad feminam.Rebecca Watson
She is probably one of the worst people to call themselves skeptic. She was banned from a popular skeptics forum for bad (if not illegal) behavior. She basically thinks the only crimes are those committed against women by men. She will often cry foul when someone uses gender targeted action, and she uses the practice herself
Atheism+
The group is born but is largely confined to the blogs, Forums, and Facebook. As many people note, the stated goals of the group are admirable but the methods used by the group leave a sour taste. Their tactics are usually us and them tactics. You are with us or against us. (http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/i-finally-read-the-richard-carrier-article-good-grief/)A good outline of the group :http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/some_observations_about_atheism_plus/
How to alienate your members
Some people are already leaving this new group because of their tactics.The Issues
Where they get social issues wrong is how they address the issues they deem important. They ignore pretty much everything outside of their radical feminism. It's more of a "strawman" tactic. They first define the issue as they view it then argue for solutions to the problem they give. The issue is the problem they define doesn't exists.- A Sex worker's point of view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuus6VTsSg4
- A satire on A+ views on Mens rights, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqlW0WdB5lM&feature=g-all-c
Theft
Even the initial Atheism+ logo for the group seems to have come from Richard Dawkin's online store.Myers Law
Many people have tried having a rational discussion of the ideas with the group to no avail. This seems to be a common theme within the group.Get someone fired for disagreement
Thunderf00t has been involved from the start which started largely by his criticism of the groups philosophy.More Information on PZ Myers
More Information on FreethoughBlogs (FTB)
Franc Hoggle has been writing about the issues with FTB since it came around. The FTB people even tried to "Doc Drop" (give out personal information) but failed when they disclosed the information of an innocent bystander by mistake.Wednesday, September 5, 2012
a poem
Melt me with those icy blues,
pools I used to swim in
Now all I see are sorrow hues,
reservoirs I drown in
the tears that fall,
the pain that rips
that tears my heart asunder
draw one last breath,
the bubbles stop,
my lungs filled with my blunder
I don't know why, I don't know
how to fill the cracks I fall in
but I won't forget the liquid lights,
the puddles, I now crawl in.
-Erica Fisher
pools I used to swim in
Now all I see are sorrow hues,
reservoirs I drown in
the tears that fall,
the pain that rips
that tears my heart asunder
draw one last breath,
the bubbles stop,
my lungs filled with my blunder
I don't know why, I don't know
how to fill the cracks I fall in
but I won't forget the liquid lights,
the puddles, I now crawl in.
-Erica Fisher
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Steven: I just have faith
Steven: See here in lies your fallacy. I have nothing to prove to you. And No reason to try. I have No burden of proof. I have faith. Simple. The Bible says the cross is foolishness to the non believing. As for the fact you are using other religions to argue there is No God is silly. It really boils down to Pascal's Wager.
Merphie:Its not a fallacy. I care about what is true. If you can't provide evidence for why something is true then you shouldn't believe it either.
The bible says a lot of things but it is pointless to argue about the meaning of a cherry picked verse until you can prove the bible is what you claim.
"you have faith" is another way to say you believe because you want to believe. that has no value.
Maybe a better example would be a Mormon knocks on your door and tells you about the truth. Will you just convert and follow Joseph smith? I doubt it. Why not? he has the same reasons to believe that you do. Is his faith somehow less?
Pascal's wager is worthless. there are so many gods that the probability of picking the right one is higher than the lottery. Catholics don't believe the same thing as protestants. so picking the right sect is just as important as the right god. In the end you are saying that god can't tell if you believe or just buying hell insurance. which means he is gullible and can't be all powerful or all knowing.
You misunderstood what I said. I asked how do you know the things you attribute to god are the Christian god?
How do you know god didn't tell Andrea Yates to kill her kids?
Merphie:Its not a fallacy. I care about what is true. If you can't provide evidence for why something is true then you shouldn't believe it either.
The bible says a lot of things but it is pointless to argue about the meaning of a cherry picked verse until you can prove the bible is what you claim.
"you have faith" is another way to say you believe because you want to believe. that has no value.
Maybe a better example would be a Mormon knocks on your door and tells you about the truth. Will you just convert and follow Joseph smith? I doubt it. Why not? he has the same reasons to believe that you do. Is his faith somehow less?
Pascal's wager is worthless. there are so many gods that the probability of picking the right one is higher than the lottery. Catholics don't believe the same thing as protestants. so picking the right sect is just as important as the right god. In the end you are saying that god can't tell if you believe or just buying hell insurance. which means he is gullible and can't be all powerful or all knowing.
You misunderstood what I said. I asked how do you know the things you attribute to god are the Christian god?
How do you know god didn't tell Andrea Yates to kill her kids?
Steven: I was an Atheist!
Steven:
Yes I am absolutely backing out of traveling 1 1/2 hours for a pointless conversation. I have my ads posted in Lawton also. I was wrong in assuming you lived locally. I don't get many responses from okc. So yes. You can tell everyone you win. Lol you defeated the stupid Christian in a battle of wits! If I thought your mind was open at all to change I would be more excited. But I myself was an atheist who despised the Bible so I know what it feels like. I appreciate your thoughts also because God still hears them. If you ever travel south get a hold of me.
Merphie: You asked me when and where; I answered. It is that simple. I am willing to travel but it may take some time to work out the details. We could meet half way but you just shut the door.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone was stupid nor is this a battle of wits. I said I care about what is true. this means you are making the claim and you have burden of proof.
Using a fallacy to justify something makes it false. I could think of a million examples using your fallacies that you would deny right off hand.
For example, I know a Muslim friend who had a personal experience where Allah showed his mercy helping him get off drugs. does that mean your god is wrong and Allah is correct? if not, then does that mean you just have a closed mind even though Allah loves you anyway? How do you know it was the Christian god? perhaps you experienced Buddha? how can you tell the difference? now you have to prove it was the Christian god in addition to proving there are any gods.
I know people who have stopped using drugs without supernatural beliefs. I also know the first step in AA is to admit you are weak and can't stop on your own. they aren't picky about what helps you. this suggest there is a placebo affect at work.
regardless I admire that you got off drugs and violence. in my opinion, you deserve all the credit for turning your life around. there isn't a god which means you are stronger than you realize. you should be saying "I changed my life by getting off drugs. I helped creating my family".
Your assumptions are wrong. I don't despise the bible. you don't know anything about me. so it's not possible for you to know what its like. you will learn far more by asking a question than making an assumption.
I don't know what kind of "atheist" you were but its irrelevant. atheism describes someone's position on one topic. is there a god? if you answer no then you are an atheist. that's it. You can't tell anything else about a person that is an atheist.
Yes I am absolutely backing out of traveling 1 1/2 hours for a pointless conversation. I have my ads posted in Lawton also. I was wrong in assuming you lived locally. I don't get many responses from okc. So yes. You can tell everyone you win. Lol you defeated the stupid Christian in a battle of wits! If I thought your mind was open at all to change I would be more excited. But I myself was an atheist who despised the Bible so I know what it feels like. I appreciate your thoughts also because God still hears them. If you ever travel south get a hold of me.
Merphie: You asked me when and where; I answered. It is that simple. I am willing to travel but it may take some time to work out the details. We could meet half way but you just shut the door.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone was stupid nor is this a battle of wits. I said I care about what is true. this means you are making the claim and you have burden of proof.
Using a fallacy to justify something makes it false. I could think of a million examples using your fallacies that you would deny right off hand.
For example, I know a Muslim friend who had a personal experience where Allah showed his mercy helping him get off drugs. does that mean your god is wrong and Allah is correct? if not, then does that mean you just have a closed mind even though Allah loves you anyway? How do you know it was the Christian god? perhaps you experienced Buddha? how can you tell the difference? now you have to prove it was the Christian god in addition to proving there are any gods.
I know people who have stopped using drugs without supernatural beliefs. I also know the first step in AA is to admit you are weak and can't stop on your own. they aren't picky about what helps you. this suggest there is a placebo affect at work.
regardless I admire that you got off drugs and violence. in my opinion, you deserve all the credit for turning your life around. there isn't a god which means you are stronger than you realize. you should be saying "I changed my life by getting off drugs. I helped creating my family".
Your assumptions are wrong. I don't despise the bible. you don't know anything about me. so it's not possible for you to know what its like. you will learn far more by asking a question than making an assumption.
I don't know what kind of "atheist" you were but its irrelevant. atheism describes someone's position on one topic. is there a god? if you answer no then you are an atheist. that's it. You can't tell anything else about a person that is an atheist.
Steven and I
I had this short discussion with Steven about Christianity. He runs a page on Facebook about the paranormal. (O.C.R.A.P) I admit that I didn't start the conversation in a very constructive manner. This guy believes in just about everything so I figured it would be impossible to have a real conversation. How do you talk to someone who knows everything? I was surprised by his calm response. (It's how I would probably respond.) I had to reach his inner licensed preacher.
He eventually went to "lets meet in person". This is usually code for throwing a bunch of stuff out at once and appealing to emotion. I guess it became obvious to Steven I wasn't going to use the same arguments "he's heard before".
As with most conversations with Theist it seems like most of the time is spent with them putting words in the Atheist mouth. Below is a copy and paste from the original email. (Headers and address have been removed) I apologize for the grammer of the text since most of it was typed on my phone.
Merphie: The bible is just as fictional as the paranormal.
Steven: Thanks.
Merphie: Just thought you should know. especially since paranormal and the bible conflict.
Steven: Actually if you studied the Bible you would realize they don't. But your opinion is entitled to you.
Merphie: Nice guess, I have studied. Its more than opinion because I actually care what is true.
Steven: Thank you sir. All I can say is you're allowed to believe what you want. Jesus still loves you no matter how you feel about him. And I understand you will say he is fiction too. I've debated successfully and unsuccessfully with atheiests. All I can say is I am following what I believe.
Merphie: I understand about belief but that isn't what I said. you dont seem to care what is true and what is not.
Steven: You see. That's where our conversation ends. You said the Bible is fiction. I KNOW it to be true. I don't have time or energy to waste arguing with you on an email. If you care what is true. Meet me in person and I will debate you all you want. Other than that I will not respond to your banter and pandering again.
Merphie: Call it what you want because no amount of belief will make it true. you haven't even said which flavor you believe. Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, or calvonist? there's so many to choose from and none of them are compatible. it has nothing to do with what you think you know because every theist uses that statement to prove their belief.
A debate or argument is really no different in person or via email. you can't manipulate emotions to prove your point which is the only reason you would require it to be in person. if you can't prove your belief over email then you can't do it in person. the media doesn't matter because the argument rest on if it's true or false. Give it a simple try. tell me what you believe and your best reason for believing.
I am willing to meet in person at a public location on neutral ground (like a park) and I be allowed to record the argument so I can post it on my blog.
Steven: OK. Great I live in marlow. When would you like to meet and where. And of course I will also be recording the debate as well as bringing witnesses in case you plan violence against Christians. And my denomination is of no importance to the Bible being true. .im not even a member of a church at the moment. And I am a licenced minister. Truth is truth. Period. Your beliefs are set. No amount of discussion is going to change your mind. And honestly that is God's job not mine. All I can do is present literary, archaeological, and historical evidence from outside the Bible to prove the Bible is true. All you will do is point in discrepancies in the text that seem to make it look like the bible contradicts itself. That or point out the foolishness of faith in a book. These are all arguments I have heard before. How about the emotional aspect you spoke of. Oh yes my testimony is emotional. I was addicted to Meth as a teen. Sold dope. Shot at people. Fought. All that. And yep that stupid Jesus and that stupid book changed my life. And now I'm clean have a great job raising a family and helping people around me. And to that you'll probably say I'm weak for messing an imaginary figure to help me change because I'm not strong enough or smart enough to do it my self. So if you are ready to debate in person you better have your A game because I've debated plenty and it always sounds the same.
Merphie: I live in s okc. it would have to be after the 18. There are several parks around. a friend of mine might be able to get us room at uco. I prefer a more conversational format.
Are you saying we need a police presence? I thought this was going to be between two adults. the fact you would say such a thing gives me concern.
Actually the denomination is critical because they aren't compatible. I am not the one with beliefs. atheism means a lack of belief in gods. you have the beliefs which is what this is all about. You even believe you know what im going to say.
There is no historical or any other type of evidence for the bible. Not one thing outside the bible has been found to prove anything.
I wouldn't claim to know anything about your life. I would accept you believe you needed a supernatural thing to help you. ive heard the same claim for Muslims, buddist, and placebo effect. you all can't be right. belief is a very strong motivator. that doesn't prove there is a god. personal experience can't be used as evidence because it is unreliable.
If this is your a game then i hope you have better proof.
Steven: I'm not traveling to debate you. I've already spent more energy on this than I cared to. Especially since you want to set all the rules, dates,times, etc. Here is where I end things. I sincerely hope you discover God's love. And I will be praying that you are blessed with an amazing life!
Merphie: I'm not trying to set any rules. you asked me where and when I wanted to meet. If you want to back out that is fine with me.
I'll think for you.
He eventually went to "lets meet in person". This is usually code for throwing a bunch of stuff out at once and appealing to emotion. I guess it became obvious to Steven I wasn't going to use the same arguments "he's heard before".
As with most conversations with Theist it seems like most of the time is spent with them putting words in the Atheist mouth. Below is a copy and paste from the original email. (Headers and address have been removed) I apologize for the grammer of the text since most of it was typed on my phone.
Merphie: The bible is just as fictional as the paranormal.
Steven: Thanks.
Merphie: Just thought you should know. especially since paranormal and the bible conflict.
Steven: Actually if you studied the Bible you would realize they don't. But your opinion is entitled to you.
Steven: Thank you sir. All I can say is you're allowed to believe what you want. Jesus still loves you no matter how you feel about him. And I understand you will say he is fiction too. I've debated successfully and unsuccessfully with atheiests. All I can say is I am following what I believe.
Merphie: I understand about belief but that isn't what I said. you dont seem to care what is true and what is not.
Steven: You see. That's where our conversation ends. You said the Bible is fiction. I KNOW it to be true. I don't have time or energy to waste arguing with you on an email. If you care what is true. Meet me in person and I will debate you all you want. Other than that I will not respond to your banter and pandering again.
Merphie: Call it what you want because no amount of belief will make it true. you haven't even said which flavor you believe. Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, or calvonist? there's so many to choose from and none of them are compatible. it has nothing to do with what you think you know because every theist uses that statement to prove their belief.
A debate or argument is really no different in person or via email. you can't manipulate emotions to prove your point which is the only reason you would require it to be in person. if you can't prove your belief over email then you can't do it in person. the media doesn't matter because the argument rest on if it's true or false. Give it a simple try. tell me what you believe and your best reason for believing.
I am willing to meet in person at a public location on neutral ground (like a park) and I be allowed to record the argument so I can post it on my blog.
Steven: OK. Great I live in marlow. When would you like to meet and where. And of course I will also be recording the debate as well as bringing witnesses in case you plan violence against Christians. And my denomination is of no importance to the Bible being true. .im not even a member of a church at the moment. And I am a licenced minister. Truth is truth. Period. Your beliefs are set. No amount of discussion is going to change your mind. And honestly that is God's job not mine. All I can do is present literary, archaeological, and historical evidence from outside the Bible to prove the Bible is true. All you will do is point in discrepancies in the text that seem to make it look like the bible contradicts itself. That or point out the foolishness of faith in a book. These are all arguments I have heard before. How about the emotional aspect you spoke of. Oh yes my testimony is emotional. I was addicted to Meth as a teen. Sold dope. Shot at people. Fought. All that. And yep that stupid Jesus and that stupid book changed my life. And now I'm clean have a great job raising a family and helping people around me. And to that you'll probably say I'm weak for messing an imaginary figure to help me change because I'm not strong enough or smart enough to do it my self. So if you are ready to debate in person you better have your A game because I've debated plenty and it always sounds the same.
Merphie: I live in s okc. it would have to be after the 18. There are several parks around. a friend of mine might be able to get us room at uco. I prefer a more conversational format.
Are you saying we need a police presence? I thought this was going to be between two adults. the fact you would say such a thing gives me concern.
Actually the denomination is critical because they aren't compatible. I am not the one with beliefs. atheism means a lack of belief in gods. you have the beliefs which is what this is all about. You even believe you know what im going to say.
There is no historical or any other type of evidence for the bible. Not one thing outside the bible has been found to prove anything.
I wouldn't claim to know anything about your life. I would accept you believe you needed a supernatural thing to help you. ive heard the same claim for Muslims, buddist, and placebo effect. you all can't be right. belief is a very strong motivator. that doesn't prove there is a god. personal experience can't be used as evidence because it is unreliable.
If this is your a game then i hope you have better proof.
Steven: I'm not traveling to debate you. I've already spent more energy on this than I cared to. Especially since you want to set all the rules, dates,times, etc. Here is where I end things. I sincerely hope you discover God's love. And I will be praying that you are blessed with an amazing life!
Merphie: I'm not trying to set any rules. you asked me where and when I wanted to meet. If you want to back out that is fine with me.
I'll think for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)