All religions are dangerous?

[_Moniker]

Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.

Please meet the above request with no commentary of your own. Just put the applicable JAK quote in front of me.

I already did that, Jersey Girl. A few times now. He called me disingenuous on that same post I've already pointed out to you as well.

sigh

It was on page 3 or 4 of this thread. I also put the link in a few of our discussions already.

This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!

This thread is frustrating.

Moniker,

Without using a specific word here, you are calling me a liar.

Well, if you can't show me making a personal attack to you before page 5 of this thread then you are awfully confused. :)
You said I made an attack on you here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

Please look to that above link and explain how I made a personal attack on you. Thanks.

Here is why.

Moniker stated:
This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!

Notice the bold emphasis. Now in two subsequent posts, I told you exactly my source of information a 1985 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia.

JAK - I accept whereever you say you got it from. I have no problem with the SOURCE! I refuted the INFORMATION in your source and you never, ever, ever replied to my refutation and you continue to say I am attacking your source??

I am losing my patience with you! Seriously -- I'm not being ugly here but I work with kids with behavioral disorders and I don't lose my patience with them! This is a really new one for me!!!!!!!! :D

LOOK HERE JAK:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 330#127330

You posted this on Feb 19th 8:11 am:

John Larsen wrote:
Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII.


Moniker wrote:
This is incorrect, by the way. Shintoism was only the state religion of Japan when it was enforced by the state. Buddhism was also practiced (often times Japanese interspersed these two) before it was made the national religion.

JAK wrote:

Moniker,

Of course John is correct.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

There is not a specific date for the evolution of Shinto. Beginning about the 500s A.D., the Chinese philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism influenced Shinto. Shintoists identified Buddhists gods as kami, and shrines adopted Buddhist images to represent the kami.

During the 1800s, as religions evolve, many Shintoists began to reject the Buddhist influence. In the mid-1800s, a movement called State Shinto stressed patriotism and divine origins of the Japanese emperor.

Later movements of Shinto attracted many followers in Japan during the 1800s and 1900s. Some of them encouraged group worship.

JAK

OKAY! That was YOUR post!

See my reply please?? PLEASE???? I replied to YOUR post (your information) on Feb 19th 3:58 pm

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 469#127469

Please notice in the above link (where you will find my reply to YOU!) that I refute your information:

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

My reply found IN THAT POST I LINKED (for those that can ACTUALLY follow along at home!!!!!!!!)

The Kami are more like spirits than Gods. Shinto does not emphasize moral standards. Buddhism was interspersed (and is still) to deal with an afterlife in Japan. The Japanese live NOW with Shintoism and rely on Buddhism for their deaths -- pretty cool, I think. :)

How is today Shintoism (separate from the state) a dangerous religion? It has no dogma -- there are rituals, there are supernatural beliefs -- the Japanese are highly educated, are incredibly healthy and live a fairly marvelous life. This religion (without state control) must be shown to be dangerous for your primary thesis to stand. How the religion was co-opted in the past does not offer proof that this religion, practiced today (and is actually just THE culture of Japan) is a danger.

I find it interesting that we have to reach back in time (to a more barbaric age for most societies) to show that religions are dangerous. Does anyone else find that interesting? Just me???

I disagreed with YOUR information!!!!!!

About 5 minutes later I asked you to cite your source after I realized it wasn't yours! That was IT! I didn't attack YOU! I didn't attack the "source" I refuted the INFORMATION!!!!!!

JAK only AFTER you called me a few ugly things did I mention your plagiarism. It does not matter to me where it came from, yet, it does matter that it wasn't yours. I did NOT SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT!

The information was WRONG AND I REFUTED THE INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone tell me they understand they understand what is going on? I'm going to lose it!!!!! :D

I also told you that I had not see your source which YOU posted and which confirmed the information that I found in my library at home.

So your statement here continues the assertion that I plagiarized the source which you found. I did not. Clearly, you not believe that, but it’s the way it was, and it’s what I told you.

WHAT? I DID NOT FIND A SOURCE!!!!!!!!! The source was MY OWN MIND! MY OWN KNOWLEDGE!!!!!! JAK!!!!!!!!! Do you get that? I KNOW ABOUT SHINTOISM! I refuted YOUR source with MY BRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at my above reply to you! It is NOT the same as your source! Unless you are picking up wavelengths from my brain antennae or something that I'm unaware of!!

You also may not know that encyclopedia references are often produced or written by the same individuals which accounts for similarity in different encyclopedias particularly on topics which have not changed in any substantive way even over many years.

So your “Jak!Tsk! Tsk!” was an accusation. It was false. I told you it was false. And here you continue to put it on the board entirely ignoring what I told you regarding where I found the information. You did make a “big call on the plagiarism” and it was a personal attack on me. Since you made a false charge in the first place, and since you continue to make the same charge now as you confirm your position that I am lying, why should I respond to anything you say? I should not!

WHAT? I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA! I care that YOU said I attacked you on page of this thread. OKAY HOW? It is NOT a false charge! You put something up as your own thoughts and words and they are not yours!

I pointed the way for you to exactly where I obtained information. You chose to disregard it and in so doing, even now, you are calling me a liar. …not by using the word, but by continuing even after my statement to you in two posts where I obtained information, you continue to post as you do. There is no point for me to respond to you, Moniker.

WTF? OMG -- I DO NOT CARE WHERE YOU GOT IT! IT WAS WRONG! I refuted the INFORMATION!!!!!!! DO YOU NOT SEE THAT?

Seriously?

by the way, you saying I'm disingenuous and had attacked you happened BEFORE this incident. So where did I attack you BEFORE THE PLAGIARISM incident, JAK????

Now, when I quoted from your post, I just took what was on that post and failed to notice accurately which of two statements that stated the same basic information. That was my error. I didn’t distinguish correctly which was which. It was my error in haste to reply trying to refocus on the issue of religion. I apologize for the error.

YOU DID NOT QUOTE FROM MY POST! MY POST IS ABOVE! YOU COPY AND PASTED YOUR OWN SOURCE! You're too fricking confused to realize it. AND THE INFORMATION was DIFFERENT as mine came straight from my brain and told you that YOUR INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT!!!!!!!!

The attempt to shift from the content of the information which was the same form both sources was your attempt to shift the debate to a personal charge of plagiarism rather than address Shintoism. On this forum, many points of information have been made in which no sources are offered. I did not think it necessary on the original post of mine which contained information on a religion to list a source since the information is general information.

OMG! You don't read a fricking thing I type! I REFUTED YOUR INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You siezed on that as an opportunity to make personal attack and accusation of plagiarism. YOU attempted to shift the debate to a personal attack rather than address the content.

Oh man! YOU PLEASE SEE THAT YOU SAID I ATTACKED YOU BEFORE THIS OCCURRED! You ALSO said I was disingenuous and asked me questions ABOUT MY LIFE BEFORE THIS OCCURRED -- REPEATEDLY!

There is NO accusation of plagiarism. There is proof of plagiarism. I don't care all that much you did it. But when a man tells me I "insult my intelligence" (this was before this incident too, by the way) and that I'm "ignorant" I start to lose my patience.

The flawed technique:

If you cannot attack the evidence, you attack the source.
If you cannot attack the source, you attack the person who used the source.

In this case, the information in the sources plural mine and the one YOU found on line stated virtually the same thing. So the evidence supported my statements about that information.

OMG! I REFUTED THE INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That you don't read my posts is MY FAULT???

But, here, now, many posts later and after you surely have read exactly what I told you about where I found information, HERE, you continue your charges of plagiarism which continues to be a personal attack.

I mentioned it because Jersey Girl started in on me with me trying to figure out how I personally attacked you (BEFORE THIS INCIDENT by the way)?? So all things I said AFTER that were in conversation with her! by the way, you attacked me REPEATEDLY in this thread -- BEFORE I noticed your plagiarism. But that's okay, right?

I mean, it's okay for you to attack me rather than my information? No double standard there, eh?

As I stated previously, you just go on your merry way and think what you wish inspite of what you have been told and you just go on and continue to regard me as you wish.

But make no mistake, you continue, without use of the word “liar,” to call me a liar as you continue in your wrong conclusion.

JAK! I have NOT called you a liar -- I don't know WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE! I KNOW that I refuted the INFORMATION in your post and you got snippy with me PAGES prior to that asking me personal questions, telling me I'm disingenuous, telling me I "insult my intelligence" and then call me "ignorant". I DO KNOW THAT!

So, if I do one day call you a "liar" I'll ALMOST be up to par with you hurling the insults. Maybe to be less "ignorant" I should call others names? 'Cause that shows that I really know my stuff, eh?

There is absolutely no point in conversation with you from me. Your mind is made up and nothing which I could say will alter your opinion.

But for the record, once again, my source for information on Shintoism came from a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia which is in my home.

I’m sure you will continue with your opinion unchanged.

Again I apologize for picking up on the wrong one of two sources you placed in the same post as you attempted to attack me for plagiarism. It was a mistake by me.

JAK

Tata JAK!

[_Moniker]

Sure, Moniker, here you are:

Moniker

Oh! My! Goodness! Gracious!


JAK wrote:
You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.



NO! I did NOT attack your source! I posted (A FEW TIMES) why the article you used was incorrect on a FEW POINTS! Is anyone else following this?

I'm following most of it, yes. Let me show you something....

JAK wrote, in part: "Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use."

And you reply, in part: "NO! I did NOT attack your source!"

Do you see it, Moniker?

I'm trying to help, been down this road more than a few times....

Jersey Girl

He has ALREADY ACCUSED ME OF ATTACKING HIS SOURCE! He ALSO is wrong about the "fundamental information about Shintoism" that I addressed many, many, many pages ago and have done so REPEATEDLY SINCE THEN - and he STILL repeats this same thing!

Have I gone nuts?

If you've been down this road a few times then you would know that EARLIER JAK said something and I said I didn't do it AND SHOWED I DID NOT DO IT - and he just again said I did do it. I'm bolding the part I want you to look at!
Jersey Girl have you followed the thread? Let me point your attention to THIS:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

Moniker,

Old though it may be, we have in our library a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia from which I collected information regarding Shintoism.

While you may believe your comment, it’s wrong, and it’s inaccurate. I never saw the website which you found.

But you do not dispute the information.

If you can’t attack the information, you attack the source.

If you can’t attack the source, you attack the source or the information, you attack the one who provided the information.

But you do not attack the information with any countervailing source.

You give example of personal attack. You denied making personal attack. That was false.

You attempted to shift the topic to attack a person with information.

That multiple sources for Shintoism would have essentially the same information is not surprising.

If you can find a 1985 edition of the World book Encyclopedia, you can confirm the same information there as was on the website which you found and which I did not see.

The fact is that the information is established. That is the critical point. Your contradiction of two sources does not give you credibility. The fact that essentially the same information came from at least two different encyclopedia sources is in no way refuted by your rejection of that information. Wishful thinking is self-deception.

So just continue on your ignorant merry way, Moniker.

ALL OF THE COMMENTS I BOLDED WERE INCORRECT!

Jersey Girl -- what about JAK plagiarizing -- what about JAK copy and pasting his plagiarized post into a new post and saying it is MY source? What about JAK saying I'm "ignorant", etc.... I suggest if you really have been down this road a few times (without bias) that maybe you can let JAK in on some of the stuff in this thread that HE has done!

And you're welcome for the time investment.

YOU approached me! You did not do a damn thing I asked you to do! You came in here and replied to MY post to JAK!! There are MORE posts between the one that you just posted. I repeatedly tried to get you to understand what was going on all the time you're saying I do NOT understand!

I have ATTEMPTED to talk to this man while he follows me about the board saying I'm on my way to being a "thinker" and says crap on this thread to me about my intelligence and being ignorant and that's the same as me BUSTING his ass for plagiarism you have some issue.

I did NOT ask for your help. YOU INSERTED YOURSELF INTO THIS! You popped in and I repeatedly TRIED to explain to YOU what the hell was going on! I WAS SHOWING YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON -- since YOU say he didn't say that I attacked him.

Can we all agree that JAK thinks I attack him while HE calls me "ignorant" that I "insult my intelligence" etc...

I POINTED YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT JAK SAID! I did NOT ask for your help. It's funny -- I can't apparently comprehend JAK according to Jersey Girl and Jersey Girl can't comprehend me.

Oh, what a fun Friday night. I'm about to go to a show and when I am stomping my big black boots all over I intend to get rid of this angst. Phew.

:D

[_JAK]

Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

You had written: "All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence."

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
dogma

A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Sure, Moniker, here you are:

Moniker

Oh! My! Goodness! Gracious!


JAK wrote:
You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.



NO! I did NOT attack your source! I posted (A FEW TIMES) why the article you used was incorrect on a FEW POINTS! Is anyone else following this?

I'm following most of it, yes. Let me show you something....

JAK wrote, in part: "Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use."

And you reply, in part: "NO! I did NOT attack your source!"

Do you see it, Moniker?

I'm trying to help, been down this road more than a few times....

Jersey Girl

He has ALREADY ACCUSED ME OF ATTACKING HIS SOURCE! He ALSO is wrong about the "fundamental information about Shintoism" that I addressed many, many, many pages ago and have done so REPEATEDLY SINCE THEN - and he STILL repeats this same thing!

Have I gone nuts?

If you've been down this road a few times then you would know that EARLIER JAK said something and I said I didn't do it AND SHOWED I DID NOT DO IT - and he just again said I did do it. I'm bolding the part I want you to look at!
Jersey Girl have you followed the thread? Let me point your attention to THIS:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

Moniker,

Old though it may be, we have in our library a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia from which I collected information regarding Shintoism.

While you may believe your comment, it’s wrong, and it’s inaccurate. I never saw the website which you found.

But you do not dispute the information.

If you can’t attack the information, you attack the source.

If you can’t attack the source, you attack the source or the information, you attack the one who provided the information.

But you do not attack the information with any countervailing source.

You give example of personal attack. You denied making personal attack. That was false.

You attempted to shift the topic to attack a person with information.

That multiple sources for Shintoism would have essentially the same information is not surprising.

If you can find a 1985 edition of the World book Encyclopedia, you can confirm the same information there as was on the website which you found and which I did not see.

The fact is that the information is established. That is the critical point. Your contradiction of two sources does not give you credibility. The fact that essentially the same information came from at least two different encyclopedia sources is in no way refuted by your rejection of that information. Wishful thinking is self-deception.

So just continue on your ignorant merry way, Moniker.

ALL OF THE COMMENTS I BOLDED WERE INCORRECT!

Jersey Girl -- what about JAK plagiarizing -- what about JAK copy and pasting his plagiarized post into a new post and saying it is MY source? What about JAK saying I'm "ignorant", etc.... I suggest if you really have been down this road a few times (without bias) that maybe you can let JAK in on some of the stuff in this thread that HE has done!

And you're welcome for the time investment.

YOU approached me! You did not do a damn thing I asked you to do! You came in here and replied to MY post to JAK!! There are MORE posts between the one that you just posted. I repeatedly tried to get you to understand what was going on all the time you're saying I do NOT understand!

I have ATTEMPTED to talk to this man while he follows me about the board saying I'm on my way to being a "thinker" and says s*** on this thread to me about my intelligence and being ignorant and that's the same as me BUSTING his ass for plagiarism you have some issue.

I did NOT ask for your help. YOU INSERTED YOURSELF INTO THIS! You popped in and I repeatedly TRIED to explain to YOU what the hell was going on! I WAS SHOWING YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON -- since YOU say he didn't say that I attacked him.

Can we all agree that JAK thinks I attack him while HE calls me "ignorant" that I "insult my intelligence" etc...

I POINTED YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT JAK SAID! I did NOT ask for your help. It's funny -- I can't apparently comprehend JAK according to Jersey Girl and Jersey Girl can't comprehend me.

Oh, what a fun Friday night. I'm about to go to a show and when I am stomping my big black boots all over I intend to get rid of this angst. Phew.

:D

I will bold and underline where you requested help. When you state that JAK claimed you personally attacked him when what he made was a simple statement regarding commenting on personal attack, you do fail to comprehend JAK.

[_Moniker]

Moniker stated:
“I understand religion has been dangerous -- the assertion was that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma.

That appears to be a distortion of a comment from me. I did not state this.

Typical in attack is to misquote then attack the misquote as if it were stated.

Is it typical for all of your replies to me to say that I'm attacking you? That seems to be typical. I'm really getting quite frustrated!

I'm going to go PM Gad in a second and get his lil blog article that deals with what NOT to do in online debates!!!!!

Here is what you said:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

So when I say all religion replaces intellect with dogma that is a distortion? So... let me get this straight... I didn't say JAK said it but was going on my memory of the assertion (discussion taking place in this thread) and to say that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma is inaccurate?

So what does ALL religion replace intellect with if it's not dogma JAK? What is the problem with my statement? The "all" part? The "intellect" part? Or is it the "dogma" part that is inaccurate.

Here is what I stated:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Let’s see the evidence for your claim that anyone stated what you have posted here.

JAK

Umhum, please see above and you'll understand that just because you keep typing that this doesn't change the OP. I also never said "JAK said this and this and this" I was paraphrasing the discussion occurring on this thread.

:)

[_dartagnan]

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

Or in other words, www.dictionary.com

You don't really think JAK reads actual books do you?

[_Moniker]

I will bold and underline where you requested help. When you state that JAK claimed you personally attacked him when what he made was a simple statement regarding commenting on personal attack, you do fail to comprehend JAK.

Really? Your bolded parts show that I asked for help? That's funny, I don't read it that way. At all.

WHY DO YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT JAK HAS SAID REPEATEDLY IN THIS THREAD THAT I ATTACK HIM?

I did not carefully read that post of his -- you're correct. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that from page 5 on up to THIS page he accuses me of attacking him.

WTF do you keep replying to me? Seriously?

I asked if I WAS GOING NUTS!

Dart, did JAK drive you nuts? Is it just ME??? WTF?????????????????

[_Jersey Girl]

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

Or in other words, www.dictionary.com

You don't really think JAK reads actual books do you?

Kevin,

Just as an aside, can you direct me to any posts of yours on this thread where you supply documentation to support your position other than by links?

[_JAK]

Moniker stated:
“I understand religion has been dangerous -- the assertion was that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma.

That appears to be a distortion of a comment from me. I did not state this.

Typical in attack is to misquote then attack the misquote as if it were stated.

Is it typical for all of your replies to me to say that I'm attacking you? That seems to be typical. I'm really getting quite frustrated!

I'm going to go PM Gad in a second and get his lil blog article that deals with what NOT to do in online debates!!!!!

Here is what you said:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

So when I say all religion replaces intellect with dogma that is a distortion? So... let me get this straight... I didn't say JAK said it but was going on my memory of the assertion (discussion taking place in this thread) and to say that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma is inaccurate?

So what does ALL religion replace intellect with if it's not dogma JAK? What is the problem with my statement? The "all" part? The "intellect" part? Or is it the "dogma" part that is inaccurate.

Here is what I stated:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Let’s see the evidence for your claim that anyone stated what you have posted here.

JAK

Umhum, please see above and you'll understand that just because you keep typing that this doesn't change the OP. I also never said "JAK said this and this and this" I was paraphrasing the discussion occurring on this thread.

:)

Paraphrase is always risky, Moniker.

Do you know why? It’s because there is a good chance that it will misrepresent what someone actually said. It’s often done deliberately to distort what someone actually said (hence the straw man to attack).

But sometimes it’s done quite innocently still resulting in a misstatement of the writer.

Yes to your question regarding distortion.

Just read the words as they appear. Don’t attempt to rewrite them or recombine them.

The quote is accurate:

“Religions seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.”

JAK

[_dartagnan]

Jersey Girl,

Most of what I said that refutes his sillines is from my own knowledge of sociology, and I don't recall linking to the web to support my claims with regards to that. I've tried to argue against JAK on several other fronts, particularly on the Crusades and Galileo, since the throws them out there as "evidence" for his thesis. But he evades those debates because he knows his knowledge base is extremely limited. He doesn't know what he is talking about and he never did. He relies strictly on whatever anti-religion articles he can pull up, and he is tired of trying to plagiarize websites in ways that make it difficult for us to find out; like copying entire sentences and changing a word that would throw off a direct google search. Its like he really doesn't have the capacity to write his own argument. He steals stuff from websites and passes it off as his own.

He tells me to go read some silly website written by God knows who, and I'm supposed to just ignore everything I've learned from real books written by real scholars in the field that contradict it?

Not gonna happen.

Ironically, that would require blind faith in non-authorities, which is precisely the thing he tries to attack religions for. JAK is no different than any fundamentalist whacko because he places all his faith in bad authorities too. It is all about who says what he likes to hear, he is not interested in testing their claims using any logical methods. For JAK, the fact that it is on the web must mean its true!