What is this post about? Silence of Mind left this comment here => https://citizentom.com/2022/11/04/what-we-believe-is-a-choice/#comment-105234, and Ben Berwick started replying in kind. As the chart above shows, name-calling is a useless activity. Therefore, I don’t want name-calling on my blog. I see nothing to be gained by taking sides in such a dispute.
Rhetoric and Radicalism is Ben Berwick‘s reply to Silence of Mind‘s accusations. Like as not Silence of Mind will respond with a post of his own. I don’t know. I just believe name-calling does not serve a useful purpose, and I don’t want to take sides in a dispute I know almost nothing about.
Am I being inconsistent or disloyal to Silence of Mind?
Let’s look at possibility of inconsistency or hypocrisy first. Have I banned people from my blog? Two or three. Have I posted an explanation? Yes.
Have I called people names? Yes. I have called our president a liar, and I have posted refutations of some of his lies.
Take a look at that chart above. Name-calling is becoming what passes for debate in this nation. We are reaching the point where we cannot solve our differences because we are too busy calling each other names. Who is responsible for that? The primary culprit is the Liberal Democratic Party. Whenever we disagree with a Democrat what happens? The Democrat starts calling us a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, an extremist, a Trump supporter, a QAon fanatic, an election denier, and so forth. Thanks to identity politics and all the conspiracy theories that Liberal Democrats won’t let loose of, they have so many names to call Conservative Republicans we cannot keep track of them.
With one exception what Liberal Democrat don’t have a handle on is any of the issues voters care about? What issue is that? Abortion, of course. Democrats are ready to defend the “right” of a woman to murder her child up until the moment of birth and then some.
Instead of debating the issues they care abort, Liberal Democrats are trying to demonize their political opponents. That is, the point of calling Liberal Democrats names is to emphasize the fact they are not discussing the issues. Lying describes what Liberal Democrats are doing, and we call people who lie all the time liars. Therefore, I have described some of the lies Biden has told, and I have called him a liar.
Similarly, what do we call people who rob banks? Bank robbers, of course. And we call people bank robbers after we can prove they have committed the crime. So, yes, there is a place for name calling, but before we call someone a name, we must prove the name fits, and we have a proper occasion for name-calling.
The fact that Democrats will not debate the issues and that Democrats insists upon calling Republicans names instead of debating the issues is why we all need to vote Republican on November 8th.
Am I being disloyal to Silence of Mind? I don’t think so. If Silence of Mind wants to debate Ben Berwick, I am willing to support Silence of Mind‘s defense of Christianity as much as I can. However, I don’t know the history of Silence of Mind‘s and Ben Berwick‘s conflict, and I am in no position to judge between them. Moreover, if they don’t trust each other, the simple solution is for each them to stay off the other’s blog.
Did Silence of Mind see himself as helping me to defend Christian beliefs? Perhaps. I don’t know. However, I think the best way to defend Christian beliefs is to spread the Gospel and to explain what Christians believe, especially with respect to the Bible. Although some Atheists do behave quite poorly, pointing out their bad behavior doesn’t spread the Gospel or explain what Christians believe. Therefore, I don’t want to get sidetracked into that discussion.
Citizen Tom
Citizen Tom 
Excellent brother. That chart is right on. Thanks for the insight.
Thank you.
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
Thanks for the reblog.
Tom, Doug
King Solomon may have influenced Maslow if we discern the commonality in this proverb
A fool vents all his anger, but a wise man holds it back.If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials will be wicked. (Proverbs 29:11-12)
Who e we choose to listen to or believe according to Maslow’s” contradiction”: requires proof or evidence the message is truth, falsehoods or gossip.
Problem is providing evidence that we have not personally witnessed the occurrence requires we make a decision who to trust to believe.
The phrase “seeing is believing” is well known to us all. It suggests skepticism; it implies that we will not accept the truth of something unless we can somehow see it. While the phrase may validly express a concern for verification, it contradicts basic religious ideas.
Everyone in life will at some time in life make wise or foolish choices who or what to believe in life. Both Christians and atheists will all experience in time the truth when they die about the existence of God.
The only time it may be wise in my opinion, to become rightfully angry with another human is when someone or some entity intentionally chooses to be wicked in speech or actions that may harm an innocent person or cause.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
always fun to see christiand disagreeing as always. Alas, none of them have any truth.
unsurprisingly, lots of fussing about how one argues, and Tom and SOM still have no evidence for their claims, nor can they show anyone wrong.
Tom, there is a reason the proverbs says not to answer a fool according to their folly and Paul says likewise after the second admonition not to continue. We allow our Pride to go beyond what the potential for the other person either understand or their willingness to agree. It’s ok to just say “we disagree” and walk away. Please, choose the way of wisdom.
Mind you, I’m not calling either of you a fool. Just pointing out.. again seemingly… it’s foolish to continue a foolish discussion when your Pride, or the other persons for that matter, has taken it past the point of truthfulness. It’s kind of why my original warning was important. We risk misrepresenting the Jesus we are trying to share. Could this be your “second admonition” from me? I hope not, brother. Be wise, Tom.
Nicely illustrated, Tom. You borrowed from Maslow.. a favorite of mine.
Now, let’s focus on “counter-argument” and “contradiction”… and we can easily illustrate all our chats you and I have had from the Trump debacle years onward. The presentation of evidence to justify a position ONLY works if the source being used is one of credible acceptability to both sides. The issue of “fake news” has been the singular point which divides us all. No argument, no pretend cyber debate, no dissenting discourse can possibly change a willing mind unless the source of the “evidence” is quoted from a universally reliable source, and not just reliable only to the person with the confirmation bias toward their own source.
So… no one gets anywhere. Jeepers, and you keep arguing with others (atheists??) about what’s in the Bible?? That’s the one book where anyone in the world can find a verse to justify anything imaginable and build a religion around it. An exercise in futility. I don’t need to defend the how and why’s in what I may believe in spiritually. Rather I accept the differences in others and move on.
@Doug
I didn’t stop to think you would take that chart personally, but I am glad you saw it.
Basically, all you have just said is that if my source is not one you approve of, it is no good. You think that is true even if they are just reporting how the so-called mainstream media, the Liberal Democrat news media, is knowingly taking Trump out of context? How about our abandonment of Afghanistan? Are we suppose to ignore what Biden did because the Liberal Democrat news media does not care? Should we believe the lie that inflation is all about Ukraine and ignore trillions in spending, the Biden administration assault on fossil fuels, and the simple fact that inflation took off before the war in Ukraine? Should we ignore the fact that the Liberal Democrat news media trashes people using unnamed sources and just moves on when it has become obvious their unnamed sources are lying?
I could go on, but we both know you and other Liberal Democrats constantly skip the issues, researching the facts and just move straight to name-calling. And your examples are the folks in the Liberal Democrat news media.
Find yourself some new heroes. There is a good reason CNN’s ratings stink.
Well, you’ve proven my point. Your “sources” are better than mine hence your opinion is more sound. Same old whataboutism.
Doug
I double check my sources.
The news media has ALWAYS been partisan.
When we were growing up, the new media postured, pretending objectivity. Why? The FCC regulates the broadcast airwaves and licensed radio and TV stations. Before Internet and cable, that made a huge difference. Moreover, the government funds the schools, including colleges. So, colleges trained journalism majors to at least pretend objectivity. Meanwhile, we know 90 percent of mass media backs Liberal Democrats.
It’s not that we disapprove of your source, it is your source is a set of claims with nothing to back them up. It’s just like how you disregard the qu’ran since it has nothing to back it up.
I do enjoy seeing that Tom is nothing new, a conservative christain who believes conspiracy theories that also have nothing to back them up.
He cannot show Trump being taken out of context, nor can he show that we “abandoned” Afghanistan, when his orange messiah wanted us out.
No one has claimed that inflation is all about Ukraine, but nice false claim there too. It’s no surprise that conservative Chritsians like Tom support Russia, since their religion is based on stealing the property of others under the delusion that it belongs to a chosen people.
The use of anonymous sources is used by all sides. It seems that poor Tomdoesn’t remember the lies about a pizza joint with pedophiles that was invented from thin air by lying conservatives. I’m sure he believes in that stupidity too.
Alas, he has no evidence that any unnamed source tht shows Trump to be a liar and incompetent thief are lying. Happily, no, everyone doesn’t agree with Tom, no matter how many times he tries to lie that everyone “knows” his delusions.
and always nice to see him end with a logical fallacy the appeal to popularity.
“I didn’t stop to think you would take that chart personally, but I am glad you saw it.
Basically, all you have just said is that if my source is not one you approve of, it is no good. You think that is true even if they are just reporting how the so-called mainstream media, the Liberal Democrat news media, is knowingly taking Trump out of context? How about our abandonment of Afghanistan? Are we suppose to ignore what Biden did because the Liberal Democrat news media does not care? Should we believe the lie that inflation is all about Ukraine and ignore trillions in spending, the Biden administration assault on fossil fuels, and the simple fact that inflation took off before the war in Ukraine? Should we ignore the fact that the Liberal Democrat news media trashes people using unnamed sources and just moves on when it has become obvious their unnamed sources are lying?
I could go on, but we both know you and other Liberal Democrats constantly skip the issues, researching the facts and just move straight to name-calling. And your examples are the folks in the Liberal Democrat news media.
Find yourself some new heroes. There is a good reason CNN’s ratings stink.”