Recently, Citizen Tom decided to dissect a post of mine. I could respond, but I don’t feel the impetus. He has his views across a series of subjects, I have mine, and we’ll end up talking past each other. There’s little point in furthering such conversations.
What I did note was the spurious, dishonest claim of Silence of Mind that I edit comments. He wrote:
My experience with Ben Berwick is that he is a bald face liar like most atheists. His arguments are so horrible that after I tore a few of them apart he would actually edit my comments to make his arguments work out for him. How mendacious is that?
Ben Berwick is a modern day Philistine. He has no morals. I have read many of his posts and have come to the conclusion that he is a stupid fool with delusions of grandeur.
Hmm, to be completely blunt, I smell bullshit. SoM has not succeeded in taking apart any argument of mine. His only distinction is that he has been proud to be an extremist, and on the basis of his comment, lying comes as easily to him as breathing. I don’t need to edit his comments. There’s nothing in his arguments that is threatening or distinctive. His claim is without basis, but this ‘good’ Christian will neither retract his claim nor verify it, because he lacks integrity.
My hope is that people will see through his charlatan antics, and resist his obvious poisoning of the well. I guess we’ll see. SoM challenged me to a debate on Tom’s site, but I would prefer neutral ground. I’m not sure what he wants to discuss, since he led with the question ‘why are you an atheist’, even though I’m not an atheist, and have stated this on many occasions. If he’s going to turn a discussion into a series of leading questions, he cannot be trusted to act honourably?