Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ktotwf · 10-16-2009, 03:41 AM

Turkel has all the charm of an armadillo. He isn't respected by the ACTUAL scholars and thinkers he encounters.

The people he IS respected by are those who just want to have the feeling that Christianity is an equal intellectual stance to Atheism, and so view his "warrior apologetics" (god, just saying that makes the bile rise in my throat) as appealing in soothing their inferiority complex. He can sound JUST intelligent and well informed enough to suit their needs, but in the wider world he sinks like a brick.

My personal experience with him is that he is dismissive, angry, mean-spirited, etc.

John W. Loftus · 10-16-2009, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Turkel has all the charm of an armadillo. He isn't respected by the ACTUAL scholars and thinkers he encounters.

The people he IS respected by are those who just want to have the feeling that Christianity is an equal intellectual stance to Atheism, and so view his "warrior apologetics" (god, just saying that makes the bile rise in my throat) as appealing in soothing their inferiority complex. He can sound JUST intelligent and well informed enough to suit their needs, but in the wider world he sinks like a brick.

My personal experience with him is that he is dismissive, angry, mean-spirited, etc.

Yeah, now feel this at least once a week like I have done for the last few years. My conclusion is that I need not care what he thinks and it does no good to engage him at all. I've known this for at least two years but others seem to want to engage him, so these are the people I wanted to make this point to. [I'm not saying this about the people on this forum because I don't visit here enough to know].

Celsus · 10-16-2009, 06:22 AM

Pretty easy to use his ego against him. Just bait him into a topic he's unfamiliar with and then unleash the scorn and derision, while offering a way out that forces him to be nice to you. That's how it worked when I debated him some years ago on TWeb. In the end he wouldn't insult me gratuitously because it was an invitation for me to remind him of all his dodges. Plus I was bend-over-backwards polite to nice Christians, which made him look bad that all he got out from me was derision.

Roger Pearse · 10-16-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

One critic of skeptical work in the area of Biblical Criticism is JP Holding. So I conducted a poll ... Sure I slanted the poll by how I phrased the questions... My goal is to marginalize him, and I will.

I feel as if I come to this part way through, but a couple of thoughts:

If what he says is wrong, wouldn't rational refutation be better than running opinion polls?

If he is not wrong, isn't seeking to "marginalize him" by other methods immoral, apart from anything else?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James Brown · 10-16-2009, 07:18 AM

Can someone give me the Cliffs Notes version of this Holding character? I've only heard of him in passing, mentioned by people who have a history of him, and everything they say is critical.

Who is this guy that makes everyone so upset?

Ktotwf · 10-16-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I feel as if I come to this part way through, but a couple of thoughts:

If what he says is wrong, wouldn't rational refutation be better than running opinion polls?

You'd think that. Any rational, sane human being would think that.

However, in a situation where a person loses a debate, refuses to admit defeat, and then proceeds to get personal and insulting, what choice do you have? Rational discourse relies on the unspoken assumption that the people taking part are adults who can admit defeat like a true intellectual would.

Turkel is especially nasty in that he engages in rampant intellectual dishonesty, and oftentimes will refuse to link to transcripts of debates where he was creamed, etc.

Micha Jules · 10-16-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

One critic of skeptical work in the area of Biblical Criticism is JP Holding. So I conducted a poll on my blog to see what people who visited there in a two week period who cared to vote what they thought of him (and most didn't vote by far). My point can be found in the percentages in the poll itself, not the actual number of votes themselves. For if I left the poll up for another two weeks or months the percentages of votes among people who are interested in the God-hypothesis on the web would probably be the same, except that Holding would run out of ignorant friends who voted as they did (he cultivates them). Look at the poll and the percentages with me:

What Do You Think of JP Holding?

1) One of the best apologists around (I’m an ignorant Christian) 47 (10%)

2) An average dime-a-dozen wannabe apologist 59 (13%)

3) An obnoxious hack who is an embarrassment to Christianity 137 (30%)

4) I don’t know of him 207 (46%)

Sure I slanted the poll by how I phrased the questions, but I did give people the option to vote positively if they wanted to. Of the people who know of him 43% of them don't think he's important enough to engage (from 2 & 3), while 30% of this grouping think he's an embarrassment to the faith he seeks to defend. Another 46% of them don't even know he exists (from 4). Add them together and that makes 89% of the people interested in the God-hypothesis who don't need or care to hear about him (from 2-4). That's why I usually ignore him, because if we subtract the 25-30 votes from ignorant Christian friends who cannot think for themselves who voted for him (from 1, and come on, that is the only reasonable explanation for many of these votes since only ignorant Christian friends who do not know of Swinburne, Plantinga, Craig, Copan, Moreland, and others, would vote that way), then he can be safely ignored. He is no threat to skepticism. My goal is to marginalize him, and I will.

Link to the poll: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...s-that-he.html

Loftus,

What do you mean what you conclude that he's no threat to skepticism? Surely, the power of his arguments have no relevance to whether he is appreciated by others. So, I presume you do not mean to conclude that he is not an academic threat. I take it you mean that he is not a threat to skepticism as a social entity or a community. If so, you cannot ignore someone on that basis since it says nothing about the merit of his arguments.

I should also say that presumably your site is most frequented by skeptics. What makes you think that they are voting honestly? If I were a skeptic with a distaste for Holding (which is not hard to have considering his mannerism) I can imagine voting in ways that are less than honest.

Sea · 10-16-2009, 07:55 AM

JP Holding is awesome because his attitude rubs skeptics wrong, then the same skeptics who condemn him for it engage in the supreme irony of emulating his attitude.

I think it's a personality conflict thing. "Certain people" are capable of having decent conversations so long as the other person is less touchy. When these people meet others of the same type, eventually one or the other will be offended and then it turns into an endless mess of immaturity.

Micha Jules · 10-16-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Of the people who know of him 43% of them don't think he's important enough to engage (from 2 & 3),

ah, John, you cannot conclude that. This is absurd. You state "from 2&3" as if it follows by some deductive inference, it doesn't. People could very well think Holding is worthwhile to engage and believe 2 or 3. For instance, by 3, someone might just be referring to Holding rudeness and that he is embarassing Christianity on a moral level. From there, it does not mean that the voter does not think holding is unworthy to engage. Or if we consider 2, we might say that people could believe Holding is a dime-a-dozen apologist (academically speaking) but thinks still thinks Holding ought to be challenged since he is very prolific or popular.

Your conclusion is just so silly, John. have you thought this through?

Quote:

while 30% of this grouping think he's an embarrassment to the faith he seeks to defend. Another 46% of them don't even know he exists (from 4). Add them together and that makes 89% of the people interested in the God-hypothesis who don't need or care to hear about him (from 2-4).

lol. Fail.

Clivedurdle · 10-16-2009, 09:43 AM

Wiki article on him?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2009, 03:41 AM	#11
Ktotwf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,936	Turkel has all the charm of an armadillo. He isn't respected by the ACTUAL scholars and thinkers he encounters. The people he IS respected by are those who just want to have the feeling that Christianity is an equal intellectual stance to Atheism, and so view his "warrior apologetics" (god, just saying that makes the bile rise in my throat) as appealing in soothing their inferiority complex. He can sound JUST intelligent and well informed enough to suit their needs, but in the wider world he sinks like a brick. My personal experience with him is that he is dismissive, angry, mean-spirited, etc.

10-16-2009, 06:22 AM	#13
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Pretty easy to use his ego against him. Just bait him into a topic he's unfamiliar with and then unleash the scorn and derision, while offering a way out that forces him to be nice to you. That's how it worked when I debated him some years ago on TWeb. In the end he wouldn't insult me gratuitously because it was an invitation for me to remind him of all his dodges. Plus I was bend-over-backwards polite to nice Christians, which made him look bad that all he got out from me was derision.

10-16-2009, 07:18 AM	#15
James Brown Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Texas, U.S. Posts: 5,844	Can someone give me the Cliffs Notes version of this Holding character? I've only heard of him in passing, mentioned by people who have a history of him, and everything they say is critical. Who is this guy that makes everyone so upset?

10-16-2009, 07:55 AM	#18
Sea Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Midwest, USA Posts: 106	JP Holding is awesome because his attitude rubs skeptics wrong, then the same skeptics who condemn him for it engage in the supreme irony of emulating his attitude. I think it's a personality conflict thing. "Certain people" are capable of having decent conversations so long as the other person is less touchy. When these people meet others of the same type, eventually one or the other will be offended and then it turns into an endless mess of immaturity.

10-16-2009, 09:43 AM	#20
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Wiki article on him?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.