Friday, February 10, 2012

Andrew the Atheist will return after these commercial messages.

Andrew the Atheist will return when Tim decides to consider Andrew's position, and not simply re-state his own position, after Andrew has shown it to be flawed. If Tim wants to ignore Andrew's rebuttals, then there is no reason for Andrew to continue this exchange.


  1. Andrew, I am very confused. I always try to respond to any rebuttal you put up. Give some examples of things that I have not rebutted. Also, I feel like you are the one who does not rebut my offerings. Isn't it interesting how we both think that the other is not responding to the other's argument? Seriously, I want this blog to continue. Give me something to rebut, and believe me, I will.

  2. Maybe if Andrew would be clearer about what his arguments actually are? They're kind of hard to follow because they're so jumbled up with pathetic jokes and bitter outbursts.

    I've asked direct questions, and I'm still waiting for answers. For example, is Andrew making the claim that the Dragon in his pants has physical properties? Does Andrew understand the difference between Being, Non-Being, and Beyond-Being? Why are humans "obligated" to behave morally? There is a big difference in claiming that humans of the atheistic persuasion can't act morally and saying that they have no logical reason to do so. I've flirted with atheism long enough to know that there are proposed answers to these questions except Andrew doesn't seem to know what they are. I think I could argue the atheist position better than he could. Ccould Andrew come close to articulating mine? Very doubtful. If Andrew chooses to retreat from this blog, I will be left to assume he can't engage with my theist position because he is either willfully ignorant, or he is fearfully ignorant, or both.

    Tim, I know you aren't going to like my tone, but what can I say? I'm not the nicest person. You seem like a well-meaning and friendly guy, and that is commendable, but don't be fooled into thinking that sweet words win hearts. Sometimes it is important to call a spade a spade. If Andrew just can't deal with debate and dialogue then you'll have to let him go. In God's time Andrew will face these questions again.

  3. Then I'll be clear:

    "I've asked direct questions, and I'm still waiting for answers. For example, is Andrew making the claim that the Dragon in his pants has physical properties?"


    "Does Andrew understand the difference between Being, Non-Being, and Beyond-Being?"

    Semantic non-issue.

    "Why are humans "obligated" to behave morally?"

    Humans are social animals.

    Antonia, this blog is supposed to be dedicated to Tim's argument. If you want to create your own blog and invite me to debate you, you are welcome to do so. Here, primary attention is given to the host of the blog, not the commenters.

  4. "Duck, dodge, run away" is the apparent method. "Because he can", is the apparent justification.


  5. Andrew,
    It's true; at times I'm an arrogant, attention seeking, busy-body. I guess I just thought since this was a public blog, open to comments, the hosts desired to play with others. If the hosts of the blog only want cheerleader-commenters, then I have certainly been wasting my time here. If you or Tim think my comments, points, and questions are not worthy of attention then it makes sense that I would be so easily dismissed, but it seems to me that I'm so easily dismissed because you have no in-depth responses. The answers you do provide are overly simplistic and lack reasonable foundations. They are blindly accepted dogmas. One might say they are grounded on belief, opinion, or faith, instead of Reasons. I'll give you an example to help you understand. I ask, "Why are (((humans))) obligated to behave morally?" Your answer doesn't really address the question it only backs it up a step. Now the question is, "Why are ((((the social animals known as humans)))) obligated to behave morally?" You intuitively know that humans ARE indeed obligated, but the fact that they are social doesn't make them obligated. We could even ask if they are obligated to be social. Another factor to consider is: obligated to whom or what? You could offer that they are obligated to each other but is that obligation self-imposed or is there some outside Force obligating humans? if it is self-imposed, can it be dismissed with if the person so chooses? if that is the case, then were they really obligated in the first place? But we are getting ahead of ourselves here.
    Morality is just one topic that we could discuss. Actually, I like your Dragon argument and I would like to continue with it. I think it's more essential in the long run than morality. or maybe more accurately, the ideas of morality naturally flow from it.
    Also, I don't think we need a new forum in which to discuss these big ideas. We have a perfectly good forum right here with commenters of a wide variety of perspectives and backgrounds. I don't know about the rest of the commenters, but I'm perfectly willing to listen and learn about atheist's perspectives, except I'm not going to just bend over and take it, in the hopes that you'll appreciate the experience and convert to Christianity. I'm not going to shower you with rainbows and butterflies either. I completely agree with many of your critiques of Christianity. Some of what passes for Christianity is as you have portrayed it, pathetic and ridiculous. Still, I promise to do my best to be unbiased (if that is possible for anyone) when thinking about the issues and if you are willing, continue the dialogue began here. What I'm saying is that I invite you to converse, civilly and reasonably with me on the topics, in the forum provided by Tim. I hope you don't feel the need to run from invitations.
    Tim, if you find my comments to be leading your blog off track, I would not in the least be offended by being silenced. I could understand your reasons. I don't understand Andrews's reasons for not wanting to engage me. I can only speculate, as I have done.