I wondered whether or not to post this. Prior conversations with the author of Theology Archaeology, Silence of Mind and Tom have been fruitless. Is there any point in perpetuating them? On the other hand, for the sake of the record, and for completeness, I believe it prudent to lay out my version of recent events.
Recently, Citizen Tom decided to address the discussions between myself, him and Silence of Mind, on whether or not I edit comments.
Let’s start with this. Tom’s text is displayed in purple (by the way, if anyone has difficulty reading the text, please me know. It looks alright to me, but I can’t speak on behalf of every reader).
Why is Ben Berwick mad at me?
When Silence of Mind warned me that Berwick had edited his comments, I believed Silence of Mind.
When Berwick called theologyarchaeology a liar, I asked for proof. When Berwick offered up a couple of posts, I asked for a specific instance. I saw difference of opinion with theologyarchaeology and perhaps some confusion, but no lies.
I’m not mad at Tom, I’m disappointed in the hypocrisy, and the manner in which Tom allowed Silence of Mind to distract him. Tom was quite happy, without evidence, to judge me, despite his claims to the contrary. He accepted Silence of Mind’s baseless and unproven allegation, and did not address how he himself had left several comments on Meerkat Musings, without any editing being made by me, of any kind. Indeed, I raised that last point more than once, and it went unanswered.
When Silence of Mind dragged into the discussion my ‘debates’ with the author of Theology Archaeology, it was clearly an effort to distract from his own dishonesty. Tom was effectively hook-winked by this, and seized upon this distraction, repeatedly pressing me for examples of David’s deceit. When examples were provided, Tom rejected them, and it would seem that is on the basis of confusion, and differences of opinion.
Since Tom is quite happy to demand I prove my claims, whilst giving Silence of Mind a free pass… well, as I have said before, that is a double-standard. Since he is quite happy to play host to Silence of Mind’s libellous/slanderous remarks, I am left with little choice but to defend myself. I wonder if Tom will request that Silence of Mind verify his claims, and I wonder if Tom will factor in his own experiences on Meerkat Musings?
On several occasions, David has misrepresented evidence, which is a form of dishonesty. In discussions on abortion rates, he has repeatedly omitted links to evidence showing that abortion decrease when abortion is legal. His post here does not contain the links and quotes from those links, a curious omission, and a deliberate one. In discussions on the responsibilities of businesses to treat customers equally, he would wilfully and deliberately misconstrue my arguments. When it came to discussions of the covid vaccine, David led a merry dance on how ‘many’ people were sick from the vaccine, but did not attempt to quantify what ‘many’ meant, and avoided addressing the facts when they were presented to him.
David frequently accuses me of ‘distorting’ what he says, but curiously enough, never backs up that claim with evidence. Sounds just like Silence of Mind, but then, birds of a feather…
From a legal standpoint, it is often difficult to prove wrongdoing. So, we generally don’t take someone to court without good reason and evidence. Since Silence of Mind had been blogging friends for years, I took his accusation against Berwick seriously. However, I allowed Berwick to defend himself. Silence of Mind had not offered any clear evidence, and Berwick had a right to ask for it. Silence of Mind came back with an ambiguous response. Unfortunately, instead of pointing to the weakness of Silence of Mind‘s evidence, Berwick either panicked or lost his temper. He accused theologyarchaeology of lying.
I repeatedly pointed out that Silence of Mind provided no evidence to support his claims. Tom ignored this. He did not seem to care that Silence of Mind was making spurious, misleading, baseless claims, using Tom’s site to play host to lies. Nor did he object to the smokescreen Silence of Mind threw up to distract from his dishonesty.
Another issue within all of this is that Silence of Mind does not understand the difference between blocking someone and editing comments. Nor does he understand what censorship is:
TA, Here is a comment from Ben Berwick, March 18, 2023, False Accusations P3; he is addressing a critic named David:
“I thought I’d approve this comment, because it is wonderfully ironic. I wonder if ‘David’ appreciates that irony. He who abandoned his responsibilities should not lecture others on being a man.”
So there we have Ben demonstrating that he censors comments he doesn’t like. Censoring is a form of lying and edits comments out of existence.
I stand by my own eye witness of Ben actually changing words (editing) in some of my comments. Atheists will do anything to rig arguments so that they win because they do not have the good character or intellectual capacity to grapple with objective truth.
Censorship would entail silencing people who I don’t agree with. If that were the case, neither Silence of Mind or Tom would never have been able to post comments on my site at all, and wouldn’t be able to post anything to their sites either. Censorship would involve stripping them of a voice via as many avenues as possible, which is obviously a power I lack, and not one I would exercise anyway. Note that the author of Theology Archaeology does not allow comments at all, and in the past, has openly edited comments. You can see what he omitted here.
I don’t need to edit Silence of Mind’s comments. His powers of deduction and reason are sorely lacking. On the other hand, he has deleted comments from his own blog (follow the comment train, and you’ll Silence of Mind responds to me several times, but my comments aren’t there), which goes to show how duplicitous he is.
I have every right to block people who are unreasonable, irrational, rude and insulting. Dishonesty is, in my view, a form of being unreasonable. It is disrespectful to the reader, and to me. My tolerance for lies about me is low. Silence of Mind, if you happen to read this, and you still want to have your ban reversed, that will only happen with a complete, unreserved apology for your deception. Should you wish to archive any post you comment on, I’m sure you can handle using the Wayback Machine, or you can save a copy of my post (then there’s the old-fashioned technique of taking a photo of the screen). I have no problem with you doing any or all of that. If I am indeed editing comments, it will soon become clear, and I won’t have a leg to stand on. I wonder if you will accept those terms, or if you will weasel away, in your current, cowardly fashion?
I aim for this to be my final post on this subject. I am tired of dealing with the dishonesty, and of having to defend myself from misleading allegations. Dealing with characters like the author of Theology Archaeology and Silence of Mind is a poisonous exercise, not to mention a futile one. I do not like the side of me that they bring out. Neither character is prepared to be reasonable, and I cannot continue to let them infect my soul with their behaviour.
2
0
20
“Debates” on WP quickly devolve into pi$$ing contests where the parties involved would rather put on rain coats than just stop pi$$ing on each other. And long “response posts” is just pi$$ing on others to justify why you’re “right” and the other person is “wrong”. I say just stop the madness when you see you aren’t going to change the other person’s mind and when you start seeing your own ego getting too much engaged. Better part of wisdom sometimes is just letting the other person be wrong (or just have a different position/opinion) if they want to persist. Just my take. -barabbas
I dare say you are right Barabbas, hence why I don’t plan on engaging SoM, Theology Archaeology or Citizen Tom anymore. As much as anything, it’s not good for my health!
wise as always ben
I don’t know about always, but thanks!
Here’s a question for you Ben. Must a person of faith necessarily “defend” their Faith or support it with “evidence” to a non believer’s satisfaction to be able to “share” or communicate their faith?
Good question. I don’t think a person of faith has to defend their beliefs per se, but if they were to claim something like ‘the earth is 10,000 years old’, I’d expect more than a reference to a religious text to back up that claim.
People can absolutely share their faith, but they need to operate with the understanding that not everyone is going to want to hear them, and understand there is a right time and right place. I once had a random stranger start to ask me all sorts of questions (including one about my sex life!) in the middle of town, which was crossing the line. Approaching random people in the street to talk about religion is a good way to discourage interest in religion.
I think anyone can share their faith, within reason, without offering evidence, but if the lack of evidence then gets challenged… well, as I tend to say, the person making the claim needs to back it up. I hope that’s answered your question.
Good answer and I respect that. I think when dealing with what the bible says, a good deal of benefit might be achieved by reading it and the individual sections or books as they were originally written for the people and purposes that they were intended to be read. With a wink… I don’t think its just flat earthers or Young Earth creationists who are guilty of “fundamentalist” reading and interpretation of the bible. A lot of non believers and internet “counter apologists” can be just as trapped in that cycle. Agree?
Oh I definitely agree. Detractors of anything will take the worst elements of said thing, and wield it to colour the rest of the thing in a poor light. I dare say, on the topic of morality, I have frequently referenced what I consider to be some very extreme, bloodthirsty passages of the Old Testament. I try not to let that colour my entire impression of Christianity, and certainly not Christians in general. I probably fail, from time to time.
I would add, of course not. It’s their story, and they have the right to tell it anyway they want. However, when they engage unbelievers in the public square, they should expect pushback/questions/challenges.If they say to me ___________, I’m going to reply, what evidence do you have for your claim? Sadly, many Christians confuse claims (the Bible) with evidence. Saying Jesus resurrected from the dead is a claim. What I want to see is evidence for that at claim — if the claimant expects me to believe. It seems that a lot of Christians are only interested in one way conversations. Well, that’s just preaching. If someone just wants to preach, he can do it at his own house, not mine.