More conversations with theists who are dicks (UPDATE)
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: More conversations with theists who are dicks (UPDATE)
That tone got chased. Good job. Thumbsup

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-09-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: More conversations with theists who are dicks (UPDATE)
(02-09-2015 11:54 AM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  One of my fundie friends was so distraught when I told her I was not a believer any more that she asked for an explanation so I sent her an email similar to one that I sent to my aunt that I recently posted. This one was the abbreviated version though. She in-turn took my email and forwarded it to a theologian. Dr. Edward Dalcour...his website is here: Dr. Edward Dalcour

Now despite the fact that she did so without my permission (i can forgive her for this) when he wrote her back she used that and sent it to me. I am venting because this guy is a fucking fraud if there is one. You'll see what I mean by the interaction:

Quote:From: kellye
Subject: Fwd: The question of Jesus
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:15:12 -0700
To: Kyle

I sent your letter to a friend of mine who has degrees in Theology and wanted his views. I told him you and I spoke of the copy/paste shit LOL.

But my heart hurts for you Kyle. I won't lie. You have to ask yourself one main question..... WHAT IF YOURE WRONG???? You're denying God!!!! Jesus!!!!! Look, your soul WILL go somewhere Smile

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Edward Dalcour
Date: August 26, 2015 at 1:21:27 PM PDT
To: Kellye
Subject: Re: The question of Jesus

He embraces many many errors, such as when he says: "The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,” and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material." Really may deny this.

As real scholars point out, There is no hard real evidence that Mark was the earliest gospel written. That theory is based on assumption.

I would 1) call him out on his "copy and paste" deception; let him know that you found sources in which showed he plagiarized the works of others and pretended it was his own, 2) his article had many mistakes in the factual data (he did not research properly), and 3) unless he embraces the true triune God and trust and believes in the Jesus of the biblical revelation, who was God in the flesh, the resurrected Savior, he will dies in his sins (John 8:24)

And for you, Pray to God that God will save him,


So since she took it upon herself to send my email to him, i took it upon myself to respond to his email:

Quote:On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, kyle wrote:

Hello Edward,

I hope this email finds you well. I have taken it upon myself to reply to the email that my wonderful friend Kellye forwarded to you from me. She probably did so hoping that you could supply some answers. You seemed to have identified some errors in the hypotheses I provided and as someone who is open to criticism and revision of thought process insomuch as the criticism is justified through logic and reason, I very much look forward to what you have to offer.

Let me start by saying I am definitely NOT a scholar. At best I am an amateur who simply enjoys the study of religions. I was raised in fundamentalist pentecostalism but within the last few years have apostatized as a result of growing concerns that just could not be reconciled. I studied apologetics and theologians like C.S. Lewis, WLC, Gary Habermas, Paul Tillich, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Raymond Brown and the likes. I have also tip-toed into the deep end of the pool with more prolific writers such as Gunkel, Noth, von Rad, Ingersoll, Barker, Smith, Guthrie, Mack, Jonas, Schmithals, Neusner, Wellhausen, Helms, Crossan, MacDonald and more recently Barker, Carrier, Ehrman, Price and so on. This by no means makes me an expert but it does give me a peak into the window to gain an understanding, if only tenuous, of what goes on in the higher forms of criticism. I will also state that some of the reconciliations I came across DID seem possible but in the end, to me, they simply seemed like ad hoc attempts to get out of a tight spot. As I'm sure you know the goal is not to prove what is possible but what is probable. However, as I have stated before, I am in no means positing that no other position could convince me otherwise. It depends on the weight of the evidence that the arguments hold. I have started from ground zero. I have not started with "God" or for that matter "Jesus" and worked backward, making everything fit my presuppositions. Some call the aforementioned presuppositions proper "biblical hermeneutics" but that thought process engages in circular reasoning.

With that said, I would first like to address the accusation of plagiarism. In fact, I told Kellye that if she wanted sources for any of the information I provided I was more than happy to present them. The lion share of the information I presented was summarized and redacted from the past few years of reading material, much of it from the authors I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, this information is available to the public at large with the simple click of a mouse. It must be stated though that one must be careful to vet the information one finds. This is a daunting task as you may very likely know. Nevertheless, as I continue in my studies this is something I have to look at daily and very carefully.

Next you stated that I did not do my research correctly which resulted in nonfactual data. Could you please present the errors that I made here so I can review them? As I said, if I did present false information I want to know so I can review and correct.

Your last point, #3, is a bold claim.You are presupposing a god exists. You are presupposing Jesus was his son and you are presupposing if I do not believe and follow these two and the holy spirit that I will die in my sins which may or may not imply some sort of eternal torment. You have opened an enormous Pandora's box here that causes more problems than it solves. If you are willing, I would love to investigate this with you. From what I understand through Kellye you are much more knowledgeable given your education and experience level, so any position I hold that has been the result of incorrect information should be easily disputed on your end.

Your first claim presupposes the existence of god. My response would be:

1.) Which god? There were literally thousands of gods throughout recorded history. How have you come to the knowledge that your god is the correct god?

2.) Can you define the characteristics of this god? Do you believe in an anthropomorphic deity that seems to be "on stage" with the actors of the OT ? ....or do you support the Hellenistic-influenced philosophical efforts that presented a god with the 'omni-characteristics'? or...perhaps the newly devised maximally omni-characteristic god that neo-apologists are now presenting? This will help frame any potential discussion.

3) Can you provide evidence that he/she/it exists? The burden of proof is not on me to disprove this claim. The burden is on the believer to provide reasonable, logical and verifiable evidence since the default position is "nothing". At this point I'll pause and give you a chance to respond.

If you are willing to engage me and have the time I would certainly be obliged. Like most people I'm sure you are busy, as am I, but I always try to make time to learn something new especially when it could ultimately lead to a position adjustment.

I look forward to your feedback and certainly appreciate you taking time to read this.

Best regards,

P.S. I have copied Kellye on this email so my end of the exchange can remain as transparent as possible.

His response to me:


Please understand, I generally I do not interact with long and multiple subject matter with unproven assertions kinds if emails esp in a non- formal construct.

Based on your many assertions here and the content in your email to Kellye, yes I see that you lack basic scholarship in the area research and epistemology on various (not to mentioned your method of merely copying the works of others), which makes interaction on advanced or even basic textual criticism (lower or higher) unproductive. Further, It seems that you have a very limited scope of sources. That tells me clearly that you not equipped to engage on the topics you mentioned.

I am busy and do not have the time to answer all of your loads of antedated and assertions--it seems you already made up your mind, or you question your own belief system. Keep in mind when I see you folks like you one thing is always prevalent: a lack of verifiable evidence proving their position -- all they do is assert it as true.

But if you have a question regarding the gospel or theology, please feel free to ask.

Thank you

My FINAL response to him and you will probably understand why from his above email:


Well you can't say I didn't try. I find it quite discouraging that self claimed theologians and apologists I have tried to talk to reject conversation and questions, especially when I specifically said that I am still at a place where I am open to all answers.

Oddly enough I find your response predictive; you stake your claim with a sanctimonious response, asserting your piousness with passive-aggressive contempt, skirting the questions and asserting you have the answers while providing no reference to either my errors or your so called answers.

I must say very bluntly, I am certainly glad your approach does not represent the majority of christians. If it did, I would be happy to be excluded.

Best regards,

His responses infuriated me...I had to take a step back and understand that these people will not engage. I know he wasn't attacking me...not in any statement...but his tone was so condescending that I couldn't hold back from venting...

Look at that Pasquale's Wager and Assertion from Authority. This guy's good. #sarcasm

I think you handled that very well.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Plato
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
03-09-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: More conversations with theists who are dicks (UPDATE)
(03-09-2015 11:35 AM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  My conversation has continued today but most likely this will be the conclusion here are the responses:

Quote:To: kyle Buckles

Is the difference between shrinking questions and refusing to answer questions. You confuse the two I simply just refuse to have interaction with you for obvious reasons as I stated.

For example you said the "majority of Christians" really, you feel you can represent the majority of Christians objectively you actually spoke to majority of Christians? These are some of the issues as to why I don't respond to people like you ,, it becomes nonobjective -/ high emotion low facts

However as I stated if you have a particular question I would be delighted to try and answer


My last and final response:


I never used the word "shrink". I did say you were "skirting the questions." I realize the two words --could be-- conflated but you are putting words in my mouth which I did not say. I understand that you are refusing to answer the questions. I also understand the reasons why you stated that you are refusing to answer the questions. And, I understand that these reasons are likely dubious at best.

Why? because if you really did want to further the cause of the gospel, you would be jumping at the opportunity to talk to someone who has questions regardless of content. However, you are refusing to engage. That's your prerogative and it's a nice curtain to hide behind.

You are quick to point out my statement of "majority of christians," however you did the exact same thing when you said "that is why I don't respond to people like you" -- people like me?? Do you feel you can represent the majority of people in the world objectively by squeezing me into some label that you have created?

You did the exact same thing in your previous email when you said "Keep in mind when I see you folks like you one thing is always prevalent: a lack of verifiable evidence proving their position -- all they do is assert it as true." Setting aside the fact that your syntax and grammar are absolutely atrocious, I didn't point out your conflation of "me" and "folks like me" in the last email because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. However, since you have taken liberty, so will I.

Also, in regards to the next comment you made, I have asserted NOTHING as true. I have simply asked questions. As I stated in the first email to you, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence for your presupposition of a god. You have slyly tried to reverse this position back onto me by saying "I have a lack of verifiable evidence proving my position." My position is that I reject that the fact that you are presupposing a god exists unless I have verifiable evidence proving that position is reasonable.

Let's look at your other comment: "Further, It seems that you have a very limited scope of sources. That tells me clearly that you not equipped to engage on the topics you mentioned." Edward, by what objective standard are my sources limited? Who holds this standard? Why do you consider it limited? And even if it is limited, instead of using it as a strawman excuse as to not engage with me, maybe you could provide more sources that would not be limited. However, maybe YOUR sources are limited. Maybe they are limited to material that comes to the same conclusion as you? It's something to think about. Also, how is it that I am not equipped to hold conversation with you but yet you are involved in a department of apologetics who's objective is to equip christians to defend the faith? I can only imagine that at least SOME of these christians are much less observant and educated than I am but do you refuse to engage them? My guess is that if you are in the business of "equipping christians" the answer is no. So your excuse that I am not educated enough to interact with you is baseless. The more likely answer is that you do not want to interact with me because you know I will not swallow the apologetic pill that you offer without questioning and demanding evidence from the start.

For someone who has allegedly been educated into the highest echelon of society you have certainly shown a lack of it in the conversation thus far. You have focused on knit picking at nominal details in my writing, when in fact you are guilty of the same deeds, and have done so as to detract from actually speaking to the real questions. Classic red herring fallacy. Indeed, I think you were correct when you mentioned (and I paraphrase) that this conversation would likely span an unproductive trajectory. Nevertheless, I bid you the best in what you do. I just hope for the sake of your objective that your interaction with others is less contemptuous than what it has been with me.

Best regards,

His writing skills are shockingly bad for someone who claims a doctorate--unless it's from a diploma mill.

Good job, Tonechaser!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
03-09-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: More conversations with theists who are dicks (UPDATE)
(02-09-2015 08:32 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Has your friend offered evidence to support their belief that Jesus is who they claim he is? If so, I'd be very curious to see a some of that evidence. Big Grin

The evidence is written on *snicker* your heart. All beings actually know there is a god. *snicker* You just want to sin. That's all. Laughat

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: