When we respond to the transgender issue by pointing out that biology makes it clear that there are only two sexes, we are attacking a straw man.
Gender ideologues do not typically deny that sex is binary. What they deny is that our identity is limited to or determined by. In addition to our sex, we also have a gender and gender-identity. Gender is a social construct related to the different behavior and roles men and women play in society. Gender-identity is one’s perception and deeply felt experience of their gender. Most people’s gender and gender-identity matches their biological sex, but some people experience a mismatch. They may have a male gender-identity but a female body. In such cases, they should be considered a male because gender, not sex, gives us our identity. Some transgender people may desire to alter their body to match their gender, but others may be comfortable with their body. That’s why it’s perfectly legitimate to speak of men with uteruses and women with penises.
There can be a lot of different gender identities because gender is not tied to biology. As a social construct, gender is malleable. There can be as many genders as there are people because each person could see their role in society differently.
This is why you can’t undermine gender ideology by pointing to biology. Biology is largely irrelevant to gender ideology. The way to defeat gender ideology is by questioning its basic presuppositions:
- Why think gender is a real (ontological) category?
- It’s said that “feeling like a woman” is what makes a man a woman, but how could any man know what it feels like to be a woman? He would have to know how other women feel and then compare that to the way he feels. That’s impossible. He can only know how he feels, and he has no way of knowing if the way he feels is the same as the way women feel.
- What is a more reliable indicator of reality: feelings or biology?
- Why think that gender defines our identity rather than biology, particularly when biology is objective and gender is subjective? Our biology can’t be mistaken whereas our self-perceptions are often mistaken.
- Etc.
Thinking to Believe 
April 14, 2023 at 6:03 pm
Thanks for addressing this subject Jason, with all the madness that has resulted from people in positions of power and in Educational institutions, Entertainment, Social Media, and Printed press, affirming, trying to protect and even celebrating the irrational, illogical claims of the “trans” aspects of the homosexual agenda, it is extremely important that Christians and people who value morality and societal stability, not only intelligently and lovingly remain diligent in our response to the many who seek to destroy what is natural law, what is God established, what is most beneficial for humanity etc.
But we must also be proactive in our diligence to keep truth before the public. We cannot allow the irrational, illogical and deprived to become the norm. We must deal with anyone in the public arena who spews irrational, illogical ideas as sound truth, and we must do so in a manner that lovingly refutes and exposes their claims as irrational and illogical. When we fail to expose stupid as stupid, we aid their agenda to create their own realities at our expense.
When people who are mentally unstable are told that they are normal and fine, they begin to believe it, and then demand that all others not only believe it, but affirm it and celebrate it. When they fail to and do the opposite, they are perceived as hateful and dangerous to the unstable, and some of the unstable seek to retaliate to (in their unstable minds) protect themselves from being “erased”, devalued and persecuted.
Just as those who unjustly abuse, make fun of and “actually” verbally mistreat the unstable, are guilty, so also are all those who affirm, defend and celebrate mental instability as a good thing to be defended.
God help us when sick, immoral, God hating people, get into major powerful positions, and use them to do all they can to destroy truth and logic. End times indeed.
LikeLike
April 15, 2023 at 1:48 pm
exactly …………. they even tell on themselves — a woman trapped in a man’s body. this is the latest in a list proving the bible was correct — God has sent them a “strong delusion.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 18, 2023 at 9:53 am
Your summary of the the trans issue is remarkably accurate. But then you ended with this:
“This is why you can’t undermine gender ideology by pointing to biology. Biology is largely irrelevant to gender ideology. The way to defeat gender ideology is by questioning its basic presuppositions”
Why in the world would you want to “undermine” the trans position? These people are discriminated against and often physically attacked for no other reason than they have a gender identity that is different from their sex identity. They’re not hurting anyone, they’re not harming society, they just want to be the person they are psychologically.
One’s biological sex can be in conflict with one’s psychological sex for various reasons, including the fact that humans are complex systems and sometimes psychological wiring gets crossed. But even given that, so what if feelings are more subjective than physical characteristics? Are a person’s parental feelings for an adopted child any less valid just because the child isn’t biologically theirs? Or when you watch a fictional movie with characters who amuse, scare, attract or anger you, are your feelings any less genuine even though you know those characters are just actors following a script? Feelings generally matter more to people than biological facts, after all.
Transgender people already have a suicide rate far higher than the general population, and it’s largely because of hatred and bigotry directed at them by religious conservatives (often the same people who say they believe in religious freedom and freedom of choice). Why would you want to contribute to making their lives worse than it already is by attempting to “undermine” these people?
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 18, 2023 at 3:43 pm
Good column, Jason. According to the Chicago Tribune:
This story highlights the logical conundrum liberals face when they attempt to assert rest/shower/locker room access for transgender persons. Joseph Roman claims to be a boy, even though he’s a biological adult. If society accepts his minor-status claim, authorities will have to justify charging a boy as an adult in order to impose stiffer penalties for his assaults. Moreover, though minors cannot legally consent to sex, they are not sent to juvenile hall for “consensual” sex. What should happen if this “boy” has “consensual” sex with a girl? Consistency dictates that we treat him no differently than biological boys.
Recall that there are few, if any, government-level standards requiring proof that one is genuinely transgender. In other words, all a person has to do is merely claim to be male or female. There are no time, dress, or medical requirements to legally claim a gender. A person may enter an opposite biological sex facility whether he or she looks like Marilyn Monroe or John Wayne. The Left insists that biology should not determine access, and they equally insist that everybody accede to that claim by using the pronouns corresponding to the same. Lacking biological or medical standards, the door is open for everybody.
Back to the Joseph Romans of the world. If a man must be accepted as a woman on his claim that he is a she, and if we cannot appeal to biology, time or lifestyle, on what basis can we reject Roman’s claim? If he claims to be a boy, why shouldn’t we accept it? Why would biology be decisive in his case and not a transgender person’s? And what about the report from Washington state of men claiming to be women in order to be transferred to women’s prisons?
The obvious answer is that Roman’s claim should be rejected precisely because he is a biological adult. If psychologists certify that Roman is convinced he’s a child, then Roman clearly has a mental defect and needs to be kept away from children. Roman’s feelings are subordinate to public order and safety. Similarly, if a man is merely pretending to be a woman in order to get free looks in the locker room, he should be arrested. However, on what basis do we legally decide who’s pretending? A person with whom I was debating said that “ogling” should be a crime, but he would not define what that means. And if a man genuinely thinks that he’s a woman, he has a mental defect and needs treatment. We don’t need to violate everybody’s privacy rights to assuage mentally defective persons, especially since they comprise an extreme minority. In other words, it’s a solution in search of a problem.
Separate rest/locker/shower rooms were created to preserve privacy—something liberals used to believe in. The privacy rights of the vast majority should not be trashed to satisfy a policy that exposes women to every pervert in the land.
LikeLike
April 19, 2023 at 4:42 am
Scalia, what you’re implying is that transgender people should not be accommodated in any way because of the occasional problem that occurs because of it. Conservatives used the same sort of arguments against gay rights by claiming gays would sexually assault straight people if they were allowed in locker rooms. To be sure, that HAS happened, but only extremely rarely, and the solution was clearly never to require some sort of test to prove heterosexuality or amp up hatred of gays. Existing laws against sexual assault suffice.
Furthermore, even though straight men are overwhelmingly the people most likely to commit sexual assault (just look at the massive numbers of straight Catholic priests revealed to have sexually assaulted children throughout history), we don’t restrict men’s rights to be around women and children.
My point is that the knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to help accommodate transgender people (even though they have been productive members of societies for many thousands of years) isn’t the answer. When it comes to social issues, conservatives have almost always been on the wrong side of history—including slavery, minorities and women voting, civil rights, and so on. Remember how conservatives freaked out about gay marriage, claiming it would destroy society (even though other countries had already had same-sex marriage for years without any ill effects)? It turns out helping the traditionally marginalized, discriminated against and attacked become an accepted part of society doesn’t bring about the apocalypse.
Trans rights are new to our society, and so of course there will be teething problems and laws that need to be addressed on an individual basis. And there will ALWAYS be people who try to game the system. But considering the conservative record of constant alarmism and opposition to improving society for the downtrodden, persecuted and unjustly accused, I think it would be helpful to think twice before automatically throwing the marginalized under the bus.
LikeLike
April 19, 2023 at 7:46 am
And Derek, as expected, doesn’t disappoint with missing the point again. At this point, it’s no longer surprising.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 5:56 am
Your post intended to illustrate the potential dangers of transgender rights to privacy rights. I responded by essentially suggesting we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Please indicate how I missed the point.
I called your bluff last time, and you made yourself look foolish when you were unable to show how I missed the point. So now you’re going to embarrass yourself again by pulling the same stunt? Why do you do this to yourself? THAT’s the point I don’t get. A reasoned argument is always going to be far more persuasive than storming off in a huff when someone disagrees with you.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 7:57 am
Dingbats are willingly ignorant. I am happy for any honest person to read the other thread and come to their own conclusions. Any honest person will see that you are an arrant liar. Your wounded pride notwithstanding, honest people will acknowledge the difference between being “unable to show” something and refusing to show something to somebody who is a proven liar.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 8:48 am
ONCE AGAIN I called your bluff and you failed to demonstrate how I’ve missed the point. This is just sad. How many times have I requested a simple answer from you, only to receive childish name-calling and petulance? I’m sorry, Scalia, but I’ve lost all respect for you. You’re not an honest interlocutor. Jason seems to be the only Christian here able to argue like an adult.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 9:48 am
Derek exemplifies the common behavior of all liars. If he were honest, despite any personal disdain for me, he would acknowledge the clear difference between being unable to provide evidence and refusing to provide it on the basis of prior conduct. Another poster by the name of Josh clearly saw Derek’s point-missing, as any objective reader would.
If Derek were honest, he would do as has been suggested he do multiple times: simply agree that the record stands for itself and that he’s perfectly willing to let others be the judge of the matter. He can’t do that because the previous “debates” prove beyond ambiguity that he’s a liar.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 9:50 am
The links are HERE.
LikeLike
April 23, 2023 at 9:36 am
LOL! Apparently I live rent-free in your head. 😉
And since you’ve switched to third person to imply you’re responding to someone else, when you’re obviously responding to me (so transparent!), I’ll do you the honor of doing the same:
The reason Scalia won’t provide his evidence…again…is that he’s bluffing…again. Notice how he’s switched the subject from me missing the point to me being a liar? He’s counting on misdirection and the fact that few people are likely to be willing to wade through all those previous posts and discovering he wasn’t telling the truth about me missing the point (twice!). And like all dishonest people, he projects his own dishonesty onto his adversaries while playing the victim. Textbook narcissist: https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2017/09/narcissistic-projection#4
Scalia is once again only interested in trying to score points instead of having a reasoned argument, and I don’t care to play that game. So, sadly, like the last thread, there’s no point in my continuing to even read his posts on this thread.
LikeLike
April 23, 2023 at 10:11 am
“When people who are mentally unstable are told that they are normal and fine, they begin to believe it, and then demand that all others not only believe it, but affirm it and celebrate it. When they fail to and do the opposite, they are perceived as hateful and dangerous to the unstable, and some of the unstable seek to retaliate to (in their unstable minds) protect themselves from being “erased”, devalued and persecuted.”
Well, not only do your claims directly contradict the actual science on the transgender topic, but it’s positions like yours that have caused transgender people to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and even murdered. Their suicide rate is also over seven times greater than the non-transgender populace, and it’s all because of hostility toward them. This is what happens when you dehumanize people who happen to be psychologically wired differently than you by labeling them as unstable and retaliatory (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transgender-teens-7-6-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide#Why-a-population-based-study?). That is not loving, it’s not caring, it’s hateful with awful consequences.
Why not live and let live? Christianity is suffering huge losses, in large part due to so many denominations demonstrating unnecessary and cruel intolerance toward LGBTQ people. According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%). That’s well over ONE MILLION people per year who have left Christianity in the US alone. This is why thousands of churches are closing every year. It’s also why, over the same time period, the religiously unaffiliated have increased by almost THREE MILLION per year, now making them the largest religious category (just above evangelicals and Catholics).
That hemorrhaging of followers would surely abate if more Christians practiced the “love” part of Christianity over the “hate” part. Really, what’s the point of persecuting LGBTQ people? It does nothing to improve society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
April 24, 2023 at 1:41 pm
Response to #3
Derek, while I agree that the word “undermine” may not have been the best word to use. It certainly is not the WRONG word to use, if Jason was using it in the sense:“To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation”. I would have preferred to use a stronger word like “destroy” or “totally refute”. But Jason is kinder than I am.
You said:
“One’s biological sex can be in conflict with one’s psychological sex for various reasons, including the fact that humans are complex systems and sometimes psychological wiring gets crossed.”
I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. And how do you differentiate between “psychological wiring crossed” and spiritual rebellion, manipulation, opportunism, copycat-ism, or any number of other causes behind people’s claims to be “in the wrong body”? Including just wanting to be a part of a group that is getting attention.
You said:
“But even given that, so what if feelings are more subjective than physical characteristics? Are a person’s parental feelings for an adopted child any less valid just because the child isn’t biologically theirs? Or when you watch a fictional movie with characters who amuse, scare, attract or anger you, are your feelings any less genuine even though you know those characters are just actors following a script? Feelings generally matter more to people than biological facts, after all.”
It seems to me that you are mixing fruit with rocks. And I can’t say that I blame you. How else can you argue against logic and still give the illusion that you are being intelligent and reasonable about your perspective on this topic? You know full well, that Jason is not arguing or even claiming that feelings are not important. Jason is more than capable of defend himself. I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.
You Said:
“Transgender people already have a suicide rate far higher than the general population, and it’s largely because of hatred and bigotry directed at them by religious conservatives (often the same people who say they believe in religious freedom and freedom of choice). Why would you want to contribute to making their lives worse than it already is by attempting to “undermine” these people?”
You have just proven the weakness of your efforts to defend “transgender” people. You acknowledge they have a high suicide rate, but you (like all who cite such statistics to shame those who do not affirm transgender people), you do not address or acknowledge that suicide is an evidence of mental instability. And mental instability is not to be affirmed, defended and celebrated; it is to be intelligently, lovingly and efficiently treated.
LikeLike
April 25, 2023 at 7:53 am
Derekmathias: you said at #13
“Well, not only do your claims directly contradict the actual science on the transgender topic, but it’s positions like yours that have caused transgender people to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and even murdered.”
Sir, for us to have an intelligent, beneficial discussion, you are going to have to stop repeating claims and arguments that have already been responded to and or refuted.
Just saying that what is said “directly contradicts the actual science of the transgender topic”, without saying how is meaningless.
To then (again) claim that my stated position of objection and disagreements with transgenderism “CAUSES” them to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and murdered, without providing tangible proof, and without addressing the fact that people are accountable FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND COMMENTS, not the actions and comments of others, accept in cases when they are literally FORCED to do something. So for you to continue to use that mantra in an effort to shame or silence my view on this is not an intelligent argument.
Your next statement is also a common mantra that is used to place the blame of harm to transgenders on those of us who object to being told we must agree with and celebrate such instability. Their suicide rate is not the consequence of being disagreed with or objected to, it is the result of mental instability/spiritual degradation, resulting from bad medical and or spiritual intervention. And it is clearly evidence of an internal problem, not just their result of depressions due to their incorrectly perceiving how others view them negatively. These accusations may have worked effectively on many who failed or refused think critically about their illogical premise, but it does not work on thinking people who use their minds and not their feelings to understand truth and reality.
I would argue that it is not loving or caring to lie to or about such things, and it is indeed hateful to mislead people on such matters. And that has awful consequences. Not the least of which, is unnecessarily dividing people.
Your next claim is yet another sad misconception, and poor effort to shame us into backing away from speaking the truth about transgenders.
Christianity is not suffering any losses; you must first define what you mean by “Christianity”. You seem to think that Christian organizations / denominations define what Christianity is. They do not. They claim to represent Christianity, but many only represent aspects of Christianity. People joining and leaving local churches and organizations has nothing to do with the actual size of the Christian population.
Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian. So your point is moot.
And for the record, you should also know that your perception of what Biblical love is, is incorrect. Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.
It is apparent to me that you lack of knowledge about Biblical Christianity, has you thinking we are on the wrong side of this issues.
Biblical Christians do indeed love and care about and for people who claim to be “transgender”. Agreeing with their mental/spiritual distortions is not a requirement to be a loving biblical Christian.
LikeLike
April 25, 2023 at 8:19 am
Dingbat writes:
Actually, I seldom think about you, unless you post remarks directed at me. But I understand your need for attention.
I’ve used third-person speech with you before, which you have typically forgotten. I use it to illustrate the futility of trying to reason with you. You’re a transparent ideologue who isn’t at all interested in facts. You have an agenda you’re trying to peddle, which is why you frequent conservative blogs. You hope to persuade unstable Christians to doubt their beliefs.
And the more you talk, the more evidence you provide for your dishonesty. I didn’t “switch” anything. I clearly stated that you are both a liar and unable to understand simple argumentative points.
Actually, you’re hoping that nobody will look at the very clear evidence why it’s a waste of time to debate you. I can and have backed up my claims. As you just acknowledged, the debates in question (at least two of them) are very long, which disproves your fatuous contention that I was unwilling to engage you in debate. Those debates prove your ineptness when it comes to logic, your mendacity with respect to what you’ve read and what people believe, and your faulty memory in arguing against the points you previously defended.
And with respect to missing the point, others have noticed it as well. As I’ve reminded you, Josh also agreed that you clearly misread Schmid’s article on quantum physics (others who have not posted agree). As I noted above, an honest person, regardless his personal disdain for another, will acknowledge the clear difference between being unable and being unwilling to argue further based on previous conduct. Not surprisingly, Derek hangs himself again with his next comment:
In other words, he claims to be so frustrated with my style, he’s not willing to engage me further–EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!! There is no point trying to engage Derek the Dingbat when he’s proved time and again, including here, why it’s a waste of time to engage with him.
Derek, you’re a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
And for those who prefer not-so-long arguments, you may check out Bye Bye Roe. It is only 15 posts long, but Derek’s dishonesty is on display throughout.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 4:28 am
“I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”.”
That is a question for a psychologist who specializes in the topic. But the fact remains that a small percentage of people are born with non-standard sexual preferences and non-standard sexual identification. It’s just a fact of the human condition, and has been throughout history.
“And how do you differentiate between “psychological wiring crossed” and spiritual rebellion, manipulation, opportunism, copycat-ism, or any number of other causes behind people’s claims to be “in the wrong body”? Including just wanting to be a part of a group that is getting attention.”
That is exactly why such assessments by psychologists whose expertise is in the subject take such time to evaluate. They do their best to figure out whether an individual’s transgender inclinations are temporary or permanent, what his or her specific needs are, and so on, all based on the best science available. What more could you want?
But anyone who has actually gotten to know members of the LGBTQ community knows that these are sincerely held conditions (at least in the vast majority of cases). And your suspicions about their validity doesn’t help them at all. You might as well ask how are you differentiate between a heterosexual who doesn’t have his “psychological wiring crossed” and someone who is born gay but is faking it to not be ostracized by his religious community. Neither situation is helped by cruelty and legislation against these people.
(As for “spiritual rebellion,” I don’t even know what that means. “Spiritual” is a word that so many people define differently that it has essentially lost all meaning.)
“I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.”
Because Jason was the one implying that dishonest men just “claim” to be women so they can do creepy things like go into women’s bathrooms, and then associating those men with actual transgender people to justify dismissing the needs, concerns and rights of transgenders.
It’s no different than pointing out that so many Christian clergy sexually assault children, thus we should paint all Christians as pedophiles, pass legislation banning clergy from interacting with children in any way, and shun clergy from society. How can you know whether a priest or pastor is just pretending to have children’s best interests at heart, or whether he just wants to molest them? You see how it goes? People who live in glass houses…
“You have just proven the weakness of your efforts to defend “transgender” people. You acknowledge they have a high suicide rate, but you (like all who cite such statistics to shame those who do not affirm transgender people), you do not address or acknowledge that suicide is an evidence of mental instability. And mental instability is not to be affirmed, defended and celebrated; it is to be intelligently, lovingly and efficiently treated.”
Sure, suicide can be evidence of mental instability, which is why mental instability is one of the factors psychological experts evaluate. But the evidence indicates that suicidal tendencies are FAR lower among transgender youth who are accepted by their communities. It’s the cruelty, abuse and rejection of LGBTQ people that increases suicide risk most dramatically (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/). In short, your automatic association of transgender with mental instability is one of the main causes of suicide risk.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 5:29 am
“Sir, for us to have an intelligent, beneficial discussion, you are going to have to stop repeating claims and arguments that have already been responded to and or refuted.”
Refuted? Transgender people are 2.5x more likely to be beaten and murdered than cisgender people (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/). And this is certainoy exacerbated by anti-transgender rhetoric in the religious conservative community (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/report-says-at-least-32-transgender-people-were-killed-in-the-u-s-in-2022). When legislators bypass bills and pastors preach sermons that are deliberately intended to marginalize, demonize and warn against transgender people, and then assaults upon transgender people increase, it would be foolish to pretend that the association doesn’t exist and thus shouldn’t be taken seriously. So no, it’s not refuted, not by a long shot.
“Christianity is not suffering any losses”
On the contrary, as I said: “According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%). That’s well over ONE MILLION people per year who have left Christianity in the US alone. This is why thousands of churches are closing every year. It’s also why, over the same time period, the religiously unaffiliated have increased by almost THREE MILLION per year, now making them the largest religious category (just above evangelicals and Catholics).” Here read the evidence for yourself: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
“Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian.”
That argument won’t work because you’re resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you’re not familiar, it’s a defense of an assertion by disallowing—by definition—all evidence that contradicts the assertion, and thus is a logical fallacy. The reality is that Christians have been deconverting in droves ever since the rise of the Internet. While correlation is not necessarily causation, increased access to unrestricted information is associated with reduced religiosity.
“Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.”
No, it’s about using one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture to justify treating people who are different from you with cruelty and calling it “love.”
Furthermore, there is no single “biblical love.” There are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the world, and all of them vehemently disagree with other denominations on all manner of scripture and doctrine. Some think “biblical love” is to be kind to people no matter what, while others think it means beating up gays and delighting in their suffering. ALL of them can point to places in the Bible to justify their positions, despite contradicting one another.
“It is apparent to me that you lack of knowledge about Biblical Christianity, has you thinking we are on the wrong side of this issues.”
On the contrary. Not only have I read multiple versions of the Bible from cover to cover, but I’ve read countless multiple perspectives on doctrine and history, and I’ve even consulted with two biblical scholars for their perspectives. While I nevertheless do not consider myself a biblical expert by any means (my expertise is primarily in evolution science), I do know that the vast majority of Christians have never even read the entire Bible once, and very few of those who have ever think through the inevitable consequences of the claims made in scripture. When presented with evidence of these consequences, they tend to become like the regulars on this forum Paul and Scalia—angry, vindictive, and resorting to name-calling rather than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, that’s what happens when evidence is less important than religious doctrine.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 8:42 pm
My Reply to your #17 comment derekmathias
I asked:
“I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”.”
You replied:
“That is a question for a psychologist who specializes in the topic. But the fact remains that a small percentage of people are born with non-standard sexual preferences and non-standard sexual identification. It’s just a fact of the human condition, and has been throughout history.”
So you assume that Transgenderism is a “psychological wiring cross” and trust that psychologist are correct when they say that is the cause. But you have no way of knowing if they are correct or not, do you?
Also, It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwT2_HPNLY
You seem to be determined to pretend that their condition is “natural”, and the result of “how they were born”, when there is no truth to that, and no way to prove it.
You said:
“But anyone who has actually gotten to know members of the LGBTQ community knows that these are sincerely held conditions (at least in the vast majority of cases).”
Anyone? Well that is strange, since I have gotten to know them, many, and in-fact, my best friend growing up was a homosexual. I also had many dinners at my homosexual friends homes. We had many deep talks and debates over dinner. I lost most of them to aids. But what I was never told by them back then, was that they were born that way, or that they were men in women’s bodies, or women in men’s bodies. All of them were clear that they chose their sexual preferences as a result of life experiences and situations. The born that way lie and the mass psychosis toward the “I’m in the wrong body” syndrome, seems to be strategies concocted by intellectual homosexuals that has cough on and has helps legitimize their plight, and gain them political and social/cultural acceptance and influence.
You said:
“And your suspicions about their validity doesn’t help them at all.”
My suspicions? You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.
And No, I don’t have to ask about differentiating between a straight and a closet homosexual, that is your usual effort to deflect from the real issue. Just how well does someone who really thinks they are homosexual, “fake” not being homosexual? And I am not an advocate for the religious community’s ostracization of those who identify as homosexual. I notice that you are not actually dealing with the real issue, but you are just focusing on the hardships of the homosexuals and how they are treated. You seem to think that they have no accountability for anything they do or think, or claim to think. And that everyone must cater to their sexual proclivities and ideas about gender.
You said:
“Neither situation is helped by cruelty and legislation against these people.”
Cruelty, and legislation against these people?
What have I suggested here that constitutes “Cruelty” to these people?
And what legislation are you referring to that I have advocated against them? Is it that difficult for you to stay focused on what you and I are discussing?
When I asked you:
“I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.”
You said it was because Jason was the one implying that dishonest men just “claim” to be women so they can do creepy things like go into women’s bathrooms, and then associating those men with actual transgender people to justify dismissing the needs, concerns and rights of trans genders.
I have to point out that you did not actually answer my question, instead, you once again deflected away from my question and injected Jason.
But since you did, tell me, where in this thread did Jason make the implication that dishonest men claim to be women to do creepy things? And if he has not here, why are you injecting it here, and to me? When I did not imply it? You seem to be straining to create dialog to inject your defense of homosexuals rather than have an intelligent dialog about which of our arguments on the subject is more reasonable and correct.
Christians don’t sexually assault children, and so it would not be rational to “paint all Christians as pedophiles”. And since you can’t know for sure who is or is not a real Christian, you should not trust anyone alone with children that are not theirs. That you do not know well enough to KNOW you can trust them.
This is not a glass house matter. But it is sad that you cross this up so badly just to give the impression that you are on the high road and we are not.
You said:
“But the evidence indicates that suicidal tendencies are FAR lower among transgender youth who are accepted by their communities. It’s the cruelty, abuse and rejection of LGBTQ people that increases suicide risk most dramatically (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/). In short, your automatic association of transgender with mental instability is one of the main causes of suicide risk.”
The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you? With all the money in homosexuality, such research and reports are not hard to fabricate of find. And there are professionals in the same field that make opposite claims as you should know. I prefer to believe what is seen in countries that support defend and celebrate homosexuality. There the suicide rates are still high. But that kind of statistic would not be of interest to you would it?
LikeLike
May 8, 2023 at 6:26 pm
This is my reply to your #18 post derekmathias
Starting with your paragraph:
“…Transgender people are 2.5x more likely to be beaten and murdered than cisgender people…”
I have to take issue with your use of “anti-transgender rhetoric” “marginalize” “Demonize”, to describe my or other biblical Christian’s objections to transgenterism.
And your claim that somehow our objections to and rejection of homosexuality/”transgenderism” is the cause of assaults on them increasing, is also unfair and even suspect. You seem to be unwilling to consider the obligation of and accountability of the individuals doing the physical harm. Why?
As for the links you provided to prove the abuse, what are the details of the listed reports you have posted and trust so religiously? How do you know what the actual cause of the beating and murder was? Because a so called transgender person was beaten or killed, does not mandate a hate crime against people who identify as trans. Are you claiming that all or even most people identifying as trans are perfect, wonderful people who do no wrong, or that everyone who gets into a fight with such people or kill them, ONLY do so because they hate people who identify as trasns? This is what you are suggesting. Are you not aware that many trans people are unstable and often provoke conflict due to that instability? Are you not aware that many trans have and do commit violent acts against EACHOTHER and against no trans people, and as a result receive retaliation? Or is none of this of any importance to you. Only making “Trans” people victims of injustice?
You said:
“On the contrary, as I said: “According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%).”
Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian. What criteria did they use to determine the “Christian” status? My point was and is that Religious people who “Claim” to be Christian, and people who are indeed Biblical Christians are not necessarily the same. Since you are not interested in such actualities, accept when it comes to homosexuality and other identities that are not Christian, you seem unwilling to even entertain the possibility of my argument. (As per you effort to accuse me of the same below).
To my statement:
“Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian.”
You instantly apply a fallacy that you accuse me of resorting to.
“… you’re resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you’re not familiar, it’s a defense of an assertion by disallowing—by definition—all evidence that contradicts the assertion, and thus is a logical fallacy.”
Can you define what you are referring to when you use the word “Christian”. You must be able to correctly do so, since you did not bother to ask me to define it, yet you assume that I resorted to a fallacy by my effort to point out to you that Claiming to be a Christian or being assumed to be a Christian, does not make one a Christian. And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Why not be logical since you want to use fallacies. Or is it that logic does not help your efforts to protect the “trans” group?
Since there is no way for you to actually know who really was a Christian before they “unconverted”, your gloating about the “decline” of Christianity is moot.
When I said:
“Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.”
You replied:
“No, it’s about using one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture to justify treating people who are different from you with cruelty and calling it “love.”
Please Define what you mean by “treating people with cruelty”. Be clear and specific so we can deal with it. What it the “one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture” that you are referring to?”
You are clearly confused about What constitutes a Christian. Christian Denominations do not determine who is and is not a Christian, nor do their disagreements on issues negate Biblical Love.
You said:
“…. Some think “biblical love” is to be kind to people no matter what, while others think it means beating up gays and delighting in their suffering. ALL of them can point to places in the Bible to justify their positions, despite contradicting one another.”
The Bible is clearly not your strong point, are you suggesting that those Christians who believe that biblical love is being kind to people no matter what, means they can’t stand against ungodliness, wickedness, perversion and be kind at the same time? You see, you are not relying on true Biblical Christian content, but perhaps on what you are reading from anti-Christian sources, and bad so-called Christian sources. And as for any professing Christian who thinks “beating up gays and delighting in their suffering” is biblical love, that is a clear evidence that they are not a Biblical Christian. Where in the Bible is such justified?
If you have indeed read as much as you say you have, and you have consulted two biblical scholars (who may I ask), why is it that you do not seem to be aware what a Biblical Christian is? Why do you assume that groups referred to as Christian Denominations are biblical Christians? And why are you communicating as if you are not aware of What a biblical Christian is?
You said:
“I do know that the vast majority of Christians have never even read the entire Bible once, and very few of those who have ever think through the inevitable consequences of the claims made in scripture.”
Finally we can agree on something!!!!
And I trust that you can admit that I have not resorted to anger, vindictiveness or name calling.
But I do have a problem with much of what you call “presenting evidence”. You have posted many links to sources that you think prove your arguments, but I have not found them to be evidence. And since we can’t determine the credibility of such links, it would be better to try to state the particular aspect of the source that we use that constitutes evidence, rather than just site the source and force each other to have to watch or read volumes. I save your sources in my files and I do find them helpful in understanding why you hold some of your views. But in this kind of setting, a more direct and precise evidence would be far more helpful. Agreed?
LikeLike
May 9, 2023 at 2:05 pm
Derek the Dingbat writes:
Derek’s been shown his backside more than once, as my links to our previous debates clearly show. When he claims to know things he clearly does not know, when he refuses to admit basic, elementary errors, when he attacks the very position he’s defended, and when he tells deliberate lies to evade admitting error, he earns the disdain of every decent person who reads this and other blogs.
Derek doesn’t know how to put together a good argument (see the above links). He deflects, reframes, evades and lies his head off when confronted with clear refutations of his delusions. Any person who refuses to argue in good faith merits ridicule and censure.
LikeLike
May 10, 2023 at 8:17 am
@Preacherteacher, you write:
Good question, but let’s concede the point for sake of argument. The number of Americans with this alleged condition is extremely small. However, there’s a greater number of men who’ve been trying to get into women’s private spaces ever since they’ve been created. They’ve dressed like women, tried to install hidden cameras, put up two-way mirrors, drilled holes into walls, and crawled into duct spaces just to get their jollies. Since the Left insists that a man is a woman on his claim alone, they’ve opened the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry to do openly what they previously had to do surreptitiously.
The Left, which would have us believe without question their doctors who allege gender wiring crosses, oppose regulations requiring a medical diagnosis from those same doctors before allowing claimants into women’s spaces. In other words, regardless what doctors say, let’s allow every man who claims to be a woman automatic access to locker rooms, showers and restrooms. They are thus deliberately displacing the legitimate privacy concerns of women (and men) with their political agenda.
When you have legitimate rights concerns which overlap, the answer is not to trash one in favor of the other. The answer is to make an accommodation, if possible. As my post above (#4) demonstrates, biological policy adjustments on one’s mere claim is rationally indefensible. If there really are women trapped in men’s bodies, why can’t there be children trapped in adults’ bodies or old people trapped in young persons’ bodies? What about black people trapped in white people’s bodies? If you’re an adult and want to play dress-up or engage in the fantasy that you’re really a peacock or a Tesla, that’s your business, so long as you’re not hurting anybody else or encroaching on their rights, including free speech rights. If you have a certifiable medical condition, then you need treatment. I’m all for the public funding of treatment for those grappling with mental illness. It doesn’t help anybody who is mentally ill to say that his or her condition is normal and should be celebrated. It is NOT compassionate to feed a person’s delusion or mental illness. And it is NOT compassionate to trash the privacy concerns of many to further the delusions of the few.
LikeLike
May 10, 2023 at 11:28 am
You point is clearly correct, and it is the major issue with their efforts to change reality.
You are right on target. And it all is intentional, there is clearly something much bigger offing on here than trans rights. There are forces at work that seek to disrupt the natural for the abstract, bazaar and deprived, and who seek to, and have created an industry that makes them billions in the process, off of human cash-cows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 15, 2023 at 10:17 am
Your response is longer than I have time to do full justice, but the most important problem I see with your position comes up again and again in your post, and I’ll certainly address that:
“It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”.”
What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson. You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?
That makes about as much sense as accepting creationist claims of a 6,000 y.o. universe or a flat-earth over the evidence from evolutionary science and cosmology. Homosexuality and transgenderism have existed longer than humans have existed. We even see it today in literally hundreds of mammal, bird and reptile species (I would provide you with links, but it seems there’s a hold put on posts for administrator moderation if one provides more than one or two links—which is why there was a delay in my last post appearing—but you should be able to find the evidence for yourself by simply doing a search for “homosexuality in the animal kingdom”). We also have logical evolutionary reasons for why homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature that ultimately increases reproductive success of a species. And it explains why conversion therapy is a failure.
You have something of a cartoonish notion of what a scientist is and how science works, as if it’s about coming up with unsupported ideas and defending them like a religious belief, and doing so in order to make money. Your claim that psychologists make a lot of money by encouraging transgenderism reflects this. Not only is it extremely cynical, but you’re ignoring the fact that the main reason people go into the sciences is out of an interest in understanding phenomena, not to make money—scientists rarely get rich (at least not without groundbreaking discoveries or overturning theories). Your apparent notion of how a scientist thinks would rapidly result in the end of his or her scientific career.
I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money, but their licenses are conditional, legally constrained by required ethical and scientific standards (something that bloggers, pastors and other laypeople don’t have). More relevantly to your claim, though, is that there are plenty of areas to specialize in psychology that are far safer and more lucrative than transgenderism, and there is no shortage of patients. These facts don’t fit your narrative.
You seem to have bought into the notion of the greedy practitioner as the standard, rather than the rare exception. If you’re like most Christian conservatives I’ve encountered, it’s because such a picture fits your religious agenda, rather than out of any fidelity to the truth. Why else would you use a hairdresser-with a-blog interview as your supportive evidence, rather than what the scientific evidence that virtually the entire relevant scientific community has discovered over decades of clinical research?
“You seem to be determined to pretend that their condition is “natural”, and the result of “how they were born”, when there is no truth to that, and no way to prove it.”
That’s an assertion that, again, fails to match the evidence. In fact, there has been a great amount of research done on the topic (and there is much more to come), which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts transgenderism as a valid orientation. To say otherwise smacks of a conspiracy theory. Not only can hundreds of millions of LGBTQ worldwide affirm their gender identification, but as research has shown, “the neural wiring in a transgender person’s brain looks more similar to their gender of identity rather than their gender of assignment at birth” (google “scientific evidence for transgenderism” to see the article), and only about 1% of those who actually undergo gender reassignment regret their decision (google “how many regret gender reassignment surgery”). None of these facts fit your narrative, so you will accept none of them, no matter how much good research is behind them.
“You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.”
I’ll bet you have no credible evidence to support this. if there were any actual evidence to support grooming by psychologists, there would be a massive uproar in the psychology science throughout the world. Again, you are veering into hard conspiracy theory territory.
“Christians don’t sexually assault children”
They most certainly do. New cases turn up all the time! Google “Child Sex Abusers in Protestant Christian Churches: An Offender Typology” and read the top article by criminologists to find thousands of examples. It’s a pandemic among Christian churches, with the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, and JWs being among the most well-known.
“The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you?”
Again you demonstrate you don’t understand how science works. Sure, individual scientists can and do make mistakes, and some even fabricate data, but that is FAR more rare in science than in any other human institution specifically because of the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements of the scientific method. This is why bad data and hoaxes are eventually uncovered by other scientists attempting to reproduce the original claim. Unlike religion or any other area of knowledge claims, scientific explanations are ALWAYS subject to revision by credible contradicting evidence, which is why it’s the hardest arena in which to promulgate falsehoods. The reason you know about cases of bad data is because SCIENTISTS have uncovered it—yes, those same scientists whose findings you reject.
“Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian.”
A Christian is someone who believes he is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Anything else is interpretation adopted by a specific denomination. I’ve attended at least a dozen different Christian churches (plus synagogues and temples throughout the world) in my life, and every single one believes they are “biblical Christians,” every single one emphasizes and de-emphasizes certain biblical claims, and every single one is certain THEIR interpretation is the only “right” one.
For instance, Protestants believe that salvation comes from faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-13), whereas Catholics say salvation requires both faith and works (James 2:24, 1 Corinthians 13:2, Matthew 25:31-46) and that you can lose your salvation (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Corinthians 13:5, John 15:1-11). And even within such major divisions there are many subdivisions, such as Lutherans teaching that anyone can choose to accept salvation, while Calvinists teach that only God chooses whom to save. These are all dramatically different interpretations of the SAME BOOK. The scholars of ALL those sects study the Bible in depth…yet arrive at drastically different conclusions. And it’s all due to differences in interpretation. The Bible doesn’t come with a key or guide to determine what should be interpreted literally vs. metaphorically…and therein lies the confusion (so much for God not being the author of confusion…).
But none of that matters, does it, because I’m sure YOU figured out the “one true” Christian interpretation, and all the other thousands of denominations that disagree with you are wrong…right? 😉
“And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.”
First, the structure of a No True Scotsman fallacy is where someone makes a claim (like “No Christians commit evil acts”), then someone else points out examples that contradict that claim (like “Here are multiple documented convictions of Christians committing evil acts”), so the perpetrator of the fallacy excludes those who are the exception to the claim (“No TRUE Christians commit evil acts”). Look up the definition for yourself.
Keep in mind that Christians who commit evil believe that they are NOT committing evil, because “BY DEFINITION Christians cannot commit evil” (No True Scotsman). That’s how they justify beating, murdering and discriminating against LGBTQ people—all in the name of “love,” of course. Of course, in your mind I’ll bet all the Christian denominations that embrace the LGBTQ community are perpetrating evil, just as they accuse you of doing, right?
“Christian before they “unconverted”, your gloating about the “decline” of Christianity is moot.”
Oh, but you wouldn’t be singing that tune if Christianity were growing, now would you? 😉 And most of my friends and family are ex-Christians, and they would vehemently object to your dismissal of their beliefs. One of my friends believed so strongly that he entered the seminary before losing his belief, while another was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he was an atheist. In both cases it was by in-depth study of the Bible that they lost their belief, when they realized that early Christian history and beliefs were nothing like what they had been taught in church. Thus the truism:
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” — Isaac Asimov
“A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism.” — Donald Morgan
Incidentally, reading the Bible cover-to-cover and thinking about the inevitable consequences of God’s behavior made me an atheist as well.
Okay, I’ve already devoted way too much time to this thread. But I would urge you to put yourself in the shoes of a trans person and try to understand their situation. Imagine people wanted to legislate away your rights to be a Christian, using the sexual assault scandals in the various Christian sects as reason to deny you the right to read the Bible or go to church. Imagine everyone denied you the right to even be a Christian, and you had to fear for your safety from those non-Christians. Do you think that would be just or fair? Would you want to live in such a community?
You’d think that a religion with a persecution complex would show compassion to others who are persecuted…but instead you do the same thing to others. Well, when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like persecution.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 11:55 am
derekmathias you said:
“What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson. You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?”
Ok, you see, this is what Scalia and others have complained about you, you are not here to have an intelligent dialogue, you are here to promote your leftists ideas on a conservative platform, so you don’t even bother to give intelligent refutations, just bold claims and religious confidence in psychologists and scientists.
The way you ignored the report given by Jennifer Bilek, and her investigative journalist status and focused on trivializing her credibility based on something else she does, as if that discredits her research and the references she provided, is typical of your tactics. You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”. Your denial of the massive corruption in science, psychology and medical industry for that matter, is horrifying and frustrating to say the least.
You have responded in a classical manner here that demonstrates your state and why. You have helped me to understand you mind.
I am going to reply to your last post fully, not because I think it will help you, but so that others can see how wrong your twisting of things is. And then I would ask that you not communicate with me on this any longer. Instead, I would rather challenge you to a public debate on this and on your “Evolution” claims. Please show us how confident you are in your worldview and slick comments you have been making here and however many other threads you have posted on.
Lets discuss this in real time on Zoom and see how easy it is for you to dodge, deflect, misinterpret, reinterpret, project, falsely accuse and redirect. Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues. I can far more quickly check you when you say things that are not true or intentionally misleading or off topic of the question. You will have no doubt, what you think is a legitimate excuse not to accept. But there it is. Let’s do this. We will set it up so that you will have time to talk with no interruption and I will have time to reply with no interruption. Polite professional dialogue.
Since I know you are not interested in intelligent conversation that leaded to the best answer or what is closest to the truth, at least you will be able to show us why you are right and we are wrong.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 12:47 pm
I see you’ve written me a couple posts, Scalia. I thought I made it clear to you that I’m not reading your comments on this thread anymore. You lost your relevance when your responses degenerated to childish name-calling. Sorry, I’m just not interested in that. Please try to do better next time.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 2:53 pm
Dingbat writes,
I really couldn’t care less if you read my posts or not. I will, however, reply when you falsely accuse me with your diarrhea of the mouth. And I wish you had gotten that conviction long ago when I told you that your dishonesty merited the disdain of every decent person commenting on this blog. Since you have no honor, nobody in their right mind would want to “debate” you because you’re not interested in the truth.
If you had been honest, you would have long ago stated as I multiple times suggested you do and agree that the record does indeed speak for itself and that you are content to let others be the judge of the matter. And since you’re now obsessed with being left alone, why couldn’t you honor that when I repeatedly told you to do likewise?
Please try to do better next time. At least try to be honest.
Derek is a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 3:20 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:<You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”.And yet, Derek, who worships at the altars of these scientists and doctors, will oppose any requirement that a male claiming to be a female obtain a certified diagnosis from those same doctors before being allowed into areas reserved for women. After all, one’s fealty to “science” can only go so far. Facts only matter if they further Leftist propaganda. Facts are ignored otherwise.
With respect to debating Derek, his YouTube channel, which has quite a few videos, is conspicuously missing any debates with recognized Christian apologists. He falsely claimed on these boards that he indeed interacted with a couple of apologists, but the ones he spoke to are NOT recognized apologists at all. If the truth is what he is after, it would be easy for him to have an online debate with them. He doesn’t, of course, because he’d get peeled like an orange. His arguments would be at least as awful as they are here, and they’d humiliate him for his abject ignorance of some basic Christian ideas.
On the other hand, Derek’s mendacity notwithstanding, I understand that evolutionary biology is his specialty, so I would venture to guess that he wouldn’t hesitate to debate you on the matter if he has the time. To me, evolution is a red herring because the Five Ways can assume it arguendo and not affect the arguments in any measure. We can even assume an eternal universe without changing our arguments. But if you venture into the arena of biology, you’d better be on the level of a Stephen Meyer or William Craig. If you’re not up up-to-date with the latest scientific data, you’ll get eaten alive. I say that not to insult. You may yourself be a biologist, but if you’re not, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that Derek is very capable in that arena. He’s just a lousy philosopher, and his ineptness in things philosophical is amplified by his dishonesty. When he runs out of argumentative ammunition, which is rather quickly, he reflexively lies. He makes jaw-droppingly obvious errors and will refuse to admit them when they are pointed out. Philosophical debate is his Achilles’ heel, but talking straight biology isn’t. Just my two cents. 🙂
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 3:32 pm
My apologies. The first paragraph of Post 28 is not formatted correctly. I guess I was moving too quickly. Here it is in proper format:
@Preacherteacher, you write:
And yet, Derek, who worships at the altars of these scientists and doctors, will oppose any requirement that a male claiming to be a female obtain a certified diagnosis from those same doctors before being allowed into areas reserved for women. After all, one’s fealty to “science” can only go so far. Facts only matter if they further Leftist propaganda. Facts are ignored otherwise.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:15 pm
Thanks for the head’s up and concern Scalia. I appreciate you looking out for me. That Being said, i assure you that Biologist or not, Derek would be no problem for me in a debate. I have dealt with greater minds then him on the topic of Evolution and they did not do well. You are of course correct about Derek, that is why I prefer to make him defend his rhetoric in a formal discussion so it can be seen how he deals with corrections that he can’t create distractions to side step.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:35 pm
derekmathias This is my reply to your post 24#
I will have to divide it into three or so posts.
PT.1 I said:
“It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”.”
You replied:
“What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.”
No, I am not dismissing “findings” and “Conclusions” of “experts”, I am questioning you faith in their findings and conclusions. You know that appealing to authority can also be viewed as a fallacy don’t you? My argument was on what your criteria was for determining how reliable their findings and conclusions are. You know that but you chose to shift the focus, why?
You said:
“You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?”
You have just misrepresented me. Again. My post of the link to the Jennifer Bilek interview was not given to prove what they say is not true, but to prove that there is an industry making billions off of the trans community. You know this, but you intentionally skew what I stated to make your point seem more reasonable. Not only was the interview not “right wing”, and Jennifer is not a “rightwinger”, but you totally ignored her status as an investigator, why? You think a hairdresser can’t be an intelligent investigator? On what bases?
And please tell me where I “dismissed” you pew link? What I dismissed is your idea that anyone referred to as a “Christian” is indeed a Christian. You still don’t seem to get that. Why?
You said:
“That makes about as much sense as accepting creation claims of a 6,000 y.o. universe or a flat-earth over the evidence from evolutionary science and cosmology.”
We can debate your faith in Darwinian evolution and old universe idea at another time. What I said is nothing like either, so again, you intentionally try to trivialize my argument. But you did not refute it.
You said:
‘Homosexuality and transgenderism have existed longer than humans have existed. We even see it today in literally hundreds of mammal, bird and reptile species (I would provide you with links, but it seems there’s a hold put on posts for administrator moderation if one provides more than one or two links—which is why there was a delay in my last post appearing—but you should be able to find the evidence for yourself by simply doing a search for “homosexuality in the animal kingdom”). We also have logical evolutionary reasons for why homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature that ultimately increases reproductive success of a species. And it explains why conversion therapy is a failure.”
Your religious faith in atheist scientist and liberal left scientists is touching, but looking to a fallen creation for guidance on moral and sexual matters is hardly a rebuttal to my rejection of “transgender”Disjunctions. And it is pathetic and sad that your scientists have to invent what animals are doing with each-other by calling it homosexuality as if animals had the ability to understand the sexuality. But it is indeed a good case for the depravity of homosexuality, Animals have a good excuse, humans do not.
You said:
“You have something of a cartoonish notion of what a scientist is and how science works, as if it’s about coming up with unsupported ideas and defending them like a religious belief, and doing so in order to make money. Your claim that psychologists make a lot of money by encouraging transgenderism reflects this.”
Stated like a true egotist and science zealot. For someone who claims to be well informed about science, and evolution, you seem either unaware of or uninterested in how often scientists promote unsupported ideas and defend them. Or the role that money plays in such behavior. You clearly did not bother to watch the video interview I gave you that you attacked as a hairdresser. But then such details does not fit your disinformation goal now does it?
You continued:
“Not only is it extremely cynical, but you’re ignoring the fact that the main reason people go into the sciences is out of an interest in understanding phenomena, not to make money—scientists rarely get rich (at least not without groundbreaking discoveries or overturning theories). Your apparent notion of how a scientist thinks would rapidly result in the end of his or her scientific career.”
So now you know the main reason why people go into science, and what is that based on? What they claim? And how do you know that their claim is honest? How often do people claim honorable intent when there are really other arterial motives more relevant? Why do you constantly act as if you know things that you don’t really know?
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:37 pm
PT. 2
You said:
“I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money, but their licenses are conditional, legally constrained by required ethical and scientific standards (something that bloggers, pastors and other laypeople don’t have).”
And what conditional, legal and ethical rule prevents a psychiatrist from telling a disturbed child that comes in their office that they are “gay” or “trans”?
What rule stops them from suggesting to children that they may be “gay” or “trans” even when they said nothing about having such issues? Why do you have so much faith in the sciences enforcement of abuse and grooming? Do you have no knowledge of the abuses of science and scientists that have gone on for ages without abatement? Why are you so determined to trivialize corrupt science?
You said:
“More relevantly to your claim, though, is that there are plenty of areas to specialize in psychology that are far safer and more lucrative than transgenderism, and there is no shortage of patients. These facts don’t fit your narrative.”
Really? And how does that refute my argument? I never claimed there were no other lucrative areas. That does not change to fact of the booming trans industry. You know this. So how does your claim go against my “narrative”?
You said:
“You seem to have bought into the notion of the greedy practitioner as the standard, rather than the rare exception.”
Again, how do you know it is rare? Based on what? There are countless examples of doctors prescribing medication that was not needed, performing operations that were unnecessary, C sections are standard birth operations today when they are certainly not necessary most of the time Why? Money. Again, you are defending science and “brought into the notion” that greedy practitioners are not the standard.
Popular drugs have long been given out that were not effective for what they were claimed to help or cure. Why are you being so dishonest?
You said:
“If you’re like most Christian conservatives I’ve encountered, it’s because such a picture fits your religious agenda, rather than out of any fidelity to the truth.”
I assure you that I am not your average Christian conservative.
But what about your religious agenda? Science is your religion because you think it gives you an answer against God. It doesn’t, but you defend it religiously as you have here to the point of being irrational.
My arguments are not to protect or defend any religious agenda. I am trying to address these issues with honesty and accuracy.
You said:
“Why else would you use a hairdresser-with a-blog interview as your supportive evidence, rather than what the scientific evidence that virtually the entire relevant scientific community has discovered over decades of clinical research?”
The better question is, why would you ignore that “hairdresser’s” research that addresses the power and money behind the trans promotion? She did name names and provided good information. Her message clearly does not fit your narrative, and you clearly avoid any real discussion about such madness because it is your kind of people who are the perpetrators. So you prefer personal attacks by calling her a “hairdresser”, as if hairdressers can’t possibly be intelligent researchers. Would you say that if she was a “transgender” person?
You said:
“That’s an assertion that, again, fails to match the evidence. In fact, there has been a great amount of research done on the topic (and there is much more to come), which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts transgenderism as a valid orientation.”
Again you expose your ego and bias against real science. “Relevant Scientific community”? And how do you define “relevant”? Supporting your perspective? The many who denounce, reject and expose the lies of the “scientists” on your side are not relevant in your thinking. Naturally, because they point out the bias, malpractice and false claims that your side have made. I don’t have to link you to oblivion to defend my point, you know this but would not admit it because you can’t.
By the way, I have not argued against transgenderism being a valid “orientation”. I argue that it is twisted, deprived and should not be allowed to be forced on society as if it was a natural, good and healthy state of mind. That some of the people caught up in it are hurting and mentally disturbed and need to received proper medical help. Others in it are opportunist who use it for the attention, the special rights and privileges it affords them through the efforts of bleeding heart and or opportunistic politicians and special interest groups.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:41 pm
PT.3
You said:
“To say otherwise smacks of a conspiracy theory.
Ah yes, the conspiracy theory accusation, what a poor comeback, not intelligent at all.
And to think that I never questioned “orientation”.
You continued:
“Not only can hundreds of millions of LGBTQ worldwide affirm their gender identification, but as research has shown, “the neural wiring in a transgender person’s brain looks more similar to their gender of identity rather than their gender of assignment at birth” (google “scientific evidence for transgenderism” to see the article), and only about 1% of those who actually undergo gender reassignment regret their decision (google “how many regret gender reassignment surgery”). None of these facts fit your narrative, so you will accept none of them, no matter how much good research is behind them.”
And the “Conspiracy” is refuted by google page statistics? Oh yes, it must be because all those researchers making these claims have no dishonest motive at all. They are angels (pardon me) they are wonderful with pure hearts and no possible arterial motives. I am amazed at how much faith you have in medical scientists and their ethics. You just refuse to admit that such consensus could be motivated by money. Religious indeed. Just look at your reply to my statement:
I said:
“You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.”
And what was your reply?
I’ll bet you have no credible evidence to support this. if there were any actual evidence to support grooming by psychologists, there would be a massive uproar in the psychology science throughout the world. Again, you are veering into hard conspiracy theory territory.
If that is not a religious response I don’t know what is. How would you define “credible evidence”?
You either really truly and ignorantly believe in the moral purity of the psychology industry, or you are a deceiver who seeks to use the argument from authority to defend lies. Are you such a zealot that you must praise science and the science community, and make them magnanimous in their oversite and motives. If so, I am impressed by your faith. But I suspect you are just intentionally denying what is going on to protect the guilty and promote homosexuality. By the way, I have personally experienced this with my children going to their annual checkups. They come and tell me the line of inappropriate questioning they get from the medial professionals about homosexuality, and I as a good parent, no longer use that medical service. You could find many such stories on line if you wanted to. But ye don’t.
You really don’t seem like you are concerned about being accurate or honest. Note your reply to my next statement: I said:
“Christians don’t sexually assault children”
And you replied:
“They most certainly do. New cases turn up all the time! (you gave a google link) It’s a pandemic among Christian churches, with the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, and JWs being among the most well-known.”
But you have not yet defined what you mean by “Christian” so how do you know what “Christians” do?
It is impossible for Christians to sexually abuse children. The act itself is evidence that they are not Christians. The fact that you think they can, proves that you are clueless as to what a Christian is. As an avowed atheist, you are demonstrating your ignorance or lack of interest in being accurate when it comes to Christians. Being a member of a church does not make one a Christian. Mormons and WatchTower witness are not Christians. Neither are Catholics who believe and follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.
But you clearly don’t care, if bad can be ascribed to Christians, you think it justifies your atheism or at lease supports it. But you are wrong.
To my statement:
“The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you?”
You replied:
“Again you demonstrate you don’t understand how science works…”
You then admit they make mistakes and even fabricate data, but you claim it is so rare that it is lower than any other human institution because of falsifiability and reproducibility requirements.
No, my statement says nothing about my not understanding how science works. You do know that “reproducing” is not always necessary for claims to be mainstreamed in science don’t you? If not, then you are not as knowledgeable of science as you think. Your professed omniscience as to there being far less lying going on in science than “any other institution” is interesting. But that is actually also a faith statement. You naturally are not interested in knowing just how deep seated lying is in science, because science is a major part of your religion.
This is why I have challenged you to a public debate on these issues. Why have you not agreed to such a debate? There are a number of reasons that you are apparently not aware of that massive fraud in science occurs and is covered up.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:43 pm
PT.4
You said:
“This is why bad data and hoaxes are eventually uncovered by other scientists attempting to reproduce the original claim. Unlike religion or any other area of knowledge claims, scientific explanations are ALWAYS subject to revision by credible contradicting evidence, which is why it’s the hardest arena in which to promulgate falsehoods. The reason you know about cases of bad data is because SCIENTISTS have uncovered it—yes, those same scientists whose findings you reject.”
No, you are incorrect, most often, those who find the lies are either competing for recognition or they are in a different camp and both are motives to expose bad science. But on the other hand, when addressing a major Cash cow like say “EVOLUTION”, there is a greater motive to join together against the religious science professionals and defend the lie at all costs. You do know how long Pilt Down Man lasted as proof of evolution don’t you? And Ernst Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings are still in textbooks today, and just about everybody now knows he lied. But the benefit to promoting evolution far outweighed the need for truth. It’s the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” lie. Do you know about his fake dog embryo drawings don’t you? There are books and articles that document just how wide spread fraud and lies are in science. Do you really want to defend science integrity?
When I asked:
“Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian.”
You replied:
“A Christian is someone who believes he is following the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Please tell me, where is that definition stated in the Bible? That definition is incorrect.
You continued:
“Anything else is interpretation adopted by a specific denomination. I’ve attended at least a dozen different Christian churches (plus synagogues and temples throughout the world) in my life, and every single one believes they are “biblical Christians,” every single one emphasizes and de-emphasizes certain biblical claims, and every single one is certain THEIR interpretation is the only “right” one.”
And you think that one’s interpretation of the Bible based on their denomination’s teaching determines
Their status as a Christian?
Oh, just a minute, you gave me a Bible lesson to prove your point. So let’s take a look.
You said:
“For instance, Protestants believe that salvation comes from faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-13),”
In addition to the fact that “Protestants” are not monolithic and do not all believe the same things, I have to say, Sorry, but two of the three texts you used were incorrect for that claim. Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:8-13 says nothing about salvation by faith alone. Where did you borrow this list from?
You said:
“whereas Catholics say salvation requires both faith and works (James 2:24, 1 Corinthians 13:2, Matthew 25:31-46) and that you can lose your salvation (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Corinthians 13:5, John 15:1-11).”
Many “Protestants” teach the same two points. Or did you forget to check. That is as far as you are correct about what these verses teach. 1 Corinthians 13:2 does not teach works requirement. Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach works are “required” for salvation. If you truly were interested in understanding the Bible (which I seriously doubt), you would have taken the time to get better information, but since your goal is just to discredit, it seem like you just rely in atheist talking points.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:46 pm
PT. 5
You continued:
“And even within such major divisions there are many subdivisions, such as Lutherans teaching that anyone can choose to accept salvation, while Calvinists teach that only God chooses whom to save. These are all dramatically different interpretations of the SAME BOOK. The scholars of ALL those sects study the Bible in depth…yet arrive at drastically different conclusions. And it’s all due to differences in interpretation. The Bible doesn’t come with a key or guide to determine what should be interpreted literally vs. metaphorically…and therein lies the confusion (so much for God not being the author of confusion…).”
Nothing you have said here refutes my claim that Christians do not sexually abuse Children, nor
does it define what a Christian is. Pointing out the diverse doctrinal views of people who claim to be Christians and their organizational officiations, which is due to human pride, rebellion and ignorance,
Only demonstrates why Christians must be dedicated to sound hermeneutics and careful study and not be blind followers of people with degrees or positions of leadership in organizations.
You continued:
“But none of that matters, does it, because I’m sure YOU figured out the “one true” Christian interpretation, and all the other thousands of denominations that disagree with you are wrong…right?” 😉
It sounds to me like you are projecting here; it is you who seems to think you are spot on in all your perspectives. Yes I do indeed understand how to properly interpret The Bible. But as usual, you atheists are all over the place with your illusions of “brilliant” observations about the Bible, Christianity, Jesus and religious denominations etc. I would be delighted to spar with you about all of these, but in a public dialogue, not here. Here it is much too easy for you to evade and waist time and space.
To my statement:
“And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.”
You made a commendable effort to answer:
“First, the structure of a No True Scotsman fallacy is where someone makes a claim (like “No Christians commit evil acts”), then someone else points out examples that contradict that claim (like “Here are multiple documented convictions of Christians committing evil acts”), so the perpetrator of the fallacy excludes those who are the exception to the claim (“No TRUE Christians commit evil acts”). Look up the definition for yourself.”
No need to look it up, I understand the fallacy.
The flaw in your argument is that you have not provided any examples, nor have you correctly defined what a Christian is. Your documentations are at best, someone’s documentation of evils done by people who “claimed” to be or who were “thought” to be Christians. This is not rocket science.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:48 pm
PT. 6 conclusion.
Your lack of understanding continued when you said:
“Keep in mind that Christians who commit evil believe that they are NOT committing evil, because “BY DEFINITION Christians cannot commit evil” (No True Scotsman). That’s how they justify beating, murdering and discriminating against LGBTQ people—all in the name of “love,” of course.”
What a person who claims to be a Christian denies about their evil act does not make them a Christian. So your point is moot. I am beginning to think that you are a mootist. Please give up your effort to be brilliant by invoking incorrect “No True Scotsman” fallacies.
You said:
“Of course, in your mind I’ll bet all the Christian denominations that embrace the LGBTQ community are perpetrating evil, just as they accuse you of doing, right?”
Finally you have something right. I do indeed, and with good reason. And that accusation is one of the few accusations they get right. But they get so many other wrong that what they get right is meaningless. Homophobe, murderer, hateful, bigot. You know, the usual efforts to silence us with accusations hoping to shame us to silence.
You said:
Oh, but you wouldn’t be singing that tune if Christianity were growing, now would you? 😉
How do you know it isn’t? You don’t even know what a Christian is. And yet you say:
“And most of my friends and family are ex-Christians, and they would vehemently object to your dismissal of their beliefs. One of my friends believed so strongly that he entered the seminary before losing his belief, while another was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he was an atheist. In both cases it was by in-depth study of the Bible that they lost their belief, when they realized that early Christian history and beliefs were nothing like what they had been taught in church. Thus the truism:”
And this makes my point and my argument, you are clueless about because people were deeply involved with religion, worked in church for years does not make them Christians. There are many people who do things in the name of Christ and “for” their Christian “faith”, who were never Christians. Citing such examples does not make your case.
And quoting other atheist and stating your journey into atheism through reading the Bible still does not refute my argument. But you know this, you are just here to promote your atheism and flaunt what you think are brilliant reasons to deny God’s existence, and thus any of His moral laws that you don’t like.
You then give a horrible example of us putting ourselves in the trans person’s shoes.
This also demonstrates just how little you understand the issues we are at odds with you about.
You said:
“…But I would urge you to put yourself in the shoes of a trans person and try to understand their situation. Imagine people wanted to legislate away your rights to be a Christian, using the sexual assault scandals in the various Christian sects as reason to deny you the right to read the Bible or go to church. Imagine everyone denied you the right to even be a Christian, and you had to fear for your safety from those non-Christians. Do you think that would be just or fair? Would you want to live in such a community?”
You’d think that a religion with a persecution complex would show compassion to others who are persecuted…but instead you do the same thing to others. Well, when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like persecution. Your delusional idea that we have a right to claim we are what we cannot possibly be, and everyone must believe and affirm it is madness. You know this, but since it slaps at morals, the Bible and Christianity, it is just right for you.
I look forward to our public dialogue.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 6:22 am
“Ok, you see, this is what Scalia and others have complained about you, you are not here to have an intelligent dialogue, you are here to promote your leftists ideas on a conservative platform, so you don’t even bother to give intelligent refutations, just bold claims and religious confidence in psychologists and scientists.”
This is interesting. How do you suppose arguments are supposed to work? If you make factually questionable or clearly false statements, I’m going to call them out and provide my reasons for doing so. That’s how arguments work, and I would expect no less from you. I’m really not interested in promoting leftist or rightist ideas at all; what I’m interested in claims that are supported by credible evidence. That’s it. And if the evidence conflicts with what I thought was true, I will change my mind.
Scalia has demonstrated that he can’t handle disagreement, and when someone provides evidence that contradicts his claims, he resorts to name-calling and ad hominems instead of reasoned argument. I’m just not interested in that, and for this reason I’ve given up engaging with him—at least on this and some other threads. I do appreciate that you haven’t resorted to name-calling, but you are engaging in ad hominems.
“The way you ignored the report given by Jennifer Bilek, and her investigative journalist status and focused on trivializing her credibility based on something else she does, as if that discredits her research and the references she provided, is typical of your tactics.”
The term “investigative journalist” is a label anyone can call themselves. It’s not something that requires any qualifications at all, and is thus meaningless without a credible body of work. I did look her up and found she has almost nothing out there, just a couple articles and vlog posts, and her work is not supported by proper references. Yes, I realize I could have somehow missed some great body of professional work she’s done, but it’s not my job to hunt down that information for your argument.
Furthermore, you sent me to a website by a vlogger who claimed right from the beginning that a transgender woman is “a man pretending to be a woman,” which is factually inaccurate according to virtually the entire psychological science community. And then she went off into conspiracy theory-level ridiculousness, stating: “You’re looking at, basically, what is essentially a lot of powerful men making money and having their fantasies fulfilled by trapping kids in perpetual adolescence and rendering them sterile so that they have to rely on the medical industry to live and to one day, if they want to, reproduce. And so the most powerful, richest and the most evil individuals in the world are working together to push this from the top down with the help of the media, with the help of the most powerful politicians, and with the help of corporations.” No credible sources for any of this claim, just stating it as if it’s fact. That’s a “Pizzagate” and “January 6 wasn’t an insurrection”-level conspiracy theory claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and she provided none of it.
So yeah, I think I’m perfectly justified in dismissing her claims and the claims of her interviewee. If you want me to take claims seriously, provide actual scientific evidence.
“You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”. Your denial of the massive corruption in science, psychology and medical industry for that matter, is horrifying and frustrating to say the least.”
I never said anything remotely like that. I said that “What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.” Furthermore, I made it clear that they are NOT above reproach by noting, “I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money.”
I’m sorry, but it is not reasonable for you to use an amateur video filled with unsupported, conspiracy theory-level claims as credible evidence to support your wild assertions. You make claims like there are “impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists,” also without any credible support.
I am certainly NOT saying scientists are beyond reproach, but because of the scientific method (specifically the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements) they are FAR more likely to be exposed for making false or unsupported claims. And for you to use a conspiracy theorist’s home video to counter the professional assessments of the psychological science community is just not reasonable. Surely you can see how the two sets of claims are not anywhere in the same level. My position is not unreasonable here.
“I would rather challenge you to a public debate on this and on your “Evolution” claims. Please show us how confident you are in your worldview and slick comments you have been making here and however many other threads you have posted on.”
Oh, that would be great! In fact, I have the perfect venue. This Friday I will be a guest host on the Truth Wanted show run by the Atheist Community of Austin (the same organization that runs The Atheist Experience). The show airs Fridays from 7:00 pm-8:30 pm CT. You can call in at 1-512-991-9242, or use your computer: https://tiny.cc/calltw. Here’s the website: https://www.atheist-community.org/truthwanted. We discuss any topic, but Christian apologetics figure in prominently. Feel free to call me, and the entire thing will be both streamed live and uploaded to YouTube afterward.
“Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues.”
Well, that’s probably the most wrong claim you’ve made so far, because I LOVE arguing with theists (especially fundamentalists and creationists) live! In fact, on YouTube I have half a dozen videos of my debates with a variety of Christians. I argue with street preachers whenever I get the chance. And I even debated the pastor at his church talk supposedly debunking evolution. Even though I was the only atheist in a room full of Christians, I wasn’t at all shy about addressing the pastor’s mistaken claims on the topic. So I’m looking forward to this! I’ll see you there.
Hmm, I see you have made a bunch more posts to me on this thread. Unfortunately, I just don’t have the time to read or respond to them. I have too many arguments running at once to get to all of them in a timely manner (you may have noticed), so I try to keep it down to one post per person.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:33 am
derekmathias My reply to your post #37
You said:
“This is interesting. How do you suppose arguments are supposed to work? If you make factually questionable or clearly false statements, I’m going to call them out and provide my reasons for doing so. That’s how arguments work, and I would expect no less from you.”
But that is now what is going on here Derek. I would invite a honest effort to get at what is true, even if it means I am proven to be in error. That is something I pride myself in inviting, actual correction or refutation of a view I hold. If done successfully, I learn and improve. But when claims and questionable sources are used-relied on with no accountability or willingness to reevaluate the source relied on when brought into question, I have to believe there is something else going on here.
You said:
“I’m really not interested in promoting leftist or rightist ideas at all; what I’m interested in claims that are supported by credible evidence. That’s it. And if the evidence conflicts with what I thought was true, I will change my mind.”
I don’t think so Derek, but let’s put that to a test, shall we? You called the Jan 6, event an Insurrection, using the left media’s terms and views about it. (So much for not being left). I ask you what is an insurrection, and what about Jan. 6 constitutes one? You think that a person can determine their gender against what natural biology clearly is, and you erroneously rely on what some “medical/science professionals” claim to support your convictions. How is that honest, when you know for a fact that a male can never be female and a female can never be a male. Your efforts here are not honest, they are activistic. Touting what medical and science professionals who have motivations to lie say, is not evidence of truth, but of insincerity. You know there are people who ‘think” (say) they are not human but cats, lizards, aliens, and some who “think” (say) that their body parts (arms, legs etc.) do not belong on them. Do you defend them, celebrate them, fight for their rights to have their limbs cut off?
You said:
“The term “investigative journalist” is a label anyone can call themselves…”
Derek, are you seriously saying that a person who does investigative work, has to have a body of work that has been approved as credible by ????, before their “investigative journalist” title can be meaningful? (perhaps that is why you rely on so many bad sources).
All you have to do is check what she provides as her evidence and sources to determine if what she has “investigated” is credible, no matter how few investigations she has done or who approves them.
You said:
“Furthermore, you sent me to a website by a vlogger who claimed right from the beginning that a transgender woman is “a man pretending to be a woman,” which is factually inaccurate according to virtually the entire psychological science community.”
You haven’t yet explained how the “psychological science community” determines this is factually inaccurate. What scientific test is given to a Trans person to determine they are a Trans? You remember the lie about the homosexual gene that was exposed after it got lots of mileage and had many believing they were “born that way”?
(seen next post)
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:38 am
derekmathias My reply to your post #37 PT.2
You said:
“And then she went off into conspiracy theory-level ridiculousness, stating: “You’re looking at, basically, what is essentially a lot of powerful men making money and having their fantasies fulfilled by trapping kids in perpetual adolescence and rendering them sterile so that they have to rely on the medical industry to live and to one day, if they want to, reproduce…”
This is a good example of how you do what you accuse me and others here of doing. You simply ignore the logic of the argument she gave and call it “conspiracy” as if nothing she said makes any real since. When you know it does.
She said money trails don’t lie and it leads back to the elites in the techno-medical complex.
She named names and gave their status in the industries and their operations/connections.
Martine (Martin) Aliana Rothblatt , Well respected renowned in media circles political circles, and technology circles. She points out his publicly stated goal and philosophy to dismantle the normal human state in favor of digital existence. He has no respect for human norms and seeks to replace it with abstract ides of different existence. So naturally he promotes trans idea. After all, He is a he pretending to be a she. Jennifer also mentions Udall Harare, who is Klaus Schwab’s right hand man, pushing for a virtual reality world to replace the natural world and Mark Zuckerber and his “metaverse”. Jeff Bezos, Mark Benioff, Laverne Cox, Fertility and gender clinics investor is also mentioned. All are channels of getting away from normal existence which the Trans movement features in comfortably. She also gave a logical connection to the Lgbt and corporatized identities because of their dependence of medical help. And after the Aids crisis, they had this corporate medical apparatus that now needed a new cause to keep it going and the money flowing, that cause became the trans people. Thus the motivation to convince people they were trans, which is easy for children and young. Since they could not sell the sexual fetishes of adult men to children, they had to convince the children that they were not who they were, to make them new clients for the medical complex that was set up for aids profit. A rebranding to youth. And due to the sterilization of millions of children via puberty blockers etc. They will need medical aid to have children when they are older. And you ignore all this as “conspiracy”, yet you claim to be for truth.
You said:
“..Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and she provided none of it.”
No, Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, just reasonable evidence.
You said:
“So yeah, I think I’m perfectly justified in dismissing her claims and the claims of her interviewee. If you want me to take claims seriously, provide actual scientific evidence.”
What scientific evidence do you need to see to booming transgender medical industry? Why are the names she gave and their investments not sufficient? Why is it not sufficient that major Grooming is taking place and Corporate promotion of transgenderism is everywhere, even advertising to and for children as little as 2 an 3 years old who know nothing about sex? Derek, you are not at all being honest, you are promoting your agenda and you are pretending not to have one. That is dishonest.
You said:
“I never said anything remotely like that. I said that “What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.” Furthermore, I made it clear that they are NOT above reproach by noting, “I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money.”
There you go again Derek, you think that by admitting some psychiatrists are money motivated, that exonerates you from your being accused of faith and claims that what the many say about trans is true. I address your unfounded faith in what they say about their pro Trans research. You have not justified it by saying they devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain. That does not mean they understand the mind and brain or that they are right in their claims. You know this, if you don’t you should since you claim to be so well researched Scientists are always making claims about understanding things the really DON’T understand. Yet you use them as reliable irrefutable, undeniable sources. Why?
You said:
“I’m sorry, but it is not reasonable for you to use an amateur video filled with unsupported, conspiracy theory-level claims as credible evidence to support your wild assertions. You make claims like there are “impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists,” also without any credible support.”
Derek, again, you ignore my proof and you lie saying I gave none. I gave you my own personal eye witness statement that my children were victims of such efforts of grooming and I referenced many that you can find in published reports if you bothered to read them. It seems that you are not as dedicated to checking conservative sources as you claim, or you would have come across many such published cases. As much as you rely on links to defend your views, it is strange that you could find none reporting on the massive grooming going on. Why is that?
You said:
“I am certainly NOT saying scientists are beyond reproach, but because of the scientific method (specifically the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements) they are FAR more likely to be exposed for making false or unsupported claims.”
This is yet another example of how you skirt past my actual argument and misrepresent my point to avoid having to refute my claim. A typical atheist tactic. I challenged your Falsifiable, reproducible argument, and you did not refute me, you just repeat your argument.
You said:
“And for you to use a conspiracy theorist’s home video to counter the professional assessments of the psychological science community is just not reasonable. Surely you can see how the two sets of claims are not anywhere in the same level. My position is not unreasonable here.”
Again you misrepresent my point, I did not provide the video of Jennifer to refute what you claimed about medical support for “trans people”, and you would know this if you were really paying attention and trying to be accurate. The video was to point out the industry motives for publishing the false science support for “trans people” trans is major big profit. Can you provide me with a litany of pro-trans research dating back 10 or 20 years? Since they have been around as you claim for such a long time, surly you can show the abundant research supporting them from the 20’s 30’s 40’s 50’s and 60’s can’t you?
To my public debate challenge, you invite me to a bias atheist platform hot seat instead. Now I will indeed catch the program and try to call in. But that will not do for a balanced and fair discussion. You know this. Why won’t you join me in a moderated discussion where no one side had the control of the mic or the cut off switch. And there is not hogging the mic etc. Is that to balanced a playing field for you?
I will also view your youtubes if you provide the link to your channel, but you should know that there are very many ignorant, dumb, silly, uninformed and just plain false preacher, Pastors and ‘Christian”, so it is not hard to find such to beat up on intellectually. That does not impress or concern me. While I can’t speak for them, I can speak for me, so let’s do this, at the least, it will be will be useful for both of us to have no interference and not wiggle room.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:40 am
Dingbat writes:
This is demonstrably false. I’ve shown repeatedly through previous debates that I’m more than capable of fully and completely addressing every one of Derek’s objections. It is rather the other way around. Derek resorts to lying, reframing and deflection when confronted with logical arguments.
As proof (again), all one needs to do is read Bye Bye Roe (only 15 posts) to see Derek’s dishonesty in action.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:54 am
Preacherteacher writes,
That is precisely the kind of “debates” you’ll see on Derek’s YouTube page. He doesn’t take on anybody who’s knowledgeable for obvious reasons. He’s been at it long enough to avoid competent Christian apologists like the plague. And when he runs into them in blogs such as this, he resorts to his typical fallacies to save face and turn tables. He’s not able to do that on video with an experienced apologist, so he avoids it altogether.
His YouTube page is HERE.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 3:58 pm
Thank you so much Scalia, that link is a great blessing and help. After watching a few of his videos, I am convinced that my view of him is accurate. He is a typical atheist who knows he is not being honest or even accurate many times when he addresses the Bible. But he hates God and or the idea of God so much that he has to do all he can to discredit the God he claims does not exist.
He has clearly borrowed his arguments from top atheist, nothing new about his accusations. So refuting him will be a cake walk. But he knows how easy it is to get thousands of views by attacking the Bible. (My guess is that he is monetized and making money from youtube). I will be going over all of his videos now and doing a refutation of them as time permits. They are a great tool for me to train other Christians on how to respond to such arrogant errors and ignorance. I would have mercy on him if he did not claim to be such an authority on the Bible etc. After what you just posted, his pride may get the best of him and he just might take me up on my challenge. Either way, I have his videos so I really don’t need him any longer.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 4:48 pm
Scalia, I find it interesting that Derek complained about you calling him names, yet he contently calls God names in his videos. his gross practice of misrepresenting the Bible, God and Jesus, makes him hypocritical to complain about anything here he experiences here. He is clearly a Richard Dawkins Zealot. Sad But he is clearly not interested in an intelligent dialogue to get to the truth. He is clearly a atheist Zealot activist.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 10:06 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:
Yes, that’s the key to people like him. They’re obsessed with spending much of their lives attacking faith in God. The common pretext among his type is their alleged need to counter the political agenda of the Religious Right. They claim to feel so threatened by right wing activism, they are “forced” to engage their underlying religious beliefs in order to weaken the faith of believers and to dissuade others from being “duped” by specious arguments. Indeed, their opposition to faith has become, for all practical purposes, a faith of its own. They devote themselves to their “calling” with evangelistic fervor, and have a coercive spirit on par with the inquisitors of old.
But of course, the alleged opposition to the religious Right is just a guise for their hatred of God (Rom. 1:28). The overwhelming majority of people couldn’t care less about heady philosophical debates over cosmological arguments, intelligent design or evolution. The Left’s success has been in the political arena. One doesn’t hold enough of the electorate to influence an election with philosophical arguments on whether God exists. The appeal to politics is only raised to give them cover for what would be bizarre behavior otherwise–obsessing day and night over proving the non-existence of God. A normal person who doesn’t believe in God would simply carry on with his or her life and not give a hoot whether anybody else believed in God. But not these folks. Their leftist pedigree drives them to control others, even down to the thoughts they possess. It’s really sad, but one day every one of them will bend their knee and confess the Lordship of Christ (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10-11).
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 10:35 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:
The contempt I express at Derek’s expense is well-earned. I treat every interlocutor with utmost respect until they prove beyond ambiguity that they’re not arguing in good faith. When a person is clearly not being honest, I lose all respect and consider it a waste of time to play the game of respect with a liar.
Derek made his appearance here some 11 years ago with what he considered a silver bullet refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). He repeatedly posted his video on the matter without sustained engagement from the regulars here. His arguments were clearly fallacious, which is why I didn’t bother to jump in. But since others wouldn’t fully engage him for whatever reason, I decided to respectfully challenge him. In the course of what was initially a very cordial discussion, he lied about what he knew of the Thomistic arguments for God’s existence, and he repeatedly attempted to twist away from the very obvious logical error he was making against the KCA (the logical-possibility-warrants-refutation fallacy). The fact that something is logically possible does not constitute a refutation of an argument, because the objection stands defeated on the same standard. Bizarrely, he destroyed the very basis for his appeal to evidence by undermining the very empirical data he cited. I pointed these things out repeatedly, but his pride would not allow him to admit his obvious errors. I suspect his atheistbots would lose faith in their “pope” if he acknowledged but the slightest error, so Derek ill-advisedly chose to save face rather than exhibit the integrity to admit a mistake. When he showed his colors, I switched to third-person dialog and resolved to never debate him again.
Oddly, he kept begging me to debate other topics. And he would burn post after post trying to goad me into another debate. He wanted to start afresh, so, against my better judgment, I left the past behind and tried anew. That resulted in a 500+ post thread, which included others, that again proved what a waste of time it all was. Thus, when the Roe thread came around, I went into full attack mode because it was obvious he did not even read the Dobbs decision before criticizing it. Indeed, he hadn’t even read the Constitution (you should read the laughable comments he made about it). Thus, I told him that I would no longer debate him. I will, however, post my opinions on various threads as I feel necessary and will counter-swing when he attacks me personally.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 11:18 am
Dear Scalia,
Attacking someone by calling them names casts a worse shadow on you than it does on them. The first time I read you calling Derek a “dingbat”, I was appalled. I don’t think you are using that as a term of endearment or out of kindness or love or in jest. If you are, I apologize. But I’m not sure if Derek is feeling your concern for his soul with those type of names. If you could refrain from name calling and attack the argument instead of the person, it would nice. Thank you.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 9:43 pm
mizpeh1 naturally, Scalia can speak for himself so what I say here is not an effort to defend him. I can see that you are a concerned believer who perhaps believes that there is never any condition under which a Christian could or should use hard words to or about someone. That to do so is not loving and therefore it is out of the will of God and a bad example to those who are not believers. am I correct, if not please help me understand your perspective better.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 11:06 pm
Sister Carol, you wrote:
Thank you for offering your opinion. I can agree that if this were without a history, my current deportment toward Derek would be most inappropriate. However, I have numerous times both here and elsewhere explained why I approach him as I do. I don’t know what else I can say now that would add to what I’ve already posted. I will try one more time to summarize.
First, I linked to a couple of earlier debates which demonstrates my respectful demeanor. I treat everybody with respect and assume that they have the best of intentions until they prove otherwise. You and I have disagreed without rancor. I have also disagreed with others without any hint of acrimony (e.g., Dino and Greg). I welcome disagreement and good-faith argument.
Second, Derek has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he does not have the best of intentions. Indeed, he is a demonstrable liar whose only agenda is overthrowing the faith of Christians. When he refuses to acknowledge plain errors, deliberately reframes an argument to avoid admitting a substantive error, and asserts knowledge of subjects and works he’s ignorant of, in part, because he’s never read the source material in question, there’s no point pretending that this is some poor innocent soul who’s simply misguided. It must be remembered that Derek has thousands of followers. He’s not interested in leading them to the truth. He’s only interested in feeding them atheist propaganda. Thus, his obvious mendacity is explained by his need to save face before his followers. He has, consequently, earned the opprobrium of every decent person. This is not without scriptural precedent:
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Acts 8:20-23
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Titus 1:10-11
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
Whether these individuals are in the church or out of the church, once they show their true colors, they’ve crossed a line. These are not individuals in need of further evangelism. They are instruments of Satan who must be opposed. There is a world of difference between a sincerely mistaken person and a deliberate liar. I’ve provided more than sufficient evidence that Derek is willfully dishonest. If you’ve read the material and disagree, that’s entirely up to you. As I’ve told Derek, I am perfectly content to let others decide whether my claims are accurate. The feedback I have received from others who’ve read the links is unanimous thus far. Even if my “name-calling” is inappropriate in their view, there’s no doubt about’s Derek’s dishonesty.
Finally, I’ve repeatedly told Derek that I won’t debate him again. I will, however, comment on Jason’s columns as I see fit. And if Derek offers a rebuttal of what I write, and I feel that his rebuttal is off-target (which is 100% of the case thus far), I will say so without further comment. Derek now claims to be uninterested in debating me. That’s all well and good from my end. I only wish he had respected that when I requested the same earlier.
So, thanks again for sharing your opinion with me. I respectfully dissent.
LikeLike
May 30, 2023 at 12:36 am
Preacherteacher writes,
Indeed, as John the Baptist said:
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
And Jesus said essentially the same thing:
Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Also recall what He said of Herod:
Luke 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Now, Jesus wasn’t calling Herod good-looking. The term fox is a metaphor for a dishonest person. In other words, calling a spade a spade is perfectly Christlike.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 8:56 am
Well, I pop in to this thread to thank you for being willing to go on Truth Wanted, only to find the following bit of nastiness from you. Really, Preacherteacher, is that necessary? You were much more friendly on the show.
“Thank you so much Scalia, that link is a great blessing and help. After watching a few of his videos, I am convinced that my view of him is accurate.”
Okay, by now I’m guessing you realize that your characterization of me and my knowledge is not accurate. First you said, “Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues. I can far more quickly check you when you say things that are not true or intentionally misleading or off topic of the question. You will have no doubt, what you think is a legitimate excuse not to accept.”
Except that clearly I ENJOY direct debate and I have no trouble discussing my points accurately live, as demonstrated by the fact that I invited you to Truth Wanted.
Then you called me hypocritical for calling God names: “I find it interesting that Derek complained about you calling him names, yet he contently calls God names in his videos. his gross practice of misrepresenting the Bible, God and Jesus, makes him hypocritical to complain about anything here he experiences here.”
Except that there is a huge difference between someone using generic insults in place of rational argument (that’s an ad hominem fallacy, which is what Scalia does repeatedly), and someone who lists the evidence for concluding a descriptive label (which is what I do when I conclude that God—as described in the Bible—is evil).
So if I were to claim that God condones killing babies, and then I just called him an idiot in place of providing any actual evidence, I would be guilty of an ad hominem. But if I were to instead provide multiple examples of God condoning the killing of babies, and then concluded based on that evidence that God is a baby-killer, that would be a properly reasoned argument and conclusion. See the difference? (I could also say that “calling God names” is a victimless crime, but that would take the discussion off on another direction. 😉 )
Then you accuse me of hating God and claiming he doesn’t exist: “But he hates God and or the idea of God so much that he has to do all he can to discredit the God he claims does not exist. So refuting him will be a cake walk.”
Well, two problems there: first off, I’m an agnostic atheist, which means I do NOT make the claim no gods exist, only that I don’t believe any gods exist (there is a major difference between claims of knowledge and claims of belief). The second problem is that I don’t hate God. I don’t think it’s even really possible to hate something you don’t believe exists (I mean, do you hate Darth Vader?).
I suspect it’ll come to a surprise to you, but my arguments actually have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. My issue is with Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science. But a lot of Christians make this mistake, enough so I made a video explaining my motivations. It’s titled “Why I Make Videos Against God,” in case you’re interested in viewing it.
Then you claimed, “He has clearly borrowed his arguments from top atheist, nothing new about his accusations” and “He is clearly a Richard Dawkins Zealot.” Except that I’ve read almost nothing of his, apart from a few short articles (in fact, I think I even mentioned that fact at the beginning of the show). In pursuit of my degree in evolution science, I studied the science itself, not so much books written for the layperson, nor was I interested in the opinions of famous atheists. I was never a believer, but I became an anti-theist the way most people do: by reading the Bible and paying attention to the implications of everything it said. So while I am certainly an atheist, I’m clearly no “Richard Dawkins Zealot.”
As for my accusations being nothing new, I think you’ll find I often approach the arguments from different perspectives and/or with different evidence. My arguments against biblical free will, for example, are none I’ve seen others making.
Also, on Truth Wanted you also made several more claims that are inaccurate, like equating atheism with evolution, equating atheism with abiogenesis, and calling biogenesis a law instead of an observation that was never intended to apply to the origin of the first life itself.
“He is a typical atheist who knows he is not being honest or even accurate many times when he addresses the Bible.”
On what basis do you claim I’m not being honest? I’ve yet to have anyone reasonably refute my claims about the Bible. I’ve had people like Scalia, Paul and Elaine make plenty of assertions and deflections (followed by a LOT of anger, mischaracterization and insults—as you’ve seen), but no successful refutations. At best, some of my objections to the character of God in the Bible are a matter of opinion, which people can reasonably disagree about, but I do my best to make sure I’m not taking anything in the Bible out of context. If you think I’ve mischaracterized anything in the Bible, I would want nothing less than for you to point it out.
Despite your rancorous words here, on the Truth Wanted show you were quite reasonable and friendly, and even said you thought I’m a “nice and intelligent guy who genuinely wants to get at the truth.” Thank you, I appreciate that, but your positions are contradictory. Which version of your assessment of me is the tone you honestly hold?
As you can see, you’ve made a lot of mischaracterizations about me, but my point here is not to harangue you for making mistakes. I just want to point out that you’ve made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that could have been avoided by simply asking. And that should be a clue that I’ve done my homework, and so refuting my arguments won’t be the cakewalk you think it will be.
“I will be going over all of his videos now and doing a refutation of them as time permits. They are a great tool for me to train other Christians on how to respond to such arrogant errors and ignorance.”
Thank you, I would appreciate that. Feel free to leave your refutations in the comments for all to see, and I assure you I will respond to them rationally.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 9:27 am
Dingbat writes:
Here, Derek displays his fundamental ignorance of logical fallacies (which is why he argues fallaciously). Name-calling is not what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy is committed when a person is directly attacked in some measure and that attack is used as either an element or basis for rejecting said person’s argument. A “generic insult,” isn’t fallacious since it isn’t the basis for rejecting a claim. Calling a spade a spade might be uncharitable, depending on the context, but it isn’t fallacious. Recall that a fallacy is any mistake in reasoning that affects the cogency of an argument. Name-calling isn’t an argument, so it isn’t fallacious by definition.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve provided plenty of evidence that demonstrates the “successful refutations” of Derek’s arguments. Derek has earned the disdain he receives here and elsewhere because he’s more interested in advancing his agenda than he is in the truth.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 9:37 am
Mizpeh1 said: “Dear Scalia
Attacking someone by calling them names casts a worse shadow on you than it does on them. The first time I read you calling Derek a “dingbat”, I was appalled. I don’t think you are using that as a term of endearment or out of kindness or love or in jest. If you are, I apologize. But I’m not sure if Derek is feeling your concern for his soul with those type of names. If you could refrain from name calling and attack the argument instead of the person, it would nice. Thank you.”
Thank you, Mizpeh1, I really wish more people here would do that. As I understand it, this is supposed to be a blog where people can disagree and argue ideas, not attack each other—and such behavior is not a good look for people who profess to be Christians. Heated arguments are fine, but ad hominem attacks are not.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 12:52 pm
Dingbat writes:
If certain participants would tell the truth and argue in good faith, and if said persons would quit pretending to know something they don’t, then they’d perhaps garner the respect they crave. They reap what they sow. If they want to be honored, they should act honorably.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 7:04 pm
derekmathias my response to your post 50:
Well now Derek, you should notice that my posts were pre- your show. I did indeed see a different side of you there. As you saw of me as you said. Post Show all I did was ask a question. But neither my pre or post comments were “nasty”. That is unless you consider any fore of criticism to be “nasty”, but then that would also apply to you would it not?
You said:
“ ….and someone who lists the evidence for concluding a descriptive label (which is what I do when I conclude that God—as described in the Bible—is evil).”
So even in this you refuse to be honest. Are you saying that because you provided what you ‘THINK” is evidence, your referring to God as “Evil” is not calling Him names but “a descriptive label?
Is this how you plan to defend yourself, by creating your own meaning and definitions for what you are doing or saying? Now that would concern me in a dialogue.
To your comment starting with:
“So if I were to claim that God condones killing babies, and then I just called him an idiot in place of providing any actual evidence, I would be guilty of an ad hominem……”
Derek, you are tripping over your intellect, you just switch words on me. You slyly went from my statement about you calling God names, to ad hominem, I did not say you used an ad hominem when you called God names. I get it, you understand philosophy, I do to, but I am not interested in flexing my philosophy knowledge with you on this point, I simply pointed out your double standard and hypocritical complaint.
You said:
“…. first off, I’m an agnostic atheist, which means I do NOT make the claim no gods exist, only that I don’t believe any gods exist (there is a major difference between claims of knowledge and claims of belief). The second problem is that I don’t hate God. I don’t think it’s even really possible to hate something you don’t believe exists (I mean, do you hate Darth Vader?).”
That’s funny, you clearly understand the foolish mistake that Atheists of the past had made by arguing that God did not exist. That argument got their intellectual hides tanned so well that the smart ones, gave that up, and reinvented their approach. Enter the “new” atheist, some hide behind the “agnostic” claim, but you take both. And you think that saying that you “don’t believe any God exists” exempts you from a knowledge claim. Interesting. Rather than waist time on that conundrum. I hope you will take me up on an open discussion controlled by time and a cross examination period. So we can see who really has the goods on this.
I did not see your “Why I make videos against God” only “My youtube channel” but that was clear enough.
Another interesting claim by you. You spend much time trying to discredit God, Christianity and the Bible on your site, but you say that your arguments have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. You then claim that your issue is with “Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science”.
By imposing, do you mean forcing others to accept their religious beliefs? How do you define “impose:? And as for undermining science, we can deal with that accusation in our discussion and see which of us are actually ‘undermining” Science.
And while you claim that you are not a fan of Dawkins, or a student of other top atheist, I respectfully cannot believe that. While I understand your apparent need to give the impression that your arguments are original because you are such a great thinker and have studied the Bible so well that you came to your horrible conclusions all on your own, I simply don’t buy it. But really it does not matter, the only thing that matters is that you are very wrong on so much of what you pride yourself of having studied and obtained a degree in that helped you arrive at your current view of God, the Bible and Christianity.
You said:
“As for my accusations being nothing new, I think you’ll find I often approach the arguments from different perspectives and/or with different evidence. My arguments against biblical free will, for example, are none I’ve seen others making.”
“Often”? But you only list one. Why? What there of your arguments are original?
You said:
“Also, on Truth Wanted you also made several more claims that are inaccurate, like equating atheism with evolution, equating atheism with abiogenesis, and calling biogenesis a law instead of an observation that was never intended to apply to the origin of the first life itself.”
Here again, you as other evolutionists atheist, try to create your own barriers to avoid the truth.
No, I was not inaccurate, Atheism I never equated with evolution, but I did say that Atheism must rely on Evolution. Without Evolution, Atheism is even more irrational than it is with evolution. Again, I did not “equate” atheism with abiogenesis, I said that Atheist instantly revert to the subject of abiogenesis whenever the biogenesis is brought up. As for calling it a law, I won’t quibble over the term, principle, theory, rule, whatever you call it, it is an established observation and you know it. And on what do you base your denial of its intended application, or apparently your objection to it being applied to origins?. Never mind, we can discuss that too.
You said:
“On what basis do you claim I’m not being honest? I’ve yet to have anyone reasonably refute my claims about the Bible………”
Thus the need for our discussion. So this is what I will do for you. Why not have a private Zoom discussion that we both can record? We can take one topic at a time and stick to it. Can’t hurt can it? I am currently reviewing all of your videos so that I can catch up on your views. So that should give y
You asked:
“Despite your rancorous words here, on the Truth Wanted show you were quite reasonable and friendly, and even said you thought I’m a “nice and intelligent guy who genuinely wants to get at the truth.” Thank you, I appreciate that, but your positions are contradictory. Which version of your assessment of me is the tone you honestly hold?”
Both actually. Just as you seem to have two versions of how you approach this. Or are you claiming that your conduct on Thinking to believe is the same as how you were on Truth Wanted? I try to rise to the occasion, I can be quite friendly and reasonable when the situation calls for it. And I can be tough when necessary. Since you know I can be friendly even while disagreeing there is no reason not to trust our private dialogue. We both just might learn something.
You said:
“As you can see, you’ve made a lot of mischaracterizations about me, but my point here is not to harangue you for making mistakes. I just want to point out that you’ve made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that could have been avoided by simply asking. And that should be a clue that I’ve done my homework, and so refuting my arguments won’t be the cakewalk you think it will be.”
I disagree, I think I fairly pegged both of your personalities, and I still think that proving you wrong will not be a difficult thing to do. Soooooo lets tangle.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 10:10 am
As usual, time is tight for me, but I’ll try to give a complete and concise response:
“So even in this you refuse to be honest. Are you saying that because you provided what you ‘THINK” is evidence, you’re referring to God as “Evil” is not calling Him names but “a descriptive label?”
First, of course that is what I “think” is evidence. What would you prefer, something I “feel” is evidence?
Second, evil is reasonably easy to define for most people: behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. If you have a different definition, it’s fine to present it. Defining terms is critical to avoid talking past each other.
Third, I suspect you wouldn’t have a problem with me labeling Hitler as evil, specifically because his behavior fell under the above definition for evil.
“You slyly went from my statement about you calling God names, to ad hominem, I did not say you used an ad hominem when you called God names.”
That’s why I tried to make the distinction clear. If I were to call God names in place of an argument, it would be an ad hominem. I didn’t do that. In fact, I didn’t call him names at all. I called him evil because that is the term used for people who deliberately and unnecessarily commit evil acts. It’s no different than if I were to call you an apologist based on your attempts to defend God’s behavior. I suspect you wouldn’t call that name-calling. You’ve accused me of being a “Richard Dawkins zealot,” which is an unjustified and false label. You’ve also labeled me an “atheist Zealot activist,” which is actually a reasonably accurate description (assuming that by “zealot” you mean “enthusiast”). My labeling the god of the Bible as evil is likewise an accurate description. So not name-calling but a concise descriptor based on behavior. Scalia referring to me as a “liar” based on his perception of my behavior would similarly be warranted (even if it’s not true). But calling me “dingbat” is clearly just childish name-calling, which is why I’ve lost all respect for him. And using that in place of a cogent argument is an ad hominem.
“That’s funny, you clearly understand the foolish mistake that Atheists of the past had made by arguing that God did not exist.”
On the contrary. There have always been atheists who claim God does not exist, as well as those who merely don’t believe God exists. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Period. There are those who take it further and say gods do not exist, but I’m not the boss of them. There are no other rules in atheism other than a lack of belief in gods.
But atheists who are atheists for philosophical reasons (rather than those who just don’t believe because they just don’t care about the topic—apatheists, if you will) tend to be more nuanced than that. For instance, it’s justified to actively believe that gods for whom testable claims are made, but who fail those tests, do not exist. I would say I believe the God of the Bible definitely does not exist AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE (because of his behavior being contradictory to the claims made about him being good), but that only assumes treating the Bible as literally true. If one accepts that the Bible was written by fallible humans and both intentionally and unintentionally modified through translation and transcription, then any contradictions can be easily dismissed, and I would thus not be justified to claim definitively that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
“And you think that saying that you “don’t believe any God exists” exempts you from a knowledge claim. Interesting.”
Of course it does. Think about it. The “a” in word means: “without.” Theism refers to belief the existence of gods. Thus, atheism means “without belief in the existence of gods.” Gnosticism, OTOH, refers to claims of knowledge. Thus agnosticism means “without claims of knowledge” (in this context, referring to gods).
So theism means a belief in gods, and atheism means lacking a belief in gods. Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge of gods, and agnosticism is lacking a claim of knowledge of gods. Thus, a gnostic theist believes in gods and CLAIMS they exist; an agnostic theist believes in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know which, if any, exist; a gnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods and CLAIMS to know they don’t exist; and an agnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know they don’t exist. Thus, “I believe God DOES NOT exist” would be an accurate statement for a gnostic atheist to make, whereas “I DO NOT BELIEVE God exists” would be a more accurate statement for an agnostic atheist. See the difference? In my experience, the great majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, since that is the most rational position.
If this still isn’t clear, here’s an analogy: You see me scoop up a cupful of sand, and I then declare that there is an even number of grains of sand in the cup, would you accept my belief as true? You shouldn’t, because I never even counted the grains. But that DOESN’T mean you are claiming there is an ODD number of grains of sand in the cup, does it? I just made a belief claim you have reason to believe I can’t realistically make, so you are “atheistic” in regards to my belief (you don’t believe me), but you are “agnostic” in regards to whether the actual number of grains is odd or even (you don’t claim to know).
“I did not see your “Why I make videos against God” only “My youtube channel” but that was clear enough.
Another interesting claim by you. You spend much time trying to discredit God, Christianity and the Bible on your site, but you say that your arguments have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. You then claim that your issue is with “Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science”.”
Had you viewed the video, you would know that my intro video is not enough. Here, I’ll risk administrative interception by posting the link here: https://youtu.be/YXPbIsxRCmc. That will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“And as for undermining science, we can deal with that accusation in our discussion and see which of us are actually ‘undermining” Science.”
I’m sorry, but you don’t stand a chance on that one. Besides my degree in evolution science, I did some graduate work in science philosophy, and I can easily explain why creationism and “intelligent design” have utterly failed in the scientific arena—as well as make it clear why over 99% of all biologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists, etc. accept evolutionary theory and reject creationism.
“And while you claim that you are not a fan of Dawkins, or a student of other top atheist, I respectfully cannot believe that. While I understand your apparent need to give the impression that your arguments are original because you are such a great thinker and have studied the Bible so well that you came to your horrible conclusions all on your own, I simply don’t buy it.”
Well, that is your problem, isn’t it? Again, watch the above video and it should make things clearer for you.
“But really it does not matter, the only thing that matters is that you are very wrong on so much of what you pride yourself of having studied and obtained a degree in that helped you arrive at your current view of God, the Bible and Christianity.”
In over 40 years, I’ve yet to have anyone successfully refute my claims. But maybe you’ll be the first. I’m happy to have you try.
One point of clarification, though: My degree had nothing at all to do with me arriving at my current view on God, etc. I pursued my degree in part BECAUSE I noticed problems with religious views on evolution but lacked sufficient understanding on the topic well enough to debate it.
““Often”? But you only list one. Why? What there of your arguments are original?”
I meant that IF you watch my videos, you’ll see a number of new and alternate perspectives. That’s because I originally developed these ideas without awareness of some of the more common arguments that I didn’t read about until much later.
“Here again, you as other evolutionists atheist, try to create your own barriers to avoid the truth.”
What in the world are you talking about? As I pointed out on the show, evolution and atheism have nothing in common. It’s only biblical literalists who have a problem with evolution. While it’s true most atheists accept evolutionary theory, so do most Christians (hundreds of millions of them, perhaps even billions). They don’t have a problem with it because biblical literalism contradicts the scientific evidence.
And, as I also pointed out, some of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory and have also contributed greatly to the field are Christians. I mentioned Francis Collins, who heads the NIH and was the director of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. And Robert Bakker, who is one of the world’s most famous and productive paleontologists, is also a Pentecostal PREACHER. I’ll also add Kenneth Miller, who was the lead plaintiff witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case against intelligent design, and who is a Roman Catholic.
It’s also worth noting that one of the reasons ID failed so badly in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is that one of the ID arguments is that evolutionary theory is an atheistic philosophy…but the ENTIRE scientific legal defense consisted of Christians.
No, evolution is only a problem for a relatively small segment of biblical literalists.
“No, I was not inaccurate, Atheism I never equated with evolution, but I did say that Atheism must rely on Evolution.”
If you didn’t equate atheism with evolution, then I apologize for making that mistake. But it IS a common creationist claim.
But you are wrong about atheism relying on evolution. I don’t know how many times I must point this out, but ATHEISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. I encounter the occasional atheist who doesn’t accept abiogenesis or evolution for a variety of unsupported reasons—the most extreme being those who believe in the simulated universe idea (where everything in the world could have been created just five minutes ago, memories and apparent history intact). There’s no credible evidence for this, but the point is that atheism does NOT depend on evolution.
Having said that, the vast majority of atheists DO accept evolutionary theory simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming. We observe it in the fossil record, genetic record, comparative anatomy, currently occurring in nature, and we’ve even documented it step-by-step in the lab. Every testable prediction made by evolutionary theory that could have proven it false has failed to do so, with the supportive evidence only growing stronger with each new piece of evidence.
But the reason virtually all atheists do not believe in gods has nothing to do with evolution, but instead the lack of evidence for not just your god, but any gods. It’s as simple as that. The more one studies the history of Christianity and its claims, the more likely someone is to become an atheist. I have several good friends and acquaintances who were former pastors or who were studying to enter the seminary, only to realize the actual history of Christianity is very different from what the vast majority of Christians learn, and they found they no longer believed. A good friend of mine was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he could no longer believe that mess. There’s even a support organization for many hundreds of US clergy who no longer believe (look up The Clergy Project).
“Without Evolution, Atheism is even more irrational than it is with evolution.”
Oh this should be interesting. How is atheism in any way irrational? Or do you have some credible evidence for the existence of your God that somehow atheists everywhere are unaware of?
“LAgain, I did not “equate” atheism with abiogenesis, I said that Atheist instantly revert to the subject of abiogenesis whenever the biogenesis is brought up. As for calling it a law, I won’t quibble over the term, principle, theory, rule, whatever you call it, it is an established observation and you know it.”
You misunderstand what the “law of biogenesis” means. It was originally used to prove spontaneous generation false, by demonstrating that living forms only come from other living forms IN THE CURRENT WORLD. Maggots don’t spontaneously generate from rotting meat, for example. Biogenesis has NOTHING to do with how the FIRST life formed. Similarly, evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with how the first life formed. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis for how life originally formed. The evidence for this is highly compelling, and we have worked out how all the steps up to RNA, DNA, proteins and cell wall structures could have evolved naturally from basic chemistry, but a full pathway to life as we know it remains to be demonstrated. What we do not have is any credible evidence to suggest that a supernatural designer had anything to do with the process.
“Why not have a private Zoom discussion that we both can record? We can take one topic at a time and stick to it. Can’t hurt can it? I am currently reviewing all of your videos so that I can catch up on your views. So that should give y”
As I said, I’m all for it. We just need to figure out a time that works for both of us. I live in Germany, which is nine hours ahead of the US west coast, so make some proposal dates and times.
OK, I’m out of time, and I failed to keep this anywhere near as concise as I wanted, but that is par for the course, unfortunately.
LikeLike