tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post9221462318636240098..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Doug Groothuis's "Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28434038856342179922010-11-09T01:21:47.329-05:002010-11-09T01:21:47.329-05:00Doug Groothuis has a new post up where he thinks g...Doug Groothuis has a new post up where he thinks girls raped by their fathers should be required to have the baby as long as there physical life isn't threatened.<br /><br />This is something like the guy in Austria!<br /><br />Mind boggling.bcstractorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02934321286164312744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23073803312779366662010-10-07T23:25:44.244-04:002010-10-07T23:25:44.244-04:00You can comment on an interview point by the Dougs...You can comment on an interview point by the Dougster here:-<br /><br />http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/10/apologetics-toolkit-advice-on-writing.html#more<br /><br />It took mine<br /><br />Chris Pbcstractorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02934321286164312744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-79991331351695133852010-09-28T10:34:44.758-04:002010-09-28T10:34:44.758-04:00Dear Jeffrey,
You have hit the nail on the head....Dear Jeffrey, <br /><br />You have hit the nail on the head. Dr. Groothuis<br />has become a ban-maniac on his blog.<br /><br />He reminds me of the character played by Bill<br />Mumy on an episode of the classic Twilight Zone<br />series. Mumy played a 10 year old boy, with<br />supernatural powers, who <br />terrorized a small midwestern farming community.<br /><br />"The better be nice to me," said Mumy's character,<br />or they would end up in the cornfield.<br /><br />In a recent post on his blog, Groothuis complained<br />that there was nobody who would engage in rational <br />discourse with him. Well, of course not. A would<br />be critic gets one or two posts, and then Groothuis<br />bans them, claiming that they were "uncivil".John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5402105526967750042010-09-24T11:18:21.131-04:002010-09-24T11:18:21.131-04:00Doug is wrong. You can write perfectly decent post...Doug is wrong. You can write perfectly decent posts and he will not publish them because they make him look like a fool or call him on facts.<br /><br />He lives off the gullible by working at a religious institution. Anything that shows that his career is based on BS scares him to death.<br /><br />He keeps on writing about the Discovery Institute as though they never wrote the Wedge document or the "Cdesignpropentisists" word never appeared in a US court. <br /><br />A right wing judge ruled that intelligent design was religion and Doug will, for obvious reasons, not accept that.<br /><br />He makes his living off this deception and doesn't want it to go away. <br /><br />I can get my "invective" published in engineering trade magazines (two letters this week in the same magazine) but Doug cannot take it. God must not be on his side, of course.<br /><br />Chris PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-322952481529022352010-09-23T05:14:18.905-04:002010-09-23T05:14:18.905-04:00I ban people who I deem to be give more invective ...<i>I ban people who I deem to be give more invective than argument, and you fit that category.</i><br /><br />Doug, that's not true, and you know it.<br /><br />And you neatly sidestepped the other parts of my argument.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32270050848333320862010-09-22T22:31:30.183-04:002010-09-22T22:31:30.183-04:00I ban people who I deem to be give more invective ...I ban people who I deem to be give more invective than argument, and you fit that category. However, I do not ban everyone or most people I disagree with. For example, I just posted something by "Atheist Missionary" that completely disagrees with me concerning the post you are responding to. I then responded to him and he responded back. Moreover, I prefer off-line interactions, since they tend to not be so impolite.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27669164150753268382010-09-21T23:35:15.039-04:002010-09-21T23:35:15.039-04:00I have a feeling Johnson dropped a couple of copy ...I have a feeling Johnson dropped a couple of copy and paste spams and then went on his merry way. You guys are making it sound like he dialogued with people.386sxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28304662069027730412010-09-21T07:02:28.544-04:002010-09-21T07:02:28.544-04:00Groouthuis has now posted a link to this piece fro...Groouthuis has now posted a link to this piece from his own site "The Constructive Curmudgeon". I left a comment last night and almost fell off my chair this morning to find that he approved it.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69912399471175910552010-09-21T02:43:05.761-04:002010-09-21T02:43:05.761-04:00What would a second-class hypocrite be? Would it b...What would a second-class hypocrite be? Would it be better or worse than a first-class hypocrite?Gerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3019164722607284032010-09-20T23:44:27.941-04:002010-09-20T23:44:27.941-04:00Miranda, calling someone a hypocrite who is demons...Miranda, calling someone a hypocrite who is demonstrably in fact a hypocrite, is no more "invective" than calling a spade a spade.ALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37908836872051038242010-09-20T16:19:27.696-04:002010-09-20T16:19:27.696-04:00> "He says that evangelicals should "...> "He says that evangelicals should "cultivate <b>real dialogue</b> with unbelievers"... Doug -- you're a first-class hypocrite." <br /><br />Are you positive you didn't use invective against him like this <i>before</i> he banned you? It's kind of hard to have a real dialogue with someone who insults you.<br />I recommend starting over with Groothuis, but use a pseudonym, so that he'll be willing to listen to you. Of course, you'll have to avoid the insults.Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-12827974765518132562010-09-20T10:38:17.067-04:002010-09-20T10:38:17.067-04:00Heh. I also recall Johnson's brief appearance ...Heh. I also recall Johnson's brief appearance on t.o -- he blathered a lot about Darwinist materialism, but not much about science. IIRC, Chris Colby (then a grad student in bio) read PJ's book, and offered to discuss a number of errors he found therein. PJ disappeared shortly thereafter.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50266590544726915682010-09-20T09:51:17.741-04:002010-09-20T09:51:17.741-04:00"macro-evolution is false, and good arguments..."<i>macro-evolution is false, and good arguments have been raised against it from ... Scripture</i>"<br /><br />Who gives a flying patootie? Scripture makes an argument against insects having six legs. A religious book is simply not a legitimate source of argument in a scientific debate.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4176728064040439182010-09-20T08:38:01.045-04:002010-09-20T08:38:01.045-04:00Miranda -
Your google fu is better than mine, isn...Miranda -<br /><br />Your google fu is better than mine, isn't it? Search google groups, talk.origins, 1993, Phillip Johnson. You'll find everything there, I think.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3426591568264732982010-09-20T08:12:46.788-04:002010-09-20T08:12:46.788-04:00"He arrogantly rode in on his evangelical hig..."He arrogantly rode in on his evangelical high horse... Johnson had to leave in a cowardly huff because he couldn't handle the criticism"<br /><br />Sounds a little subjective, like you're trying to lead the witness.<br />Can you provide a link to the discussion so your readers can judge for themselves?Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-787155532673650762010-09-20T07:29:50.902-04:002010-09-20T07:29:50.902-04:00"Doug -- you're a first-class hypocrite.&..."Doug -- you're a first-class hypocrite."<br /><br />Well, no surprise here, right? Anyone who attempts to justify religion (his particular version, especially) through "rational means" must, at some point, adopt deceitful methods.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.com