Steve’s back again with another comment on Friendly Atheist’s “What Does the Bible say about Abortion” post and this is my response to him:
Psst! Dear future readers. I don’t know whether you’ll be reading this later today or ten months from now but I wanted to address you specifically.
You see, I’m far more interested in talking to you rather than Steve. He’s going to try to shift the conversation from his intellectual dishonesty to me (and quite frankly, fail horribly) because he can’t admit that his own words apply equally to him.
So here’s a recap for you, the future readers:
Steve said this: “Discussing Biblical topics on an atheistic site is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him”
I pointed out to Steve that this applies equally to all values of X =/= Y since “Discussing X topics on an Y site, where those discussing it are Y not X, is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him” or equally “Discussing Y topics on an Y site, where those discussing it are X not Y, is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him”
And then I turned it back around on Steve since we can sub in any other religion or philosophy to get “Discussing atheist topics on an atheist site, where Steve Maxedon isn’t an atheist, is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him”
Yet Steve will not admit that his own words apply to himself and he continues to respond here, an atheist blog, when he’s not an atheist.
Now, on with his comments.
Addenum: intellectual honesty and reading comprehension
Dear future readers, did you see what Steve did here?
Instead of admitting his intellectual dishonesty, he brings it up but doesn’t admit to anything.
Let’s see how far he wants to take it.
In your blog
And here, dear future readers, Steve tries to turn it around on me instead of staying on the topic we’re working through — him failing to apply his words to himself and his intellectual dishonesty.
So, future readers, don’t be fooled. Steve thinks that reading my blog will provide a distraction from his dishonesty, as well as ammunition to throw at me. It’s really sad that he chooses to focus, not on the plank in his own eye, but on a speck in mine that he’s got to go hunting on my blog for.
you claim to have read the Bible through at least twice and once considered ‘joining the ministry’.
Future readers, Steve thinks that by mentioning this, it’ll fool you into thinking that the subject has changed. Nothing is farther from the truth as you, dear reader, are smart enough to recognize his obfuscation.
The topic is still Steve’s intellectual dishonesty. And by mining my blog for my words that he thinks to hold over me, well, then the inverse must also apply to him.
If Steve wants to hold me to my words, then he, too, in order to be intellectually honest, must be held to his words.
Now, dear reader, let me continue on that thought: Steve is being further dishonest because he’s applying a criteria to me that he isn’t applying to himself, namely that I should be held responsible for what I say. But he refuses to apply that standard to himself. And that, my friends, is the textbook definition of intellectually dishonest.
Not only was he being intellectually dishonest when he refused to apply his own words to himself, but now, by holding my words to me and again not applying that same criteria to himself, he’s doubled down and now is twice as intellectually dishonest.
So, dear readers, you have to ask yourselves why Steve just doesn’t admit his words apply to him and why he continues to be intellectually dishonest?
Your experience in the Christian world went badly and you claimed victim status.
Ah, see here, future readers? Steve is trying to make it all my fault. That’s known as gaslighting someone.
Except Steve left out the part where I examined my beliefs and realized I couldn’t believe things without evidence.
You see, I applied my skepticism about other religions like Islam and Hinduism to Xianity (see “The Outsider Test for Faith” by John Loftus, available at fine bookshops and on Amazon). By applying my skepticism for other religions to my own, I was intellectually honest.
You’ll notice, dear readers, that despite multiple opportunities to correct himself, Steve is still choosing to double down and keep adding to his dishonesty.
If you had really read and comprehended the Bible,
Ok, did you notice that? Steve, who has amply demonstrated his lack of English comprehension in this exchange with “mist” instead of “midst” and his repeated misunderstanding of what “intellectually dishonest” actually means, wants you to accept that my comprehension of the bible is wrong.
So you’ll forgive me, future readers, if I don’t take Steve’s word on comprehending the bible seriously, considering his lack.
Oh, by the by, it’s a mere trifling, but you’ll note that Steve fails again to admit his words apply to him and he chooses to continue to be intellectually dishonest.
your intellect would have told you it(Christianity) was your personal relationship with Christ and not the responsibility of anyone but you.
Again, dear readers, Steve invokes the No True Scotsman fallacy (I’m not surprised Steve doesn’t know what that is but I’m sure he’ll look that up).
According to what Steve the intellectually dishonest liar is implying, I wasn’t a True XianTM when I was a Xian because I didn’t realize that I was supposed to have a “personal relationship” with the bible god.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand, expressly Steve’s intellectual dishonesty? Absolutely nothing, future readers. Absolutely nothing.
And you recognize it as such.
So your playing the blame game is a poor excuse for your lack of faith.
What I find interesting, dear readers, is that Steve continues to hold me to a criteria that he, himself, won’t adhere to, namely that my words must be held against me while his aren’t held against him. Isn’t that intellectually dishonest? Yeah, I thought so, too.
You’ll also note that Steve is so busy trying to turn his flaming failure around onto me by trying to change the subject to my faith, or lack there of, instead of the topic that we haven’t left: namely his intellectual dishonesty by not applying his own words to himself.
I’m sure you’re laughing at his pathetic attempts as am I.
Its all you.
And that, dear readers, is Steve continuing to be intellectually dishonest by never admitting his own words apply to himself, instead trying to use my blog writing to shift the subject over to me.
I’m truly sorry, my friends, that Steve’s religious beliefs, his “personal relationship,” hasn’t made him a better person. He continue to be an intellectually dishonest liar despite numerous opportunities to become honest and stop lying.
I wonder, dear future readers, what the bible has to say about bearing false witness and the (hot) fate of liars?
Don’t worry, dear future readers, I’m sure Steve will respond yet again with stuff from my blog, seeking (and failing) to change the subject from his dishonesty over to me, //sarcasm// because everyone knows that that’s the way to resolve his intellectual dishonesty – by holding me to a criteria that he won’t apply to himself.