 |
| Alex Botten |
If you are a fan of Alex's Podcast or simply happened to visit one of his or Jim's blogs or websites recently, you may be wondering why Jim and Alex have been claiming that I've been refusing to debate them, while at the very same time Jim was debating me at my blog and also via email. The following are two webclips of Jim Gardener's critique of my blog (01-12-12 5.25pm), wherein he declines to actually stay and debate the challenges he's presented!:
Note in the second comment example how Gardner offhand dismisses documented and peer-reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences (NDE) included in my argument as irrelevant. Jim has not refuted anything, but has simply underscored that he is closed-minded.
The facts I'm document in this article are helpful in demonstrating that denial and spiritual blindness are a real condition, as described in 2 Corinthians 4.4: "in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."(NASB). This type of spiritual blindness and denial sometimes registers in surreal strangeness and Orwellian Newspeak. And the Fundamentally Flawed team is developing a reputation for lies and libel against Christians as far as the Ethernet spreads. The root cause seems to be a deep-seated hatred for Christians and for the God of the Bible. The following links offer a few examples
 |
| Jim Gardner |
1) Atheists Exposed: An AtheistViewpoint blogger is a serial liar![2]
2) Sye Ten Bruggencate Threatens Me With Libel Action!![3]
3) Podcast with Alex Botten, Jim Gardner, Eric Hovind and Sye TenBruggencate (revealing extreme hatred for Christians)[4]
Outline of Some Fundamentally Flawed Defects
I. Alex Botten's Irrational Hatred of Christians
II. Alex Botten's Problematic Communication Issues
III. Why Botten's Debate Claims are Disingenuous
IV. Jim Gardener's Censorship at his "How Good is That?" Blog
V. Jim Gardener's Brief Debate at Templestream Blog
I. Alex Botten's Irrational Hatred of Christians
In order to understand Alex Botten's Internet communication issues and tendency towards deception and slander, it helps to understand his deep underlying hatred for Christians. Botten has a very smooth and appealing delivery with his rich British accent and quick repartee. But when he speaks about the true condition of his heart, his eloquent words seem to lose their luster. In a Podcast posted September 30, 2011, Which I found at a Debunking Atheists post, Fundamentally Flawed Indeed, the following key points were made by Alex and Sye, clarifying Alex's irrational hatred in the recording.
51.30: Sye: "Why do you have such a hatred for me? ..."At a blog you wrote... 'Sye and Dan are dismal excuses for human beings...'"
58.20: Alex: "I stand by what I said...I think I can explain it. I think your position is circular. I think you know it's circular. I think you knowingly lie to people to make money and I think with that in mind you are a despicable human being."
58.43: Sye: "I'd like for him to tell me one lie that I've told."
58.49: Alex: "OK, here's one lie you've said, 'Everyone in the world has had a revelation from God' - that is a lie."
58:57: Sye: "Do you understand that is right out of scripture, right out of Romans 1. I'm telling you what my world view believes. I don't know why that makes me a a despicable human being."
59.05: Alex: "What makes you a despicable human being is that you will then bring that up in a discussion."[5]
According to Alex Botten, Sye TenBruggencate (and all Christians by implication) are despicable liars by virtue of the fact that we believe the Bible and affirm that the reality of God's existence is manifested by God to all people through nature and the conscience (as Romans 1 outlines). The fact is, Darwinsim has failed to explain specifically how nature has developed in complexity, hierarchy and order in the face of opposing physical laws of thermodynamics. And atheists have utterly failed to offer any objective basis of human morality. The claim that nature and the conscience are known to all and exhibit attributes of the God of scripture is both a true and valid claim. It's not a lie.
Alex irrationally claims that he knows Sye's inner secret motives. Without any supporting evidence whatsoever, Alex claims that Sye lies to make money, an extraordinary and slanderous claim. Alex complained it was unfair to bring up this "argument" of Alex's personal attack at the end of the debate. But Sye explained it was not an "argument" and Sye simply wanted an explanation from Alex regarding Alex's animosity. Instead of clarifying that his remark on the Internet was an off the cuff outburst, Alex went on to affirm that he does indeed harbor a deep-seated animosity towards Christians, ultimately because we believe the Bible is true and are willing to talk about it. Alex's baseless hatred for Christians is irrational from a materialist perspective, but makes perfect sense according to scripture. John 15.18 emphasizes that it is the indwelling spirit of Christ that helps to explain why atheists often hate Christians, as Jesus remarked: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."(NIV)
Luke 6.45 shows that what we say is evidence of what is in our hearts: "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."(NIV) In the case of Alex Botten, his love of swearing at his blog, his baseless accusations against Christians and his apparent hatred of them imply that good and evil do exist in the heart and are manifested by our words and actions. According to Jesus, this is not a philosophical argument but is simply evidence of a person's nature and attitude that is evident for all to see, even as the fruit on a tree is evident for all to see, "Each tree is recognized by its own fruit."
Alex's hatred of Christians seems to be in keeping with an underlying hatred of the God of the Bible.
1.03: Eric Hovind: "If it could be proven to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible exists, would you worship Him?"
1.05: Jim - "No"
1.06: Alex - "Absolutely not."
In the debate, both Gardner and Botten claimed Old Testament verses in the Bible have disqualified God as a loving God, but they don't understand the significance of the Old Testament versus the New Testament and the role Jesus has played in fulfilling the requirements of the law through His love and sacrifice. Altogether, the admitted hatred that Alex has for Christians and the passionate opposition Jim and Alex have towards the God of the Bible do not seem very rational considering they believe this God is imaginary. Atheists will sometimes pick an obscure verse and claim that the God of the Bible is 'immoral' while they are not willing to admit their own obvious sin nature and the fact they have no basis for objective morals anyway. They have no objective standard with which to judge anyone morally. If you are interested in understanding why this is so, you may read more on this subject in the article, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence.[6]
The fact that atheists often bring up morality as a supposed knockdown issue is telling. They seem to have a moral itch they cannot scratch, or, more appropriately, a moral disease they cannot cure. The fact is, the cure exists but they really do not seem to desire it. John 3.19 states, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."(NIV) In short, Alex Botten's life and hatred of Christians offer a good object lesson showing that the scriptures ring true. People in such a state will not even realize why they do the things they do.
II. Alex Botten's Problematic Communication Issues
On January 2, 2012, Alex Botten sent me the following email: "Hi, I was wondering if you'd be willing to appear on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast to discuss your 'proof' that the god you believe in exists. Thanks, Alex" Upon a brief Internet search I found Alex had posted a challenge to me January 4 at his Blogspot blog entitled, "An Open Challenge to Rick Warden of Templestream Blog" in which he stated, "...we accept your challenge."[7] In his email Alex stated he desires a "discussion" but at his website he claims to have accepted my "challenge" to refute my proofs. I replied to Alex as follows January 12 via email:
"Hello Alex, You want to "discuss" my proof that God exists? It seems you perhaps would rather have a debate than a discussion. But a podcast does not seem to be a very good medium for debate. I have written three articles with premises and conclusions regarding God's existence. If you have a cogent point (or points) to make, I welcome your critique at my blog. Regards, Rick"
Alex's reply on January 12 was the following:
"Rick, I find talking to be far more productive that writing, as ideas can be
explored 'on the hoof'. I understand if you don't wish to appear, but
would be grateful if you could put a note on your site stating that we
were more than happy to address your challenges but you declined to
speak to us. Regards, Alex"
Note: My challenge to the top 20 Atheist blogs[8] was a challenge to come to my blog and debate me there in text. Alex has not accepted my challenge to do this, but several times has claimed he has accepted my challenge'. when someone is repeatedly corrected and continue to tell untruths, all one can assume is that the person is intentionally lying. Alex sent a variation of this lie to me via email on January 18: "I have to agree with Jim - you're clearly refusing to debate."
In a January 22 comment at his blog Alex offered another lie and demanded an "apology" because I supposedly launched "an ad hominen [sic] attack" in my email.[9] In my email note I had written, "It seems both you and Jim pre-screen comments..." Because my comment posts were not being posted at Alex's Wordpress blog and because Alex has explicitly stated in comments that he does censor, this would seem to be a strong possibility. At his former Blogger blog he wrote the following warning:
"Write what you want, but don't cry about it if I delete or ban you if you think being a total dick's a good idea." And at his last post at his Blogger blog, "Moving to Wordpress", he claimed "Wordpress allows me to IP block," implying he would use censorship at his new blog.[10] Furthermore, it was apparent that Alex's Fundamentally Flawed partner, Jim Gardner, had already censored me from his blog, as I'll point out, so it would be logical to assume there would be a strong possibility that Alex would do the same. So it's a bit absurd to claim my comment, "It seems both you and Jim prescreen comments..." should be considered an unwarranted ad hominem attack requiring an apology.
On January 28, Alex posted "The Rick Warden Challenge" at his new Wordpress blog in which he decreed it was "unacceptable" that I would only debate in an Internet text format.[11] Apparently, someone extremely important had suddenly died and left Alex in charge as the moral authority of the world's debating protocol and simply didn't have enough time to get out the memo to the rest of the world. Additionally, Alex stated I should post the following at my website: "‘The Fundamentally Flawed podcast were more than happy to meet the challenge I laid down on my blog, but I declined to speak to them."
Alex, however, did not meet my challenge. In a comment at that article, dated January 31, 2012, I explained why:
"Alex, You seem to be either a chronic liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. . On January 29 I made a comment at one of your recent posts “@God’s Word is Law’s Million March for Morals…” and I stated the following:
“I’m not refusing to debate you or Jim but I do not believe a ‘podcast discussion’ is a suitable means for debating either you or Jim Gardner and I’ve explained why in my comment posted here at your blog January 22. So you, Alex, are NOT accepting THE challenge ‘to come and debate the article at my blog’ I had offered the 20 top atheist blogs.
Jim Gardener DID accept my challenge and came to debate at my blog but did not make one cogent point but, rather, made a few ancillary, irrelevant and unsupported points before leaving off our debate. The manner in which you continue to twist the truth and now claim I’ve made an ‘ad hominem attack’ without showing how I supposedly have done this altogether underscore the fact that a Skype ‘discussion’ with you would most likely be a waste of time.”[12]
Alex, Your follow up comment (January 22, 2.54 pm) reveals you did not read my comment or ignored it:
- Rick, I am more than happy to take your challenge, just add ‘theealex’ on Skype[13]
- I’ll repeat again that you have NOT taken up my challenge to come and debate in text at my blog. And I have never claimed that you have refused to debate me in any form, a lie you are now exhibiting:
“including the frankly ludicrous claim that we refused to debate him (despite the fact that Jim posted lengthy replies on his site)”
Can you please show me (and your audience) where I wrote this?
The more lying and twisted your communication is revealed to be, the less interested I am in a live, un-moderated Skype debate with you..."[14]
The following webclip from his blog underscores Alex's refusal to debate in a text format:
III. Why Botten's Debate Claims are Disingenuous
It's notable that Alex Botten claimed January 28 at his blog that it was "unacceptable" for me to prefer a text debate over a Skype debate or audio podcast while one of the heroes of the New Atheism movement has demanded the same. PZ Meyers stated the following in his article entitled, "Why I will not debate William Lane Craig":
"I much prefer the written argument, because he can’t run away from his own words. One of his skills in the oral debate is the slippery elide; if someone is hammering him on one point, he’ll just skip over it to a new point. I’d rather get his words down in writing, where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it for a good long while. Longer and with more detail and rigor than is possible in a verbal tussle." - PZ Meyers[15]
Though PZ Meyers admits he prefers text debates, nevertheless, like Richard Dawkins, Meyers illogically claims 'the moral high ground' in actually refusing to debate WL Craig in any format whatsoever. Funny how I don't see Alex Botten or Jim Gardener criticizing the apparent cowardice of Meyers and Dawkins. In Comment #29 of his same post, Meyers responds to the following question: "If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - His answer: "No. My reason #2, and to that I would add the Dawkins strategy in comment #17: throwing his own words back at him. It’s not a very interesting written debate when Craig writes something, and we all sit back kind of appalled at his words." I described how Dawkins claimed a 'superior morality' as an excuse for not debating WL Craig in an article entitled, "Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine".[16]
Unlike Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers, I don't refuse to debate because I don't like the implications of a person's personal beliefs. This seems to be a childish and illogical excuse, because the point of such debates is to show whether or not the positions debated are true or not. If Dawkins or Meyers could show that WL Craig's beliefs were not true through debate, they would most likely attempt to do so. Apparently, they cannot, so they believe the next best line of action for them is to declare that they have 'better morals' when, in reality, atheists have a burden of defining a valid basis of their morals, which they have not.
Though I have no interest in a Skype session with Botten or Gardner, I have never refused to debate them at my blog. I prefer text debates to verbal ones for a variety of reasons. One reason is that I believe God is the source of wisdom and I've found that ideas and answers often come to me in the middle of the night. In any event, when the top macho-men militant atheists stop making childish excuses for not debating others in any format, then perhaps Botten's criticism of me for preferring a text debate would have some credibility. In the mean time, it seems a bit disingenuous.
IV. Jim Gardener's Censorship at his "How Good is That?" Blog
Alex's Fundamentally Flawed partner, Jim Gardner, had posted an article about me January 13 entitled, "A reply to Rick Warden’s “How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God’s Existence”[17] This post was basically a re-post of a debate comment by Jim from an online text debate he began with me January 12th at my blog. This was apparently an attempt to broaden the audience of our debate, however, it is a bit disingenuous seeing that he never posted any of my replies! (as documented at my blog).
Much of the content of Jim's questions covered points that had already been addressed in the article in my opinion. Jim asked in a January 16 email, "What definition of the word God are you using?" Well, this seemed a bit absurd to me considering all the references to New Testament scriptures that should have made this obvious. Jim also stated, "I'm sorry if I don't follow up via the comments on your blog, but to be perfectly honest I find the blogger.com interface totally appalling." Jim also wrote, "Perhaps you would be kind enough to post this reply to the comments on my behalf, since I'm having such technical difficulties. I'm also making our exchanges available via my blog." Jim wanted me to start micro-managing his comments at my blog. But why should I bear the burden of cutting and pasting his comments for him simply because he doesn't have the patience to break up his own comments and make sure they post? On January 17th I responded to his comments as follows, both in email and attempting to post at his blog. However, he never added this or any of my comments to his blog post:
"Hey Jim, As far as your comments are concerned, firstly, there are New Testament references in the article that should make it pretty obvious that there is a Christian context.: "Hebrew 11.3 confirms how Logic, information and the spiritual dimension form the basis of prime reality. John 1.1, 14 shows how God, as the Logos, is the logical basis of prime reality. Colossians 1.17 shows how God is both the creator and ultimate enabler of the physical world..."
Instead of posting my reply at his blog, Garner posted this blatantly misleading comment the next day, January 18, "Note: Rick has finally replied to my emails. He isn’t interested in anything. At all. Next!"
On January 21 I sent Jim the following email, but there has been no response:
"Hi Jim, I've attempted to post text twice at your blog. Either there is a technical problem or you are censoring my posts. Can you please post the following text at your blog for your followers to read so that they have more of an objective understanding of my response to your communications? Thanks, Rick..."
These actions and non-actions by Jim imply he is intentionally censoring my comments from his blog.
V. Jim Gardener's Brief Debate at Templestream Blog
Apparently, Jim Gardener was attempting to assume the challenge I had posted to the top 20 atheist blogs when he came to post comments at my blog January 12th to January 14th 0f 2012.[18] His comments briefly touched upon many various subjects but did not seem to be focused on backing up his ideas. It is evident that he has a talent for writing, but in my opinion he needs to choose his arrows more carefully before he can hope they will strike a target. I tried to seek out some kind of specific answers from Jim but none were forthcoming. For example, on January 14th, I addressed Jim in the comments of the article, "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence" stating, "You wrote, "Quantum Mechanics does not dismantle cohesive logic, it solidifies it." - Jim, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement or in what way you have demonstrated this in your comments. Can you elaborate how this is so in your opinion?"[19] - No such summary was ever provided. Also, Jim was incensed that I asked him if he believed absolute truth exists. In the previously referenced debate at 'Creation Today' Sye had asked Jim if he believed objective truth exists, as Jim's eBook states "The truth is not subjective"[20]. However, in a complete flip-flop, Jim stated the opposite in the debate with Sye, "If it's true for you and it works for you, then it's true."[21] This answer reveals why Jim is so reluctant to answer basic, relevant questions. It seems that Jim needs to work out his foundational views on truth before he challenges people to debates. Far from being an irrelevant topic, Buddhist atheists do believe that absolute truth exists. And the existence of universal, unchanging truth is also a presupposed characteristic of formal logic. Nevertheless, this was the sarcastic comment I received in reply from Jim:
"Would you take me seriously if I asked if you believe absolute lies exist? No. Because you know that if you answer "no" I can prove you are wrong and if you answer "yes", I can give example after example of people lying, where their intention is not to cause harm. So, pretty please with a cherry on top, spare me the entry level "so you've decided to become a Christian apologist and argue with atheists on the internet" handbook, and talk to me face to face."[22]
In addition to avoiding questions at my blog, Gardner erroneously proposed that my argument did not imply any specific god: "Postulating a designer, or an instigating force of some kind, at this point, is a perfectly valid position to take. But that does not mean you are free to immediately suppose that the nature and character of that instigating force is a specific god of a specific religion." Contrary to Gardner's claim, my argument logically narrows down the evidence to a specific God in sections III, IV and V, which is ultimately clarified by specific New Testament scriptures:
Part III outlines numerous points regarding near death experiences based on peer-reviewed research that underscore a theist worldview is the best explanation:
III. NDE Cases Support a Cohesive, Logical Understanding within a Theistic Framework.
Part IV.A states,
"A. Universal and certain truth and validity are implied as a necessary combination in making formal philosophical arguments but the possibility of absolute truth is rejected by most materialists because of the theistic implications."
V.A.2 specifically describes why the Christian God offers the best explanation:
V.2. The Christian view is supported by cohesive logic, science, evidence and scriptural text.
a. Hebrew 11.3: Logic, information and the spiritual dimension form the basis of prime reality.
b. John 1.1, 1.14: God is the logical basis of prime reality.
c. Colossians 1.17: God is both the creator and enabler of the physical world.[23]
Hebrews 11.3 describes how the world we see was created by the word of God. This is in harmony with the idea that information is a basis of prime reality, as quoted in the article, "The MIT Technology Review summarized how “ it is not the laws of physics that determine how information behaves in our Universe, but the other way round.”
Buddhism offers that absolute truth exists, but it is a mystical concept of enlightenment that cannot be explained by words according to Buddhist teachers: "Buddhism recognizes two kinds of Truth. The apparent conventional truth and the real or ultimate Truth. The ultimate Truth can be realized only through meditation, and not theorizing or speculating."[24]
In contrast to Buddhism, the truth and meaning of the biblical God's existence can be explained logically. Jesus is described in the original Greek scriptures as the "logos"[25] - which is the root of our English word logic. After his four comments at my blog and some emails, Jim left off our debate. Instead of acknowledging that Jim gave up on our debate, both Alex and Jim continue to imply that I am not interested in any debate with them at all, basically lying to their audience. At Jim's blog, Jim stated on January 18th: "Note: Rick has finally replied to my emails. He isn’t interested in anything. At all.-Next"
Actually, at my blog it was quite clear that Gardner was quitting the debate he began with me. Considering that he also censors my comments from his blog, his actions and the false impressions he gives to his blog audience speak of extreme hypocrisy.
Conclusion
Alex's comments "on the hoof'' have revealed the condition of his heart, which isn't so pretty. His twisted communication does not smack of intellectual honesty in my opinion. Alex apparently will continue to falsely claim that I am refusing to debate, but all this really does is underscore his propensity to lie and the reality of the sin nature. Jim Gardener did debate me briefly at my blog and his comments are on display for anyone to see. In my opinion, his pot shots were unsupported and he did not provide any well-supported cogent points.
My blog is always available for a sincere debate. Unlike the Fundamentally Flawed team, I don't censor or use IP blocking to block certain people or comments. For the multiple reasons mentioned, many Christian apologists on the Internet have agreed to completely ignore Botten and Fundamentally Flawed. For the time being, I have not chosen to completely ignore them but have left the door open for a debate. The only ground rule I have at my blog is that I won't engage with someone who continuously swears. Judging from Alex's blogs, this may be yet another problematic issue. Not all people are willing to do things exactly the way Botten wants them done simply because that's what he dictates. Though Botten's life offers good evidence of God's existence, Alex Botten isn't God. Ironically, the actions of the most adamant atheists can often be seen as object lessons underscoring the truth of God's existence.
In any event, if you are a Christian you can pray for the salvation of the Fundamentally Flawed team. If the Christian hating Saul of Tarsus could become a Christian, it seems anyone can. All things are possible with God.
Note: Upon reviewing the article, Alex Botten pointed out in the Blogger comments that the question of libel had been resolved according to Alex's understanding. However, upon reviewing the referenced post, Sye Ten Bruggencate Threatens Me With Libel Action!!, as of February 7, 2012, there has been no update and no note in the blog post to indicate that this serious accusation has been resolved. On February 5, I offered Alex an opportunity to point out any facts in my article he believes are untrue: "Unlike you, Alex, I'm willing to make edits to my article if you can show me something that is not true or is blatantly misleading. You are welcome to point out what you believe is untrue." His reply February 5 was the following: "Rick, you're obviously too far gone, religion has destroyed your ability to think rationally. What a shame."
(article revised January 2, 2015 with webclips of blog comments)
References
[1] An Atheist Viewpoint, The Rick Warden Challenge , http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-rick-warden-challenge/
[2] Christians For A Moral America, Atheists Exposed: An AtheistViewpoint blogger is a serial liar!,
http://christiansforamoralamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheists-exposed-anatheistviewpoint.html
[3] An Atheist Viewpoint, Sye Ten Bruggencate Threatens Me With Libel Action!!, http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/sye-ten-bruggencate-threatens-me-with.html
[4] Fundamentally Flawed, Episode 13: Sye and Eric Special, A co-broadcast with 'Creation Today'. Jim and Alex talk to Eric Hovind and Sye TenBruggencate., http://www.fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3, originally sourced at Debunking Atheists.
[5] Ibid.
[6] [15] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
[7] An Atheist Viewpoint, An Open Challenge to Rick Warden of Templestream Blog, http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2012/01/open-challenge-to-rick-warden-of.html
[8] Templesream Blog, Top 20 Atheist Bloggers Decline Challenge to Reason, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/07/top-20-atheist-bloggers-decline.html
[9] An Atheist Viewpoint, -@GodsWordIsLaw’s “Million March for Morals” Washout- , Alex Botten comment, January 22, 2012, http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/godswordislaws-million-march-for-morals-washout/
[10] An Atheist Viewpoint, Moving to Wordpress, http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/
[11] An Atheist Viewpoint, The Rick Warden Challenge, http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-rick-warden-challenge/
[12] Ibid.
[13] An Atheist Viewpoint , -@GodsWordIsLaw’s “Million March for Morals” Washout- , Referenced comment by Botten, January 22, 2.54 pm, http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/godswordislaws-million-march-for-morals-washout/
[14] An Atheist Viewpoint, The Rick Warden Challenge, http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-rick-warden-challenge/
[15] Pharyngula, Why I will not debate William Lane Craig, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/
[16] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
[17] How Good is That?, "A reply to Rick Warden’s “How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God’s Existence”, http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/a-reply-to-rick-wardens-how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove-gods-existence/
[18] Templestream, How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
[19] Ibid.
[20] Gardner, James, Please don't feed the troll, p. 92, http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/9468000/9468040/1/print/Please_Dont_Feed_The_Troll-1.pdf
[21] Sye and Eric Special, A co-broadcast with 'Creation Today'. Jim and Alex talk to Eric Hovind and Sye TenBruggencate., Jim's truth comment at 49.00, http://www.fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3
[22] Templestream, How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
[23] Ibid.
[24] BuddhaSasana, What Buddhists Believe, The Ultimate Truth, http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/56.htm
[25] John 1.1, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
Tags: Alex Botten lies and libel, Jim Gardner disingenuous, atheists as object lessons, why atheists hate God and Christians, why atheists love darkness, evidence of spiritual blindness, Alex Botten helps prove scripture and God's existence,
So I take it that you have acknowledged that Vilenkin s model has nothing to do with God? Since you tend to drop off in the middle of the discussion when you are cornered it is hard to understand. Or have you "lost interest" in it as well since you are unable to prove your point and you moved on to some other kind of slander? 8)
ReplyDeleteOh dear, you've cited the website of a raging troll and homophobe as evidence!! Rick, you are truly hopeless.
ReplyDeleteOh! And I should also underline Rick s dishonesty, concerning theists being less prone to depression than atheists. I really should pay more attention to Rick s sources since he blatantly manipulates the data.
ReplyDelete"In reality, 15.6% of very religious people reported to have been diagnosed with depression at some point in their life, while 18.7 % of non-religious people did.
A massive difference of 3.1%! Only a deliberately dishonest person would miscontrue this to mean that atheists tend towards a state of depression, while religious people do not.
And Rick has a terrible habit of leaving out the result for moderately religious people. They came in at 20.4%. The result is clearly non-linear."
Anonymous, I was writing an article. I'll get back to the Vilenkin article.
ReplyDelete>And I should also underline Rick s dishonesty, concerning theists being less prone to depression than atheists...
"In reality, 15.6% of very religious people reported to have been diagnosed with depression at some point in their life..."
- I'm assuming you are referring to this article,
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html
Read the text accurately, Anonymous, and you'll understand the big picture. The statistics of my article come from two separate research articles which did not relate only to depression. Highly religious people are: "happier, mentally more stable, and less prone to serious depression."
Gallup Describes their interpretation:
“The best explanation for the observed relationship between religion and more positive states of emotional health may be the most straightforward -- that being religious in fact produces a salutary effect on one's mental health.”
If you don't like Gallup's summary findings, why don't you write to them?
>And Rick has a terrible habit of leaving out the result for moderately religious people...
- This is the second time this has been brought up so I should probably add the following thoughts to the article.
What a lot of people don't realize is that many 'moderate' Christians, a large percent of Americans, could never be considered 'born-again Christians' as described in John 3.3. Jesus said a person "must be" born again and he was referring to a life transformed by the Holy Spirit. Believing that "God exists" or going to church on Christmas and Easter may make one a moderately religious person, but it does not transform a person's life. These things do not count as true spiritual salvation according to the Bible.
As I wrote in the comments of that article,
- "When a person repents and has his or her sins forgiven, the guilt of sin is removed and the effects of this on a person's life are dramatic. When a person abides in God's presence, in God's peace, love and joy, the health benefits are dramatic. You might want to try it sometime.
Alex B,
ReplyDelete>Oh dear, you've cited the website of a raging troll and homophobe as evidence!! Rick, you are truly hopeless.
- Evidence of your growing reputation on the Internet as a liar, yes. And I also cited your own blog as evidence:
2) Sye Ten Bruggencate Threatens Me With Libel Action!![3]
Seeing that I've documented multiple examples of your propensity towards unjust lies and slander, I suppose that disqualifies you as a source of evidence as well. Is that true?
- Or do you consider that people should actually regard your opinion as something worthwhile, despite all these facts?
Rick, I think you're going to have to look into things in a little more detail, as you'll struggle to find a single instance where I have lied.
ReplyDeleteSye threatened me with libel after I suggested that he'd made a certain video - a video that he boasted he was going to make, and then hosted on his own website with the comment 'here you go!' linking it from my blog! When I, quite reasonably in the circumstances, assumed that he had made it, he got all huffy, denied having done any such thing, and then refused to name the person who had.
A bit of digging and pushing of Sye eventually caused the truth to come out - it wasn't Sye who had made it, but his fellow liar for money Eric Hovind. As soon as I had that information I corrected my previous statements.
As for your quoting of the Christians For A Moral America blog....well, that's yet another example of how you should do some research before you start furiously hammering at your keyboard! That blog is run by a twitter user called @godswordislaw, a raging homophobe, racist, misogynist, antisemite troll. Someone who has lied about having a medical doctorate, at best this is an account which is satire (and rather poor satire at that) or, at worst, the work of someone who is dangerously deluded. Either way, siding with Keith 'godswordislaw' Roberts, a known liar and fraud, does little to support your argument.
Rick, my challenge to YOU was for you to appear on the podcast and defend your risible argument. My reasons for not wanting to debate in the comments of your blog are clear - I have spent many many hours discussing your 'evidence' over the last year, and I just don't have the stomach for a series of lengthy text exchanges when the same discussion could be had in a fraction of the time on the phone. Far from this being a method of burying debate, the podcast would reach MORE people than either blog could manage, given the fact that in December alone it was downloaded over 190,000 times.
As for your complaint that I swear....boo fucking hoo! Grow up, Rick.
You lied by denying the exchange we had in a facebook group whereby you lost your composure when I handed you a miserable defeat. Enjoy !
Delete- tkbk -
I should also add that I only put IP blocking in place due to increasingly deranged threats I was getting from a lunatic in Brisbane, Australia. When he was no longer able to harass me via the blog comments he switched to email, and kept it up for a good week or so beyond the point at which I'd started ignoring him. As some point I'll be posting all of his insane rants.
ReplyDeleteHe's furious at me for refusing to do his podcast or otherwise engage with him; I have no intention of assisting in his relentless drive for self-promotion, and would look better on his CV than on mine.
ReplyDeleteNotice that these people are hardcore presuppositionalists? They pretend to want just facts and science, but their entire philosophies are based on hatred, with substantial copy-n-paste from Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Harris and sites like "God doesn't exist but I hate him anyway and here are my poorly-thought out excuses".
I think it stems to my unforgivable tactic of running rings around him logically and displaying it on my Weblog. The abundance of posts about me makes me wonder...
By the way, have you seen the railings against my promotion of "Question Evolution Day"? I'm told that they are quite vitriolic, as usual.
Delete"He's furious at me for refusing to do his podcast or otherwise engage with him; I have no intention of assisting in his relentless drive for self-promotion, and would look better on his CV than on mine."
DeleteNice. It's all about 'The Alex', isn't it. Considering his hatred, ego and strong motivation, it's scary to think what he may be like 10 years from now - the next Joseph Stalin?
PS. I like the Richard Dawkins touch about the CV. :-)
Actually, Bob, I'm not at all 'furious' - that's just you projecting again. I'm ENCOURAGING people to go to your Facebook page for 'Question Evolution Day', so that they can see just how open to 'intellectual freedoms' you are, with your banning and deleting of any ideas that don't chime with your own!
DeleteIn fact, in the run up to the day, Fundamentally Flawed will be making a minicast daily to promote it! Looking forward to that? We'll be taking one of your tweets, every day for a week, and looking at whether the point you're making is actually valid and supported by actual science. Should be a blast!
"Fundamentally Flawed will be making a minicast daily to promote it! Looking forward to that?"
Delete- Oh, great! More Orwellian Newspeak, Newthink and twisted lies! Can't wait to ignore it!
Yes, because you're doing SUCH a sterling job of ignoring us at the moment!
DeleteThe shows will just examine Bob's claims and see if they are supported by the evidence. To date not a SINGLE point he's EVER made has survived this minor testing.
Hi Rick,
DeleteFor the record, Jim has not been abusive toward me.
I'm glad that you got the CV remark, I think it is quite fitting for the rocket surgeon in question. Why would I want to debate, let alone, enter into discussion with, someone who:
* Has no respect for others;
* Is motivated by pure hate;
* Made an unprovable assertion, I called him on it, he still did not understand it, and has consistently proven that his understanding of the most elementary principles of logic are fundamentally flawed;
* When I wrote about him embarrassing himself further but did not name him, he came along and identified himself;
* Told me to commit suicide, and I left the comment on my Weblog to further illustrate that atheism causes brain damage;
* When another angry atheist on Twitter demanded my name and location (there was a threat of violence), he told him what he thought was my name, and my location;
* I am told that he has continued to write numerous nonsensical rants about me, and other Christians;
* Begged, badgered, belittled me in efforts to do his silly podcast after all this;
* Debunks the astronomers, biologists, geologists and other experts with the pure logic of "That's not true!"
Yep, sheer genius at work.
Bob, you should see a psychiatrist about that transference and projection of yours.
DeleteAlex, you harp nonstop in telling folks to do your hangout or suffer defeat by not going along with it.
DeleteYou did the same with me under one of your videos in the comment section as well as in a facebook group.
After seeing the way you handled yourself with a good pal of mine & the wretched implications you made by asking the most vile & perverse questions, forget it.
- tkbk -
Alex,
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing. I've pointed out your untruths and asked you to correct them. Even now, you are in a state of denial about your behavior.
Here's an example I mentioned from one of your blog posts:
"“including the frankly ludicrous claim that we refused to debate him (despite the fact that Jim posted lengthy replies on his site)”
I had asked you the following:
"Can you please show me (and your audience) where I wrote this?"
Your answer?
None.
Instead, you pretend you have not lied.
I have never refused to debate you in any form, Alex. And I have never stated you refused to debate me in any form. I stated you refused to come to my blog and debate according to the challenge you pretend to have assumed, as noted at this link:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/07/top-20-atheist-bloggers-decline.html
Another lie:
‘The Fundamentally Flawed podcast were more than happy to meet the challenge I laid down on my blog, but I declined to speak to them."
Jim Gardner did come to my blog to debate that specific article, as defined in the challenge. I did not decline to debate with Jim. Your comment is a lie.
I prefer text debates. I don't really care what your pet peeves are about blogging. I don't really care how you spent the last year of your life.
As far as your swearing is concerned, it's a sign of your own immaturity, not mine. The following quote by Cooley seems to fit you like a glove:
For many, immaturity is an ideal, not a defect.
Maybe it's true that the only appropriate response is to completely ignore you, Alex.
"Maybe it's true that the only appropriate response is to completely ignore you, Alex."
DeleteLadies and gentlemen, I present to you the coward Rick Warden!
So, let me get this straight. The the top atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins refuses to debate WL Craig in any format. The top atheist blogger, PZ Meyers, refuses to debate WL Craig in any format. You , Alex, refuse to debate me in text form, while all the while lying about me, and I'm the coward.
DeleteMakes perfect sense, Alex.
Why should I care about what Dawkins or Meyers do? Why is that at all relevant to our interaction?
DeleteRick, I've challenged you to appear on a live debate, you clearly lack the balls to do it.
If you're wanting to be left alone you can start by deleting your frankly insane rant above and try to save some face by apologising for spewing out such nonsense.
>Why should I care about what Dawkins or Meyers do? Why is that at all relevant to our interaction?
Delete- I consider context important, alex. I find the double standards exhibited by atheist personalities to be enlightening and amusing. I can understand why you don't like to have double standards pointed out to you.
>you can start by deleting your frankly insane rant above
-There seem to be two possibilities of why you are upset:
1) The article is NOT TRUE and it upsets you for this reason.
2) The article IS TRUE and it upsets you for this reason.
Unlike you, Alex, I'm willing to make edits to my article if you can show me something that is not true or is blatantly misleading. You are welcome to point out what you believe is untrue.
>try to save some face by apologising for spewing out such nonsense.
- This is rich. You lie about me, you slander Sye, your partner Gardner blatantly censors me from his blog and you want me to apologize. It seems it is you and your team who needs to apologize, Alex.
1) This is a lie, Alex:
"“including the frankly ludicrous claim that we refused to debate him (despite the fact that Jim posted lengthy replies on his site)”
2) This is blatant, unjustified slander:
"I think you knowingly lie to people to make money and I think with that in mind you are a despicable human being."
3) Gardner's censorship deserves an apology.
Gardnder writes a lopsided article about me, censors my comments, and writes his own comment as follows:
January 18 - Note: Rick has finally replied to my emails. He isn’t interested in anything. At all. Next!
If you and your team admit these actions were unjustified and wrong, I'll make a note in the article. At this point, I really don't see any need to delete my article.
It seems many atheists have a very lopsided view of justice because they present so many absurd double standards. This seems to be in keeping with Gardner's view of truth:
"If it's true for you and it works for you, then it's true."
If that is really your team's view of truth, then why are you upset at all, Alex? This is just "my truth" and you have "your truth". So, our truth's are apparently different.
If your worldview is true and there is really no objective truth, then what's the big whoop?
I see you're still a master of 'ignoring' me!
DeleteRick, you're obviously too far gone, religion has destroyed your ability to think rationally. What a shame.
tl;dr
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, Rick. You never deleted your blatantly false article
ReplyDeletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/french-theater-act-highlights.html
The theater piece was in fact pro theistic. Yet, you never bowered to correct your article and left all the nonsense untouched. Unless someone insists on your correcting the mistake, you do not.
That is only to show one more time that you have no interest in truth, Rick.
P.S. Still waiting for you to squirm your way out of Vilenkin s straight answer
For the record, the following note has been added to the above article:
ReplyDeleteNote: Upon reviewing the article, Alex Botten pointed out in the Blogger comments that the question of libel had been resolved according to Alex's understanding. However, upon reviewing the referenced post, Sye Ten Bruggencate Threatens Me With Libel Action!!, as of February 7, 2012, there has been no update and no note in the blog post to indicate that this serious accusation has been resolved. On February 5, I offered Alex an opportunity to point out any facts in my article he believes are untrue: "Unlike you, Alex, I'm willing to make edits to my article if you can show me something that is not true or is blatantly misleading. You are welcome to point out what you believe is untrue." His reply February 5 was the following: "Rick, you're obviously too far gone, religion has destroyed your ability to think rationally. What a shame."
rick, do you side with every single baseless accusation of libel if it's made by a fellow reality denier?
ReplyDeleteLooked at the Christians for a Moral America blog recently? If you have you'll see google have deleted it due to huge numbers of complaints about its content. Happy to align yourself with the antisemite, racist, homophobe who writes it?
Seems to me that you're not overly picky when it comes to choosing allies - as long as they pay lip service to Christianity you apparently immediately side with them, regardless of how vile or deluded they are.
You can still save a tiny amount of face by joining Jim and I for a skyped debate, though i fear that your lack of conviction in your risible 'argument' will prevent you from doing so!
I mean this in no small way. Seek help.
ReplyDeleteJim, your comment is a bit ironic.
DeleteYour answer to Sye, as noted in the above article, states: "If it's true for you and it works for you, then it's true."[21]
Your answer bears a striking resemblance to the textbook medical definition of psychosis:
"Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by ... impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/psychosis
Jim, for the record, do you believe there are any untrue statements in the above article?
ReplyDeleteAlex, Jim, just listening to the podcast Rick links as reference [21].
ReplyDeleteSye's ridiculous presuppositional apologetic and laughable approach to epistemology deserves ridicule - it's to your credit that you continued the podcast rather than simply laughing in his face.
Rick, it doesn't surprise me that you support people like Sye - you don't care about truth (neither does Sye), rather, as I've said repeatedly, you care only about defending your false beliefs from disconfirmation.
Havok,
ReplyDelete>you don't care about truth
- Compared to what? Let's see...
A: "If it's true for you and it works for you, then it's true."[21]
B: "Everything that exists is truth."
Get real, Havok.
I believe that absolute, eternal and unchanging truth exists in addition to relative truth.
So what is your personal belief about truth, Havok? A, B or some other interesting variation? I am really interested to know.
Truth is that which conforms to reality.
DeleteWhy do you find that so hard to understand?
Rick: - Compared to what?
ReplyDeleteCompared to someone who is willing to follow the arguments and evidence wherever they lead.
Compared to someone who is willing to further their education.
Rick: Get real, Havok.
If "Getting Real" involves the same level of denial of reality that your delusional beliefs have led you to, then I think I'd prefer not to. Thanks though.
Rick: I believe that absolute, eternal and unchanging truth exists in addition to relative truth.
And yet in previous comments and posts you've not really been able to decide just what it is that you mean when you say "absolute, eternal, unchanging" truth, which leads me to doubt that you have a coherent picture of what you mean - the words sound good to you, and sound like they mean something "real important" to you, so you repeat them.
Rick: So what is your personal belief about truth, Havok? A, B or some other interesting variation? I am really interested to know.
What do you mean Rick?
I can prove that given some simple axioms of mathematics and the usual usage of symbols, that "2 + 2 = 4" is true. In fact, given the axioms and usage of symbols, this is a necessary truth.
But I don't see how this can or does say anything about anything outside of the formal system called "mathematics", nor that these axioms exist as anything other than concepts of this formal system (I'm not a Platonist about numbers or Math).
What you seem to want to claim is that because "2 + 2" cannot result in anything other than "4", given the assumptions above, that this means there is something "transcendant" involved. This is the same thing which Sye seems to claim in his ridiculous "Presuppositional apologetic". You both seem to be committed to the claim that "Logic" can only be explained with reference to your specific God, and therefore you find any other explanation to be lacking (because it doesn't reference God).
This just seems silly to me.
>What do you mean Rick?...This just seems silly to me.
Delete- It's "silly" to ask you to define your view of truth and the basis of your epistemology? Do you believe objective truth exists, Havok? If so, why?
>everyone who claims not to have experience of your specific (probably incoherent) conception of God is a despicable liar.
- No, Havok, I've stated many times that I believe atheists are generally in a state of denial and spiritual blindness. However, I do believe God does give each person enough insight in God's timing in order to be able to consciously accept or reject the truth of God's existence. This is a point that can be backed up with scripture.
Rick: It's "silly" to ask you to define your view of truth and the basis of your epistemology?
DeleteNo Rick. The epistemology that you and Sye seem to adhere to is silly. The claims, without substantiation, that because "2 + 2 = 4" is true, God must exist.
Presuppositional Apologetics seems ridiculous to me.
Rick: Do you believe objective truth exists, Havok? If so, why?
What part of my response didn't you like Rick?
Is my statement that "2 + 2 = 4" as being a necessary truth (and objective) assuming the axioms of standard arithmetic and conventional uses of the symbols?
What more do YOU want from me?
Rick: No, Havok, I've stated many times that I believe atheists are generally in a state of denial and spiritual blindness.
But you have absolutely no evidence of this Rick. You point to Romans 1, as does Sye, and say "There, that's why I believe".
But this is an empirical question, and you really should provide empirical evidence to back it up, otherwise you're providing nothing but a naked assertion, and one which doesn't even have the appearance of being true.
Rick: However, I do believe God does give each person enough insight in God's timing in order to be able to consciously accept or reject the truth of God's existence. This is a point that can be backed up with scripture.
And since scripture is mistaken, then your point has absolutely no force.
Rick, you really should try to at least pretend to live in the real world, and back up your claims with some reasonable evidence.
Rick: According to Alex Botten, Sye TenBruggencate (and all Christians by implication) are despicable liars by virtue of the fact that we believe the Bible and affirm that the reality of God's existence is manifested by God to all people through nature and the conscience (as Romans 1 outlines).
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to point out that because you (and Sye) believe Romans 1 is true (without any further justification of the claim, youa re in essence stating that everyone who claims not to have experience of your specific (probably incoherent) conception of God is a despicable liar.
It's hypocritical of you (and Sye) to accuse Alex of something when you freely admit to what amounts to the same thing. People in glass houses and all that :-)
Rick, this Jesus & Mo comic highlights what I'm talking about when I say you don't care about the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is in response to this comment:
ReplyDeleteRick: Alex Botten also believes that Sye is Christian apologist because he is greedy for money, but these types of claims are unfounded and ridiculous.
And you believe that Christianity is true - another claim which is unfounded and ridiculous :-)
The "work" Sye is doing now certainly sounds "easier" than his previous job, and I would not be surprised to find out that it is more profitable to boot.
Sye's motives are interesting, since he must know by now that his arguments are without merit (he's been parading them around for at least 4 years, and is still making the exact same ridiculous claims which were being refuted back then). Either he is disingenuous and is in it for the money (Alex's supposition ), he's a complete ignoramus, or he has mental problems of some kind (those positions are not mutually exclusive, and Alex's is possibly the most charitable of the 3). Take any response to this over to the "Alex
Rick, now that the author of the CFAMA blog has come out as a parody, are you going to correct your article?
ReplyDeleteAlex,
Delete>now that the author of the CFAMA blog has come out as a parody
- Some type of link would be helpful.
It is caused by the hormonal problems, weight gain, and many other factors.
ReplyDeleteThere are cellulite creams made with natural
ingredients that stimulate the skin and reduce water retention beneath the skin.
There may be a new and innovative cellulite treatment available now:
cryotherapy.
Here is my web blog :: http://effectivecellulitetreatment.webs.com
Ever since Botten's failed vaginal mesh implant surgery and then being forced to undergo an entire sex change operation, (s)he's had weight gain and cellulite problems. Good thing you posted the link.
Delete