Paulie Want a Cracker?
Zachary Moore Permalink
3 comments
Source Article
Paul Manata just can't help projecting himself. Upon discovery of this blog and my response to his attack on my moral system, he's posted another supposed refutation on his own blog. I really don't need to or intend to address the bulk of it, since Paul hasn't added anything new to his criticism. Even if Paul has, as he claims, left my moral system "lying on the floor bleeding," he still has advanced no arguments for Christian morality, and has in fact wiggled away from my critique of DCT by insisting that I only directed my criticism there to make up for the 'obvious' deficiencies in my own moral system. But even if objective secular morality is wrong (which it isn't), Christian morality doesn't win by default. So I think readers of both blogs would be fascinated to hear how Paul justifies Christian morality, when he has already admitted that he has willingly given up moral autonomy.
But I think the more interesting part of his post is the beginning, where he's addressing this blog for the first time. Paul says, "Zachary Moore (and Franscois Trembley) have started a blog in response to my blog. They call my arguments ridiculous and say that I have horrible arguments for the Christian faith and just as bad of ones against secularists. Why start the blog, then? Cannot your average man see through my deceit? Isn't it far more important to take on those who have the good arguments?" Although it's a minor point, I think it reflects poorly on Paul to butcher Franc's name as he has. It's right at the top of the page, for crying out loud! Secondly, the same question could be posed to Paul himself. If I (and Franc) are so obviously unreasonable and illogical, why has Paul gone to the trouble of "refuting" my arguments at length for two installments of his own weblog? Paul just can't help projecting his own psychology, it would seem. Paul claims about this blog that "I think the type of "reasoning" laid out above would barely get a response, let alone an entire blog devoted to refuting the idiotic ravings of a lunatic." So why go to the trouble of writing lengthy "refutations" of a lunatic? Wouldn't someone who put serious effort into doing so only show himself to be insane? Would such a person be likely to provide boastful false accounts to cover up his fears? "One must remember that I debated Moore before and as a result he had to drop his original theories on epistemology, truth, and ethics. So I'm not that worried by the newer, more confident, Moore." Whatever you say, Paul. Here, have a cracker.
Post a Comment
3 Comments:
Yes, Zach, your questions are well placed, given Paul's past pronouncements about your intellectual abilities. If your position is the “wreckage” that Paul says it is (he calls you and Franc “morons” – I’ll consider the source), why does he publish a series of blogs (which seem to grow in length which each passing day) devoted to bringing people’s attention to it? The answer is simple: he feels threatened by people who don't accept his claims on his say so (for indeed, he has done this in the case of the writers of the bible). Perhaps this helps to explain his condescending sarcasm: he’s trying to compensate for the undeniable inferiority of his position.
In your piece today, you wrote: "Even if Paul has, as he claims, left my moral system ‘lying on the floor bleeding’, he still has advanced no arguments for Christian morality..."
This highlights a very important point: Christian apologists are primarily focused on destruction. Destroying things apparently gives them a brief sensation of accomplishment (it’s how they get their kicks). Their whole worldview is all about destruction (hence graphic descriptions like “lying on the floor bleeding” and handing a rope to someone so he can hang himself – expressions of boundless “Christian love” no doubt). Christianity is well known for its emphatic focus on the negative. Notice Paul’s own statement: “When I ‘oberve’ humanity I observe rapists, molesters, thieves, murderers, drinks, etc.” [sic] This must mean that he willfully turns a blind eye to the vast majority of human beings who spend the bulk of their time and energy producing values and enjoying their lives without infringing on others. When I observe humanity, I see amazing accomplishments and inventions, courageous individuals going against the odds and achieving unprecedented results. I tend to focus on what I admire, not on what I resent. But, that is an outcome of my worldview. Yes, there are rapists, molesters, thieves and murderers (as for “drinks” I don’t think they’re all that bad myself), but these are the exception, statistically speaking, so to see only these negative examples while ignoring the good that men have produced (and from which Paul Manata himself benefits on a daily basis), gives us ample indication of his chosen character. So clearly he’s an ingrate. Indeed, one only needs to read a paragraph or two of one of Paul’s installments to see that his only ambition is to ridicule you. Nothing more. His resentment for those who don’t submit to his imaginary deity heaps hot burning coals on his contempt for himself and for others. In other words, he only succeeds in making himself feel miserable, and he’s bent on having the whole world see this on his blog.
The determination to destroy anything and everything is evident in the apologists’ definitions (they define in terms of negation - telling us what words don't mean, not what they do mean, telling us what something is not, not what it is) and in their defensive strategies (choosing instead to malign opposing positions instead of proving their own). These are tell-tale signs that, in spite of all their handwringing about everyone else's poor “scholarship," Christians really have nothing of value to offer. If it were the case that Christians in the west were just a tiny minority whose voice had no significant influence on society and culture, they could safely be ignored. But since their pulpits are firmly ensconced in every city, town and village, somebody needs to expose their many vices, or we’ll really pay a price. So I encourage you to continue with your blog.
Meanwhile, enjoy the free publicity that Paul Manata giving your blog. I would not have discovered it had he not posted the URL on his blog. So he’s sending people to you, whether he likes it or not.
I read Manata’s latest blog (“And The Fool Hath Said In His Heart...”). At the end of his rant, he writes: “All [Zach] had to say to this point was to ask if I wanted a cracker? I think all involved can see that this is clearly a non-sequitar.”
First of all, it’s spelled “sequitur”. Also, I would suggest that Zach’s question is not off-base, for Paul’s own diatribes imply that he (Paul himself) is not "reasoning autonomously" (which I take to mean: he’s not thinking with his own mind), but is merely parroting what he has read elsewhere. After all, isn't that what "analogical reasoning" is all about anyway?
So I think Zach’s question, like many others he’s recently asked, is well placed.
Three points viz the original article :
1. If I saw a blog started to refute me, I would be pretty annoyed too.
This being said...
2. "Isn't it far more important to take on those who have the good arguments?"
What good arguments, given by whom ? There are good Christian arguments ? I don't think so, Paul.
3. I'm not posting against Paul specifically, I'm posting against presups. I agree that dignifying his preschooler arguments are silly at this point. I might be bothered if he learned primary school mathematics.
<< Home