So I make a conscientious effort to notify people that they're being challenged. Fair is fair. Come defend yourself. I realize that I'm small fry - and my guess is that most folks in the public eye probably view blogs as beneath them, or are far too busy to respond. I'm not in the news, newspapers, or on the boob tube. Or perhaps my critiques aren't quite as trenchant or piercing as I'd hoped.
The AFA, here, back in November.
Professor Campos, here - I'll give him a few months, see what's what.
Karen Hunter, here - got a snarky email response worthy of a 12 year old child.
Chuck Norris, here - I sent an email to his fanmail base, and posted on the WMD thread (Twice! Big surprise: neither showed up).
Marshall Hall, here - no response
Goro Adachi, here - interestingly enough, he emailed me back, not really interested.
T. Chase, here - de nada.
Tim Todd, here - still waiting.
Frank Turek, here - again, zilch.
Notified on comments form - for this post - got a response some months later (posted on their comments in September - got a response in February. Guess the Mother Ship dropped that clown off recently).
I shipped off an email to the Raelians recently, in regards my critique in my post here.
Stephen Quayle, here.
Value Voters, here.
These folks all got an email, and the link was provided.
I responded to an anonymous person at Aaron Kinney's Kill the Afterlife, after said person waxed on and on about one Samael Au Wor - it became quite heated, and crossed blogs (here) back and forth, and said 'spiritual' adherent went bipolar on occasion, alternately hinting at astral sex and calling me a coward and a 'mutha sucker'. What a joy that was. Not really cogent here, but felt like sharing.
The following people weren't challenged:
Mike Janitch, I criticized his 'left wing conspiracy' theory here - but I didn't bother to drop anything off on his site. Idiots like that don't listen anyways.
Ron Rhodes - I poked fun at his 'Cloned Christ' web page here.
And so here I wait, hiding in plain sight.
12 comments:
The letter you wrote to Karen Hunter was worthy of a response. It was articulate and respectful and I can't imagine why she thought it was selfish just because it was long in length.
But then she was transparent:
I will never be on the side of an atheist and I should not be expected to.
What??!!!
So now we put people groups in boxes and label them "Case Closed"? She shouldn't be expected to side with an atheist?
How narrow minded.
Wow, Ka! You are one challenging mofo!
Look out for Chuck Norris though. I once heard that his roundhouse kick is a thing to fear ;)
Seriously though, when I was a kid in Karate class, I once went to a martial arts demonstration thing, and Chuck Norris was there. I got my picture taken with him. I thought he was awesome.
Now, 19 years later, Im very dissapointed to see him writing for WND and pushing for Bibles in the classroom :(
I have only managed to attract the attention of one 14 year old fundie. She cannot write, cannot reason, and has an inflated sense of self-importance. Nobody else accepts my challenges either, but then again, I don't have the reputation as a logic machine like you do. Go get them!
Google "CNN,Hunter,Schlussel, atheists", you should be able to find a video (probably on youtube).
I shall.
Aaron - as you know, I like a good throw down, I'm an ornery old cuss.
Yeah, I'd always held Norris in some esteem. I think it's the onset of old age.
Mojoey - logic machine? Really? I gotta confess, I'm blushing just a tetch. ;)
Rats.
I thought you were a *love* machine, baby. ;)
karen - now I'm REALLY blushing.
Naughty girl.
Well, well, well - who has been busy stirrin' up the "religious hornet's nest"? ;)
I can't imagine that you will get a satisfactory answer from any of them. But bonus points to you for tryin'.
Here is my letter to Professor Campos. I think it is polite but firm. Sorry to slam your comments with such a huge post, just thought yall would get a kick out of it:
Dear Professor Campos,
I recently came across some comments you made about atheists which I found quite stilted and offensive, if not blatantly untrue. In an article you wrote you claim that:
"...when one presses a purported
atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various
propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological
diversity," or what have you."
With all due respect, I find this line of reasoning is patently absurd. While I have no doctorate in the matter, I do hold a degree in philosophy from the University of California where I received the Chancellors award, Deans recognition, honors in the major and a 4.0. I feel fairly certain I have a good sense of whether or not an argument is sound and valid. As a professor of law, I suspect you OUGHT to also.
To boldly claim that lacking a belief in God renders ethical statements, or even merely 'ought' statements, nonsensical, without giving an argument, without offering any evidence beyond mere opinion, is both false as well as intellectually irresponsible. Historically, there flourish many ethical belief systems that do not require a God to justify their ethical claims. Further, even the devout theist, Immanuel Kant, clearly laid out ethical imperatives based on reason, not theism. Aristotle, the father of contemporary logic wrote one of history's most famous treatises on ethics, the Nichomachean Ethics, which is not based on a theistic platform.
In fact, if you were to ask anyone who works in philosophy (not theology mind you), which I suspect you did not, you would probably be surprised to note that the vast majority of ethical philosophies do not require any divinity as their basis. Similarly, law, as a sort of legislated morality, is not necessarily religious in nature. I shouldn't have to remind you that American law is not based on theology, but in large part on English common law.
In defense of your statement you claim:
"The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact
is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."
Clearly, my response, as an atheist is not "so what". I am curious if you actually went to the trouble to ask an atheist, as you are very quick to put words into their mouth. Perhaps the is standard practice in the rhetoric of law, but in theology, philosophy and the law of good manners, this is simply dishonest and unbecoming of an academic in your position. While I do not ask you to detract your statements, as you frame them in the form of an opinion, I would simply like to suggest to you sir, that it is not, indeed, an educated opinion on the matter. Perhaps an apology to some rather offended atheists is in order. I know of one such group which can be reached at www.atheists.org/
regards,
Zac Hunter
San Francisco 3-12-07
Zac - hey, no worries: that totally rocked! Well done.
As I suspected, Campos has not responded. He probably deleted it without reading it. Typical.
zac - well, mine is still up, but didn't see yours. Did you post it at the site, or just here?
Like most of these folks, apparently they're all bark no bite.
Post a Comment