Demolishing Triablogue, part 1: Hays and Engwer prefer dishonest debate tactics

I will update this post as further information is made known to me.

Since Jason Engwer and/or Steve Hays saw fit to ban me from their blog, I will be responding to them here at my own blog.

And while Triablogue, for whatever reason, limits the amount of text that can be posted in one post, I have encountered no such limit here at blogger.com, therefore, Engwer/Hays will be forced to face each and every reason skeptics deny the virgin birth.  My ability to respond through my own blog takes away an excuse they enjoyed for years:  manufacturing some dogshit excuse to ban a skeptic, when in fact the real reason for the ban was their inability to answer comprehensive pointed argument.


First, Engwer's idea of "debate" is suspicious;  despite the 4,000 some odd word limit at Triablogue, his second and other responses to me include links to other arguments he made on related issues.  In other words, Engwer was expecting me to "answer" several of his independent posted arguments within a single response post when he knew the word limit would make substantive comprehensive reply to each of his points/arguments impossible.

Second, after Engwer or whoever banned me, deleted my posts, but left up his own replies to me.  So now, the reader can tell that Hays/Engwer were replying to somebody, but the somebody and his comments only appear as "Comment has been blocked."   The only exception are the comments of mine that Engwer or Hays chose to repeat within their own replies.  Yes, folks, this is what Hays and Engwer consider honest and comprehensive argument/reply.  No wonder bible critics start shitting their pants and crying uncontrollably when Hays/Engwer come around tooting their horn.  There's no appropriate way to act when God's presence is made known, except to tremble in fear at the foot of the mountain...and continually remind skeptics that they never answered your argument.

Third, Engwer made it clear at Amazon.com why he banned me, and it wasn't because of rule violations, but because of some ambiguous fortune cookie-styled reason.  I had recently read  Born of a Virgin?: Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology, by Andrew Lincoln, and went to Amazon.com to comment and noticed Engwer had already commented on it.  I provide my comment followed by Engwers so the reader can get the full context:

skepticdude says,         Posted on Jan 19, 2017, 6:00:20 PM PST : For those who don't already know, Jason Engwer engages in the following bits of closed-mindedness: He will delete your posts at his blog if he doesn't like them (probably because he is a Calvinist, and as a presuppositionalist, cares less about arguing on the merits and more about waiting until God has made somebody see the light), he will expect you to answer all of his points within a 4,000 some-odd word limit, he will demand you obey that limit even if his reply gave you links to entirely separate arguments which themselves require much text to respond to, and he will then unfairly complain that "you have ignored most of my points", as if the critic was afraid of some argument and was running away from it, when in fact it is nothing but the word limit that helps Engwer build this happy bubble around himself.  I've challenged him numerous times to a no-word limit written debate, so that he can be confronted with scholarly rebuttal to every single one of his points thus exploding his delusion that his critics cannot "refute" him, and he runs for cover every time. Jason cannot be considered uneducated, but the way he intentionally disables his critics from saying all that needs to be said to support a rebuttal point, clearly establishes his fear that his smoke and mirrors won't last long if he is seriously "grilled" in circumstances where he cannot run away from a question or a point. He does NOT think the 4,000 some odd word limit is adequate, for if he did, that would be preposterous. He instead hides behind the 4,000 word limit so that he doesn't allow himself or the rest of the world to see how his supporting points can be refuted in a comprehensive way.  Jason has been challenged by numerous critics, and he has banned plenty of them for reasons having nothing to do with violating his rules. For all these reasons, Engwer is anything but a threat to those who laugh at bible inerrancy and theism. His actions are less consistent with somebody interested in hearing all that has to be said, and more consistent with one interested primarily in preaching to those who are predisposed to accept his superficial arguments as gospel.

 In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2017, 4:25:13 PM PST Jason Engwer says: skepticdude, It would help your credibility if you'd stop calling yourself "skepticdude" and whatever other screen names you've been using, all the while accusing me of "hiding".

  It would also help your credibility if you didn't get so many facts wrong. I'm not a Calvinist, I'm not a presuppositionalist, I haven't limited anybody to four thousand words, and only an extremely tiny fraction of the people who have ever posted at Triablogue have been banned. Besides, I'm not the only person who has the ability to ban people there, so it's erroneous to equate bans from that blog with decisions made by me. I've often carried on lengthy discussions with skeptics, at Triablogue and elsewhere, including some that have lasted far beyond four thousand words, sometimes for years, and with individuals more knowledgeable and discerning than you are. 

 You should consider the possibility that people don't want to debate you because of problems with you, not with them.

First, I used several screen names in the past to try and mitigate the effects of James Patrick Holding having libeled me ever since 2008.  A truly objective person would ask why I used several screen names, instead of just blindly assuming I have no good reason.  And using several different screen names has nothing to do with credibility...you aren't going to find my pagan copycat thesis just a tad more convincing if I only post on the internet with one consistent name.

Second, the reason I assumed Engwer was a Calvinist was because he made comments in support of Calvinism years ago when I debated him at another site, and I was currently giving the benefit of the doubt to the main players at Triablogue (i.e., because they want the world to view them as the scholarly elite of Christian apologetics, they probably agree on what the bible teaches).  Sorry, my bad.  I guess several people having a scholarly level knowledge of the bible, and all of them being Christians to boot, does absolutely nothing to ensure they agree on what the bible teaches, begging the question of why any Christian should bother, beyond personal curiosity, to obtain a scholarly level knowledge of the bible.  It certainly isn't going to enable them to resolve denomination divisions in the body).  The doctrinal disagreements that splinter Triablogue therefore rationally warrant the atheist to dismiss the bible as hopelessly confused, and to say that if even spiritually alive Christian scholars cannot agree on what the bible teaches, it can only be worse for spiritually dead people to bother with.  Most average atheists have lives outside of internet debates about religion.  Whatever free time between work, school, family they might have, could be argued to be woefully inadequete for them to gain sufficient education in bible matters to justify their entering the fray, and as such, there's a perfectly good reason to just laugh off Christianity sort of the way most average people laugh off that other bit of sophistry called quantum mechanics.

And nobody, except perhaps deluded fundamentalists, would say the evidence for Christianity is so good that atheists are morally obligated to give up whatever they are doing in life and put themselves through a formal education  in the bible before they will be justified to render an opinion about that religion.  I am single with no family, and I like intellectual things and I think fundamentalist Christianity does more harm than good, and I have the time to directly combat the fundies.  That's why I pursue fundamentalists despite the above argument rationally warranting other atheists (who have families and other obligations) to dismiss Christianity without bothering with the details.

Third, Engwer was either lying when he said he doesn't limit anybody to 4000 words, or he was ignorant of the word-limit imposed by Triablogue. 

Fourth, Engwer dishonestly refuses to actually state whether he or somebody else banned me from Triablogue.  But who exactly did the banning, hardly matters.  Engwer probably wasn't exactly crying his eyes out over the fact that the way I was banned got rid of my comments while leaving up their replies to me.

Fifth, Engwer obliquely suggests that it is problems with me, not my arguments, that dissuade people from debating me.  But that makes no sense:  the truth or falsity in my criticisms of their arguments, does not rest on anything about my personal traits or life or credibility.  Engwer is not a Catholic, he isn't going to believe A is true about the bible should he think me credible.   Engwer was too chickenshit to come right out and say that my two libel lawsuits against James Patrick Holding scared the fuck out of him, and since he cannot control himself from libeling me, and since he cannot plainly admit the unvarnished truth, he has chosen to simply make it impossible, as far as he is able, for me to communicate with him.

Stay tuned for further updates.