fayfreethinkers.com

A Christian would-be apologist on Facebook, Mr. Stroud, is going on and on about how atheism is untenable and how I'm afraid of "serious questions" on this issue.

I've invited him here to a larger forum to see if he's willing to make good on his boasting. (Typing in little Facebook columns is tedious, and doing so for an audience of ten or twelve is unrewarding.)

Stroud''s been insulting the quality of my book, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction, but I don't think debating whether my book is any good is nearly as interesting as debating something relevant to its topic, such as miracles, which Stroud seemed interested in defending.

Stroud has stated: "...naturalism is almost certainly false and therefore the way I interpret history should not be held to the default position that it (naturalism) is true. Moreover religion is a better more credible source for philosophy of history than naturalism in plausibility, explanatory scope, etc. so therefore it cannot simply be disqualified a priori. Even if religion is false it still is a stronger historic candidate than naturalism in other words."

I think Stroud is using the term "naturalism" this way: "Reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and...the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit.’"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#ConTheCom

(This is not the way the term is typically used in philosophy, though.)

I propose that we debate: "Resolved: Historians should favor supernatural explanations for reported miraculous events rather than naturalistic explanations."

We would need to define the parameters of the debate regarding method, but this is the proposal.

Now Mr. Stroud writes:

What I did was went straight to doug's published work and then checked with him that he still held to it then I dismantled it.

I roasted Stroud on Facebook, and now he claims victory and closes the Facebook thread where he was being whipped. I guess he doesn't want any more responses to his material.

If he wants to debate some topic in my book, he's welcome to come here and try his hand.

Apparently he's deleted the thread on Facebook. It's not showing in my past notifications. God I hate cowards like this. Then he starts a new thread where he offers his distorted revisions of what was supposedly in the old thread. Amazing. How many times have we seen this type of nonsense over the years?

I just posted this, it'll be interesting to see if he censors that too.

-----------------

STROUD
Sorry! The Nagel one not the Krueger one!!! Kreuger (intro to philosophy instructor nwacc) and I recently had a thread of conversations in which he avoided question after question of his work and refused to meet with me to discuss or taking a copy of my published thesis to critique; finally climaxed with another straw man approach in listing me as a "apologist" (Christian I assume) not philosopher of history to continue discussing points that he still never answered in a "free" thinker discussion board?!
if you are taking intro to philosophy at nwacc ask the professor if he/she has read these two books and if they dodge your questions continue to press for an answer.
"always take the evidence where it leads!"

DAR
Did you delete the thread where this happened so people can't see that your claims are plainly not true? He didn't refuse to meet with you, I said next Sunday would work. Why do you lie like this? It makes no sense. He offered to debate this on a forum where it might actually be read by people, and you can't delete it or lock just because you don't like how it's going for you. It's here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6839

With the proposal:
"I propose that we debate: "Resolved: Historians should favor supernatural explanations for reported miraculous events rather than naturalistic explanations."

I don't debate in forums were religious people like yourself can delete material because you don't like it, for the very reason you've just demonstrated for me again. Intellectual cowardice leading to censorship.

Stroud seems decidedly uninterested in debating me on the FF forum, but he'll debate on his Facebook page. However, in the first thread where he and I (and Darrel and Sav and others) discussed these issues (naturalism, theism), Stroud started losing badly, and he was caught lying about things we'd said, and about things I'd written in my book. So, in a second Facebook thread,he's blocked Darrel and is still losing again. So I'm reproducing the thread here in case he deletes it.

The thread is headed by a photograph of several books, one of which is on top of mine. Stroud says he recommends that students in philosophy asks their teachers whether they've read these books. And then he says...

Stroud
Sorry! The Nagel one not the Krueger one!!! Kreuger (intro to philosophy instructor nwacc) and I recently had a thread of conversations in which he avoided question after question of his work and refused to meet with me to discuss or taking a copy of my published thesis to critique; finally climaxed with another straw man approach in listing me as a "apologist" (Christian I assume) not philosopher of history to continue discussing points that he still never answered in a "free" thinker discussion board?!
if you are taking intro to philosophy at nwacc ask the professor if he/she has read these two books and if they dodge your questions continue to press for an answer.
"always take the evidence where it leads!"

Darrel
Did you delete the thread where this happened so people can't see that your claims are plainly not true? He didn't refuse to meet with you, I said next Sunday would work. Why do you lie like this? It makes no sense. He offered to debate this on a forum where it might actually be read by people, and you can't delete it or lock just because you don't like how it's going for you. It's here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6839

With the proposal:
"I propose that we debate: "Resolved: Historians should favor supernatural explanations for reported miraculous events rather than naturalistic explanations."

I don't debate in forums were religious people like yourself can delete material because you don't like it, for the very reason you've just demonstrated for me again. Intellectual cowardice leading to censorship.

Doug
Mr. Stroud, you are lying about me. You were extremely rude in the Facebook thread where I patiently answered your questions point-by-point. I also readily agreed to meet with you--I just said you have to wait until I've finished grading. Your dishonesty and abrasiveness are unbecoming.

Doug
Oh, and I never said that naturalism is false. You are not a careful reader, Mr. Stroud. I said I don't label myself a naturalist because I don't consider the term useful.

David Franks
"always take the evidence where it leads!"
Which is impossible when the evidence has been removed. I read the Krueger thread he refers to, and his synopsis is a falsification. Mr. Stroud is being disingenuous when he talks about dodging questions and seeking evidence.

Stroud
U set up the whole thing as "apologist" and did not want to meet and not want to meet in person so if it is I who is offended gentleman. "apologist" up and coming? Now that is a slap after I tried many times to work something out, therefore I will apologize again if I offended anyone but obviously u were never serious about having an intelligent conversation therein. Had u been serious we could have met (as I tried repeatedly), u would have requested several free copies to destroy/critique as I tries repeatedly; I think we both can see thru the games. And the sad part is I actually think u guys really do see yourselves as truly analytical philosophers on an elite level (and I actually think u see our exchange as a positive in ur favor?) thus I send my apologies (I did not lie and u saying I did is also offensive); this "up and coming apologist" will leave u in peace therefore since if both sides see the other as liar then a fruitful discussion is almost impossible... I will attempt (as mentioned earlier) to make it to a "free" thinkers meeting if I am welcome with book in hand - if u would rather not have questions on ur book then I will respect ur wishes. If u feel I am guilty of a twisted truth here I will delete this thread as well... I almost always refuse these discussions in such a forum b/c of; why I prefer over coffee/dinner as I stated from the onset and will now insist upon since that way hurt feelings or misunderstandings can quickly be said verbally "sorry that is not what I meant" etc. Perhaps we all are guilty of hubris here?
good day gentlemen

PS I hate cowards too Darrell (hence my initial invitation at least 10 times to meet in person. Smiley for u. Also naturalism and Philo of history are my points in my thesis so for u to attempt to change it to "Christian apologist says atheism is false" shows that you never took any of this serious or you would have welcomed the challenge (that is why I clarified from the onset that all naturalists are atheists but not all atheists are naturalists and you all agreed that yo were not naturalists but then u completely invented a set of arguments I never mentioned once in my thesis work?) hubris......

Darrel
J:" "I hate cowards too Darrell">>

Cowards delete threads and comments. That's what you did. Dishonest cowards then restate the claims in new threads getting their facts plainly wrong. That's what you did.

J: "my initial invitation at least 10 times to meet in person.">>

And in the thread you deleted, I said THIS SUNDAY will work for me. What, is, your, answer?

Doug
So Stroud offered coffee and a chat. I accepted. So did Darrel. Now Stroud is LYING and pretending that we didn't accept the invitation. Why am I not surprised?

Darrel
James pretends we are afraid to answer his questions and you are avoiding criticism of your book, yet in the thread he deleted I put forward the idea of you being in a hot seat at a meeting and having to respond to his most farce (oops, I mean fierce) line of questioning. My only hesitancy to put this in the program is serious concerns that James has the requisite competence to not make it ridiculous. We'll see if he's up for it, or if it's all bluff.

Stanley
What an interesting exchange. James says he's tried to "initial invitation at least 10 times to meet in person." Darrel suggests a specific date, James blocks Darrel after unfriending him.
Awesome.

Doug
He unfriended me too, after I told the truth about what James did in the thread he deleted. Witnesses back me up. But James' level of honesty is his own problem. What interests me is that he thinks his views are defensible and that mine are not. I've challenged him to debate me online, in a forum where posts will not be deleted. See here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6839

Stroud
Lol. I didn’t block you or you would not be able to respond to this post? ;o) I did block Darrell simply because (though I know you are his friend) you know any real dialog is over his head as he gets wrapped up in semantics etc. Now we both see the other as dishonest so I do not see the point of further dialog really; do you? Similarly I made it quite clear when we were talking about the philosophy of history that my interests did not lie in “Christian apologist vs. Atheist apologist” so of course I am not going to be roped into some weird exchange that has nothing to do with my thesis. (At this point in my life I just don’t have the energy or effort to explain myself to those that answer a question on philosophy with: “Oh yeah… Well I bet you’re just a Christian zealot!!!” (As I dumbfoundly scratch my head) I honestly expected the exchange to turn into a “We are going to tear your thesis apart!!!” Simply b/c I really do want to see if there are any large holes in it but when none of you had any interest in reviewing it (even when I offered to pay) I then quit following the thread. *Once my schedule slows down a bit I will definitely try and make it to a Free Thinkers meeting but not as a “Christian Apologist” but as a guy who has questions. I asked you if you were a positivist – why? B/c on page 164 of your work you say: “The concept of God is incoherent” now you don’t go into great detail here but I assume incoherent as in “white noise” *but before assuming I asked you and you said “no you were not a positivist.” Similarly on page 151 you seem to assert that the ultimate cause of reality could be the universe and that is why I asked if you were a naturalist (in some sense of the many words) – you clarified that you were not. Now you did say you were insulted by some of my remarks on your work; my apologies - a critique is not meant to hurt feelings or anything of the such but your work is titled “What is atheism” but then you only seem to talk about Christian theism? That is why I said if it were called: “Why I am not a Christian” (aka Russell) then the book is much more coherent and it makes more sense but any book on “What is atheism” I would assume would be on dismantling any notion of deism more than just choosing one specific facet of Christianity.

With that being said I still would love to discuss these type of things in a non-hostile non-super angry way (and intelligently…) I do not doubt your abilities but I do insist on talking to Doug the philosopher and not Doug the atheist apologist; in other words my work attacks naturalism within philosophy of history and as we have discussed one can respectfully be an atheist w/o being a naturalist (as more and more are becoming) so if someone says they are atheistic/non-naturalist I have no real debate with them since I am wanting to focus on my work. *But I have a growing suspicion with the usual answers from a Darrell or someone (other than Doug) being: “You’re an idiot! “bleep” you!!! Do you believe in Santa Claus buddy!?!?” Any fruitful dialog may be impossible. Similarly since we both view one another as dishonest from the onset so soil may be too polluted to continue. :’(

Ps – I will not block you (Doug) but those who have nothing to add but slurs, profanity, and assertions of square-circles being possible in some worlds I will, and would expect them to do the same to me.

*I am on my way to the airport so will be out of pocket for a while.

Most Sincerely Yours,

James

Stroud
Meetings are at Fayetteville library correct? (and my apologies to anyone offended from these dialogs).

Doug
Yes, they are. This month the meeting is on a Sunday. Usually it is the last Saturday of the month.

Doug
Stroud wrote: "Lol. I didn’t block you or you would not be able to respond to this post?"

I didn't say you blocked me. I said you unfriended me, which you did. Don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of lying.

Stroud wrote: ;o) I did block Darrell simply because (though I know you are his friend) you know any real dialog is over his head as he gets wrapped up in semantics etc.

As in our previous exchange, you decide to be very insulting. You should act better than that.

Stroud wrote: "Now we both see the other as dishonest so I do not see the point of further dialog really; do you?"

The difference is that you ARE lying and I am not. I don't think you believe I'm lying. You're just saying that. If I've lied, please point out where I did so.

Stroud wrote: Similarly I made it quite clear when we were talking about the philosophy of history that my interests did not lie in “Christian apologist vs. Atheist apologist” so of course I am not going to be roped into some weird exchange that has nothing to do with my thesis.

You're misrepresenting again, if not just lying. I've challenged you to debate ON THE TOPIC OF YOUR THESIS, your thesis as you've described it in our previous exchange. Don't pretend that I'm trying to "rope" or trick you into anything. Furthermore, I have also invited you to pick the topic as it may relate to my book, so I've given you lots of issues to choose from.

Stroud wrote: I asked you if you were a positivist – why? B/c on page 164 of your work you say: “The concept of God is incoherent” now you don’t go into great detail here but I assume incoherent as in “white noise” *but before assuming I asked you and you said “no you were not a positivist.”

You should know that one does not have to be a positivist to assert that the concept of God is incoherent, i.e. contradictory. Furthermore, a positivist is more likely to say the concept of God is vacuous than contradictory.

Stroud wrote: Similarly on page 151 you seem to assert that the ultimate cause of reality could be the universe and that is why I asked if you were a naturalist (in some sense of the many words) – you clarified that you were not.

So? One needn't be a naturalist to assert that the universe was not created by supernatural means, or that it was not "created" at all.

Stroud wrote: Now you did say you were insulted by some of my remarks on your work; my apologies - a critique is not meant to hurt feelings or anything of the such...

Really? You did not mean to insult when you said (in the thread you DELETED):

HERE ARE SOME QUOTATIONS FROM THREAD STROUD DELETED TO SHOW HOW INSULTING HE WAS (Includes quotes of some of my responses.)

Stroud wrote: "...your comentaru [sic] on this thread has been a joke." "Look at your commentary you have offered almost nothing to the discussion." "And I mean this in a respectful way but I think you have hung out with the freethinkers for so long that you had forgotten how to dialog."

Doug writes: You have not been repectful. You called my book names, you kept insulting philosophical schools of thought that you then asked if I was a part of, etc.

How is "You have forgotten how to dialog" repectful? You have been insulting throughout. You even disparage my book for not referencing high-level philosophers like Plantinga even though this is an introductory book. You have taken every opportunity to be abrasive.

Stroud wrote: "Even in your book U site people like darrell who is a musician when you were talking cosmology?!"

Doug writes: False. You are misrepresenting me. I cited him on Bible contradictions and problems, a topic on which he'd written a book, and there were no other good, introductory books on Bible contradictions at the time. He has expertise in that area. I don't know if there are any other good introductory books on that topic even now. I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting my book to make me look bad.

Stroud wrote: "There is not one citation of an Alvin plantinga or Thomas nagel or any top philosopher."

Doug writes: You are misrepresenting my book now. This is an introductory work. It is expected that one would be accurate yet stick to the basics. I did that.

As for top philosophers, I cited plenty, including David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Michael Martin, Ted Drange, and others. No one can say these are not top philosophers.

Besides, have you forgotten how to dialogue? In philosophy, what counts are arguments, not name-dropping.

QUOTATIONS FROM THREAD STROUD DELETED, CONTINUED
Stroud wrote: You set up strawmen after strawmen and in one of your commentaries I can give you the page number if you would like you say "Jesus was a racist therefore God doesn't exist." what does this have to do with anything?

Doug writes: OK, now I'm wondering whether you've ever read my book or whether you're just plain lying. Surely you would be intelligent enough to see that, in a chapter critiquing the ethics of the Bible, a discussion of the ethics of Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) could justifiably be included. I made no suggestion that this means that God does not exist. It was a chapter on ethics.

Stroud wrote: "...and then you give me a reference on this train to historian Richard carrier."

Doug writes: False. You are misrepresenting me again. YOU made the reference to Carrier. I never did. You are faulting me for something YOU did. Are you just forgetful or are you just lying?

Stroud wrote: "I do not mean this bad at all but after this discussion, your citations and your book I am not sure if you understand ontology versus epistemology? So trust me I do want to continue this dialogue but if you would like we can speak much more frankly. "

Doug writes: We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

Stroud wrote: "I notice that your request for my thesis has not came through yet. Could it be that a PhD is intimidated by a Masters student? "

Doug writes: Not in this case, certainly.

Stroud wrote: "but all jokes aside I would love to pick your brain not at a " introduction to philosophy level" that you may have grown accustomed to, but in a real philosophical sense."

Doug writes: You are being insulting again. We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

Stroud wrote: "Again you did say that your book is out of date but you also said that it still represents everything you believe for the most part."

Doug writes: You are being insulting again. We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

Stroud wrote: "But even you have to see..."

Doug writes: You are being insulting again. We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

Stroud wrote: "...that in any true philosophical circle no one would take that work seriously."

Doug writes: You are being insulting again. We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

Stroud wrote: "And please understand I do not in any way mean this as being disrespectful it is just being earnest and to the point."

Doug writes: I don't believe you. We can continue this on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. I want more people to see this.

END OF QUOTATIONS FROM THREAD STROUD DELETED

Doug
Stroud wrote: Similarly since we both view one another as dishonest from the onset so soil may be too polluted to continue. :’(

Then stop polluting. And stop lying about me and my book.

I've issued a debate challenge on the Fayetteville Freethinker board. You have the link.

Stroud
As I said, sometime my sarcasm and joking nature (smiley faces come across as rude) and I earnestly and honestly apologize if I did this. :'(
I have people all the time say some of my work is trash and I don't really think about it as an insult but you are correct; I should choose my texts more carefully. Once you get to know me u will see I'm just a big teddy bear.
hopefully I can make amends in person if I can make it to ur next meeting. Like I said if I tell Darrell for example "Mr. Hubris" and he says "fundamentalist!!" I know we r just bs-Ing but again if that came across insulting I do apologize. Am I still welcome at ur meetings?

Stroud
The link u sent me (as u made the first post against me (not me to u; u approached me)) referenced Richard carrier in its opening line on moral epistemology so u did reference him to me? (so I did not make that up).
are you free tomorrow evening possibly? If not I will make amends at the next free meeting I can make but text /FB can obviously make meaningful dialog difficult. My apologies again.

DOUG
Stroud wrote: As I said, sometime my sarcasm and joking nature (smiley faces come across as rude) and I earnestly and honestly apologize if I did this."

Lying and misrepresenting hardly fall in the category of "sarcasm." But you are always welcome at our meetings.

Stroud
Thank you and again my apologies if I mistakenly lied. U did reference carrier though in ur reference so I didn't lie there. Thank u and I will make amends inperson. Does free t like Starbucks and free copies of my thesis?

Doug
Stroud wrote: The link u sent me (as u made the first post against me (not me to u; u approached me)) referenced Richard carrier in its opening line on moral epistemology so u did reference him to me? (so I did not make that up).

What link? Please show me this link. Are you talking about a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? You tried to make me look bad because I referenced this respected source? Please explain.

Stroud
The very first link u referenced on morality (the monkey picture) had Richard carrier critiquing jp Moreland on morality. (it was the first post u made to a pic I posted that started the dialog). U said "easy as pie" in reference to the pic and included the link.

Doug
Stroud wrote: are you free tomorrow evening possibly?

I went to it last year. The guy knows little about the topic of arguments for the existence of God. He showed a slide that said there are NO arguments for atheism. None. Zero. I called him on this and he reiterated the point. This shows he has no expertise about this topic. He hasn't done his homework.

Worse, when I gave him an argument for atheism (the incoherent properties argument), he replied, "Oh, well that's philosophy!" or some such nonsense, as if that were some kind of rebuttal.

No, I'm not going to waste my time at that event again.

I'm glad you invited Pandit. He will show the audience such poor reasoning that they may reconsider being believers. Pandit will drive at least a few away from theism.

Stroud
No I agree with u here. That's why I didn't invite u guys to this one plus this is pandits journey more than a philosophical discussion. I have always been VERY grateful for u guys with the discovery institute and that's why I always want u involved but pandits own personal journey really is more for religious studies person I agree. I meant afterwards but that might be pretty late in all honesty.

I will try and make it to a free thinkers discussion this summer and will bring thesis copies and Starbucks gift card for the group as a "peace offering". Thoughts?

Doug
His "journey" is hardly an argument. That's why I say, people will reconsider being theists when they wonder why people like him are the best representatives they can muster.

Stroud
So if I show up with bullets on ur book where I think they r problematic you would not be insulted correct? B/c I may just be missing your point. Also would it be okay if I brought copies of my thesis?

Again I agree with u it is all subjective and relative; he is an old friend though.
A journey is not an argument and again that's why I didn't invite u to it whereas if I can land a named philosopher or scientist I always invite u guys b/c I never want a one sided argument. I will keep u posted if I bring a philosopher in the future though b/c I want all views on the table. And again I agree about pandits journey being a personal reflection not an argument so one cannot object to ones personal feelings and that's why I didn't bother sharing it with u guys.

And that's why I enjoy going into a den where I'm the minority viewpoint; I will then see if there r holes in my own thesis.

Doug
Stroud wrote: "So if I show up with bullets on ur book where I think they r problematic you would not be insulted correct? B/c I may just be missing your point."

No, we would be glad to respond.

Stroud wrote: "Also would it be okay if I brought copies of my thesis?"

Sure.

Stroud
Perfect! I do respect u Doug; but obviously I insulted u by the way I talked (though I did not lie about the carrier reference...). That is why I make it a point to invite u all to the discovery intitute twice but not the pandits b/c its not that type of presentation. But obviously my critique came across insulting instead of challenging. I will plan on questions (maybe I just don't get it and need to be shown where my own reasoning is in err?) as well as my own thesis copies. What I would like is a chance to ask u questions and then after giving u copies of my thesis have u all tear it apart and I will show up again to see where/how/why I am wrong. Sound good?

I will present the group with a $50 gift card to Starbucks as a "thank u" as well.

Doug
Stroud wrote: Thank you and again my apologies if I mistakenly lied. U did reference carrier though in ur reference so I didn't lie there.Could you send me the link you are talking about? I don't know what link you are referring to.

Stroud
I can probably find it but deleted the original thread. I had posted the monkey picture u then responded (concerning morality) "easy as pie" and you said these are non technical responses to how atheists' can possesses ontological morality (u were countering the pic) and it had several different examples from differing persons with the first one being Richard carrier refuting jp Moreland on the same topic. Carrier then discussed epistemology and morals.
Found it. It was infidels.org can atheists have morals and Richard c carrier is the top of the list

Doug
I see. So I sent you a link to a page with many authors, some of which (like Drange, Vuletic, Schoenig, Parsons, etc.) are professional philosophers, and you single out one who got his Ph.D. in a different field, ignore those who did not, and then criticize me for allegedly using poor sources. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Stroud
I could ask u the same question? I assume I am now not a liar? Carrier being at the top was more than enough to read thru nonetheless. (did u read anything I referenced u 2? Of course not; I at least read thru the first person on ur list (carrier).

I'm actually quite excited to see your answers to my questions concerning ur work good doctor.

Doug
You're still a liar. I showed this a number of times already. (See the "Jesus was a racist" discussion above.) Regarding the Carrier reference, you pretended that I referenced him specifically, and then called him names, to suggest that I use poor sources. But he is not the only author on that page. You deliberately tried to get others to believe something you did not believe was true, namely, that I do not use reliable sources. "Deliberately trying to get others to believe something you believe is not true," is how I define lying. You have done that several times in our discussions.

Stroud
You make me smile Doug.

Doug
You make me laugh.

Stroud
[Stroud added later to his previous:] my confidence has soared after these threads. Laughing is a good thing! U r very welcome!

Doug
Nothing shows soaring confidence like your deleting entire discussions because you were being roasted...

Stroud
Lol. I actually think you believe that? Good news I am buying copies of your book for some young peoples from this weekend on entry level atheist apologetics and what type of arguments (like Jesus being racist etc) one might see at the entry level. Also using this thread and the last one to see how evasive groups of atheist apologists (not philosophers) can be. I shared your book with many over the weekend. Also I am sending your book to some various agnostic philosophers from around the country to see what they think of it so we can also get some neutral thoughts (no need to thank me) and lastly I guess I was a finalist for best non fiction philo religion 2014 "next generation" award? (though I didn't win. :'(
I will keep you posted though. "roasted?" lol - you are too funny; maybe if i was an 18 year old taking intro to philo perhaps? Thanks again for bringing a smile to my face. I see why you prefer free thinker thought/company. Lol. Also many people commenting on the threads this weekend loved how you didn't even know you had referenced carrier then when u did u were like "oh.... Well u should have read them all!!!"
similarly they asked if you realized Russell for example had been dead for almost 50 years but I didn't comment b/c I didn't want to put words into your mouth of course. (also fyi you said you went t see pandit last year (2013) but it was actually 2008 (5 years or 500% off on your dating)). They did say you seemed ultra sensitive to critique though so I don't want to hurt feelings so I won't say much more. But if you want I will let you know the results of the 5 philosopher phd I am sending both my and your work too but if u do not totally okay. I have greatly enjoyed the commentary though so thank you! Good stuff.

Doug
Excellent. After you and the "young peoples" read my book, let me know if you'd like to have them meet with me in person and we can discuss it.

Stroud
Priceless.

Doug
You realize you are being insulting again, right? Are you going to delete this thread too, like you did the other one? Perhaps if you are calling me "evasive," you can give an example. Otherwise, people might think you are just trying to be insulting again.

Stroud
Wowzers... You are ultra sensitive? Have you never been critiques unfavorably? If I say 2+2=3 I would expect someone to critique me? Again I am not name calling or anything of the such (unlike the "free" thinkers) but my skin is thick; this is how learning works of course (and i can only reiterate that point so many times).

DOUG
Look, if you fill your posts with lies and insults, you should not be surprised when people sometimes defend themselves against your lies and insults. For example (I'm glad to provide examples), in the thread you deleted, you wrote:

"You set up strawmen after strawmen and in one of your commentaries I can give you the page number if you would like you say 'Jesus was a racist therefore God doesn't exist.' what does this have to do with anything?" (Stroud quote.)

But that isn't true. I mentioned Jesus' racism in a chapter critiquing the ethics of the Bible, not in relation to whether God exists. A discussion of the ethics of Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) could justifiably included mention of his racism. I made no suggestion that this means that God does not exist. It was a chapter on ethics.

Am I "ultra sensitive" to call you on your lie about my book?

Stroud
Oh boy...
Well at least you admit it finally that you did cite carrier ( so you apparently did not read your own reference since you did not know it until you went back and checked before throwing the lie word around) so I guess we are making some progress LOL. Similarly I have your printed work so all I have to do is cite a page number.

Food for thought. [smile face]

Doug
I cited a page that has links to articles by Carrier, among many other people. That's true. But in that case I also cited many professional philosophers. You picked out one person on that page, Carrier, and called him names. Then you pretended that I cited him in particular to make me look bad. You mislead a lot, don't you Stroud?

Speaking of misleading, can you confess that your statement about my book "...you say 'Jesus was a racist therefore God doesn't exist.' what does this have to do with anything?" isn't true?

Stroud
You said you did not quote carrier at all and that I was a liar for saying you did. But now your saying a) u did and b) therefore in this instance I am not a liar.Again your book is on atheism and you do say Jesus is a racist as part of your arguments. That is a fact I can cite the page number if you would like. That is another reason I said that your published work would make more coherent if it was titled something such as why I am not a Christian but it is an introduction to atheism book. So again there is no lies on my side there. I can cite a lot more examples and I can give you a lot more page numbers if you would like. Lol. But in all honesty I do feel that we are making some progress since you are now saying yes you are correct, I did say or reference such and such.

And I put that in single quotation marks notice you. [smile face]

Stroud
So at least we are now down 2 Mister stroud has not lied on anything except taking one of my points out of context. And I did so as I outlined in the above commentary. So again I do feel that we are making progress here which is very good sign.

DOUG
I didn't quote Carrier at all. You are lying again. Or, generously, one might conclude that you don't know what a quotation is.

Stroud
My apologies so we're back to that one again so you are now saying that you did not send me a link at all that had anything mentioning Richard carrier is this correct?

And if you are doing the old bait and switch tactic insinuating that I am referencing that you quoted carrier in your book of course you did not because I already said that you did not mention any major persons in your book that were not quite a bit out of date. (stenger you did) and I should not have to remind you that Richard carrier is not a philosopher. Food for thought.

I think you are confused in one of the above statements you admit that the link you sent me had a quote from Richard carrier but now you are saying once again but you never sent anything that had anything to do with Richard carrier? So which one is it today?

I highly recommend that you go back and read back through ur book you wrote and the link you sent me and then we can continue this fascinating exchange. I will give you an a plus on creativity I have not heard the Jesus is a racist one used by a philosopher B 4.

Plus you argue foe the inaccuracy of scripture (in your book on atheism (still not sure what that has to do with atheism in general but oh well)); but then u use these unreliable sources to state that Jesus was a racist? (history 101 (historiography)) tells us never to use modern terms such as political correctness, racism, etc. When evaluating a culture in a different time anyway?)Buy you say this is then part of your argument against ethics however in your book you never tackle the differences between ontological/epistemological ethics/morality so how are you even getting to the point that racism is even a "bad" thing either philosophically or historically? Much much more could be said but that should be enough for you to do some homework.

Doug
Your lying AGAIN. Yes, you can cite a page number showing where I said Jesus is depicted as being racist. You can also cite verses in the Bible where he IS depicted as racist (Mt. 15:21-28). But that's not what I accuse you of LYING about. I have been very clear about this. You said that in my book that I say "Jesus was a racist therefore God doesn't exist." I said nothing of the sort. My point about Jesus being racist was a point about how a lot of the moral principles in the Bible are deplorable by modern standards. It was NOT about whether God exists. So now you say that I said Jesus was a racist "as part of your arguments." Well that's not the issue, is it Stroud? You're not a liar because you correctly said that my book claims that Jesus was a racist. You are a liar because you falsely claim, knowingly so, that my books says "Jesus was a racist therefore God doesn't exist." Are you going to show this to the "young peoples," Stroud?

Stroud
You use that word "lying" quite often and so far you have taken it back every time. What does that tell you? (food for thought)

Now aren't you glad this wasn't posted to the "free" thinkers forum?

Doug
Look at Stroud try to salvage his lies:
Stroud wrote: "And if you are doing the old bait and switch tactic insinuating that I am referencing that you quoted carrier in your book"

No, I am not insinuating anything of the sort. Do you know what a quotation is, as opposed to a citation? You went from saying that I "referenced Carrier" to now saying I "quoted" Carrier.

And the reason you say this is that you don't think highly of Carrier's abilities as a philosophical thinker or as a historian. OK, but why mislead people about a link I posted? The link did have some Carrier article links, but it also had links to even more articles by others. Why do you have to pretend I only cited Carrier?

DOUG
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6839

Stroud
Good deal Doug! Whatever makes u sleep at night.
Homework for you: updated philosophy (we r no longer in the 20th century), atheism vs anti-Christian theism, historiography, and circular reasoning, thin/thick skinned, intro to philosophy vs non intro to philosophy. That's free advice.
All jokes aside most historians donor understand philosophy and philosophers do not understand history so I can recommend some historiography books if interested? Thanks again!

DOUG
You just brought in Pandit as your apologetics expert, who's so clueless he doesn't even know that there are atheological arguments, and you want to recommend experts to me?! That's rich. Anyway, we're at the FF board now. Post your comments there. We're done here.

Good grief, where do these nuts come from?

Stroud wrote: Homework for you: updated philosophy (we r no longer in the 20th century)

Don't be too quick to pat yourself on the back. Most theists haven't made it that far, and very little of their theology has. Let us know when you crawl out of the mid-nineteenth century. And pick up some rhetorical and communication skills while you're there.

Ok, I'm done copying Stroud's stuff to here. I've told him that the conversation is now moved to our forum, so he can't delete it or block people from seeing it.

Since Stroud doesn't want to debate naturalism as a topic, let's look at something he's made into an issue.

In my book, I take half a chapter to argue that the Bible has deplorable ethics. It endorses slavery, misogyny, racism, etc. in fact, I explain at one point how Jesus is depicted as racist.

See here to see where a Christian scholar agrees with this assessment.

Rather than take issue with my evidence, Stroud takes issue with my methodology. He writes:

Stroud wrote:Plus you argue foe the inaccuracy of scripture (in your book on atheism (still not sure what that has to do with atheism in general but oh well));

I was critiquing theistic ethics, and using Bible-based ethics as the example.

Stroud wrote:?..but then u use these unreliable sources to state that Jesus was a racist?

The only source I used was the Bible. Note how Stroud pretends that I'm using other, allegedly unreliable, sources. He's lying about the contents of my book again.

Stroud continues:

Stroud wrote:... (history 101 (historiography)) tells us never to use modern terms such as political correctness, racism, etc. When evaluating a culture in a different time anyway?)

OK, this is interesting. Stroud seems to think that Jesus was a cultural relativist. We can't fault Jesus for being a product of his times and culture? So much for absolute or objective ethics from Jesus! Perhaps Stroud would like to debate this point,then?

Stroud continues:

Stroud wrote:Buy you say this is then part of your argument against ethics however in your book you never tackle the differences between ontological/epistemological ethics/morality so how are you even getting to the point that racism is even a "bad" thing either philosophically or historically?

Why anyone would have to first distinguish "ontological/epistemological ethics/morality" before being able to declare that racism is bad, Stroud never explains.

But perhaps Stroud would like to defend Biblical ethics here on our forum.