Well kids I decided to write more on the "Infidelis Maximus" blog and his entry on my website. Yes,
I kinda said I wasn't going to debate him anymore because he is a fool, but anyways I will be writing more on this for
the sake of giving him a good thrashing. It is also a good way of getting more words out without having anyone who reads this
stuff to mercissely scroll down an endless page. As far as I am aware of, Infidelis is unaware of my original response to
his irrelevant arguments or he has not made it neccessarily evident to where he might have another nonsensical blog entry
lying around. With that said, we will now show that Infidelis is an unmistakable idiot (not that we haven't already). I will
however, be obliged to take the chance if he does in fact, read what I have rebutted and will add his second response onto
this page (as I'm allowed too in this instance). For now, we will return to his wonderful blog by ripping it to pieces.
Here's what Infidelis says about himself and the purpose of his blogging:
I write this blog as a hobby and to try my hand at different types of writing.
I spent many years lost in Christianity, and I want to help as many as possible avoid making the mistakes I made. I also believe
the world is a better place when people live reason-based lives. I don’t have an ax to grind, but I am sickened by the
corrosive effect of religion on the world, particularly the hate inspired by fundamentalist belief systems.
Those of you that may have read the original paper to Infidelis
would know that I quote him where he associates Christian belief with being "clinically insane." Now here's a question for
Infidelis regarding that remark: he says that he "spent many years lost in Christianity" was he not clinically insane in the
years he spent being a Christian believer? Surely if he is to point out that I'm clinically insane based on the false assumption
that I am a Christian, he must have been, at some point, clinically insane himself. You can understand fully why him and Acharya
are friends, they have both played their hand at cards by calling their opponent at times insane or mentally deranged while
not paying attention to their own irony. So did Infidelis get medical help and therapy on his escape from the clutches
of religion? He does not tell us anywhere in the descriptions of himself regarding his mentality, but he does in fact say
he was a former Christian and that I am "clinically insane" based on foolish arguments.
Infidelis' sense of humor reaks of a horrible stench:
Depending on what day you ask me, I might describe myself as an agnostic or an
atheist or both, but I definitely do not believe in any sort of supreme being (unless it's a sandwich or a pizza).
Now, obviously the point being made isn't hard to get. Actually
it's the punchline of the joke that is really stupid. If I wanted to get nitpicky with logic about it, we'd have to wonder
why Infidelis would believe in food entities if by his own atheistic definition, beliefs rely on faith.
Infidelis gets really whiny and pathetic here:
After sitting on the sidelines for years watching religious zealots ruin the
world I live in, I finally decided to do something about it. I conceal my identity here because so many religious people are
nuts.
Whatever religious nuts have to do with his identity we may never
find out. Above all, isn't his internet identity of his own responsibility? People will only find
out about your identity if you are careless and stupid or if you willingly give it away. Whatever this has to do with
"religious people" is rather vague.
Continuing from the comments left by our pal JimboJSR (highlighted
in red), Infidelis has this more to say about me:
"Translation - He thinks the Christ Myth is a daft idea,
therefore he must be a brainwashed Christian."
No, I didn’t say that. I said that’s how he reads.
It really doesn’t matter whether he’s brainwashed or not. His use of her likeness without her permission told
me all I needed to know about him.
Yet in Infidelis' eyes I am brainwashed for
being a "conservative Christian out to defend the historicity of Jesus at all costs". Infidelis thinks he has psychic powers
and that he can read me like a book. Yes, oh wonderous psychic, tell us of how my writings against Acharya reveal enough neccessary
information for you to come to conclusions such that I am a Christian.
"Isn't it just possible that he's telling the truth and that
he ISN'T a Christian, and that he instead rejects the Christ Myth because he doesn't think the evidence supports it?"
"Sure it is. It is also irrelevant. That doesn’t give
him the right to attack her or any other mythicist personally or to use unethical tactics to rile them."
He's absolutely right on one thing: it is irrelevant. Yet this
was the highlight of Infidelis' argument based on my forum posts. He wanted to show to his readers
that I am a Christian and to reveal the behaviors of Christians that in such a manner, must be despised and rejected by anyone
who has a clear-thinking mind. It is also irrelevant to discuss the context of the Jonah story and etc, but Infidelis used
those irrelevant strawmen to convince you that I was a "clinically insane" Christian.
"I suppose if you were that interested, you could always
just ask the guy; but trying to make out that TBT is an inerrantist Christian smells of consipracy theory to me, seeing as
how he expressly denies that he's a Christian, and that he's even written about some of his reasons for doubting."
"This whole line of reasoning is irrelevant, so, no, I won't be asking him. Remember: I originally just asked
why they disliked her so much. People who argue about whether King Arthur existed don’t typically hate each other because
they disagree. The hatefulness in their rhetoric makes it hard to take them seriously. They are not scholars. They are apologists."
HATE? How does he know that I hate Acharya?
Sure, I think she's a whacky rash person, but to say that I HATE that person is quite an accusation. I don't
know her personally, so me hating her is out of the question. And what makes him the judge to know if I hate a debate opponent?
I would go as far as to call them whacky and stupid, but hating them is on an entirely different level. This is just Infidelis
trying to demonize Christians, as you can see, he refers to me as an "apologist." Also, how can I be an apologist if my beliefs
are along the lines of irrelevant reasoning? I can only be an apologist if I am a Christian, but by saying it's irrelevant
and that I am for a fact not a Christian, I am not an apologist. Infidelis is secretly trying to beat around the bush because
he doesn't have any real answers and has only one specific goal in mind.
"I'd say it's much
more likely that you're looking for an excuse to dismiss him as a religious idiot who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously."
"No,
remember: I haven’t gotten into his claims about the historicity of Jesus, nor have I dismissed them. This has been
about his personal attacks on Acharya because I interviewed her. I'm still waiting for a good reason from them for all the
venom they're spewing toward her."
Hmm....I
think Infidelis here is lying to cover his hide, or possesses the memory of a fish to which he cannot recall his own words.
He wrote earlier: "I believe TBT to be a Christian of some sort.
Whether he’s a right-winger or an evangelical really doesn’t concern me. Either way, he is unable to discuss the
historicity of Jesus dispassionately, and I believe this is fueling his hatred toward Acharya." He
says right there that I am unable to discuss the historicity of Jesus, by saying that I am unable, he is dismissing
what I am saying. And so much for the irrelevance of my beliefs, as he tries to imply that "he's a Christian, Acharya
says Jesus didn't exist, and therefore, as required by his religious faith, he personally attacks Acharya out of hatred."
His initial argument was trying to make me look like I responded out of a non-existant belief as far as I'm concerned,
trying to make this look as though someone else brought it up and Infidelis was just simply responding to Jimbo's remark.
Sorry, but no.
He
has this to say regarding the much-hated James Patrick Holding:
"Actually, Holding is not even Holding.
He’s Robert Turkel, former prison librarian, lifetime pompous ass, and all around douche bag."
Very funny for someone
who states that I make myself out to spew hatred on his beloved dove Acharya S. And Acharya S is not Acharya S, either.
Her real name is Dorothy Murdock, college undergrad, schizophrenic, whacky and irrational bitch. There, does that sound
better? As a side note, Holding wanted me to add to the fact that he has now legally changed his name to James Patrick
Holding to end this consistent argument over his pseudonym. He explains everything in this link of his: http://www.tektonics.org/jphforever.html
"And he is legendary on the net for his ignorant, vituperative attacks on people who hold viewpoints that differ
from his. I don’t care if he’s got a handful of unbeliever friends stupid enough to put up with him. As a rule,
he’s a rude, obnoxious pig, and he’s one ignorant sonofabitch. And like the pig that he is, he quickly spoils
any pen he walks into."
However Holding does not hesitate to criticize fellow Christians. And he probably
doesn't care to acknolwedge there are a handful of believers that Holding criticizes.
"The original point was (remember?) that people on a site owned and run by Christians were not
being very Christ-like. Using her likeness in order to deride her, or looking the other way while someone else does, is not
consistent with the teachings of Christ."
This is coming from a person who runs an atheist blog to rant about religion and to somehow help in the ridding
of it. This is coming from a person who is in fact an apostate and someone who loves to defend Acharya S, who says that the
man did not even exist. Yet he expects Christians to be in compliance with the teachings of Christ, all the while telling them
of their false belief in a myth.
I'm sorry if this has been your experience - I'll even admit that I've met my share of idiotic,
hypocritical Christians in my time. I've also met equally idiotic, hypocritical atheists and agnostics - but I don't assume
that they are the rule, nor do I assume that because someone is not a Christian that they don't deserve to be taken seriously.
"I never said someone doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously because they call themselves
a Christian. Robert Price calls himself a Christian, and I certainly take him seriously."
Robert Price says he's a former Christian, you moron. And Robert Price says Jesus never existed
just like your Acharya S. Infidelis must think that his audience is a stupid one, or he truly honestly believes that Robert
Price is a Christian when he asserts that Jesus was mere myth. On what basis does a person have for believing in something
they claim is imaginary? Infidelis claims to be an atheist, he must believe in God!
"There are so many things wrong with your “equally idiotic, hypocritical
atheists and agnostics” comment that I don’t even know where to start. First, atheists don’t typically tell
other people how to live. They don’t bilk little old ladies out of their savings and drive Rolls Royces. They don’t
pretend to heal people to get at their bank accounts. They don’t condemn people for personal choices that harm no one.
They don't shoot people outside abortion clinics. And, as a rule, atheists are more educated and more open-minded than evangelical
Christians by a couple orders of magnitude."
IS HE SERIOUS? You see folks, Infidelis comes out and rightly
says it all: he puts steorotypes and bad apples all into one basket in order to falsify a belief system he claims he once
committed himself too. Right, there certaintly aren't people out there writing books titled "The God Delusion". You don't
have atheists (like Infidelis) in support for intolerance of beliefs in which case people can't have the
freedom of religion. Why doesn't Infidelis go ahead and tell us, precisely how an atheist is "open-minded"?
He should also reveal to his audience how the matter of education deals with personal belief. Infidelis just wants to project
his innocence and justify his existence by harping on the bad apples of religion. At the same time, he also encourages
that you follow the guidelines of 'Christian Rationalism' and that Christians should follow the teachings of Christ.
Right Infidelis. Therefore he makes it out that if you believe what he believes, you will become a much more intelligent and
open-minded person than if you were a religious person, almost in a magical or automatic sense. Talk about delusion!
"I'll put it like this--if she possessed the same knowledge she currently has on the subject,
but professed to be a believer in spite of it, she'd be one popular person with them."
Um no, I don't think so, and that's because SHE IS WRONG. Already we have scholars
who claim to be 'Christians' but might even suggest that Jesus did not rise from the dead (a fundamental of Christian belief!).
He might just ask "oh yeah, really, who? I am ever so interested in hearing what's next." Well Infidelis, if you are
reading this, for starters, we can count your fallacious claim that "Robert Price is a Christian" for one, and secondly there
are such names as Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. I can gurantee you that Christian scholars have
criticized Crossan's work and have even attempted to refute it. The same would be true if Acharya was a "believer."
"You have attempted to turn this discussion into a hearing on my attitude toward Christians in
general and TBT in particular. The original issue still stands: Acharya is being attacked and maligned personally in ways
that are unethical, uncalled-for, and unhelpful in getting at the truth of the historicity of Jesus. I am still waiting for
an explanation from the fine folk at TheologyWeb as to why this is necessary."
However there is hardily any discussion about Acharya, and my website is not entirely devouted to hers (it's a based-off-of
parody, but I do intend to use it for more uses). Infidelis makes it seem that TheologyWeb.com makes Acharya a central focus,
and he also misses the fact that the thread he intruded on was about John Loftus, not Acharya S. The truth of the historicity
of Jesus in this case is that Acharya S is fallacious. Which makes his argument that "other people have said the same things
before!" another flawed strawman. He ponders on why religion is still here and it should at least also make him
ponder why society has just not accepted this evident "truth" that Acharya speaks of.
That's it kiddies, our last portion of thrashing on the subject dealing with Infidelis Maximus. Chances are he will never
take the time to read what I've written as evidenced in: "Like I’ve said, I won’t be going
back to their site." So if he doesn't read it, big deal! At least it will be lying here in case he
decides too in the future. I'll be willing to place my bets on behalf of Infidelis Maximus in which there can only be two
options: one being that he writes with sleep-deprived thought processing, and the second of course is just that he is plain
dumb. I will of course be giving him the benefit of the doubt, and place most of my bet on that he is a sleep-deprived individual,
and needs to get some serious rest.
