[EDITOR'S NOTE: After one last scan of the article, it occurs to me the title needs some explanation. This isn't the actual goal of Mr. Doopy--he's trying to convince the other party in their debate that STL actually has a soul that can be crushed. No one was physically harmed in this battle of wits, if that's what this should be called.] Personally, I've begun to shy away from engaging with liberals or atheists in debate on the Internet because it's a tremendous time-suck, I'm not getting any younger, and my books unfortunately won't write themselves. It's just not a very productive use of my time, in my opinion, because the typical online debate adversary tends to assume several things that are inevitably untrue: these include the supposition opposing arguments cannot be supported by evidence, that arguments believed by consensus must be accepted as true, and that modern religious beliefs are only held by uneducated fools. Most often, this anonymous Internet opponent proves to be immune to all logic and reason, and devoid of any common sense. The effort usually strikes me as a colossal waste of valuable time so gradually, I've removed myself from groups where the trolls lurk, never seeming to have anything better to do than try to annoy me with ridiculous, ill-conceived arguments that usually degenerate into nothing more than childish insults or ad hominem. Nobody is ever going to admit, "You're right. I concede that my argument is inferior to yours."--no matter what transpires in the course of the debate, it has been my experience that the opponent never admits … [Read more...]
Willful ignorance
A couple of years ago, I faced the rather formidable challenge of engaging in public debate against Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists. Ed was very experienced in that sort of thing; it was my first and remains as of today, the only formal debate I've ever had in my life. Therefore, my work was certainly cut out for me. Fortunately for me, video existed on You Tube showing Ed present his best arguments while debating a Muslim scholar in the U.K. named Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. So I took copious notes, seizing upon the opportunity to anticipate Ed's best shots. In fairness, Ed also should have been able to anticipate my best shots coming, if he'd bothered to read some of my work as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. In my opening remarks, I enumerated the seven points that Ed made that were the foundation his best arguments for atheism and then eviscerated them, point-by-point. I sort of expected that once the logical flaws in Ed's argument were systematically exposed and shredded before he'd ever opened his mouth, we would then be able to spend the remainder of our time arguing about points about the science that has now officially become the crux of my Counterargument for God. Because I knew Ed to be quite an intelligent man, I will now confess that I was expecting the alleged "freethinker" would be a little bit more open-minded. I foolishly assumed that Ed would be able to defend his own beliefs, rather than simply attacking what he supposed to be mine with every opportunity.Sadly, Ed disappointed me. Also in my opening … [Read more...]
Mental masturbation
When someone goes out of his or her way to ask me to do something very specific, I usually try to accommodate them, especially if the request is reasonable. Though I've been quite busy editing the draft of my coming novel Secondhand Sight, my friend Sean made a point of asking me to read Free Will by Sam Harris. I protested that I was busy writing and editing my novel. Readers of my first Robert Mercer mystery, titled Coastal Empire, have been clamoring for the sequel, which won't come after Secondhand Sight. I don't want interest to wane, while I'm screwing around reading another writer's book. Sean persuaded me by countering that the Harris book was short, and an "easy read." So I splurged on Amazon, shelling out $3.99 for the Kindle edition. What a sucker I am! Oh, it was short, all right. And an easy read. But more importantly, the book proved to be an utter waste of my time and money. Love ya, Sean, but I should have just kept writing. Do not assume that I fail to appreciate Sam Harris as a writer. On the contrary, I thought his book The End of Faith was quite good, though I disagreed with most of his conclusions. It was quite brave of Harris to admit that he believes in a spiritual facet of the universe that inexplicably exists, but cannot be defined in conventional, scientific terms. The "Fourth Horseman" clearly departed from Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins on that point. Harris said he prefers the term "mysticism" to "spiritualism" to describe this phenomena he accepts, because he believes the latter term has more … [Read more...]
