My debate, if it can be called that, with the vice president of CARM.org

So a little while ago I joined the forums at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) in the hopes of being able to actually have some productive discussions with Christians rather than the typical troll fests I often have on Sodahead. Ironically enough, there are far more trolls on CARM than there are on Sodahead, but I digress. After a few weeks of extremely bad arguments from the Christians on the forum, I eventually noticed that the vice president of CARM, Diane Sellner, had taken notice of me and apparently decided it would be fun to pick a fight with the newbie atheist on the forum. I confess, when I first saw who it was who replied (actually, butted in is the more accurate description), I was somewhat wary and at the same time excited because I thought that I would finally be getting an actual challenge for once. Oh how wrong I was. In fact, if I didn't know who she was, I honestly would have thought she was a troll. Her arguments and logic, not to mention her childish conduct, are just so deplorably bad that I almost felt cheated. Check it out.

And after all this, in an incredible stroke of irony, I end up getting temporarily banned from the forum because according to Diane, I was being overly insulting to HER and somehow violating their right to freedom of speech... I think that would definitely qualify as a complete non sequitur. Meanwhile she is accusing me of condoning the slaughter of newborns, which I had in fact been arguing against throughout the entire 'debate', and being about as condescending towards me as it is possible to get. I am not in the least bit surprised that that hypocritical clown Matt Slick would appoint someone like this as his second in command; clearly birds of a feather flock together.

Views: 469

Tags: CARM.org, Debate, Diane, Fanghur, Sellner, president, vice

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by AgeOfAtheists14 on June 16, 2013 at 8:36am

popes gay. whole thing is.. decoy crap. riots in brazil? dominoes

Comment by Fanghur1123 on June 16, 2013 at 5:55am

From what I've seen of her on the forum, that's basically the norm for her. She assumes she's right and refuses to admit when she's wrong or makes no sense. Like I said, she fits with Matt slick to a tee.

Comment by Michael Black on June 16, 2013 at 12:40am

Thanks for posting your "conversation".  It was a good reminder of why I can't stomach arguing with staunch theists.  I was wandering if she might have been reading some other post while responding to your post.  Because she was not responding coherently to what you were writing.

Comment by Fanghur1123 on June 15, 2013 at 9:21pm

Don't worry, I know exactly what you meant. And incidentally, Matt Slick made the idiotic remark in one of his debates that he would do exactly that if god ordered him to. Frankly, I'd love to take him on in a debate and do the same to him as I did to his incompetent underling. lol.

Comment by Fanghur1123 on June 15, 2013 at 8:58pm

She cherrypicks just like all Christians do. And I personally don't think that I was at all ad hominem during our discussion, and I only got indignant when she starting lobbing ad hominems at me. Other than that, I was just honest, and apparently she doesn't like honesty...

Comment by Fanghur1123 on June 15, 2013 at 8:36pm

She should marry her boss, they would fit perfectly with each other; they are both complete hypocrites. lol.

Comment by Loren Miller on June 15, 2013 at 8:23pm

It's a bit like William Lane Craig, Fanghur.  How many times has he brought the VERY SAME ARGUMENTS to how many different debates?  And how many times have those arguments fallen flat on their faces when confronted with fact and logic?

WLC is married to those arguments like your adversary is married to her beliefs.  There's no separating one from the other.  To argue honestly would be to eventually have to acknowledge that their arguments have no merit, which would therefore mean that their faith has no merit, either, a position they cannot conceive or accept.  I've quoted this multiple times, and I've yet to wear the statement out:

It is impossible to debate a person who will not handicap himself with a knowledge of the facts.
-- Anon.

Comment by Fanghur1123 on June 15, 2013 at 8:16pm
Indeed. It's obscene, really. There were so many blatantly obvious logical fallacies in what she said that I am truly baffled at how she could fail to see them, even when I pointed them out explicitly...
Comment by Loren Miller on June 15, 2013 at 8:12pm

I glance at your interchange and I'm reminded of why I don't go to such fora and indulge in "discussions" of that nature any more.  They don't WANT to consider our position.  We HAVE considered theirs, found it loaded with more holes than a cheese that's been Swissed, and we've rejected it.  They mostly CAN'T reject it because they're MARRIED to it; they so identify with their belief that it is an integral part of themselves.  They don't want to question it either because they don't dare or they can't conceive of the concept of questioning something so intimate in their lives.

That you were banned tells me that they can't stand the heat in their own kitchen!  Freedom of speech?  Inconvenient ... when their speech makes no sense and yours does.  [tsk - tsk - tsk]

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service