The Wee Flee: the Truth shall make him run away….

Many of my comments (including replies to DR’s bone-headed attempts at rebuttal) are still *ahem* “awaiting moderation”. I think we can take it by now that that means DR has decided that they will never see the light of day.

As before, I have edited DR’s OP and anyone who wants to read ’em in full (and weep) may go to the link on my last post.

Moving on to the second programme let me point out a few more things (I won’t comment on the repeat mistakes he made from the first):


1) Matt evaluates his own reason as the standard and rejects my idea that Jesus is the standard –

How have you come to the conclusion that Jesus is good?

4) Then Matt reached a new low in seeking the prove that the Bible was wrong. He claimed that because Jesus spoke about salt losing its savour, then the Bible is proved wrong!

I agree. This was not a good example. A better example would have been his mistaken reference to Abiathar instead of Ahmelech at Mark 2 23-28.

5) Matt then brought things back to a more logical aspect when he pointed out that if God was real he should reveal himself in a way that is clear and accessible to all. The answer to that is He has. God has revealed himself in a way that is clear and accessible to all – through Jesus Christ. That was why I wrote Magnificent Obsession – to point to Jesus. Matt and others keep looking away or shutting their eyes.t

If he is so clear & accessible, why are there so many sects of Christianity? It has always been true of Christianity that its adherents have been deeply divided as to what they believe. Even the earliest Christians were at loggerheads.

7) Then we had another one of those evasive and self-contradictory ‘don’t know’ confusing statements.

David, this is either wilfully dishonest or an illustration of the Kraft-Dunning principle of almost tragic proportions.

Talk about pre-suppositions! You have got it so firmly lodged in your head that anyone who asserts “I do not believe P” must as a matter of simple logic be saying “I do believe ~P” that it seems nothing and nobody will be able to make you see your error.

That is why (I suppose) you thought that asking whether the number of gumballs must be either odd or even would “destroy [his] argument in one sentence”. Give me strength! That is not destroying his whole argument! That is the very premise upon which his whole argument turns! It is extraordinarily simple but it seems to be more than a wee bit complicated for you.

If you have no way to count the number of gumballs in the gumball machine then the answer to the question “Is the number odd or even?” is “I DON’T KNOW” (which makes in a KNOWN unknown, BTW). Is anyone apart from David finding this concept at all difficult?

Let’s try it again:

Fred and Sue are outside the shop, looking in at the gumball machine.

Fred “Do you believe that the number of gumballs is odd?”

Sue “No. I don’t know”

Fred “Aha! So you MUST believe that the number is even!”

Sue “No. I don’t know.”

Fred “I am embarrassed for you! How completely illogical of you! There are only two possibilities – so if you don’t believe that it is an odd number, you are compelled to believe that it is an even number.”

Philosophy 101 – which one is actually being logical, Fred or Sue? (And you can take it from me, it is only one of them).

Update – 18 June 2015

There has been a flurry of renewed activity on DR’s post for the first debate here

I have posted a couple of responses to that pretentious ass Paul Handley. They have not been allowed past the moderator (i.e. DR).  Here are the posts.  Figure out for yourselves why DR has decided they should not appear:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
JUNE 9, 2015 AT 8:52 PM
I’m not sure what it would mean for something to be “implacably” a philosophy but anyway, if atheism is a philosophy, then being a non-Muslim is a religion.
What makes a person an atheist is not believing in God, that’s all. Some go further and positively believe that God does not exist but that is not a necessary condition of atheism.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
JUNE 9, 2015 AT 9:00 PM
I’m an atheist. Some of my beliefs are connected with my atheism, some aren’t. For instance, I believe that it won’t rain tomorrow. Is that part of my “atheist philosophy”?
I assume you’re a Christian. Is everything you believe, from 2 + 2 = 4 to Paris being the capital of France, part of your Christian philosophy?


6 thoughts on “The Wee Flee: the Truth shall make him run away….

  1. I know I’m late to this post but I only just found the “debate”. Thank you for your responses to the truly dishonest theist. I know I shouldn’t be after all this time but I was really surprised just how dishonest he was in those two blog posts. You were the only one to hold his feet to the fire properly in that thread and he ran away from you repeatedly. Good job.

    That was so frustrating to listen to. From the disrespect and ad homs in the first hour to the outright lies and misrepresentations in his blog it was quite a painful experience.


  2. And I am even later to this, but I am so appalled at Robertson’s that I had to comment. On one hand, his snide, condescending, willfully obtuse and intellectually dishonest rope-a-dope is infuriating. I expect that behavior from trolls, not from people who purport to represent Christianity and “Christ-like” behavior.

    On the other hand, guys like that are playing for their audience, and that audience ain’t atheists, agnostics or questioning Christians. To those people, Robertson just comes across as a particularly dislikable court jester. Boors (Robertson, David Marshall) and Boobs (Ken Ham, Ray Comfort) are the best weapons atheists have. Many a deconverdion story begins with disillusionment with apologists.

    I do wonder how they manage to reconcile their behavior with their ostensible religious beliefs.

  3. I am currently reading – and commenting on his posts. I can honestly say that I do not recall having met a more conceited, arrogant evangelist that Robertson.
    In his latest … Pastors Heart video he says these absolute corkers!


    My aim is not to grind people in to the ground … though that is always fun … (laughter)

    and …
    In response to the apparent collapse of the church in Scotland is that atheist are unaware of the gospels( according to him)

    One of the pros is this … whenever I do a debate with an atheist, I’ve never lost. Not because I’m brilliant but because they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

    I reminded him about Matt Dilahanty

    He moderates all comments apparently.


    • Yes, Arkenaten. I’ve been reading you comments (as I still get alerts from that thread).
      DR is an odd person. He’s certainly very full of himself, a very conceited man with very little to be conceited about.

      He is a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. One would feel sorry for him if he weren’t so thoroughly obnoxious with it.

      • Was there a problem with drugs in his past?
        He alludes to ”… burying the drug addict …” in his latest podcast.

        I find pretty much all of these evangy-fundy types are more slippery than the Cloaca Maxima.
        And their arguments stink just as bad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s