"Atheistic morality" may be too broad an issue here. . .

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

BRYCE
I've been gone for a few days, and I missed the entire "Atheist
morality" thread.  Pity.  I think I could have shed a lot of light
onto this discussion.  I can only respond to a few of the more salient
quotes:

MATT
". . . shortly after receiving notification from F.Till that he knew
what was happening on my list I u*subscr*bed an individual from the
CCBE who had posted a inclusive atheistic post to errancy."

BRYCE
As I haven't received any further mail from CCBE,  I can only presume
that I'm the person being referred to here.  If this is the case, then
readers will soon see that Matt's withering criticism of Farrell Till
is completely invalid.  

MATT
In the case of the individual fwding posts to F.Till is is either 

a) a Christian on the CCBE sending out the posts or

b) an atheist who has joined the list under false pretences
with the purpose of doing so.

BRYCE
Then it would be "B," but with the caveat:  "What false pretenses?" 
Your page told me how to s*bscr*be by contacting a certain E-mail
address.  I s*bscr*bed.  Findmail told me to verify.  I verified.  At
no point was I asked to explain my reasons for wanting to s*bscr*be. 
At no point was I asked to keep discussions within the list.  At no
point was I asked if I was a Christian.  Strangely enough, you didn't
even notice that I was using my normal E-mail address.

MATT
If you consider the above actions by the person sending the posts from
a closed list to F.Till, and his receipt of them as moral then it says
more about your own morals than any accussation I could ever make
regarding them.

BRYCE
For someone who has been admonished by Christ himself to not judge
hastily, Matt is certainly coming to a quick decision.  Till's morals
are not at issue here.

SHUMAKER
While he's at it, he should justify his accusation that Till
demonstrated deficient morality when he read a CCBE-list posting that
someone else had forwarded to him. Matt has the advantage of the moral
beacon of Christianity to guide him. So he cannot expect those of us
without it to comprehend the immorality of this incident and then mend
our ways until he explains it to us. At the very least, his own claim
to moral behavior requires that he explain himself. It is undoubtedly
immoral to falsely accuse others of immorality. So if Matt truly has
superior morals, he will explain why his claim about Till is justified.

BRYCE
     After quite a lot of lurking on CCBE, I noticed a particularly
arrogant post by Turkel, that I thought Till would get a kick out of. 
It was a single post, regarding the blood/water/magicians debate, that
Till did not solicit.  His response did NOT indicate that he was at
all interested in any further intel from me.  Unless there was another
spook in CCBE, then Bell has no grounds for impunging the ethics of
Mr. Till.

MATT
We would also point out to F.Till that CCBE exists for serious debate
and discussion not for the playing of games.

BRYCE
Au contraire, Matt.  CCBE (and I know this from firsthand experience)
exists SOLELY for the playing of games.  You expect CCBE to be treated
as though it were the thoughtful opinion of a scholar, without
requiring that the real brains behind these posts take responsibility
for the problems in their arguments.  More importantly, knowing
nothing of the authors' previous works, we are unable to know if one
of your members is contradicting a previous statement.  It's just the
members' way of protecting their collective reputations (and the egos
that these reputations foster).  By the most convenient of
asymmetries, any time Till slips up, everyone on the CCBE list can
post his failures to all their cronies.  Further tipping the scales,
CCBE has a specific opponent (Till), and the list members are familiar
with his work.  Are your buddies willing to attack from behind a cloak
of anonymity?  Does this indicate confidence in their position?


>From the day CCBE was announced, I've been amazed by the paranoia and

deceit inherent in the project.  I joined the list for my own
self-enlightenment, since Matt steadfastly refused to reveal whether
he had gathered the finest apologetic minds in the world or was simply
asking his goldfish and potted plant for advice.  I stayed on for a
couple of weeks, and was mildly amused by what passed as 'scholarship'
in Matt and Co.'s list.  Again, I finally forwarded a SINGLE message
by Turkel to Till.

My observation has led me to conclude that CCBE is far less than the
sum of its parts.  The entire thing is more of a "we hate Till"
support group than a serious attempt at refutation.  The only
advantage that CCBE has over "a bunch of apologists giving each other
bad advice" is that the members can float up trial balloons without
the demise of said dirgibles reflecting on their own capacities as
defenders of the faith.  My personal opinion is that, if Ron Turkel
has an opinion he'd like posted to Errancy, then let him post it to
Errancy.  

Farrell, this list should debate against individuals, not noncorporeal
entities.  If you refuse to deal with "CCBE" as a separate entity,
then it will essentially cease to exist.  Just hang a sign saying
"CCBE need not apply," and end this whole farce.

Oh, and Matt:  You didn't REALLY believe that there were five hundred
people who visited your silly website, did you?




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: The CCBE Rides Again
• Next message: my two cents on Turkel
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]