Friday, February 20, 2015

Tom Gilson Joins the Cult of Victimhood

Bryan, I don’t know why u want 2 keep throwing inanities like this at me, but apparently u do. Could I just ask you to stop, please?"
One person's inanity is another's satire. My comment wasn't necessarily constructive and probably uncalled for. But the arguments presented in the article linked to are just as inane. So maybe I'm just matching tit for tat.

I’m still asking you to cease the pinging, rather than my just muting you on my feed. It’s a matter of courtesy, Bryan, okay?"

Gilson begins to cast himself as a victim and shifts the goalposts to complain about my "pinging" instead. By "pinging," Gilson can only mean regular counterarguments directed at him onto his Twitter feed. Surely some of my tweets have not been very constructive, but most of what I post is relevant criticism:

what well intentioned and syntactically accurate words do conservatives think aren't open to fair use anymore?

your first question is regarding "primary" interest of marriage. If it's children, even a systems approach is pro-gay mrrg

still unclear to me how God's existence is objectively meaningful even given his subjective attributes

Meaninglessness does not require death. One can easily imagine a pointless life stretching into eternity.

and so on...sometimes I even remenisce:

hahaha. I remember that post. There are my comments when I was a Christian. Right there. Good times.

You’re missing the point. It’s not the content, it’s the incessant pinging."

Incessant? Gilson is being hyperbolic. I respond to 20% of his posts, if that. Maybe it seems incessant because I'm virtually the only user who responds to his Twitter posts (counting critics and non-critics).

I offer to restrict my comments to constructive ones only. In reply, he says:

Constructive is a subjective judgment, too."

I want to keep replying to his posts, keeping it constructive. But Gilson gives himself an out. Anything I now post that he disagrees with can now be interpreted as "unconstructive." Here the gauntlet comes down: no more criticism.
Naively, I try to respond with something that could not possibly be interpreted as nonconstructive in a last ditch effort to foster genuine dialogue. I am met with:

" You’re missing the point. It’s not the content, it’s the incessant pinging."

One becomes suspicious that if I was one of his sycophants, he wouldn't have a problem with "incessant pinging." But I speculate.

The salient point here is that he responds only seconds before I post two other comments in rapid succession, which Gilson interprets as belligerence. I have no time to react and defend myself before I am muted. That is the context of his last three tweets:

Case in point: This kind of question I don’t need interrupting my day, and can’t be answered on Twitter anyway. Courtesy. Please."

(How does a tweet "interrupt" someones day? He's starting to sound ridiculous and like he's going off the rails. How does he know such questions can't be answered on Twitter? There's no evidence he even made such an attempt. Even a rudimentary summary would have sufficed.)

My requests for courtesy have gone rudely unanswered. Muting you here now. I hope that works; otherwise I’ll go to Twitter about it."

Muting you didn’t work. Explaining how you got that wrong won’t work either. I’ll try another avenue."

And so Tom Gilson pounds down the kool-aid following swift initiation into the Cult of Victimhood, the very thing decried in the original post. The irony, at least, is not lost on me.

Tom, if you don't want people to argue with you, "incessantly" or not, quit crying, and get off the internet. Blocking someone for anything less than threats, ad hominen attacks or genuine spam is intellectual cowardice. That goes for theists and non-theists.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014


1. According to Christians, God is the transcendent standard for morality--based not outside Himself but founded in his own nature.

2. Can a world be conceived of in which murder is the Good founded in the nature of a creator god?

3. If it's conceivable, then it's possible murder could have potentially been ethical. Which is absurd.

4. If it's not conceivable, then one is a applying a moral standard outside of herself and her creator god.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

On Same-Sex Marriage

Human beings have many needs that are basic and universal. We all need to drink water, eat and sleep. We need clothing and a roof over our heads. We also have sexual and social needs; chief among them, the desire for acceptance, and to love and be loved in platonic and romantic relationships. To be sexually intimate with the people (male and/or female) we are sexually drawn to. To deny someone the right to have these basic needs met is to deny their humanity. It is inhumane. This is the way God, if He exists, made them . Telling someone they can’t form a loving, sexual union with their partner is like telling someone not to eat, not to drink. Not to seek friendship. It is to deny someone their full right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is disrespectful and intolerant. You who would do so would condemn someone to a life of suicide-inducing loneliness, misery, and despair. It is social and psychological death, much like ceasing to eat and drink would lead to physical death. It only takes a moment of reflection, a second of empathy for homosexual persons, to see that this is all true.  This is why opposition to same sex marriage will fail. It must fail.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Monday, November 19, 2012

Why Agnosticism Should Lead to Atheism

Let's set aside the debate as to whether agnosticism is implicit atheism (it is. ;) ) Let's say an agnostic is someone who, given the balance of evidence, isn't persuaded one way or the other with regards to God's existence (or non-existence). Presuming some sort of Christian theism, a terrible fate await all those who deny God and his offer of salvation. You're going to be stuck in Hell for a very long time. Forever, in fact. So the stakes are incredibly high. Now here's the kicker--how could a competent, all-loving God allow the evidential status of things to become so ambiguous? How could he reasonably justify damning billions of people to Hell for reasonable dissent or skepticism? This is why agnosticism should lead to atheism--if the evidence isn't strong enough to persuade one to believe in God, and if we're going to be punished eternally for not believing, he probably doesn't exist.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

"United with his fellow-men by the strongest of all ties, the tie of a common doom, the free man finds that a new vision is with him always, shedding over every daily task the light of love. The life of man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instil faith in hours of despair. Let us not weigh in grudging scales their merits and demerits, but let us think only of their need, of the sorrows, the difficulties, perhaps the blindnesses, that make the misery of their lives; let us remember that they are fellow-sufferers in the same darkness, actors in the same tragedy with ourselves. And so, when their day is over, when their good or evil have become eternal by the immortality of the past, be it ours to feel that where they have suffered, where they failed, no deed of ours was the cause; but that wherever a spark of the divine fire kindled in their hearts, we were ready with encouragement, with sympathy, with brave words in which high courage glowed."

-Bertrand Russell

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Pretty much