Lying for Jesus

[Born_again]

Whilst the 'Jesus thread' is having it's potential resurrection mulled over by the forum godess, what about the ugly aspects of what 'having Jesus' can do to some people?

Anyone that has accepted rationality into their lives will probably be aware, that the immoral depths that apologists are prepared to descend are truly astounding. So prevalent is this trend that 'quote mining' has sort of assumed a 'reverence' by the type of people that commonly use the technique, to a point whereby it has become a 'legitimate' tool in their battle not only against their own cognitive dissonance, but the freethinking society in general.
We have examples all around us ..... quote miners, thread derailers, 'victims', liars, hypocrites, "*.* - card" wavers and sycophants.
My observations have led me to recognise a sort of modus operandi that is structured; sort of like a series of firewalls, with each successive wall affording more enhanced 'blocking'. The ultimate goal is a tidy derailment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1XgqSR7WRE
Lying For Jesus - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist (AA) Conference 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia (Part 2)

[normaM]

or you could title the thread Lying for Dr Who
Dick is far too caught up in being a celebrity to have much credibility.

[JonyDarko]

How does having success as a writer, speaker, and professor take away from credibility?

Or is it simply that you disagree with what he has to say?

[hellomynameis]

or you could title the thread Lying for Dr Who
Dick is far too caught up in being a celebrity to have much credibility.

1. Sure he could have titled the thread "Lying for Dr Who" if he was talking about people lying for Dr. Who...

2. Your statement assumes that celebrity status automatically reduces one's credibility. You fail to show how and where he has lost credibility. I'd say his schooling, profession, publications and lectures all speak to his credibility. Who cares what his status as a public figure is, does he speak honestly or not?

3. Born_again links to a video that examples his point and you change the subject #1 and present an ad hominem attack #2.

Weak tea.

Oh, perhaps I have it wrong. Perhaps you were being sarcastic to further illustrate the points B-A was making. Sarcasm comes across so poorly on the interwebs.

It does seem (and I'm not saying it is purely one sided) that in the Religion/Athesim debate some people are more concerned with a tactical advantage, in the form of lies mis-quotes, etc. than winning by rational argument. Fortunately we have the interwebs where webblings are quick to point out any BS.

An interesting debate: Kabane The Christian vs Matt Dillahunty (1 of 4)

[normaM]

How does having success as a writer, speaker, and professor take away from credibility?

Or is it simply that you disagree with what he has to say?

He is as entrenched in his position as others are that he attacks - doesn't seem like what science should be, imo.
But perhaps he's a heck of a fun guy and I'm wrong.
Even tho many call him a media *bleep*.
They are most likely wrong, too.

Maybe there is no Richard Dawkins

[hellomynameis]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Sticking to your position isn't dishonest, Dawkins has addressed how/why he sticks to his positions many times. "Entrenched" and "media *bleep*" are just tactical words with purposeful connotations just like many words used in debate. The trick is to be able to discern if the rhetoric being used is of honest intent or not.

Another example would be the deceit employed by members of school board during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial and the previous actions of the FTE.

Where did the money come from to buy the textbooks? You don't know? Lier.

"On Pandas and People" a rehash of the previously ruled on textbook that was deemed to be creationist (religious) based. Deceitful.

[hellomynameis]

My observations have led me to recognise a sort of modus operandi that is structured; sort of like a series of firewalls, with each successive wall affording more enhanced 'blocking'. The ultimate goal is a tidy derailment.

Born_Again could you elaborate further?

I'm interested in the topic, I just hope we aren't labelled as religion haters.

[Born_again]

The fact that the video I linked to was Richard Dawkins giving a lecture is almost entirely irrelevant. The kind of deceitful chicanery employed by his detractors should be the focus here, in keeping with the OP title.
The video is merely an example of one of the many immoral ways in which some apologists for Christ operate. Before I depart from Richard Dawkins, humour me by considering the following quotations:

Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.

.... two out of three ain't bad

Nuff said on Richard, methinks? Back to business ............

My observations have led me to recognise a sort of modus operandi that is structured; sort of like a series of firewalls, with each successive wall affording more enhanced 'blocking'. The ultimate goal is a tidy derailment.

Born_Again could you elaborate further?

Sure. I believe that the default condition for a human on being confronted by something that causes discomfort or change is to squish it! Be it a spider scurrying past your feet as you do the dishes, the heartbreaking 'discovery' that there were no WMD's, or your long-held beliefs are being directly challenged. How you cope with these inconveniences relies heavily upon your mental conditioning. Obviously we were all super-receptive at some point in time, much like a sponge. In it went, the whole lot of it; we kept soaking it up until we reached saturation point. That is where the problem started -- cleaning house! The problem wasn't so much deciding which bits to chuck out, but the reasoning behind the decision. Perhaps the external influences clouded your judgement, your reason, your logic? The fact of the matter is that each one of us harbours inconveniently-held 'truths', and would for the sake of convenience just rather not "go there". Sad but true.

1st FirewallThe lapsed-time bomb

Let's assume I'm making a case for evolutionary theory in a thread. How long will it be before someone will ask me what makes me so sure that life on earth is down to evolutionary theory. Now we all know that life's origins are nothing to do with evolution, but rather abiogenesis -- a completely different field altogether. Does that stop the inferences? No, it doesn't. So, we now have to spend the next 3 pages trying in vain to point this out...... but wait just one second.......... we have over the course of the last 3 pages lost all continuum. Bingo!! Let's just say that some are happy to digress, and some people who do so are intelligent enough to do so purposely! Rarely have I seen a topic recover fully after such an attack. If it does recover ......

2nd Firewall Falsification

Recently in a topic not a million miles from here, somebody made a statement that simply did not hold water, it was patently false. Seemingly this was an innocent case of passing on misinformation. The real problem arose when that someone then adamantly dug their heels in and sent the thread spiralling out of control. Now surely standing corrected would have been the way to go, but pride got in the way of reason. The cost was that the thread was destroyed. The pay-off was that ignorance was once again victorious, and deep-seated beliefs remained blissfully unchallenged.

3rd Firewall Misrepresentation

Selectively cropping a quote to maliciously misrepresent the owner of the quote, especially to give the impression of hypocrisy or conflicting viewpoints. See the video above for a textbook example. Another example would be the folk that misrepresent people like Einstein by attributing certain beliefs upon them, despite the opposite being the reality. Darwin recanting on his death bed? It's a cheap trick, made worse that the victim is not around to straighten the matter out.....again.
I have personal experience of this on these forums. The only time I have lost my rag proper is when someone tried that filthy trick on me. Lowest of the low.

Time is running out, but throw in some straw men, evasion, insults, aspersions on intelligence, spell/grammar checkers, ad hominem, Ad hominem tu quoque, arguments from authority, false logic, Occam's, 1st mover, denial, inappropriate web-sources for reference, etc, etc.
Of course, some find it useful to chirp-in uncharacteristically, especially ones that don't normally contribute to the more contentious threads. This is normally caused by a flame war in an unrelated thread but follows the victim around the threads. Some like to lay in wait, then chip-in when their 'comrades' are in bother, start a barrage of veiled insults then cry foul when exposed -- the false-victimisation card, alas!
All very clever stuff really, but getting a little tired now.

I'm interested in the topic, I just hope we aren't labelled as religion haters.

That should not be the outcome, as I have absolutely no intention of attacking or even invoking religion into the debate. If someone wishes to misrepresent their belief or religion by attacking or hating me personally, then I'm sure they would only be acting for themselves, and not as a representative of their particular religion.
I'm going to attempt to play this one as safely as possible ...... and see what transpires.

[Mr Danksworth]

Well thought out, thank you. I have been trying to wrap my head around these tactics and put them into written form, looks like you beat me to it. It's funny though, is there a playbook that 'they' use? Sure seems like it, it's used across the board.

[sobrohusfat]

Good post B_A,

The tactic of squishing the uncomfortable is used liberally by many.
The firewalls you list reffer to Forum chicanery and the art of destroying a thread. Aren't those instances usually perceived as more malicious than actually intended.
Haven't we all experienced the back to thread topic pointers attempting to squelch interesting rolls- even though points and counterpoints of the initial topic have gone around so often allready - and that can kill a possibly interesting thread in its tracks too. after all a good, thoughtfull, informative, interesting "on topic" post can bring things back on track in an instant no?

...but back on topic:

Deceitfull chicanery for Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deceitfull chicanery for secular selfish gain

both from the same self absorbed sesspooll no? not particularly a "Jesus" issue in the overall scheme of things. Unless of course one want's it to be exclusively so.

[Born_again]

Good post B_A,

The tactic of squishing the uncomfortable is used liberally by many.
The firewalls you list reffer to Forum chicanery and the art of destroying a thread. Aren't those instances usually perceived as more malicious than actually intended.
Haven't we all experienced the back to thread topic pointers attempting to squelch interesting rolls- even though points and counterpoints of the initial topic have gone around so often allready - and that can kill a possibly interesting thread in its tracks too. after all a good, thoughtfull, informative, interesting "on topic" post can bring things back on track in an instant no?

...but back on topic:

Deceitfull chicanery for Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deceitfull chicanery for secular selfish gain

both from the same self absorbed sesspooll no? not particularly a "Jesus" issue in the overall scheme of things. Unless of course one want's it to be exclusively so.

Aren't those instances usually perceived as more malicious than actually intended.

I have often tried to consider the level of malevolence or rationale involved in derailing a thread.

On the one hand, somebody may just innocently add their tuppence worth without really having a 'feel' for the topic in hand, much less the passion of those locking horns. This is sometimes regrettable as others who need an 'out' will pounce on any distraction offered, no matter how small. I would not ascribe intent or malice in this scenario, but rather a shade of noobness or general lack of social etiquette.

On the other hand we have the genuine derailer. Rather than politely stepping out of the sandpit, they throw everyone else's toys out of the pit as well. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I magnanimously accept conferred victory at this point.

after all a good, thoughtfull, informative, interesting "on topic" post can bring things back on track in an instant no?

Sadly, I'd say no. The people who typically run away are loath to return, however, sometimes we can be treated to some short-lived ROFLry when someone scurries back with 'the answer', hastily fished from all the wrong places on the web. The downside of this kind of 'triumphant' return is that the standard rebuttals to hastily sourced tripe are often seen as a personal attack, which legitimises their walking away for the final time.

You mentioned the cyclic nature of some discussions that seemingly run to stand still. Who would you consider to be the 'victor' in such situations? The people who try to maintain the cyclic status quo, or the people who try to break the cycle and tread the resultant new ground? What would be the primary motivation in locking a discussion into cycle mode? Obvious, I know, but there are some who are happy to do this, if only to see the frustration of of their protagonists who are willing and able to move on.

Deceitfull chicanery for Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deceitfull chicanery for secular selfish gain

both from the same self absorbed sesspooll no? not particularly a "Jesus" issue in the overall scheme of things. Unless of course one want's it to be exclusively so.

I'm not exactly sure(as you may expect LOL) what "secular selfish gain" means or entails, so if you could be so kind......

On the Jesus thing, sadly his name has been dragged into the cesspool by some of his own immoral worshippers, so the association with Jesus is unfortunate, but necessary in that it may highlight to peers that some of the flock truly have lost their way. I would happily join you in a bipartisan condemnation of any similar tactics that arise from the atheist camp, but I would wager that instances would be few and far between, and certainly not an ongoing trend as is "lying for Jesus".

[sobrohusfat]

If i was to say:

Hey y'all, today "Born_Again said:

The association with Jesus is unfortunate... I would happily join you in a bipartisan condemnation of any similar tactics that arise from the atheist camp.

wow...There is hope for the future after all!!".

You could accuse me of lying but it would be simply the result of selective hearing & reasoning based on an entrenched bias on my part. That is common and universal.

All the firewalls you listed, i've observed but from this "side" and man it is universal.
(i may even have ventured down that road once or twice myself...only out of exasperated spite of course)

ps ..."you win"...that is the point of all these discussions right?

[hellomynameis]

My experience leads me to believe that the internet (or any other impersonal medium) is an especially difficult environment to combat deceitful tactics be they employed in ignorance or purposefully.

IRL when you catch someone making a logical fallacy, giving misinformation, attempting to derail the conversation and etcetera a quick 'call-out' usually stops them dead and the topic can continue. On the net people can stick with their "tangent" until utter irrelevancy is achieved.

[Born_again]

I can see that you are feeling rather jocular tonight, Sobrhusfat. Good to see it!

One point on the comment about "entrenched bias", I suspect partially in jest. I don't buy that line .... not one bit. You are speaking to a one-time racist, homophobic and theist, and I'm proud to be able to admit it. So, I guess you could say that I've had my little share of entrenched bias. I've moved on now to a new flavour of entrenched bias', and I feel comfy with them -- in fact I feel right at home with them.

[hellomynameis]

Deceitfull chicanery for Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deceitfull chicanery for secular selfish gain

both from the same self absorbed sesspooll no? not particularly a "Jesus" issue in the overall scheme of things. Unless of course one want's it to be exclusively so.

...

On the Jesus thing, sadly his name has been dragged into the cesspool by some of his own immoral worshippers, so the association with Jesus is unfortunate, but necessary in that it may highlight to peers that some of the flock truly have lost their way. I would happily join you in a bipartisan condemnation of any similar tactics that arise from the atheist camp, but I would wager that instances would be few and far between, and certainly not an ongoing trend as is "lying for Jesus".

Perhaps I have overlooked it or just plainly haven't seen it but the atheist material* does seem to have much less of a penchant for using these "firewalls" compared to the religious material*.
I still go to all kinds of religious services (usually accompanying a friend or family member to their locale of choice): Wiccan, Buddhist, neo-pagan, Baptist, Pennicostal, new age spiritualism (at a place in Westbank) and Roman Catholic. Yet it seems Christianity is by far (followed by new-age) the most disingenuous group.

Atheist material: Authors like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett. Shows like the ones produced by the ACA (Matt en company) and etc.

(Christian)Religious material: Lee Strobel, TV Pastors, Pastors in general, Walter Martin, Christian Radio, etc.

The problem is twofold:
1. The "firewall" usage is way too high.
2. (and I am willing to acknowledge some atheists follow the atheist material with equal devotion) That these firewalls are being disseminated en mass to a very naive public.

That is why I think B_A has total legitimacy in pointing this topic toward "Lying for Jesus".