Mark My Words View the Mohammed cartoons

"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"

: Name: Mark K. Sprengel; Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

View my complete profile

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Beavis and Butthead vs History

Or, Rook Hawkins - I'm not a historian but I play one on Youtube and Myspace. The later contains a banner wherein he claims the titles historian and ancient texts expert. Excuse my guffaw and belly laugh, but his statements on Youtube, in response to softball questions from Brian Sapient (The Sap) indicate he's not even good at pretending regarding those titles.

You can see the video here. I'll address several of his and The Sap's more foolish assertions.

One claim is that the Josephus mentions of Christ are obvious forgeries and to back this up he says a (one?) Josephus expert (who he doesn't name by the way) admits Christ wasn't mentioned before the 4th century.

Sorry little Rookie but you're very misinformed. The fact of the matter is that the current consensus among scholars is that even without later Christian interpolations, Josephus did indeed mention Christ. I covered this here, when another skeptic tried to say much the same on this matter.

The problem with little Rookie's claim on this point is that it does nothing to express to the viewer that his position goes against the current consensus. He presents nothing of this or data/arguments as to why this minority view should be accepted. One can see a more in depth treatment of the matter of Josephus here, that amounts to much more than the mere strutting propaganda from this "historian" on youtube.

Even sillier would be The Sap saying that a coin bearing one's name would be sufficient to prove to him they existed. When it comes to Christ though, they both have no problem rejecting the New Testament which is closer to the time of Christ than other ancient documents are to the people they mention and who actual historians do not doubt existed. We also have the apostle Paul writing within 20 years of the crucifixion to churches previously established and his encouraging them to remember what they'd been taught. This criteria they use would require rejecting standard historical methods of study and is merely preening skepticism inconsistently applied.

The rest of his drivel would just be droppings from Earl Doherty, one of the few fringe scholars who believe Jesus was just a myth. He's dealt with in detail here, here, here with part II here and another article here.

The (ir)rationals shallow as they are, have at least one talent. They provide numerous opportunities for noting their errors and silly self-referential claim to credentials, as in, historian, ancient text expert etc. A good example would be this post and another I'll reference later. I don't always agree with Frank's style but these post are instructive regarding the (ir)rationals. This first one is about a debate Matt Slick had with Kelly of the (ir)rationals. My brief comment there:

Ok, listened to the whole thing. As someone else already noted - Mithra!? Talk about being misinformed. Her case for considering the Gospels as just stories is based on the copycat yadda ya that's been shown time and again to be much ado about nothing. Then she talks about "contradictions" in the Bible? Geez
It's good that he was so respectful to her. And while I can understand The Sap wanting to help, just due to chivalry, he should set up a talk himself and see how it goes, and without Little Rookie piping in.

Her performance, bad as it was and comparable to the flop of Cameron and Comfort, was actually exceeded by the incredibly inaccurate description of the debate that someone stated on the (ir)rationals forum as revealed by a Google search. As I stated in the comments to that post:

My Google search using "matt slick rational responders"
turned up this link
and text:
Matt Slick, was as "slick" as possible in this broadcast ducking and jiving, slinging insults, ...
but the link doesn't work
Having heard the debate, I have to conclude that whoever said that is nothing but a liar or so completely deluded they can't distinguish their imagination from reality.

But listen to the debate yourself and be sure to read the comments at that post, especially those by piotr. A small excerpt:

Brian has said that each member of RRS has a specialization. Kelly's claimed expertise is in philosophy and theology. I suppose that is true in the same way that history is Rook Hawkins' area of expertise. It appears that RRS subscribes to its own private and self-referential benchmarks of scholarship, intellect and erudition.

In this manner RRS is less an activist group and champion of rationality than a role-playing society. Within the make-believe world of RRS, Kelly has "Philosophy Knowledge 10" and Rook Hawkins has "History Knowledge 16". Each member has a character sheet, the RRS enterprise is the adventure and the campaigns are played out in the regulated environment of the RRS fora and show.

The second post here is about The Sap trying to justify his horrendous statement regarding his mom.

Again, take the time to watch his video, you may initially be impressed with their referencing a Psychology expert. That won't last long, once you see what piotr has to say about the matter. Make sure you read all of his comments. A small taste, after a very thorough take down.

I'm finding it hard to believe that Kelly, Brian or toddangst have any education beyond high school. Where on earth did toddangst get his psychology degrees from? How can a doctoral student in psychology not know the difference between CBT and REBT?

The Sap and Little Rookie may be good at unintentionally reminding one of two mentally addled heavy metal twits, but Historian? Ancient Documents Expert?

BWHAHAHAHA!!!

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity -- Apologetics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Stageleft, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger, 4 Time Father?, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, No Apology, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, On the Horizon, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, , The Florida Masochist, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Committing genocide > George Bush, if you mean well

At least that's what a former co-executive producer and writer of “Seinfeld" has to say. By way of HotAir we have this:

You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of “I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?”
How can anyone not see it? It’s not that their policies have been misguided or haven’t played out right. They. Don’t. Even. Mean. Well.

If this guy, Peter Mehlman, tries to play this off as a joke, I'm going to have to conclude he was either the worst writer on the show, or he's now so addled by BDS that he's lost the ability to discern humor from incredible stupidity.

That this was written for, and accepted by The Huffington Post, doesn't say much for their cranial activity either.

Be sure to read the entire post at HotAir, Allahpundit weighs in as well.

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics

Technorati tags: Huffington Post -- Bush -- George Bush -- Peter Mehlman -- Seinfeld -- BDS

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Monday, June 18, 2007

OTA Open Trackback 06.18.07

As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Add this Blogroll to your site

Filed under: OpenTrackback

^{Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words}

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Some Republicans love Shamnesty

Despite our heating up the phone lines when the incredibly foolish Shamnesty bill was announced and telling our Senators that we did not support the bill, the Senate, with the help of the President and some GOP Senators, is poised to vote for closure, the end of debate. News reports had some actually saying the number of phone calls against was decreasing and implying that support was therefore increasing. Excuse me? We called, we logged our rejection of this bill, and you just blow that off? It's unbelievable that one report stated that they had received 600 calls against the bill and only one for it and yet some are pinning their hopes on the claim that less calls are now being made.

President Bush has now thrown a fig leaf out there for those of us who demand border security before discussing compromise or amnesty for those already here. Essentially, he thinks throwing more money at border security is sufficient. Sorry, that's not what we're asking for. We want demonstrated success and performance of increased border security. Simply promising to throw more money or personnel at the matter is not enough. If border security really is a top concern, then why tie it to a bill that has so many loopholes and despite proponents objections, amounts to amnesty in practice? Thinking we would be so easily fooled, or bought off, is almost as insulting as being dismissed as mere racists by the administration.

If security really was the priority, my Senator, Richard Lugar (R) would not have voted against the Coleman amendment that, weak as it was, took a step in the right direction in ending sanctuary cities. As many have noted, increased border security has already been mandated by current law, and yet has not been achieved. The fence has only several miles built and improved tracking of aliens in this country has not been implemented, to name just a few items. Sorry, but more promises, additional legislation (filled with loopholes) will not suffice. Show us you mean business, rather than trying to tar us all as bigots.

The determination of the Senate and President Bush, to ignore the will of American citizens, with Republicans helping, is why I sent the following reply to an RNC email I received last week.

The GOP doesn't have my support while there's still a chance for that immigration bill disaster passing the Senate.

My Senator, Richard Lugar, who I've voted for consistently over the years, has permanently lost my vote because he's voted with Ted Kennedy if not 100% of the time, very close to it, with this illegal immigration fiasco of a bill. That he would vote against the amendment that sought to discourage sanctuary cities, shows that his priorities are anything but national security.

I will not vote for Lugar again. If any Republican presidential candidate wants my vote, they'll have to be against this bill and clearly for serious improvements in border security. This will need to be shown by actual results, rather than just the shuffling of paper and money.

And before proponents toss out the, "produce will be more expensive" line, I put national security and the rule of law ahead of paying lower prices for lettuce and tomatoes. So, for those Republicans, like Lugar, who love the Shamnesty bill, just keep up this foolishness, elections aren't so far away that we'll forget. Don't be surprised if you find that voters you used to have, will no longer care to vote for people who refused to listen to actual citizens of this country, while doing that which undermined our culture, laws and security.

---

Previous posts:

Illegal immigration - Tell Congress what you think
Illegal aliens - the current bill
Illegal aliens

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, Azamatterofact, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, OTB Sports, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: current-events -- Current Affairs -- News -- News and politics -- immigration -- immigration reform -- illiegal aliens -- Congress -- Bush

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Sunday, June 10, 2007

John W. Loftus replies. He thinks this helped?

It appears this previous post didn't sit well with Mr. Loftus. Let's take a look at the comment he left there.

The hypocricy never ends, does it? Would you please be as honest about your faults as I about mine? I didn't have to admit anything. There is no evidence I was deceptive, and I didn't have to blog about it.

Now, tell us about your faults. And deal with my arguments.

Make sure you read that previous post he was replying to and the links contained therein so you have the background before I continue. A note about some of those links, John W. Loftus deleted all of his evasion, pathetic rationalizations, comments and his replies to those comments at his blog as well as his original post that started all of this. His "apology" post now simply says, "Like I said, I'm moving on", the date has also been changed and blogs that linked to that post are gone as well. It's one thing to try and move on, an actual apology and repentance would do that, but trying to erase history, because it makes you look bad, in place of proper contrition, does not.

My first take on this is that it would appear he didn't even bother to read my post, as he really didn't address the points I made. I'll now reply fully with John's comments in bold and my comments in regular font.

---

The hypocricy never ends, does it?

I suppose my readers are wondering where this came from. You may have missed it but in John's admission that yes, he did create the blog that he tried to deceive his readers about, he also had this to say (emphasis mine, in red):

I am more revealing about myself than probably any other atheist on the web precisely because I have a healthy self-esteem, and as a former minister I know that everyone has personal problems. If anyone wants to point his finger at me, he is being a hypocrite. People can hide by not revealing anything about themselves, and even hide their true identity, but I know different. We are all human beings. We all have problems. (source deleted by John W. Loftus)

So, according to John W. Loftus, since no one is perfect no one can say he did something wrong, or else they're a hypocrite. Sorry, but I don't care how many Masters Degrees you claim to have, this definition of hypocrisy is just a convenient attempt at preempting justified criticism by way of cheap psychological manipulation. If I had said, it was wrong for you to create a sock puppet blog, when I was doing the same thing, then yes, I would be a hypocrite. That is not what happened, so just grow up.

Would you please be as honest about your faults as I about mine?

Honest? Regarding this matter, only after you were called out and yet you still quibble over it being deceptive sort of maybe but not lying and even so, that it was ok to do it and imperfect human beings aren't allowed to criticize anyway.

Also, I don't care for putting one's faults out there as some sort of game of one upmanship. For example - Oh yeah, I'll raise your dishonesty by my cheating on taxes for 10 years, try being more revealing than that! It also appears you use this look at me being open gambit as simply cover for your moral failures, as if it completely erases what you've done. Finally, it's not that I've ever said I'm perfect or that I've never had moral failings, so go bark up another tree.

I didn't have to admit anything.

True, you could have continued being deceptive and lying and screwing your credibility. I'm not sure you're really helping yourself much with this kind of reply though.

There is no evidence I was deceptive,

You have got to be kidding with that.

and I didn't have to blog about it.

Of course you did, you needed to play that, I'm revealing myself and on one is perfect so no one can criticize me game. Of course you've haven't really apologized yet, so all that's left is this justification, rationalization and blaming others and trying to preempt criticism with that silly definition of hypocrisy.

Now, tell us about your faults.

I don't put them out there in pity party, look at me! manipulation fashion as you do.

And deal with my arguments.

Did you actually read my post that you replied to? I noted that I had addressed and rejected your arguments before I even really knew who John W. Loftus was and that Doubting John on Tweb and he were one in the same, and I provided a link to that post.

I really hope you can get over yourself. This inability to just say, "Hey, I screwed up, I'm sorry", is not helping you and certainly doesn't lend itself well to someone claiming to be an honest skeptic.

---

As noted at the beginning of this post, John W. Loftus has attempted to erase history. You can see by the links to the Tweb thread at my previous post, what transpired, as well as additional dishonesty at this Tweb post, which documents the point JB made in comments to John W. Loftus here after John replied to my post.

That he still claims to be an honest skeptic after this, is sad enough, but as I've looked over this matter and into his interactions on Tweb before this, I see more of the same, beyond even lying. A collection of his past utterances can be found near the bottom of this page.

One point, among many, that's been made on Tweb is that he puts arguments out there that have been answered before, as if nothing has been said to refute them. The FAQ at the top of his blog contains some arguments from the various contributors as well as himself against Christianity. However, you can see at the previous link above, that much of what Loftus has argued in his book has been replied to quite well. Also, for someone who has claimed to have been preparing to be an apologist for the faith, yet they say they never understood the faith, is "rather paradoxical" as JB noted here.

I'm inclined to agree with you that it's rather paradoxical for someone to devote themselves so fully to defending a position that they concede they don't understand. For that matter, if he really lacked an understanding of Christianity (which seems painfully obvious from many of his objections), why was he so certain in that past that "Christianity was true and could withstand all attacks"?
Maybe not quite a contradiction, but it could be considered at least a very pronounced mental tension on his part. Or, one of the two statements could be mere bravado put in there to give the impression desired in the context, without necessarily corresponding to the reality of how he typically thought after obtaining those degrees.

Perhaps he will reply to this, or maybe just continue his version of moving on, though it would be better that he sincerely apologize and admit to wrong doing, rather than his current actions. When even some who are not Christians are saying he's lost credibility with them (here and here), you would think he would modify his behavior. Instead, he's tried to erase history on his blog and now has the complete blindness to irony, that he's posted about atheistic ethics. Such posts, in the context of this drawn out experience, would overall amount to well-crafted satire, were it not for the unfortunate and quite sad fact of the matter that the man is actually quite serious.

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity -- Apologetics

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, The Magical Rose Garden, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, , The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: John Loftus -- Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains -- JP Holding -- Tekton -- Christianity -- apologetics

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Monday, June 04, 2007

OTA Open Trackback 06.04.07

As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagirizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post url. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Add this Blogroll to your site

Filed under: OpenTrackback

^{Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words}

Trackback URI

View blog reactions

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Would the following fit on a bumper sticker?

And so what if it did? That wouldn't change the fact that we are at war with people who want to commit acts of terror against this country and others around the world.

TERROR PLOT THWARTED AT KENNEDY, that's the headline at the Drudge Report. The news item is currently short on details but here's what's stated thus far.

4 Charged In Plot To Blow Up Jet Fuel At JFK
NEW YORK -- According to NewsChannel4's Jonathan Dienst, sources said federal investigators have made arrests in an alleged terror plot on Kennedy Airport.
Four people have been charged. One is in custody in New York. Three suspects are thought to be overseas.
Sources said one suspect is thought to be a former parliament or
government official in Guyana.
potential massive explosion.
Sources said counter-terrorism officials have been following the plot for months.
Law enforcement officials said the plot may involve a former airport worker.
One law enforcement official said: "[There was] credible intent to commit violence but it was not operational."
A press conference is scheduled for 1 p.m. this afternoon.
Stay with WNBC.com for the latest on this developing story.

It's a good thing the War on Terror is just a bumper sticker thingee per John Edwards. I guess we should pull out of Kennedy Airport now, at least by his reckoning.

---

Filed under: Terrorism -- News

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, 4 Time Dad?, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Nuke's news and views, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.