What is wrong with these fundie types that they think the way to challenge someone to debate is to insult them? When will they learn that all this huffing and bluffing and puffing up can’t work on someone like me? And I mean, not on any level. This guy thinks I’ll respond to him because he’ll call me a coward if I don’t. Really? Who does he take me for? Marty McFly?
He says I’m afraid of him. I’ve never even seen his face before this evening. I have heard of him though. All I heard was that he’s just another rude shit-talker who can’t comport himself. What would be the point then? I feel no obligation to argue with someone who just wants to spit stupidity at me, but can’t understand anything I try to explain back. I have a goal in these discussions, and that is to make a point. I want a meeting of the minds, but guys like this just wants to butt heads.
So a few years ago, I posted my rule with regard to debate challenges: I won’t debate anyone who nominates himself. If you have a following, and they say that you represent them, that’s different, because beating you would mean defeating the idea you defend in the minds of those who look up to you. Even if I can’t convince you, maybe I can convince them. Either way, it’s a package deal and I think there would be some value in that. Consequently, I’ve never had a formal debate yet. So far everyone I’ve ever argued this with by appointment was at the request of 3rd parties on someone’s radio show.
I do sometimes do written debates and archive them for posterity. I think there’s value in those discussions too. This also shows how wrong G’man is right out the gate. He accuses me of being afraid of, and hiding from, or otherwise avoiding TrueEmpiricism. But I’ve already walked on TrueEmpiricism as a matter of public record. How could I be afraid of him?. There’s no possible threat there.
And that’s the biggest point: If your position is a matter of make-believe, then you’ll act like a show of confidence trumps all else, when it really doesn’t mean squat, and such a person could still be intimidated by these types of challenges too. I can’t. Why? Because if accuracy and accountability are all that matter, then people like G’man could never pose any intellectual threat. He still couldn’t even if he was right! I do not hold my beliefs on faith like he does. So I’m not determined to defend that faith even if it’s wrong. That’s THEIR way, not mine. Why would I want to believe something that required faith, and wasn’t evidently true? If some believer was actually right, I would want to find that out; I want to be right too! So if he could actually show that he was right, I would still win, because I would have learned something. I would thank him for correcting me, and I could follow the new path. But after decades of arguing with these people, and never meeting one who even understands his own position, let alone mine, then I know what to expect. Nothing -again. Just loud empty talk. If you had a point to make, G’man, you’d have made it already.