Friday, September 9, 2011

Saul Alinsky and "wise as serpents"

The superb Bill Vallicella at Maverick Philosopher on Saul Alinsky:

If you want to understand the Left, their tactics, their ruthlessness, and their imperviousness to ethical considerations, then you need to read Alinksy. Summary here. You will then understand what is behind the outrageous attacks of leftist scum bags, such as this guy, on conservatives. They see politics as warfare, and they believe the end justifies the means.

Alinsky was a genius, on a level with Gramsci, who championed the left's wildly successful "march through the institutions."

Alinisky was a monster, a deeply evil man who has damaged our civilization in profound ways. His influence 30 years after his death is huge: Hillary Clinton did her (laudatory) senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinski, and Barack Obama cut his teeth in the Alinsky organization in Chicago.

Alinski's masterwork is "Rules for Radicals", a short book on revolutionary and political tactics. It is a brilliant work. Alinski dedicated it:


“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer“

A Christian may ask: is it right to learn from Alinski and emulate Alinski's tactics?

I believe yes and no. Alinski's insights are deep, and his tactics are very effective. The atheist left already understands this stuff, and we hamstring ourselves if we remain ignorant of it. We must not emulate Alinski's immorality, but many of his ideas can be adapted for good. We are asked by our own Community Organizer to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".

We can learn from Alinsky, and ethically apply some of his insights. Here's a nice synopsis of Alinsky's tactics, with my comments:


Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" explained

Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

There is actual formal training in this stuff.

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics...
These tactics work.
This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out "Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left."

Here's a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Much of this war is psychological, and a central tactic is to manipulate atheists' perceptions. Atheism's contact with reality is loose at best, and it is essential that we fight on our terms. It causes them to respond in predictable ways, and the goal of this battle is to keep them reacting the way you want them to react.

It's also essential to understand that they're trying to do the same thing to you.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
Keep the debate on your terms. Debate what you and your allies know. Do not stray into the atheists' expertise unless you know exactly what you are doing. It's like the old trial lawyer adage: never ask a witness a question that you don't already know the answer to.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
Most atheists are incompetent in broad fields of knowledge-- philosophy, theology, history, even science outside of their narrow expertise. If they knew a lot, they'd be on our side. Stay outside of their narrow competence, and keep them stammering. Limit their replies to profanity and wikipedia quotes.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
'OK atheists, let's talk reason and science. How can you ground science if you assert that nothing ultimately has a reason for its existence...?'
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
Alinsky's most important rule. His full comment is:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
Ridicule is devastating. We are blessed with enemies who are arrogant rhetorically incompetent prigs who have generally have been insulated from sharp criticism of their ideology throughout their academic careers. They're smug bullies, not savvy street fighters, despite their bluster. They are easy targets for ridicule-- sitting ducks. When ridiculed, they stammer and stumble and spit. Which makes the ridicule even more effective.

Ridicule is entertaining (even Darwinists chuckle at spoofs of Dawkins) and utterly infuriating (our enemies are generally humorless). Critically, as Alinski notes, ridicule is virtually impossible to counterattack. Reciprocal ridicule is often the only option, but atheists are surprisingly poor at effective ridicule, and degenerate to spite and childish taunts that make them look even worse. Atheist ridicule generally comes across as arrogance and sneer, which is what we ridiculed them for in the first place.

Ridicule is a neutron bomb against scientism and atheism. They are utterly defenseless, and their reply is often as effective for us as the original ridicule.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
This is fun, guys. Atheists are like nasty chained dogs. Atheism is the chain that constrains them. If they were really smart, they wouldn't be atheists. Think of Richard Dawkins' face when Stein was calmly flaying him at the end of Expelled. Fun. Enjoy it.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
Keep hitting them from different angles-- their ignorance of philosophy, their ignorance of science outside of their narrow expertise, their arrogance, their ignorance of history, their intolerance, their irrationality, etc. Keep it mixed up. Make them keep googling different stuff trying to figure out how to respond to you. Keep it fresh.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
Relate current events to this debate. Censorship, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, North Korea. Keep it salient.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
They are frightened of us. Otherwise they wouldn't be so angry. They understand the threat we pose to their dark little world. Their fear helps us, because it spurs them to react irrationally.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
No respite. When they advocate atheism/Darwinism/materialism in the public sphere, they must know that there will be immediate and persistent blow-back. We don't let lies build up speed.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
If it becomes crystal clear that atheism is bullshit, theism becomes the common ground for discussion. A major victory.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
This is easy for Christianity; people have been abandoning atheism and coming to Christ for 2000 years. It is not as easy for ID. The integration of explicit design science into biology is a major task against a heavily fortified defense. Gonna be tough.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Alinsky's second most important rule, after ridicule. Effective arguments aren't just facts and logic. Effective arguments are coherent credible stories. Debates at this scale are an exchange of stories, and stories are only effective with clear protagonists.  Demolition of atheism needs faces-- political atheism needs Stalin, scientific atheism needs Dawkins or Myers. A thug or a prig or a bully needs to be the face of atheism and Darwinism and scientism. It needs to be frozen-- people need to immediately think of Stalin when they think 'is atheism politically benign?'. They need to think of Dawkins when they think 'is Darwinism open-minded science?'. They need to think of Myers when they think 'is atheist discourse civil?'.

We have a big advantage here. They have tried to smear us as Adam-and-Eve-rode-dinosaurs-fundies, but outside of the atheist-academic-MSM loony bin, that's been a hard sell. Public acceptance of intelligent design and skepticism of Darwinism is way up. It's hard to paint Bill Craig and Stephen Meyer and Alister McGrath as semi-literate snake handlers when on the logic and facts they routinely destroy atheists.  That's why atheists flee debates like they've taken up sprinting.

When Stalin is the face of atheist politics, and Dawkins is the face of atheist humility, and Myers is the face of atheist civility, we win. Frozen, personalized, polarized. A coherent utterly credible story. The true story. Very powerful.


Continued tomorrow...

38 comments:

  1. Excellent stuff, Mike.
    Makes me think of Pope Benedict's speech on reciprocity (one of my fav's so far). This hits home for me, on a tactical and military level.
    You state "Ridicule is devastating." I agree.
    How is this little post on my new (and so far lonely) blog for some fun ridicule?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ooooh. Playing the game of ridicule with creationists is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Here is Kirk Cameron with a stupid story about banana being created (by God) to fit the human hand.

    Here is Casey Luskin declaring a bicycle to be irreducibly complex.

    Here is Michael Behe being taken to the wood shed by a grad student.

    I can go on, but Blogger won't let me post too many links. Probably in the next comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crus:

    Great post. I'll add your blog to my blog list as soon as I get a moment.

    Thanks!

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is Denyse O'Leary saying that she "wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified."

    Here is Bill Dembski trying to explain death and suffering before the Fall: you see, effects of eating the apple traveled backwards in time and corrupted the Universe!

    Here is PCID, the glorious journal of ID research that folded after publishing four volumes and featuring gems like this wherein the second law of thermodynamics is replaced with Murphy's law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Atheism's contact with reality is loose at best"

    Said the guy who has invisible friends and believes in global darwinist conspiracies.

    The irony is strong with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Oleg,
    Not sure why, but your links always give me a hard time. Weird HTML? Anyway...thanks Oleg, now I feel like a Banana Split! He thinks Bananas show evidence of design, you think they are random variations on a random theme. I think I am hungry.

    @lotwat,
    You responded to the neurosurgeon's comments with: "Said the guy who has invisible friends and believes in global darwinist conspiracies."
    First off, Dr Egnor's friends are very visible. Some of them have photographs and film/video taken of them. They are quite well documented, and are highly likely of at least a physically material nature.
    If you are referring to their or ANY immaterial nature or super nature as being Dr Egnor's 'friends', you are making no sense at all.
    At least as far as I can discern sensible thinking with my admittedly limited perceptions. I would ask you to please rephrase that point in a way as it could be generally understood. I thank you in advance for this, if this latter definition of 'friends' what you're on about, lolwat.
    Secondly, Communism and Communist China are very real and also well documented. The rise of China as a economic and military superpower is also a reality, as are the Atheist policies of it's tyrannical government. His post was about China. He does not have to 'believe' in a 'darwinist conspiracy' to see a relationship between Red Chinese State Atheism (Social Darwinism) and the horrors of that regime. Look it up. Speak to a Chinese person who has fled that regim, or google up a wiki.
    You seem to have mixed up the Dr's argument with someone else's. Wrong blog?
    You certainly have as far as I go.
    Conspiracies? You brought that concept up.
    'Tools' is the word I would use.
    Maybe you should read the post again, lolwat?
    Maybe you would like to chime in on the 'one child policy'?

    ReplyDelete
  7. His *previous post* was about China.
    Sorry...tiny tablet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. political atheism needs Stalin

    Who celebrated Mass every day of World War II.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."
    -Joseph Stalin

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's hard to paint Bill Craig and Stephen Meyer and Alister McGrath as semi-literate snake handlers when on the logic and facts they routinely destroy atheists.

    I have yet to see a debate they have been involved in which Craig, Meyer, or McGrath don't make fools out of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @crusaderRex: And yet you are stuck with the fact that Stalin regularly celebrated Mass. There is evidence that he believed in a "God of nature" (see Zubok), and that he reversed his stance concerning the Russian Orthodox Church because of a sign from heaven (see Radzinsky). Yet this did nothing to change the brutality of his reign. So finding religion doesn't seem to have made nay difference at all. Kind of hard to paint him as a poster child for the evils of atheism once the facts begin to be outed.

    As usual, when theists make wild claims, it turns out the fact aren't really on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous: And yet you are stuck with the fact that Stalin regularly celebrated Mass.

    This is nonsense. Stalin could not have celebrated Mass. He was a staunch atheist. And even if we imagine that he decided, for whatever reason, to observe some religious practices, why would he go with Catholic ones? He was a big fan of all things Russian, and the Russians have always been Orthodox Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr. Egnor, I think I finally understand why your blog doesn't quite sit right with me. It seems you have decided it is a good idea to use The Enemy's Ring against him, instead of turning the other cheek and blessing those who curse you. I think you *may* be giving poor witness and missing one of the more important points in Christian teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @sleeping:

    Your point is well taken, and I've thought about that a lot myself. Perhaps there's truth in what you're saying.

    On the other hand, consider this:

    1) I'm fighting for a good Cause. That does not justify immoral means, but it is a good Cause. This is not a trivial fight.

    2) Nothing I have said or done is in any way unethical, that I can see. I haven't lied, slandered, physically harmed, professionally harmed, anyone. I've used logic, satire, ridicule, etc to attack some really bad ideas. Notice that for the most part I've avoided specifically ad hominem stuff. (I've tried to keep my accusation of 'stupid' aimed at ideas, not people. Nobody who is engaged in this on either side is 'stupid' in any personal sense.)

    3) My sharpest attacks are considerably less vehement than many parts of scripture. Think Jeremiah, some of Paul's letters (expressing the humorous wish that opponents would castrate themselves), 2 Peter. The Lord Himself said things that I would not say about our opponents (He of course has the authority to do so.)

    4) Christ's Body has many parts. Many Christians witness with gentleness, forgiveness. That does not mean that such admirable acts are the only way to spread the Gospel. For each St. Francis, there has been a St. Dominic.

    5) I do believe that Christians have become too complacent about atheism and scientism. There are very toxic and lethal (to the soul) ideologies, and they need to be fought. Some fight gently, some fight not so gently.

    I believe both are needed.

    "Wise as serpents and harmless as doves..." Matthew 10:16

    Thank you for your input. Please let me know if you feel that I am going too far. I'm grateful for your thoughts.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  15. @sleeping

    Even Christ took matters in hand at times. He did drive the merchants out of the Temple, didn’t He?

    There are merchants in the Temple right now: they are atheist Darwinist scientists and they are poisoning the mind of our children.

    I speak from experience, two of my children are atheists and don’t speak to me anymore. Dam these university teachers!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Pépé,
    I agree re the money lenders. There comes a time when defence is the required tactic.

    "Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    Regarding your sons, I am very sorry to hear that, Pépé. I pray they will grow enough to at least speak to their father.
    I have a friend who's daughter did the same atheism 'mad at daddy' thing in college, and he did not hear from her in years, despite her mother dying. Eventually she sent him a letter from EGYPT! She had met a Muslim man, converted and had become his SECOND wife.
    I pray your boys come home in much shorter order, Pépé.
    I also pray that Christians like SB can see the need to stand up for themselves. It is one thing to admire and attempt to walk the path of Christ, it is another to assume we can be as good as him.
    I, for my own part, am a sinner.
    Some of us must be sell our garments/cloaks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “We are blessed with enemies who are arrogant rhetorically incompetent prigs…..They're smug bullies….they stammer and stumble and spit….Atheists are like nasty chained dogs….If they were really smart, they wouldn't be atheists….their ignorance…..their ignorance…..their ignorance….their irrationality….Notice that for the most part I've avoided specifically ad hominem stuff”

    ReplyDelete
  18. @anon:

    "for the most part..."

    Sometimes telling the truth isn't pretty.

    I go to confession. At least I don't lie.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @crusadeRex
    Thank you for caring for me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. …At least I don't lie.


    Big Deal. You’re not only practicing ridicule, you’re encouraging others to do it, all in the hopes of angering and humiliating people. By your own admission you think it’s “fun”. You decry your opponents for their alleged bullying, and then go right ahead and bully. You make Myers look like a pussy cat, and Dawkins look like a saint.


    You saying “At least I don’t lie” is like a rapist defending himself by saying “At least I don’t Jaywalk”. I think you’re probably going to be saying quite a few more Hail Marys then if you told a few simple lies.


    Perhaps I’m actually here because everything you say serves only to affirm my beliefs and strengthen my convictions.


    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  21. @KW:

    [Big Deal. You’re not only practicing ridicule, you’re encouraging others to do it, all in the hopes of angering and humiliating people.]

    On what basis do you assert that I am acting immorally? You deny the existence of objective moral law. I think your ideas are disgusting and stupid, and you disagree. You have no recourse to moral standards independent of human opinion. And I would point out that my viewpoint is by far the majority. As an atheist, you have no rational argument that I'm morally objectively wrong to call you names.

    'Sniff...sniff...'

    [You decry your opponents for their alleged bullying, and then go right ahead and bully. You make Myers look like a pussy cat, and Dawkins look like a saint.]

    Right. My comments section is virtually indistinguishable from the pharyngula cesspool.

    And making Dawkins look like a saint is well beyond my rhetorical powers.

    [You saying “At least I don’t lie” is like a rapist defending himself by saying “At least I don’t Jaywalk”. I think you’re probably going to be saying quite a few more Hail Marys then if you told a few simple lies.]

    Thanks for the spiritual advice. I'll give it as consideration as it deserves.

    [Perhaps I’m actually here because everything you say serves only to affirm my beliefs and strengthen my convictions.]

    Maybe true. But at least you are now better informed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. “On what basis do you assert that I am acting immorally?”

    You are intentionally hurting people. People don’t like to be hurt. Most people learn that the best way they can maximize their own happiness is by practicing a certain level of reciprocal civility. Most of us at some point in our lives have to be around people we don’t like, or don’t agree with, but we generally don’t ridicule them. That would be counterproductive for the individuals and the group. Group cohesion is important for the success of group endeavors. Rational enough for you?


    “Right. My comments section is virtually indistinguishable from the pharyngula cesspool.”


    I was referring to Dr, Myers, to his blog commenters. I’m sorry to hear you think your comments section is a cesspool. Would you rather I leave? Would that clean it up a little?


    “Maybe true. But at least you are now better informed.”

    Indeed I am.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  23. @KW:

    [“On what basis do you assert that I am acting immorally?”

    "You are intentionally hurting people. People don’t like to be hurt. Most people learn that the best way they can maximize their own happiness..."]

    Why is any of that morally wrong, as opposed to, say, the expression o f different opinions. You keep implicitly appealing to a moral standard. WHere does this moral standard come from? If it is from you, why should I care? If it is from a societal average or some consensus, I point out that my views about atheism are mainstream.

    [I was referring to Dr, Myers, to his blog commenters. I’m sorry to hear you think your comments section is a cesspool. Would you rather I leave? Would that clean it up a little?]

    It's great having you comment here. Your points are interesting and challenging. You don't make this comments section "dirty" in any way. We disagree on stuff, but that's what blogs and comments sections are for.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Egnor: You keep implicitly appealing to a moral standard. WHere does this moral standard come from? If it is from you, why should I care? If it is from a societal average or some consensus, I point out that my views about atheism are mainstream.

    Antisemitism was once mainstream in Europe. Slavery was mainstream in the good old U.S.A. And those people were God-fearing Christians, I hear.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On what basis do you assert that I am acting immorally? You deny the existence of objective moral law.

    First off, the charge isn't necessarily that you are being immoral. The charge is that you are being hypocritical. And you are.

    Secondly, you seem to want to pretend that even if morals are subjective they are not in context of the society in which we live. And in that context, your tactics in harming people are considered immoral. You cannot divorce yourself from societal standards and expect not to be judged by them.

    And finally, you've already implictly admitted that Christian values are subjective in your wandering posts and comments, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is nonsense. Stalin could not have celebrated Mass. He was a staunch atheist. And even if we imagine that he decided, for whatever reason, to observe some religious practices, why would he go with Catholic ones?

    @oleg: (1) Historians who have studied him seem to think Stalin's views on religion seem to have vacillated a lot more than you might think, and (2) the Catholic Church is not the only sect to call its religious ceremony "mass".

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon/KW,
    Am I reading this correctly? The pro abortion, ant-freewill, anti-God, moral subjectivist, materialists are having their 'feelings hurt'? All the 'superstitious', 'invisible friend', 'deluded', etc etc .... that is intended to build bridges?
    Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
    Don't chat/debate about these ideas if it upsets you to do so!
    Anon,
    Stalin was neither Catholic or Orthodox and viewed religion in general as an 'opiate for the masses'. Whether or not he decided he was wrong near the end of his life does not change what he DID in the name of the Atheist Doctrine of Communism.
    @Oleg,
    Yes. Christians are sinners too, and we have many among our numbers and through the ages that have done horrible things. The difference is doctrinal. They defy and twist doctrine to suite there needs. For the Atheist-State it is written as needed. Morality is made flexible (ie One child, Soviet pogroms, Nazi Eugenics etc). I understand your point, but it is a matter of scale.
    PS THANK YOU for talking sense re: Stalin. It;s good to know someone can say something we BOTH think is nuts :P

    ReplyDelete
  28. @anon

    [First off, the charge isn't necessarily that you are being immoral. The charge is that you are being hypocritical. And you are.]

    Being hypocritical is only a "charge" if it is immoral.

    [Secondly, you seem to want to pretend that even if morals are subjective they are not in context of the society in which we live. And in that context, your tactics in harming people are considered immoral. You cannot divorce yourself from societal standards and expect not to be judged by them.]

    Most people agree with me. Atheism is deeply disliked. "Societal standards" are on my side, not yours.

    [And finally, you've already implictly admitted that Christian values are subjective in your wandering posts and comments, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.]

    I thought my posts have been pretty consistent. I think atheism is idiocy at least and evil at worst, and that atheists are fools to the extent that they believe atheism to be true. No wandering there.

    I am a Christian, and I (try to) love my neighbor as myself. If I were an atheist (as I once was), I would be a fool, which I was.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Dr. Egnor:
    I know there are many members in Christ's body. The ear is not a foot, and so on. And I'm not unaware of the saints who did more than just speak boldly, but spilled blood in battle: Joan of Arc and James Matamoros come readily to mind. And who can forget the Jesus-whipping-the-moneychangers story, which I get to hear about each and every time I suggest that Christians should bridle their tongues?

    There's nothing wrong with speaking truth and calling people out when they lie and bully. It's our moral duty to stand up for what is right. We have been given a great gift, and part of that gift is sharing freely what was freely given us, out of concern for the immortal souls of our brothers and sisters.

    While doing so, I think it's important to remember that this is not a tribal battle. It's not us Good Guys against those Evil Guys. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. Your enemy is not Myers or Dawkins or Hitchens; it's the lies that have taken root in them. The real Enemy is happy to let us hold to certain truths if that's what it takes to keep love and concern for our brothers out of our hearts, or to make sure our words fall on deaf ears.

    I am hesitant to criticize your approach because I know that different people speak to different audiences. Perhaps you are being heard by people who would not listen to a word I say, because of the way you speak to them. I'm just also hesitant to endorse ridicule as a tactic, maybe because it's a tactic that would have turned me off in my atheist days.

    I guess my advice would be to pray for guidance; "how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?" Ask for it for you and for the atheists you respond to. Can't hurt, right?

    At any rate, I do follow your blog; I find it much more interesting than off-putting.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @sleeping beastly:

    Thank you again for your thoughts.

    [ The real Enemy is happy to let us hold to certain truths if that's what it takes to keep love and concern for our brothers out of our hearts, or to make sure our words fall on deaf ears.]

    Very true, and perceptive. This is one of my greatest fears in all of this-- that I am being used to achieve ends opposite those I intend.

    [I'm just also hesitant to endorse ridicule as a tactic, maybe because it's a tactic that would have turned me off in my atheist days.]

    I understand. I have found that Pride is very much a part of atheism, and ridicule is a very effective counter to it. "The devil...the prowde spirit...cannot endure to be mocked." CS Lewis used that quote from Milton at the beginning of the Screwtape Letters.

    [I guess my advice would be to pray for guidance; "how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?" Ask for it for you and for the atheists you respond to. Can't hurt, right?]

    Very good idea. Thank for your insight-- it is something I have thought about quite a bit. My experience with the blog-wars with New Atheists has been that a bit of rhetorical hardball is necessary. It tends to take the sneer off them a bit. Much of what they say is deserving of scorn, and I understand that excessive use of ridicule may drive them away from Truth. But I do think that it is a tactic that works and that may even be the most effective tactic in some situations.

    Thank you again. I'll keep praying about this.

    Blessings,

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  31. My experience with the blog-wars with New Atheists has been that a bit of rhetorical hardball is necessary. It tends to take the sneer off them a bit.

    It doesn't take the "sneer" off of atheists for you to try to play rhetorical hardball with your nerf bat. It just makes us laugh hysterically at your trotting out tired, worn, and useless arguments and thinking they are going to convince anyone of anything.

    What you take for atheists cringing before your arguments is actually atheists realizing you don't have anything of any value to offer and walking away laughing and shaking their heads.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Being hypocritical is only a "charge" if it is immoral.

    I see you have only a passing familiarity with reality. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy whether it is moral, immoral, or indifferent. You are being a hypocrite.

    Most people agree with me. Atheism is deeply disliked. "Societal standards" are on my side, not yours.

    How difficult it must be for you to realize that your decrepit ideology is losing so badly to those who are so "deeply disliked". Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically are bleeding adherents at a rapid pace, while the number of nonbelievers who reject your superstitious fairy tales increases every year. You are fighting a desperate rearguard action and losing badly.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @anon:

    [Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy whether it is moral, immoral, or indifferent. You are being a hypocrite.]

    No. Hypocrisy is description of behavior. If you assert that it is wrong objectively, you need to refer to an objective standard of morality. Which is not possible for an atheist.

    [Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically are bleeding adherents at a rapid pace...]

    Keep believing your own press releases. The future belongs to religion (Christianity and Islam are the only two in the game).

    Atheism is a fringe ideology. It had its heyday with communism, and crashed when the Berlin Wall fell. It will continue to dwindle, both because of its banality and its lack of fecundity.

    Good riddance.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No. Hypocrisy is description of behavior. If you assert that it is wrong objectively, you need to refer to an objective standard of morality. Which is not possible for an atheist.

    I'm not asserting it is wrong objectively. I'm asserting that you are engaged in it. And that it is considered wrong subjectively as a result of cultural consensus. You keep trying to divorce yourself from the culture you live in.

    Keep believing your own press releases. The future belongs to religion (Christianity and Islam are the only two in the game).

    Which is why you so desperately shriek about atheists. You know you are losing badly. Approximately a third of people who were raised Catholic in the United States reject the designation now. Your chosen sect is dying in modern society, and it galls you to the core. Sadly for you, it seems that no amount of histrionic whining will reverse this.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @anon:

    [I'm not asserting it is wrong objectively.]

    Of course you are. Weasel.

    [I'm asserting that you are engaged in it. And that it is considered wrong subjectively as a result of cultural consensus.]

    The cultural consensus is that atheists are stupid and evil. It is in fact one of the most widely held views in our culture. You agree, of course, don't you?

    [You keep trying to divorce yourself from the culture you live in.]

    I'm mainstream. You're fringe. "Cultural consensus" isn't an argument you can hide behind.

    [Which is why you so desperately shriek about atheists. You know you are losing badly.]

    That's funny, coming from an ideology that can't even be bothered to have enough children to reproduce yourselves.

    I condemn atheism because it remains a dangerous ideology, even as it dies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I have yet to see a debate they have been involved in which Craig, Meyer, or McGrath don't make fools out of themselves."

    That is a reflection of your pretense of knowledge, not reality. Krauss was a comedy of errors in his debate with WLC and his subsequent foot-stomping about it at Pharyngula and Dawkins' fan club.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically are bleeding adherents at a rapid pace, while the number of nonbelievers who reject your superstitious fairy tales increases every year. You are fighting a desperate rearguard action and losing badly."

    That is only true of certain European nations, NZ, and perhaps Australia. (Although, Sydney Anglicanism appears to be going strong.) Moreover, Christianity is growing in Asia, including China, and Africa and shows no sign of waning in South America. The only thing you have demonstrated with your assertions is your myopia.

    ReplyDelete