December 19, 2019:
* Note: I’ve considered that a small number of my readers are color blind ,and as such, I will not use color coding on any of my future articles including my Fisking
[1]/Rebuttal articles. Instead, I will use the following typefaces:
As usual, I choose
Times typeface as my basic typeface in all my writings from here on forward:
Both my replies and that of my interlocutor will be in
bold.
My words, aka
@apetivist, will appear in the typeface known as
Trebuchet.
Who I’m replying to, in this case,
Speaker of Truth aka
@robmcallen9565 will appear in the typeface known as
Verdana. For shorthand, I will simply call him “
Rob”. If you’re reading this, Rob, you are free to call me “Ape” in any replies. I love the moniker and it suits me just fine. 😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 10th 2019 at 8:50 AM, Former Christian Pastor, Tim Sledge, on Twitter @Goodbye_Jesus (By the way, the title of his bestselling book is “Goodbye Jesus”) tweeted the following:
"I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in truthfulness, self-awareness, empathy, kindness, love, family, friends, accountability, listening, integrity, resilience, learning, forgiveness, gratitude, generosity, hopefulness, and inspiration".
Tim followed the tweet with the tags: #exchristian #Humanist
At the time I saw it the tweet was retweeted 164 times and had 677 likes. There were many positive, correlative, and some negative replies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will spend some time here dealing with Rob’s replies and I’ve also screen captured all the interaction between us up to the point of me writing this reply, if he attempts to delete them it will not do any good unless he claims I photoshopped it for which would be quite difficult for me as I lack the physical ability to do so as I suffer from several neurological conditions/diseases and I lack dexterity and acuity/preciseness in my hands. I do this only as a safeguard as this is often an all too human defense mechanism to avoid embarrassment. I am not trying to embarrass Rob; I want to hold him to a similar standard for which I hold myself. I simply want there to be better discourse on social media and in real face to face interactions. Assuming the interaction between Rob and I are still up it can be found on Tim Sledge’s Twitter feed. I do not want to nor wish to ever misconstrue, misrepresent, straw man, or lie about the words of my interlocutor, in this case, Rob. I have nothing personal against Rob although I find his style caustic, arrogant, and over presumptive. He calls me names or indicates that I am foolish, a troll, and essentially a liar. I don’t care for such treatment but it’s to be expected, and if the internet was around when I was also a devout Christian (30+ years ago), I would have probably done and said the same types of things and perhaps even worse!
I, in turn, stated that he seems “trollish” in some of his remarks, but I can’t determine if he is an Internet Troll
[2], a Poe’s Law
[3] enactor, or a for real devout
[4] believer in what he claims to believe. Either way, I prefer to treat Rob as if he were a real devout believer. In this interaction he claims to know what is in my mind, what my motivations are, and various other mind reading tropes that are so often used by some theists that I’ve debated or even simply discussed a subject with which we may disagree upon. This also isn’t something used by theists, but also politically charged people, and even atheists, as there are no fully innocent parties in this regard. Not all theists do this, and I’m glad for them in these cases, but enough do so that I wish they that they would see it serves as a poor means of communicating with others no matter the differences and also that it creates/fosters the proverbial “Us vs Them” mentality. I don’t care for this “Us vs Them” mentality as we are all human and can be right, wrong, confused, misinformed, indoctrinated, well-informed, uneducated, ignorant, wise, value deficient, or filled with values. There are many situations that cause a person to be the way they are, and it is hubris on anyone’s behalf to claim that they would do any better if they were in someone else’s shoes.
In addition, you will see where Rob insists that I produce this Fisking/Rebuttal quickly and taunts me about it. Example below:
Today 12/19/2019:
Speaker_of_truth @robmcallen9565 ·11h Replying to @apetivist @RobertBrownie and @Goodbye_Jesus
Rob:
still waiting for rebuttal that you said you were writing for me the other day?
Rob has very little idea, what my personal life is like. I can forgive him his impatience. He has no idea what I go through daily regarding my medical condition and I also have other things happening around me regarding my wife, family, friends and other writing tasks that I’m committed to as well. It isn’t easy doing what I do fully physically able and with low or no mental health problems. Just asking those that claim they possess the Fruits of the Spirit; patience being one, that they show it and not be pushy. I also think this may be on part that Rob is either young, or inexperienced in what it takes to write a comprehensive Fisking/Rebuttal. It’s one thing to assert things on Twitter, it is another to show in detail what may be incorrect about the assertions. This follows what is known as “Brandolini’s Law” or “Bullshit Asymmetry Principle”
[5] which states it takes considerably more time to refute BS or misinformation than it does to assert BS or misinformation. Therefore, it has been said that lies/misinformation travel halfway around the world while facts are still at home tying it’s shoelaces.
Now on to my Fisking/Rebuttal:
The one “negative-ish” reply that stuck out to me the most (in the passive-aggressive sense) was the one by a Twitter account by the name of…
Speaker of Truth or @robmcallen9565 (Rob)
Where
Rob replied to Tim Sledge's above tweet:
All God given qualities.
We’re made in his image
Of course, this prompted
my reply:
I assert that all Magical Purple Universe Creating Fairies’ characteristics. Now tell me which method we determine between your assertion and mine for truthfulness? After all, I may be right and you wrong. Or we could both be wrong.
2:04 PM · Dec 10, 2019
There was quite a bit of time that passed and as I expected he would have no good reply, hence I admittedly taunted with the
“Awkward Silence” GIF featuring Castiel from the TV show “Supernatural”. I probably shouldn’t have done this, but I was trying to elicit a response from him as I was genuinely curious what he would say.
I didn’t see where he called me “a fool” prior as he may have deleted it(?) but apparently he did something to elicit this response from Sandra🍁 @sanope00 who replied:
Wow this “speaker of truth” really called you a fool instead of actually answering your question. (I looked up the verse)
1:54 AM · Dec 11, 2019
This is when I saw
Rob’s reply:
No point in answering a fool
2:45 AM · Dec 11, 2019
At which point Sandra, Rob, and I replied back and forth and this essentially is what it amounts to:
Rob, had no sufficient answer, rather attacking the substance of my question taking offense that I pointed out that there was no difference between me claiming these qualities that Tim Sledge said he believed in came from Magical Purple Universe Creating Fairies’ characteristics as much as they came from the tribal war god known as Yahweh aka the God/god/gods of the Bible. By the way, Sandra (Sandra @sanope00) and Sarah (Sarah @PiperisFurore) both makes most of the case for me. They did great and I understand their grittiness and frustration with theists that behave as Rob does.
Sandra replies below:
Sandra:
Weak af
Rob:
Ok
Sandra:
You call yourself speaker of truth but are too full of yourself or afraid maybe to even try to defend your position
Rob:
What’s to defend. You haven't refuted what was said.
Sandra:
The person asked you a question. And instead of answering you called them a fool. And it seemed like you did that because you had no answer.
Rob:
Not at all.
It was a foolish question, more designed to try and mock than anything.If the question had been a sensible question I would gladly enter into dialogue.
Sandra:
How is “By which method do we determine between your assertion and mine for truthfulness?” a foolish question? seriously?
Rob:
“I assert they're all Magical Purple Universe Creating Fairie's characteristics. “
If you cant see why this is a childish attempt to mock then youre (sic.) not being honest
Sandra:
Don’t know the difference between intended exaggeration to make a point and mockery?
Sandra:
Well I suggest you look it up if you don't know they difference.
Me:
I could have used any example...the point is you are not answering the crux of the question as you know that you will be unable to provide a sensible answer.
Rob:
troll
Me:
Evidence^ Need I say anything else to support my last reply?
Sandra:
I think you made yourself very clear👍🏻
Rob:
Yes he showed his true reason for the discussion. It became very clear.
At no point is he wanting to discuss the truth. He just want to try and appear clever in front of strangers
No one is blinder than he that will not see
Me:
Yawn
Sandra:
You could’ve been the bigger person and answer their question and look past the “foolish” part, but instead you want to be dishonest and add a Bible verse and call them a fool. Maybe because you couldn’t look into the Bible for the answer to their question. Very weak.
Me:
It's okay, I forgive them and it's not personal. It's called Antiprocess[6]. We can all do it. It is difficult to square our minds with what we don't want to hear and can create rationalizations for not hearing what's being said.
Rob:
haha and my point in case
Sandra:
Yes of course but calling someone a fool is not it. Makes me mad. I will however let it go now. Needed to blow off some steam😅 Have a nice day🙌🏻☺️
Rob:
I’m not calling him a fool. its just a recognition of they way he chooses to behave
Me:
If you find issue with my argumentation you’re more than welcome to address it. I'm not your enemy, Rob. I am asking you to think about the methodology you use to address whether something is true, false, or fuzzy. What logic or philosophy do you utilize? If you wish DM me. 👍
Rob:
yeah right.
I was an atheist until adulthood. I know all you could say.
Me:
Do you really? You're a mind reader. Then what's the point of all this railing? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to just say your closed off from discussion with those that don't share your beliefs?
Rob:
most tweets iu (sic.) just confirm why youre (sic.) not able to honestly discuss
Me:
You're more than welcome to DM me and if that's the case I will not publicly share our discussion but please only as a good faith actor.
Rob:
why would I DM you? I have nothing to hide.
Also why do you need to say your wouldn't publicly our conversation? I would never think of sharing anything from a DM. But you do?
Me:
Ugh. We have little history so I'm sharing my personal policy and ethic. DMs can be more fruitful as they don't require audience viewing nor interjections, interruptions, or trolling.
Rob:
again youve (sic.) shown your true motivation
Me:
You have the mind reader issue that I encounter with so many theists. It's sad. You really miss the opportunity to develop relationships with people even though they have a different viewpoint or idea in respect to yours. This is a manifestation of the Us vs Them mentality.
Rob:
No its a manifestation of having chatted with atheists for years. We recognize trolls when we see them
Me:
Would a troll post something like this?
https://apetivist.com/2019/02/please-stop-calling-religious-people.html
Sandra:
I read the article and I totally agree which is why I commented on the fool thing in the first place. I hate when both atheists and theists disregard each other as stupid instead of trying to see eye to eye.
Me:
Even if we don't see eye to eye we should attempt to the best of our ability to be civil in our discourse.
Sandra:
Yes at least try to put ourselves in the other persons shoes
Me (In the thread getting back to Rob’s reply:
again you've shown your true motivation):
What are my motivations? Also what am I hiding in my right hand right now at 12:59 PM CST?
Rob:
you know full well
Me:
Tell me, please, as you seem to have knowledge of everything going on in my head. Please elaborate, dear theist.
Me:
May I ask? Have you ever taken a course (even a basic one or read a good book) on logical fallacies as well as biases and defense mechanisms of the mind? I promise it would serve you much better than this mind reading facade.
*Note: Here in between other replies with Rob a somewhat unrelated topic was discussed between @JacobMissey and myself.
Rob:
it is noted that you don't even try and deny what I said.
I wonder why?
Me:
Note: At this point I just replied with the Robert Downey, Jr. GIF of him “rolling his eyes”.
Me:
You've seemed to already made up your mind regarding me with your mind reading antics so anything I say would only further cause you to entrench yourself into that same idea this is the same cycle of confirmation bias I went through in my decades in Fundamentalist Christianity.
Rob:
you talk about me mind reading. Exactly as you are doing now.
Your confirmation bias is amazing
Me:
Relaying (Note: I corrected this typo as I typed “relying”) what I used to do lining up with what you are presently doing is not mind reading. You claim to know my motives and my other thoughts and that is the definition of mind reading.
Your attempt at false Tu Quoque is unworkable for you in this case.
***Note: At this point nothing else was said on this thread (if I’m incorrect please show me as I am doing my best to track all the replies in the tweets by using the search function) However, it went to a different subject on another thread: The thread was all about Hallmark Channel featuring a commercial with GSRM and/or LGBTQ couple kissing, then pulling the advertisement, only to be chided by the populace and placed it back into the commercials they ran. Apparently, Hallmark was trying to please bigots and faced a backlash. I hope in the future other companies will learn that this is no better than banning commercials with Black people or Muslims. This catering to the Fundamentalist Evangelical Right will only lead to ruin of a TV Channel that also attempts to cater to a diverse populace. If Christians don’t like it, they can change the channel Christians have their own TV shows and I don’t go there and complain about what they produce but Jake & Hugo and others may laugh or point out the terrible inconsistencies and lies at Logic Fodder as the God is Not Dead series, etc. But, we are open to ridicule and especially, correction, if we’re proven incorrect because that only strengthens our positions. Freethinkers and skeptics don’t want to hold onto false beliefs of ideas. We’d chuck them all out for truth even if the truth isn’t so rosy and peachy as living forever in a wonderland where everything is rainbows and unicorns.
Here is the thread and what led me to tell him I was going to Fisk Rob’s ignorant and bigoted replies:
Puzzle In A Thunderstorm @PiatPod:
Q: How do you get millions of people to see an ad you want to get censored?
A: Get a bunch of bigots to complain about it and create a “Streisand Effect.”
*Note “Puzzle” included an CNN article featuring a photo of the women kissing)
🔗:
Hallmark Channel apologizes for pulling ads featuring same-sex weddings
Me:
YES!
Rob:
Its not about getting it more noticed, but removing what is wrong.
Me:
What's wrong with adult people no matter the sex/gender sharing their love for one another?
Rob:
Everything wrong. Its not a good thing to promote
Me:
Why? Shouldn't love, tolerance, and acceptance be promoted? If you were given a Veil of Ignorance before birth and had no idea who you would be what laws and system of justice and social norms would you wish to have?
Rob:
So incest should be portrayed? As its 2 adults showing love for each other.
Me:
That is using a Slippery Slope Fallacy. There are laws up to a point disallowing incest but honestly what business is it to you if it happens? I just don't any of them to procreate naturally if they are too close in relations. They can adopt. If they do that, I have no issue.
Rob:
No slippery slope fallacy. You said if 2 adults want to show love to each other. I asked if you were happy with incest being shown?
You then said, yes but with restrictions. So you draw lines too. So don't try and tell me that I’m wrong for having a higher standard than yourself
Me:
My standard is higher than yours by a long distance. You want to control who can and can't love and marry and I am one for not restricting it if they are consenting adults. Having a caveat on relative marrying is just that for the genetic health of any child born.
Me:
That isn't at all what you are saying. You want to shame others for expressing their sexuality and restricting who can marry who based upon an old book. That is un-American and does not allow freedom, liberty, or justice for ALL.
Rob:
Ill let you into a little secret. It may stun you, but its true. There is a whole world outside America. I don't care one iota whether you think its un-American. I ain’t American.
Not wanting to shame anyone. I think there are things that shouldn’t be lauded and praised in public
Me:
Good for you that you’re not an American. It is a sham and a shame of a nation right now due in large part to Fundamentalism and Right-Wing Fascistic policies. Otherwise, the whole religious view of controlling others sexuality and marriage and adoption of children is fascistic.
Me:
What harm is there by showing early on that people of any sex or gender identification can love and be married and have the same rights as heterosexual couples? There isn't any! You haven't shown that there is. Your Bible god is against it but who gives a fuck what it says.
Rob:
so if it causes no harm then its OK? Is that your way of deciding if its right then?
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
I think that’s better than “ invisible man said so”. Not everyone follows your god. Its edicts apply only to people follow it. “I’m a Christian so I can’t watch this commercial” is respectable. “I’m a Christian so none of us can watch it” is imposing and will not be allowed.
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
If you don’t like the commercial, do not watch it.
Rob:
a deeply stupid argument
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
(Note: This time Sarah posting same Gay Jesus meme)
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
Yes, adults choosing to not view a commercial they are under no obligation to view as opposed to throwing a diaper wetting temper tantrum to impose their religion on others is very stupid.
Rob:
Its not about getting it more noticed, but removing what is wrong.
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
It’s a “former atheist” Christian account. They think it’s wrong because they support establishment of a Christian Theocracy and the imposition of their religious beliefs on all others. Because their “god” said so.
His god can eat my whole ass.
Rob:
I dont, why try and lie like that.
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
*(Note: At this point Sarah posted a Gay Jesus meme to get a rise from Rob (pun not intended). At this point I understand her frustration, but it still does no good with such things. They’re laughable to nonbelievers but a devout, bigoted Christian will only dig their heels in deeper to such responses. In most cases, it happens no matter what you say or do that proves their argument or points incorrect. They will always take it as indication that they are even more validated See: The Backfire Effect[7].
Rob (replying to Sarah)
Yes, adults choosing to not view a commercial they are under no obligation to view as opposed to throwing a diaper wetting temper tantrum to impose their religion on others is very stupid.) :
you're imposing your moral stance on me. See how that works.
Stop being a hypocrite
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
A commercial being allowed to air imposes nothing. You can choose to not watch it. Nothing is imposed. Taking the commercial off the air and removing MY ability to watch it because it runs counter to your particular religious belief is imposing.
(***Note: I’m adding this in as I found it as part of the same thread. Twitter I wish you could make this an easier task. Ugh!)
Rob:
stop being deliberately stupid. By airing it then it is promotion of a lifestyle choice that I think is harmful. Whether I watch it or not has no baring on it. It normalises behaviour that I think is wrong
Me:
Who cares if your reason is an old book outdated by the progress of Science and human knowledge. You might as well object to witches using books written during the Inquisition. It is all equally useless dribble.
Rob:
in your opinion. Nothing more. You cannot prove what you just put in that tweet
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
You cannot prove a divine sentient all powerful leprechaun isn’t sitting on my shoulder. You can’t prove Russell’s teapot isn’t in orbit between Mars and Jupiter driving all of creation, you can’t prove invisible pink unicorns are not real.
Who cares if your reason is an old book outdated by the progress of Science and human knowledge. You might as well object to witches using books written during the Inquisition. It is all equally useless dribble.
Rob:
in your opinion. Nothing more. You cannot prove what you just put in that tweet
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
You cannot prove a divine sentient all powerful leprechaun isn’t sitting on my shoulder. You can’t prove Russell’s teapot isn’t in orbit between Mars and Jupiter driving all of creation, you can’t prove invisible pink unicorns are not real.
Rob:
and none of those examples shows there is no God. They're just childish games
Me:
Wrong. They are not childish games they are philosophical expressions of the same problem that you present to everyone when you say that an invisible being that inspired the writing of a book has some hold on reality and makes things as they are.
Rob:
sorry they are childish and prove nothing
Me (Note this is where I finally remark as a need for fisking Rob’s replies/comments):
Careful he's a snowflake and will have a meltdown he doesn't get these parallels are meta-projections and so I'm having to write a fisking to all this nonsense he can't help it I understand but at some point a person will either deny to see reason or just can't see it.
Rob:
and there is the troll again.
Never have I been a snowflake. Unlike both of you who have been triggered by this discussion
Me:
In my Fisking I will show what a snowflake you are and this is not so much to point out personally you but the ideas that are inherent in fundamentalism all of you are such quacks and fundamentalist snowflakes. You feel attacked when I compare your invisible Sky Daddy to fairies
Rob:
not at all. I was pointing out that your attempt to goad showed you to be a troll. Please read back)
Replies continued…
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
Your argument has absolutely no logical basis. It’s entirely “this goes against my religion therefore no one can see it”. That’s the very definition of imposing on others
Sarah @PiperisFurore:
You can’t use your religion in that way. It will not be allowed
Rob:
"it will not be allowed"
Who's imposing now.
Hypocrite
This is me speaking now in comment to all read above:At this point there is some lull as another atheist Robert Brownie Jr. ™ 👓 📚 @RobertBrownie takes on debating Rob. Of course, to no result and it is just a slamming fest of sorts, but I will leave this to readers to find. I haven’t the time for all this. I will get now to the actual Fisking. I had to place this all in context. Rob, isn’t special in regards to the weak arguments he uses nor his bigotry. You find this all over and not just America. This stands as good reason to keep battling for human reason, compassion, equality, and fairness for all as Theocrats are poised to take over all democracies. Whether they do it through stealth or open admission they do not want democracies to thrive and diversity to be celebrated. They will only be happy when all the world is just like them and nothing, but their rules apply.
Rob has said so much but so little at the same time. I’m not being deliberately dismissive of him, as this write up should be evidence of this not being the case. What I mean by him saying so much is he replies a lot. What I mean by saying so little is he makes assertions, doesn’t back them by facts, claims he knows things he can’t possibly know such as my motivations, states that there are arbitrary standards everyone should live by based on an old book, and he never explains at all how he is ever able to discern the difference between my initial question although he took offense (poor fellow) to my challenge:
I assert that all Magical Purple Universe Creating Fairies’ characteristics. Now tell me which method we determine between your assertion and mine for truthfulness? After all, I may be right and you wrong. Or we could both be wrong.
He uses distortion, distraction, accusation, goal post moving to distract the entire time he made zero attempt to keep from ever answering this question. For good reason as I stated before…he can’t! He can’t use the Bible, or any other religious book, or book written in favor of religious beliefs to come up with a methodology of determining what exactly one must do to make this sort of determination.
The Bible says to “test all spirits” but does it say how? The Bible says a lot of silly things that are either unsubstantiated or totally wrong according to what we know about the Universe and life. This is the wrong manual for life on Earth and if there is a divine being or beings it would be a slap in their face as it is filled with ignorance, violence, animal and human sacrifices, blood magic, homophobia, xenophobia, hypocrisy, genocide, etc. No, this is no standard for a reasonable person and those that claim it is are either hedging their bets or too afraid to admit it is highly problematic.
Read my replies as well as Sarah’s too to see that Rob is like I was 30+ years ago- a full blown ideologue! Incapable of making a good argument but always able and willing to throw unsupported assertions as if it were wet spaghetti and hoping it sticks to the wall of our minds. His feeling of moral superiority is sickening and his trouble with beautiful loving people no matter their gender loving one another harks back to the Bronze Age and if these types of religious people get their way we might as well go all the way back to the Bronze Age. I am amazed there isn’t a full-blown attack by believers everywhere to destroy the very infrastructure of the Internet and burn all libraries unless they are religious in nature. This Fisking was easy as all I must do is really show his words. However, I will go further.
There is as much evidence for Yahweh/Bible God as there is for Magical Purple Universe Creating Fairies. Yahweh can do things according to the Bible that nobody in the natural world can do yet we see nothing in our day and age of video cameras and hi-tech science equipment to ever once catch a supernatural anything happening, ever! We don’t see Christians praying for entire cancer wards and every patient being instantaneously and simultaneously healed, we see no amputees grow back their limb(s) after a Christian prays for them, we don’t see anything in the Bible telling us about how to utilize the mind through critical thinking, usage of logic, or even basic arguments used nowadays by modern apologists. God couldn’t have taken the time to tell us about the importance of washing our hands and not pooping near or in our water sources? He couldn’t tell us about microbes and germs? But he certainly had time to ban shellfish, condemn dual fabrics worn in the same clothing, make laws in favor of slavery, tell us how to treat women with broken or missing hymens, and how to make abortion potions for potentially unfaithful wives. What poppycock. Grow up, Rob. Grow up, people like Rob. Grow up, people that used to be like me 30+ years ago. You are either standing in the way to progress or wishing to pull us back beyond the Dark Ages. You’re wrong, I suspect you may even think about the fact that you may be wrong, but your arrogance and egotism stand in the way from you admitting it. Keep at it, the harder you fight the sooner you’ll tire knowing you, like Rob, can’t answer my basic initial question.
Sincerely,
Apetivist
@apetivist (Twitter)
also email: apetivist@gmail.com
Science, Reason, Logic, Humanism
“Living The Ape Life”
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fisking
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devout
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprocess
[7] https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/what-is-the-backfire-effect-confirmation-bias-psychology.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum: It was verified by Sandra @sanope00 that Rob did call me a fool. See pics below:
