Cl, Bubonic Plagues, and Bibles, Part II
Direct Continuation of: Cl, Bubonic Plagues, and Bibles, Part I
Follow up to: TheraminTrees’s Atheism, Part IV: Imperfection
Awhile ago, I was busy finding my way out of the multi-layered maze of Cl and I’s long-time-ago debate on the existence of needless suffering. While the debate itself flopped, it resulted in a lot of further chatter between us, and we still continue to argue about the Problem of Evil.
Free from the encumbrance of time and word limits, I now have some time to get back to where we left off in addressing Cl’s rebuttal. In this rebuttal, Cl challenged my Problem of Evil based on the Bubonic Plague, which I counter-responded to in Cl, Bubonic Plagues, and Bibles, Part I. Cl also provided a theodicy that argued God’s reason for allowing suffering was that we brought it upon ourselves in the Fall, an argument I responded to in “TheraminTrees’s Atheism, Part IV: Imperfection”. There, he counter-responded in the comments, and our discussion should continue there shortly.
So we had the Bubonic Plague thread, which is finished as far as I can tell. Then we have the thread about The Fall, which merits future discussion in comments. However, there remains three other unfinished threads: (1) Cl’s argument that Cl’s argument that the Bible has remarkable guidelines for cleanliness that are so far ahead of its time that we’re forced to conclude that the Bible was divinely inspired, (2) Cl’s reformulated theodicy that Heaven represents a higher good, and (3) Cl’s references to the Problem of Evil as making God into some sort of “Cosmic Coddler”.
Cl’s Argument
This essay will continue on with answering (1). Here, I will address the argument that Cl claims “leaves me no rational alternative but to abandon atheism and acknowledge the God of the Bible”. This argument goes as follows:
“The importance of hygiene was recognised only in the nineteenth century; until then it was common that the streets were filthy, with live animals of all sorts around and human parasites abounding.” [7]
Take heed, foolish humans! We were warned not to become “defiled” by rats or other animals designated as “unclean” [8] and warned not to eat anything they touched. [9] God commanded us to bury dung outside city limits, [10] to avoid contact with bodily discharges because they are “unclean,” [11] to cleanse anything a person with bodily discharge touches, [12] to evacuate and seal up any house with “greenish or reddish” mildew, [13] and if the mildew persists after seven days, to “scrape the walls” inside the house, [14] remove any contaminated stones [15] and dump them outside city limits. [16]
Among other things, Wikipedia lists, “decay or decomposure of the skin while the person is still alive, high fever, and extreme fatigue” as symptoms of bubonic plague, [17] and God specifically warned that failure to obey would result in—wait for it—wasting diseases and fever that would drain away our life. [18]
Moral evil is any evil act, event or state of affairs that is directly attributable to the actions of a moral agent. The Black Death ravished Europe because moral agents sinned by disobeying God’s Holy Word and allowing filthiness, vermin and parasites to defile them. God warned us. We didn’t need to suffer the bubonic plague to get to Heaven, we only needed to listen to God’s Word.
[...] My list is just the tip of the iceberg, and already we have something akin to modern hygiene and germ theory, delivered 3,000 years before Pasteur was so much as a twinkle in his father’s eye—by people atheists often denigrate as ignorant goat-herders. Another source notes,
“Jews who obeyed these godly instructions during the time of the black plague were not affected in the same way as others.” [20]
Might that be because God provided clear, comprehensive hygienic commands in the Torah? I agree with Peter that a “god” who makes people suffer pointlessly is worthy of condemnation, cruel, malevolent, and fundamentally opposed to love and compassion, [21] but as my arguments have undeniably demonstrated, God did exactly what Peter asked for, and much more. Wouldn’t it be a tragedy to forfeit eternal life for an argument so weak it commits one to doubting God’s existence simply because they stubbed their toe?
Or, in short: the Bible contains amazing knowledge of sanitation more than two millennia ahead of its time, and such amazing knowledge is only possible if God really wrote the Bible, therefore Christianity is true.
However, this conclusion does not follow because this knowledge of sanitation is actually normal for its time and was well-known by other contemporary cultures that did not have access to the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible also regularly demonstrates a lack of medical knowledge that does nothing to point to an omniscient God, but rather leaves us wondering what’s going on.
Cl cited six pieces of remarkable sanitation knowledge found in the Bible: (1) rats are dirty and to be avoided, (2) dung is to be buried outside the city limits, (3) bodily discharges are to be avoided, (4) to cleanse that which comes in contact with bodily discharges, (5) to remove mildew from houses, and (6) to quarantine to prevent disease. However, all this knowledge was already known to many other ancient civilizations living in the same time period.
Let’s look at each claim individually. (And sorry this took so long, Cl, the research took a lot more time than I expected.)
#1: Rats Carry Disease
Ancient Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians all understood that rats were pests to be avoided. The Greeks also made some indirect connections between rats and pestilence via the God Appolo.
The Greeks finally got a move on with he Greek philosopher and early scientist Hippocrates, who started the miasma theory of disease — the theory that disease was caused by “bad air”. Theodore H. Tulchinsky’s book The New Public Health mentions how Hippocrates used this theory and cited animal carcasses as a potential source of disease and advocated that cities get rid of them.
John Pichtel’s well-referenced book Waste Management Practices: Municipal, Hazardous, and Industrial, mentions that it wasn’t until around 90 AD when Romans fully understood the specific connection between rats and disease and Emperor Domitian ordered a thorough removal of rats (p22).
This is equal to or better than that mentioned in Leviticus, cited by Cl. Sure, rats were designated as unclean, but so were eagles, storks, ravens, owls, clams, oysters, lobsters, and crab (Leviticus 11:7-19).
It’s easy to make the Bible look like it contains knowledge of specifically disease-carrying animals when you count only the hits and discard the misses. Furthermore, the concept of “unclean” has very little to do directly with disease-carrying, making it unclear that the authors of the Bible even understood the connection between rats and disease.
While Cl does mention disease as cited from Leviticus 26:16, he neglects to mention that this reference is separated from a reference to rats by over 13 verses, includes disease as one punishment among many laid out by God for generically breaking his rules, and these rules ban many activities that don’t have anything to do with disease, yet promise disease as a punishment for breaking them anyway. (And it probably goes without mention that plagues are rather disproportionate punishments for crimes as harmful as trimming your beard.)
Additionally, many of these punishments didn’t even come to pass — when the Europeans violated God’s commands to avoid rats, the only answer was a plague (which interestingly did not destroy the sight like Leviticus said it would), not other punishments like droughts, animal disobedience, famine, forced cannibalism, etc.
#2: Bury Dung Outside City Limits
Cl makes it sound like the Isrealites were the first people to bury refuse outside city limits, and other societies didn’t catch on until well after the Middle Ages, but this is completely false. Pichtel mentions that as early as 9000 BC waste dumps were established away from the main settlement, and beginning in 3000 BC with the Minoan Civilization, waste begun to be buried.
By 2100 BC, both the Minoans and the Egyptians were using sewer systems to automatically bring waste away from homes and into rivers. And in Athens in 500 BC, it was a city law that everyone had to collect their waste and dump it at least two kilometers beyond city limits.
Valerie A. Curtis’s article Dirt, Disgust and Disease: A Natural History of Hygiene (JSTOR PDF) finds that this history of outside dumping is widespread throughout history, and even is present among ant colony behavior. Tulchinsky also references Hippocrates call to clean streets of trash, lest people get infected by disease.
Cl is correct in citing that the streets of the European Middle Ages were covered in trash, even if he cites from the same Wikipedia that he elsewhere decries as only “for lazy agendists” and “essentially biased rubbish on many issues”. However, the reason the Middle Ages did so poorly in santitation can be mostly blamed on the regress of sanitation knowledge found in the Dark Ages. Hygiene was actually much better in the times of Rome.
Pitchell cites Athens as being sweeped of trash daily and Rome as having massive sewer systems drain streets of trash with periodic water flow. While many cities throughout history did seem to ignore this basic sanitation principle, they were ignoring the advice of far more historical authorities than just the Old Testament.
#3-4: Bodily Discharges are Unclean, Cleanse Things With Water
Bodily discharges is a religious impurity in not just the Old Testament, but also a religious impurity of the 200 BC Hindu Laws of Manu (also see Curtis’s article). Bodily discharges were also taken by Hippocrates to be a sign that the body was healing itself from some sort of disease — while incorrect, it demonstrates the connection. That being said, there’s little health risk posed by contact with bodily discharges anyway, except in specific circumstances. Obviously you shouldn’t share needles, or be coughed upon, but it matters little whether you are around a menstruating woman.
Cleanliness to avoid these problems, however, was well recognized throughout many ancient cultures. In Rome, cleanliness was highly valued, and baths were taken daily, even by the poor. Water in these public baths was also changed several times a day (PDF) to keep it clean.
Both the Greeks and Romans frequently washed their hands, and Moustafa Gadalla writes in The Ancient Egyptian Culture Revealed that Ancient Egyptians bathed frequently and washed their hands multiple times a day, especially around meals, and that these traditions were even preformed by Egyptians of modest wealth.
#5-6: Mildew and Quarantine
The Bible mentions finding a house with mildew, and making sure to quarantine the house for seven days if the mildew couldn’t be scraped. While the Romans were certainly concerned with mildew on their food, even going as far as making a ritual dedicated to controlling the spread of Mildew, ancient efforts to stop mildew seemed ineffective, mostly focused on sprinkling things on vines.
Yet, according to P. B. Adamson’s article “Storing Food in the Ancient Near East” (JSTOR PDF), trial and error resulted in Egyptian food being stored adequately protected from mildew.
Furthermore, Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians didn’t seem to understand the harm to human health, though Hippocrates did understand their was a danger to damp areas (see Curtis article).
However, the practice of quarantine was fairly well known throughout history, especially as applied to sick people, which the Bible does not mention. For example, a Sumerian physician was recorded giving strict orders that no one should visit the house of a sick person, because her disease was sabtu, or “catching” — and this was back before 2000 BC. Greek scholars Thucydides and Hippocrates are also said to have recommended people avoid the contagious (PDF).
The Amazing Bible and Its Amazing Contemporaries
Hippocrates, living in the 400s BC, understood that disease had natural causes to be explained independently than a punishment from God, such as environment, diet, and habits of living.
Hippocrates went on to make many advancements in medicine, such as understanding obesity to be a disease rather than a sign of wealth (PDF), using alcohol to treat wounds (PDF), understanding epilepsy as a hereditary disease of the brain rather than the influence of demons (Ibid.), and developed rudimentary treatments for many diseases — all things the Bible neglects to mention.
Ian Dawson’s Greek And Roman Medicine cites Roman Marcus Varro (110 – 27 BC) as saying “precautions must be taken in the neighbourhood of swamps because certain tiny creatures, which cannot be seen by the eyes, breed there. These float through the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases.” This sounds eerily close to germ theory; much closer than anywhere the Bible got.
This isn’t to say that the Greeks and Romans had it all right, or were even that remarkable themselves. It’s important to not focus on the achievements of Rome and Greece and see them as some out-of-time super-society — these nations definitely made their share of laughable mistakes. For example, Hippocrates made many elementary medical errors, and mistreated many patients. But they made several great predictions in medicine, akin to the eery success of the Greek atomists, who suggested back in 500 BC that the world was made out of tiny particles.
I don’t even think that the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians were significantly better at medicine than the Israelites at the time of Leviticus. What I do think, and believe to have shown, is there simply is no medical knowledge in the Bible that isn’t matched by medical knowledge somewhere else in antiquity. And when you have the same book suggesting that epilepsy is cured by driving out demons, you have to acknowledge that the Bible has misses as well as hits, and the hits aren’t as remarkable as they first seem. Whatever the Isrealites were doing sanitation and waste disposal-wise, other cultures were doing it to, despite not having the alleged help of the Abrahamic God.
Conclusion
It’s simple to think of what the Bible could have said. The Bible could have easily contained information about the spread of disease via invisible pathogens, and instructed people to cover their mouths when they cough. The Bible could have included information for penicillin and other antibiotics, instructed people to stay away from mosquitos, instructed people to cook meat and boil water before consuming them, made it clear how diseases can spread from person to person in a contagious manner, etc.
These are the kind of obvious suggestions that would have made the Bible a clear medical authority. Yet the Bible doesn’t contain them. That certainly is no definitive disproof of the idea that the Bible is the word of God, but it certainly is a large missed opportunity.
Anyways, it’s enough to say that Cl’s proof is busted. Looks like I did have a rational alternative after all — The Bible’s medical knowledge is nowhere near remarkable as Cl made it sound, and this alleged super-overwhelmingly super-compelling super-argument turned out to really just incomplete research. Instead the Bible is just another piece of its own time period, albeit with a few crazy malevolent things.
In future essays I will address Cl’s other theodicies within the Problem of Evil.
Followed up in: Heaven, Coddling Gods, and Other Theodicies
Cl Responded to this Essay at: DBT 01 – Peter on the Bible and Germ Theory
-
I now blog at EverydayUtilitarian.com. I hope you'll join me at my new blog! This page has been left as an archive.
On 28 May 2012 in All, Atheism, History, Responses. 53 Comments.
28 May 2012, 4:30 pm
You are misinterpreting….again.
29 May 2012, 10:31 pm
Misinterpreting what? It’s ridiculous to leave a comment like that. From the comment alone, I would only conclude that you’re a bloviator who’s afraid to be proven wrong.
29 May 2012, 10:56 pm
Well, Mr. Stephen R. Diamond Legal Brief Writer would definitely known a bloviator when he saw one, since he is perhaps the penultimate bloviator himself, what with such gems like:
My, such keen critical thinking skills, an amazing constraint of temper, and he’s about as jovial as a sweet ol’ lady to boot! A real first-class houseguest, indeed!
(source)
Keep hatin’ Diamond.
29 May 2012, 10:57 pm
Sythirius,
Although, I would be interested in hearing where you think the misinterpretation was. If you’ve got the time, maybe you can jump back in?
30 May 2012, 2:20 pm
The point stands that no-one is sure what Sythirius is referring to…
30 May 2012, 3:36 pm
I see a little bit of irony here. Diamond comes along and criticizes Sythirius’ comment as “ridiculous,” presumably because it doesn’t further the discussion at all. Yet, how does Diamond’s comment further the discussion at all? I’ve already given my opinions on the subject in great detail, therefore nobody can attack my jesting towards Stephen as evidence that I’m not advancing the discussion. Peter and I are driving the discussion, but what are y’all doing? Sythirius was unclear, Diamond hates as usual, and joseph opts for a chance to belabor the obvious instead of add anything meaningful.
Does anybody want to, you know… discuss the actual subject?
30 May 2012, 7:18 pm
Yes, keep hating, Diamond. And never confuse cl’s jesting for hating, nor what might seem as arrogant, self-serving cocksuredness for actual cocksuredness. I assure you, cl is no hypocrite in that regard. He adopts the attitude of Our Lord; who, after all, can be as cocksure as he pleases, omnipotent, all-powerful being that he is. Amen, and amen.
30 May 2012, 8:00 pm
I’m not sure if Sythirius is going to come back here, or if he’s reading this or not, so I figured I’d answer this by proxy. I can attest to a chat conversation that we had where he clarified he was referring to my quip about how the Bible says “epilepsy is cured by driving out demons”.
In a semi-related note, he also mentioned that he thought Cl was mistaken about the Bubonic Plague because, according to him, the laws in Leviticus applied only to the Israelites at the time before Jesus’s New Covenant, and thus not to the Romans of the Middle Ages.
~
The fact that someone would go to the lengths to make that http://thewarfareismentalfanboy.wordpress.com/ page is actually hilarious. You would have made my day, but unfortunately it was already made today when I found out that Felicia Day guest starred on the TV show Lie to Me. You came just a bit too late.
30 May 2012, 8:10 pm
I’m not sure what’s so funny, but the fact that you’re reading gives me hope that one day you’ll embrace cl’s irrationality doctrine as I have. It all makes perfect nonsense, which IS the biblical imperative, after all. God bless you.
30 May 2012, 9:39 pm
CL,
You’ve commited to a response in around 3 weeks, it’s a short time to wait, getting into a discussion now seems premature.
30 May 2012, 10:17 pm
joseph,
Perhaps for you, but I’m rather interested in hearing what people have to say thus far.
Or not. Whatever you wanna do.
30 May 2012, 10:18 pm
Clarification: I’ve committed to a response this week, meaning, by Sunday night at the latest. I was working on it today but now I’m a little sidetracked with detective work for my “fan” site…
;)
31 May 2012, 8:37 am
Wow; got to say impressive turnover. If the response is so near I’ll hold back, as I’ve said before I tend to have more difficulty seeing fallacies in atheistic arguments. Confirmational bias.
4 Jun 2012, 6:00 pm
Peter,
What gave you that impression? Seems to me that all I said was, “commanded us to bury dung outside city limits.” That statement can hardly be construed as a claim that the Isrealites were the first people to bury refuse outside city limits. Unless I’m missing something, might you have distorted what I said?
4 Jun 2012, 8:44 pm
twimfanboy,
Some of the faithful, unfortunately, have only a partial understanding of cl’s wisdom. They fail completely in understanding its uproarious quality.
Unlilke these pretenders, twimfanboy, you get it. That’s why cl regards you–not the misnamed “Peter,” the Infidel–as his deepest expositor.
10 Jun 2012, 5:44 pm
cl has a “reply.” Will Peter continue that farce and help give intellectual respectability to tedious, nitpicking irrelevance?
10 Jun 2012, 5:50 pm
You betcha.
10 Jun 2012, 6:05 pm
Why?
11 Jun 2012, 12:36 am
Oh, dear Peter infidel dude, you’re just like Goliath walking into the lion’s den inside the belly of a fish, swinging your jawbone hither and thither while cl deftly sidesteps your every swordthrust. Take Jesus’ advice…”Come unto me, ye bevy of maidens, and I will give you less!” Wise words to live by.
11 Jun 2012, 3:43 pm
Peter’s citations are almost entirely composed of references 1,000+ years after Leviticus, some of which had access to the Bible. Yet Peter’s claim was that “this knowledge of sanitation is actually normal for its time and was well-known by other contemporary cultures that did not have access to the Bible.” To point that out is *NOT* nitpicking. It’s an appropriate response to a claim that has not been demonstrated.
Peter,
What do you think? Do you think I’m within reason to point this out? If not, can you explain why you’d select predominantly non-contemporaneous sources to justify your claim? Honestly, my initial reaction was that you were dating from the New Testament. Your sources don’t make sense on any other assumption.
Also, whenever you get a second, I’m still curious to hear your answer for my question at Monday, June 4, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
I like the background colors you added to the div tags. Nice touch, improves readability IMO. Although, I think the effect might be a little more pronounced if you increased the contrast.
11 Jun 2012, 10:25 pm
I don’t really have anything better to do, and cl is the best theist foil I’ve found so far.
~
Yes.
~
Yes, I can. Mainly because I don’t think Leviticus actually came fully from before 1000 BC. I think a lot of Leviticus was still being formed just a few centuries before Hippocrates.
I also think you’ve given me a very unfair challenge, demanding evidence that just doesn’t exist. There simply isn’t a lot of well preserved writing from before 1000 BC.
I’ll make this all clear in my formal response.
~
If an answer to this question really matters that much to you, here: it all came from your implications. I’m not going to dispute what you meant, but I’ll let you know what I read — why did you include the information about burying dung outside city limits as one of your examples if you didn’t think it was special?
~
Thanks! What color would you suggest?
12 Jun 2012, 12:06 am
Let me recommend one who’s smarter and more honest. He’s rather pompous but rather more tolerable than cl (although you seem not to care about that). I’m not going to say he’s intellectually honest–I’ve never seen a smart fundamentalist theist who is–but I don’t think he lies outright. He’d be more challenging a foil than cl. Like, you know, pick on someone your own size.
12 Jun 2012, 12:07 am
Oh, forgot to say who it is. Name is crude. He’s on cl’s blogroll.
12 Jun 2012, 3:30 am
@CL,
Sorry, didn’t know whether to write this here or on TWIM, if you get money for traffic I’ll copy and paste it on TWIM too.
So the issue of not being contemporaneous is serious and justifies comment.
I don’t think it’s necessary for Peter to find a written law over sewage, I think if he can find evidence of decent sewage systems being built, that provides evidence that people made effort towards sanitation.
The argument as I saw it was something like Leviticus contained the first nuggets of germ theory, indicating a higher probability of a divine source.
If you think Twimfanboy is bullying you/are effected by it negatively please tell me and I won’t comment there further.
12 Jun 2012, 3:50 am
@Stephen
Sometimes I get a childish urge to add “R Diamond”. Crude can be a funny one wheteas you and I had quite a long, and in my eyes, productive discussion about solipsism, he totally backed out of a similar conversation with me and has totally refused to talk with me about anything since. Which I found a shame, he made some really good points on materialism and naturalism which I have taken to heart.
12 Jun 2012, 12:13 pm
Peter,
Oh. “A lot,” eh? You’ll need to be specific. We are only concerned here with the sanitation regulations. Further, even if you can provide evidence for your case, a few centuries before Hippocrates doesn’t really qualify as living “in the same time period” as Hebrews reading Leviticus, and then we have the question of whether Hippocrates had access to the sanitation regulations. The Septuagint was certainly being compiled contemporaneously.
Hey, don’t go accusing me for hoisting you by your own petard. You said, and I quote, “well-known by other contemporary cultures that did not have access to the Bible”. If that didn’t accurately represent your objection, you shouldn’t have said it.
Why should that matter if you actually believe the sanitation regulations were written “a few centuries” before Hippocrates? That doesn’t make sense.
‘kay. See you in September… ;)
Because we were in the specific context of the plague, and following that command would have helped curtail the moral evil that was the plague. You lifted that one completely out of context and made it sound like a pillar in my Argument from Hygiene when that’s simply not what I intended.
As for the colors, I don’t know… just a darker grey against a lighter grey. #7D7D7D maybe? There’s a good list here, in case you haven’t seen it yet. The current contrast doesn’t display well on Mac, but it does display a little better on my Windows machine.
12 Jun 2012, 12:18 pm
Well, you didn’t post on TWIM so I’ll respond here. No, I don’t make money off defending my beliefs. Also, I include commenters’ full names in the interest of clarity. There have been times, for example, when I referred to Matt DeStefano only as “Matt,” but then other Matt’s join the thread, lending to confusion. So, when I write “Stephen R. Diamond,” it’s not at the behest of any childish urge.
I think if he can find evidence of decent sewage systems being built, that provides evidence that people made effort towards sanitation.
Except that this is totally irrelevant. My claim isn’t, “God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation.”
12 Jun 2012, 12:22 pm
Stephen R. Diamond,
You imply, without evidence, that I “lie outright.” How does this comport with your claims to rationalism and intellectual honesty?
For example, I can provide several links documenting your lies and slander about me. Here’s one that quickly came to mind.
Kill your pride, it’s blinding you to the point that you can’t even engage in fruitful discourse.
12 Jun 2012, 1:24 pm
Sorry, I should have thought about it a bit more, I wasn’t intending to be offensive, CS Atheism seemed to make some money via directing people to Amazon, actually I have no idea how these things work.
Actually I hadn’t noticed you did, I thought you usually called him “Diamond”, I was just wittering. I try to control my childish urges, but I am not without them.
Well the instruction to bury excreta away from the settlement is a matter of sanitation, is it not? If you thought it totally unrelated to the existance of God why bring it up? For that matter pest control,including Rats, is also a matter of sanitation. So whilst I don’t confess complete understanding of the intricies of your argument, sanitation does seem fundamentally involved. Sorry if I’ve misread you.
12 Jun 2012, 1:32 pm
Sometimes I have called him “Diamond” or just “Stephen” because he whined about the use of his full name and I was just trying to respect his desires—despite his complete lack of respect for mine.
Yes. Again, as I just wrote in the comment above which you apparently read but did not understand, my argument is not, “God is likely to exist because the Israelites made efforts towards sanitation.”
Again, also in the comment above, because it was related to the topic: bubonic plague, and following the command would have curtailed the moral evil.
Too late. I’ve already lost trust. I’d long suspected, well… let’s just forget it. Plus you’re not even reading what I’m saying so maybe we should just call it quits.
12 Jun 2012, 1:53 pm
Ok CL, tomorrow I’ll read the argument again, I’ve been under the weather until today.
I apologise and confess I thought you liked the idea, actually I even suspected you were commenting there too. Now I know otherwise.
And I am trying to understand, that’s why I question, you’d probably like it even less if I misread you, didn’t say anything and pretended to understand.
12 Jun 2012, 2:15 pm
Regarding CL (Also known as CHRIS LONG)–two can play at his libel games:
Proof of his COMPULSIVE LYING is thoroughly documented at The Warfare is Mental Fanboy (http://thewarfareismentalfanboy.wordpress.com) The satirical content doesn’t change the reality of proof, even when not accompanied by links, is easy to find. You have situations where he point blank denies his theist sockpuppeting even when proof is complete. It’s hard to prove someone lies, makes deliberate false statement of fact, as opposed to making mistakes. The distinction led me to be careful with the accusation when I first made it, but I’m certain now and anyone who reads should be certain that cl, aka CHRIS LONG is a habitual liar.
Also note that psychopaths like cl, who lie compulsively, almost always accuse others of the same conduct as a red herring. Thus after I called cl a liar, he came back with charges against me based on ordinary—well, bullshit. Look at the details, if anyone cares, and you can see that what cl charges me with has nothing to do with prevarication as understood, but cl’s incessant lying not only about past positions but about ordinary facts (such as his incessant sockpuppeting) is well-established.
Joseph: So, shall you attach “conditions” to not posting on TWIMFB, if only cl gives the word? I’m sure you understand that letting cl charge “bullying” to avert criticism is every bit as much an act of censorship as bans. (If you want another example of cl’s, aka CHRIS LONG’s lies, you need go no further than his welcome to trolls and haters, followed by his attempt to get you and other readers to stop conversing with me on cl’s blog.)
One of us, cl or me, is a damn liar. (Of course, we both could be.) Decide for yourselves, whether on the evidence or general sense of integrity based on how we argue our claims.
12 Jun 2012, 2:34 pm
Joseph, did you have a depressed parent you had to keep afloat? Otherwise, I can’t understanding this sucking up to cl whenever he whines.
Let’s get to the bottom of it. You told me that cl is capable of raising criticisms of your ideas that you might not have seen. Can you refer me to an example, as I can’t imagine such a circumstance (wherein cl demonstrates critical insight)? He’s obviously picked up some tricks of manipulation–in 20-years of producing Hollywood crap–to keep himself afloat. But you have the critical intelligence to see it’s all smoke and mirrors. When was the last time he clarified anything intellectually? (Peter contends that his arguments with cl have helped him refine his position, but it’s more likely that writing out his positions was what allowed him to see weaknesses–cl, after all, doesn’t “approve” the revisions.)
12 Jun 2012, 2:47 pm
He had his sockpuppets out and even commented once or twice under his cl moniker. (Designed to prevent google searches to find out what’s he’s been up to, so he can successfully pretend to be a “critical thinker” on the next board he invades. But that game’s up.)
Your comment, Joseph, betrays an alarming lack of psychological insight; that you really thought cl was sincere when he said he loved twimfb.
12 Jun 2012, 3:05 pm
Hi there, boys and girls! This’ll be the last post I do here, since I don’t want to cause a ruckus on someone else’s blog. First of all, I think the ‘cl’ comment on my blog was somebody else making fun of cl; though as cl might point out, we’ll never know for sure. Certainty, and all that. However, that doesn’t mean cl hasn’t posted on my blog, or in this thread under another name, heaven forbid! The master has a history of both agreeing AND arguing with himself under other names to suit the whims of his holy whackydoodleness. It’s getting easier to pick him out of a crowd as I become familiar with his heavenly aura.
Other than that, I apologize for any part I’ve played in this tussle, especially to Peter for bringing it here. I just want to exalt cl above all others so he can take his rightful place among the great thinkers and prophets of history, but for some reason, through weakness or hubris or whatever, I’ve made a muck of things. Since cl removed me from his blogroll, I seem to be going through some really heavy emotional stuff. I mean, I thought he liked me! I thought he really, really liked me! But now, he looks right through me, like I’m not even there…sigh. Ah, well, forever forward, right? Chins up, mates! There’s adventure straight ahead!
Yours in cl…er, Christ…twimfanboy
12 Jun 2012, 4:12 pm
My apologies to Peter. I’ve made my record and won’t have to do it again.
12 Jun 2012, 5:08 pm
Joseph,
Well, you’ll recall that cl, too, refused that discussion. Something like Get serious.
“Letterist” theists will shun epistemology, Joseph, because they rely on epistemological shibboleths. Only someone completely unversed in the theory of knowledge could ever come close to writing I don’t care for rational or irrational. I care for true or false. Their aversion to discussing the subject about which they need guidance expresses their inherent “bad faith.” People of faith cannot be intellectually honest about the object of their faith, even if they want to. (See “Unraveling the mystery of morality: The unity of comprehension and belief explains moralism and faith” – http://tinyurl.com/cxjqxo9) [Actually, I don't think crude, however, is a letterist. He only defends them out of a general sympathy for the Christian Right.] Fortunately, most of them know this and don’t try.
12 Jun 2012, 8:00 pm
Peter,
I sincerely apologize for my contributions in this fiasco. I am tempted to respond but I choose to respect your stated wishes of avoiding personal beef in your threads. With your permission, I’ll simply provide a link to my side of the story for any interested parties.
Again, I apologize. I really wish these guys wouldn’t have brought this here.
12 Jun 2012, 11:23 pm
I talked with Crude some back when I was just getting into the Problem of Evil business. He didn’t seem to chat much.
~
I’ll see what I can do.
~
The problem is that I also need the black text to show up with contrast too. I’ll play around with it and see soon, but it won’t be high on my to-do list. Thanks, though.
~
Is your claim “the Bible contains amazing knowledge of sanitation more than two millennia ahead of its time”?
12 Jun 2012, 11:30 pm
@Stephen,
Hmmmm…this blew up in my face like an abscess, oh well, scrape out the necrotic tissue, lavage, put a drain in and stitch it up.
1. When I make an unsolicited offer, no wouldn’t attach conditions afterwards. When negotiating whether or not to meet an unwanted request, I definitely would. Before you ask, yes I am still annoyed over that.
2. If CL does suffer psychopathy he deserves pity and treatment rather than mockery. If I have remembered correctly you have a PhD in Psychology, so I ask you straight out, is there a significant risk of mockery causing a psychopathic break? I don’t think CL is a psychopath, I think he genuinely believes he might be saving people from hell. TWIM fanboy’s site has demonstrated some…pecularities, which I have found quite amusing, and still do, none-the-less, I don’t wish CL harm.
3. I hadn’t thought the charge of bullying would be like an act of censorship, though it seems obvious you are right. On the other hand it’s not as if I was contributing anything to TWIM – A Fan Site anyway. Apparently I am a threadbare puppet.
4. Did I have a depressed parent? Seems an inappropriate question but the charge of “sucking up” is duly noted.
5. CL’s interesting comments:
Physicalism is Meaningless
Discussion with Vox Day
Ganzfeld Phenomena
6. I display an alarming lack of psychological insight; yes, that is one problem I have. CL always seems to heavily promote his dissenters, for reasons I confess not to understand.
Sorry for the post Peter Hurford.
12 Jun 2012, 11:39 pm
@CL,
So the argument was more along the lines of:
The Bubonic Death did not represent unjustified suffering because God had commanded people to be hygienic and they ignored it, and a punishment had been spelt out.
On the other hand you wrote:
And:
Which I feel justified as taking as a rhetorical question.
12 Jun 2012, 11:51 pm
@Stephen,
Confusing a psychosis with psychopathy was dumb.
12 Jun 2012, 11:53 pm
Peter,
I explained both my claim WRT to our debate and my stand-alone Argument from Hygiene in my response on my blog. If you’re still unclear after reading it again, let me know.
12 Jun 2012, 11:54 pm
At “joseph” … sorry, no more biting.
12 Jun 2012, 11:54 pm
Yes, I’ve read your blog essay. I wouldn’t mind just a simple “Yes, that is my claim” or “No, my claim is X”. Just so I don’t “distort” you again.
13 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm
No need to scare quote “distort” because you really did distort it. Yes, the argument that follows the string, “Simplified for brevity, the Argument from Hygiene would go something like,” …is my claim.
13 Jun 2012, 1:12 pm
However, recall that we’re dealing with 2 separate, though related, issues: the argument from hygiene, and the gauntlet you through out about germ theory proving God’s goodness. I’ll lay out my claim WRT that gauntlet shortly, as that’s more germane to the original discussion.
13 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm
In fact, let’s get to the bottom of this “distort” thing. Do you affirm or deny that you presented an argument I was not making?
13 Jun 2012, 4:01 pm
You said you weren’t actually making that argument, so that’s all I need to know my inference was wrong. Do you want me to go back into my essay and insert a note that you aren’t actually making that argument?
14 Jun 2012, 2:32 am
If you admit you distorted the argument, sure, say so in the OP. I want you to explain why you put “distort” in scare quotes, if in fact your inference was wrong (i.e. you distorted the argument). The use of scare quotes implies that you don’t believe you distorted anything.
14 Jun 2012, 4:21 pm
For someone who is so literal when it suits, cl certainly takes liberties with language when that suits: particularly when it relates to his specialty, poisoning the well.
An erroneous inference is not usually–certainly not necessarily–a distortion. In fact, it isn’t even necessarily an error, where the inference was rationally [there's that ugly word] justified.
But was the mistake rationally justified? cl will want to know, despite his downgrade of the rationality virtue. Who but cl has the patience to track down who was really at fault when a mistaken inference occurred. But be careful: if you don’t retract–even the scare quotes–you’re a liar.
14 Jun 2012, 4:43 pm
“An erroneous inference…”
Let’s change that to “A wrong inference, to avoid trivial contradiction.
14 Jun 2012, 5:42 pm
If people here are really concerned about this distortion hullabaloo, I’ve addressed it in a comment here.