Readers who wish to comment on the articles posted on this website have a Feedback section available to them. Most messages posted there are generally brief, but now and then, someone will take issue with articles and post comments that are too long for me to reply to in the same section. The message from Tom Kabis, in which he tried to explain away the inconsistencies in Luke's and Paul's accounts of when the latter first went to Jerusalem after his conversion, is an example of such a "feedback" reaction, so I answered it here in the articles section. On March 23rd, someone who called himself "Mediocre Man" posted a lengthy reaction to my own post about Kabis's refusal to reply to my point-by-point rebuttal of his "solution" to the New Testament inconsistencies about Paul's first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion in Damascus. MM, which will be the abbreviation that I will use in my point-by-point reply to Mediocre Man's Feedback comments, filled his post with one logical fallacy after the other. To reply to all of them, especially the argumentations by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, will require the use of more space than I care to use in the Feedback section, so I am going to respond to him here. I will use the header MM to identify his comments that I am replying to.

The title of this article is not intended as a compliment of MM's forensic abilities. Its intention is to suggest that his apparent attempt at modesty by using "Mediocre Man" as his user name failed to accomplish its intended purpose, because we will see that he has a rather high opinion of his biblical insights, which I am sure he considers well above just mediocre, but that mediocre, in reality, overrates his actual intellectual abilities, at least in the field of religion. In whatever profession he is in, he may have superior skills, but he will show us below that his intellectual abilities in religion are well below mediocre.

MM:
Firstly, I am genuinely sorry to learn of your recent health problems.

Till:
I appreciate the concern. I have made good strides toward recovery, but there are still some lingering effects that I have to deal with. I attribute my recovery to the physicians who have treated me and not to some deity in the sky. That someone who is almost 72 would have an ischemic stroke is certainly not unusual, so if "God" actually caused this to happen to me as a warning, all I can say is that that would be just like him, wouldn't it? With everything in the world that needs the attention of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, if he has nothing more to do than send a medical warning to a 72-year-old atheist, he needs to reevaluate his priorities.

MM:
There may be some (here and elsewhere) who might take some measure of satisfaction in your personal difficulties as it would demonstrate in their view a kind of "righteous judgement" on your life for your rejection of God.

Till:
I can assure MM that he is right about this. I have received many messages from friends and readers. They all expressed wishes for my recovery, and the Bible believers, of course, told me that they were praying for me. Some of them, however, couldn't resist telling me that I should realize that this was a message from God that I should repent. My comments above should communicate just how little I believe in such superstition as "righteous judgment" from some "spirit" in the sky.

MM:
I, however, am not one of these. I regard your TSR as having done a fine service for christians in bringing a detailed focus to the Truth of the Biblical Scriptures.

Till:
I wouldn't even try to estimate how many people have thanked me over the years for the part my articles and debates had in making them realize that the Bible is not at all what they had been taught to believe. That MM could consider all the deconversions I have been involved in "a fine service for Christians" speaks volumes about how little he knows about an imaginary "focus" that I have brought to "the truth of the biblical scriptures," which he claims has had the reverse effect of what I had wanted. In this statement, MM began his chain of logical fallacies. In speaking of "the truth of the biblical scriptures," he is begging a question that he needs to prove. Are the biblical scriptures "truth"? That is what he must prove. I won't let him just assume it.

By the way, I will say here that I certainly don't claim that there is no truth at all in the Bible. I recognize that there is some truth, but I have shown in my debates and my articles here and in The Skeptical Review that there is also considerable error in the Bible.

MM:
That is not to say that the Bible is the "word of God" (as the slogan goes), but that the Bible contains the word of God.

Till:
Very well, then I will ask MM to do something that I have asked of others, who believe as he apparently does, i. e., the Bible contains some errors but nevertheless contains the "truth of God." Will MM explain to us just how he is able to determine truth from error in the Bible? I will be more specific. Is Daniel 2:1 a true statement: "In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed such dreams that his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him"? If MM says that it is a true statement, I would appreciate his telling us how he was able to determine this. If he says that it isn't a true statement, how was he able to determine that? In other words, we just want to know how these people who continue to defend the Bible after they have admitted that it contains errors are able to determine truth from error in an errant Bible.

MM:
Your efforts over the years, perhaps unknowingly, have clearly emphasized that distinction, and in so doing have clarified how the Bible should be studied and understood for the Truth it contains.

Till:
What MM asserted here is nothing new to me. I couldn't even begin to estimate how many Bible believers have taken apparent satisfaction in telling me that my work in debunking the Bible has actually advanced faith in the Bible. No one has ever supported this claim with any specific, verifiable examples; it is just something that disgruntled Bible believers apparently gain personal satisfaction from asserting. However, I have yet to hear any of them explain why I receive so many letters, e-mail messages, and phone calls from people who want to thank me for my help in getting them to see the absurdity in believing that the Bible is the so-called "word of God."

As I go through MM's article point by point, I will be pointing out his logical fallacies. Aside from the argumentation by assertion that we just saw here and above, he has once again engaged in question begging by speaking of "the truth" that the Bible contains. Whether the Bible contains "truth" or not is something that he must prove. I won't let him just assert it.

MM:
Yet I am not so naive as to think that that has been your intention, Mr. Till; but as the verse states, "we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Cor. 13:8).

Till:
But is the statement in 2 Corinthians 13:8 a true statement? If so, exactly how was MM able to make that determination. He indicated above that he doesn't think that the Bible is the word of God but does "contain" the word of God. How then was MM able to know that what the apostle Paul said here was a true statement? We see, then, that MM is engaging in special pleading by apparently claiming that a specific verse in a book that contains at least some errors is a true statement. Let him explain to us how he knows that this statement is true.

MM:
The purpose of the Scriptures that have been preserved in the Bible is to bring us to the Messiah,

Till:
Exactly how was MM able to determine that the "purpose of the scriptures" was "to bring us to the Messiah"? He is again arguing by assertion and begging questions that he needs to prove. In my discussions and debates with Bible believers, I have found that very few of them can write a sustained thought without constantly resorting to the logical fallacies of arguing by assertions, begging questions, and special pleadings. If, for example, a Muslim should say to MM that "the purpose of the Qur'an is to bring us to Allah," how impressed would he be? If he will answer that question, perhaps he will understand how unimpressed I am when he makes unsupported assertions about the Bible.

MM:
so that through him we might become acceptable to God

Till:
How does MM know this? He is arguing by assertion again. What would Bible believers do if they didn't have the logical fallacies of argumentation by assertion, question begging, and special pleading to fall back on?

MM:
("For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"; 1 Tim. 2:5.)

Till:
How does MM know that this is a true statement? He has said that the Bible is not "the word of God" but just contains the word of God, so how does he know that 1 Timothy 2:5 is a part of the "word of God"? "Christ Jesus" is a "mediator between God and men"? How does MM know this? Once again, he is engaging in question begging and special pleading. Spewing out nonsense like this may work in pulpits where the pews are filled with those already inclined to believe that the Bible "contains the word of God," but it will accomplish nothing with rational people who want to hear solid evidence and not what MM may think or believe about the Bible.

MM:
The end-result of that journey of discovering the Truth is Christianity.

Till:
This is more argumentation by assertion. If MM were engaged in a discussion with a Muslim, how impressed would he be if his opponent said, "The end result of that journey of discovering the Truth is Islam"? If MM is going to engage in religious forensics, he needs to understand, as I said above, that rational people want to see solid evidence. They are not interested in hearing what religious adherents think or believe.

MM:
(Not the religion, but the reality; for all that I have read of your writing, Mr. Till, and in spite of your protestations to the contrary, I am still not convinced that you actually understand what Christianity is. Perhaps that issue could be a topic of discussion between us.)

Till:
If MM can ever demonstrate that he has a sense of logic, I would be glad to engage in other discussions with him, but if he cannot demonstrate his ability to delineate logical arguments and support them with evidence instead of just stringing assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings together, this will be my last discussion with him. Everything that he has said in his post that I am now replying to could easily be converted into an Islamic apology by simplying changing terms like Bible to Qur'an, Christianity to Islam, Jesus Christ to Muhammad, God to Allah, etc. If these conversions were made and MM's own post were submitted to him adapted to promote Islam and the Qur'an with the same assertions and special pleadings, he wouldn't be at all impressed to read a Muslim's claim that Islam is the "truth" or that the Qur'an contains the word of Allah. Why, then, can't he see that the rants about Jesus Christ, the truth of Christianity, and "the word of God" are to rational people like sounding brass and clanging symbols? In other words, if by just changing certain terminology in his post, MM's own assertions can be taken and used to claim that truth exists in other religions, what value do they have? MM apparently has not yet come to understand the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves proves nothing at all. I urge him either to give us sound, rational evidence to prove the "truth of Christianity" or else stop wasting our time with unsupported assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings.

MM:
You might recall that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24, 25).

Till:
Yes, I know that the New Testament says this, and I would have known exactly where to find it even if MM had not given the book-chapter-and-verse citation. I have been studying the Bible very seriously ever since 1949, so, unlike most Christians, I know what it says very well. I seriously doubt that MM's knowledge of the Bible surpasses mine. I doubt that his knowledge of it even comes close to mine. The important thing here, then, is not that the apostle Paul said that the law [of Moses] was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ but whether this is a true statement. Did "God" for some reason known only to his inscrutable mind give the law of Moses to the Israelites and tell them that it was an everlasting covenant (Deut. 12:28; 1 Chron. 16:17) when he knew all along that it was to be only a temporary "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," or was this just something that the apostle Paul dreamed up to try to give Christianity respectability by claiming that it was the final purpose of what the law of Moses was pointing to? If MM answers, let's hope that he will tell us how he arrived at his answer. In a word, I am just pointing out again, as I will have to do several more times in my reply to his post, that MM is engaging in flagrant question begging and special pleading. How does he know that the statement in Galatians 3:24-25 was a true statement or just something that the apostle Paul made up and threw out to his readers, who probably thought that his word had to be gospel truth?

MM:
The Bible, then, in spite of the flaws that have entered into it over the millennia, is not itself meant to be the ultimate Truth (as many of the Skeptical Inquisitors seem to believe); but only to point the way to the Truth -- that being God's intent to restore human beings to a personal relationship with Himself through the Messiah.

Till:
Once again, MM is engaging in flagrant question begging. How does he know that the Bible was not meant to be "the ultimate truth" but was simply intended "to point the way to the truth"? Inquiring minds want to know, so let MM show us--show us, not just tell us--how he came by this bit of information. Did he determine this from something that he read in this Bible, which was intended to point the way to the truth? If so, let him tell us how he was able to determine that the part of the Bible that he read to reach this conclusion was truth and not error. Has this guy ever spent even one minute studying the principles of logic? If a Muslim said to him that the Qur'an was not meant to be "the ultimate truth" but was intended only to point the way to the truth--that being that Allah is the only true God and that Muhammad was his prophet, would MM just accept this without question, or would he demand that the Muslim show him some solid evidence that this is a true statement?

Why do so many religionists hang their brains on a nail in the closet when they undertake to discuss their beliefs?

MM:
Consider Romans 15:4: "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Till:
I also knew that this was in the Bible, so now I would like for MM to tell us how he knows that this is a true statement. "Whatsoever things were written aforetime," of course, were the things in the Jewish scriptures, so how does MM know that all these things were written for "our learning" rather than that this too was just something that the apostle Paul said to try to give Christianity respectability by associating it with the law of Moses? Let him explain to us why "God" would have given the Israelites a law that just pointed to a superior covenant rather than just giving the superior one at the start.

I don't really need to say it again, but I will. MM can't seem to write a sentence without resorting to argumentation by assertion, question begging, or special pleading. I kept hoping that I would find something in his post that would indicate that he does have at least some semblance of logic in his thinking, but, regrettably, I never did.

MM:
Christians do not (or, at least, should not) worship the Bible any more than they should worship any other religious idol or icon.

Till:
Maybe they shouldn't, but some obviously do. That's why the word bibliolatry is in English dictionaries. It is there because it filled the need to have a word to describe people who worship books and especially the Bible.

MM:
The Bible is only a thing -- a thing which in this imperfect world is itself imperfect (as you so eagerly proclaim).

Till:
As I so eagerly proclaim and know, so now I would like to remind MM that I will be waiting for him to explain to us just how he is able to determine what is truth in a book that he admits is imperfect. I will be specific again. Does Luke 1:35 make a true statement: "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" If MM says that everything in this verse was true, I trust he will understand that I will want to know how he was able to determine the factuality of (1) an angel appearing to Mary, (2) the Holy Spirit exists, (3) the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary, (4) this overshadowing of the Holy Spirit caused the conception of a "holy child," and (5) this holy child was called the son of God.

I trust too that MM will understand that we want verification of this information that does not resort to argumentation by assertion, question begging, or special pleading. This is going to leave MM up that famous creek without a paddle, because there is no way that he can give us answers to all this without resorting to the logical fallacies just mentioned.

MM:
But to acknowledge this fact is not to demonstrate that the Bible is therefore a book of mythology;

Till:
I agree that the Bible isn't all mythology. Some of it is legend, some of it is fictionalized history, and some of it is actual history. In the main, however, what is in the Bible was so colored and influenced by ancient superstitions that rational people would never believe that it contains "the word of God."

MM:
because although flawed, it is not so completely flawed that one cannot extract the Truth from its pages.

Till:
Okay, all that MM needs to do now is explain to us exactly how one can "extract the truth" from the pages of the Bible. There is a stock answer for this that I have heard and heard and heard and heard, and that is that all one has to do is pray, and the Holy Spirit will guide him/her to understand what is truth and what is not in the Bible. I will wait until MM resorts to this old saw, however, before I comment further on it, except to ask why the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit didn't save himself a lot of time by just "inspiring" those who wrote the books of the Bible to communicate with such clarity that any literate person could understand what they had written. If he had done this, he could have spared himself all the time that he now has to spend answering the prayers of the millions who daily ask him to help them understand where truth is in the Bible.

MM:
The Bible is a compendium of documentation which contains elements of the Truth from which we can learn about God's ways and plans

Till:
So why didn't MM take the time to tell us just how one can glean those "elements of truth" from the Bible to learn "about God's ways and plans"? I also ask him to tell us, without resorting to argumentation by assertion, question begging, or special pleading to tell us (1) how he knows that there is a "God" and (2) how he knows that this thing that he calls "God" has "ways" and "plans."

I will ask again what Bible believers would do if they didn't have logical fallacies like question begging and special pleading to fall back on.

MM:
-- not the least of which is to "call out" people from the world to be His children.

Till:
The argumentation by question begging and special pleading continues. How does MM know that a part of "God's ways and plans" is to "call out people from the world to be his children"? Did he read something in the Bible that led him to this conclusion? If so, how does MM know that what he read about this in an admittedly imperfect Bible is true? In other words, we would like for MM to tell us just how he is able to determine truth from error in an imperfect Bible.

MM:
And how do we know the Bible contains the Truth?

Till:
Yes, how do we?

MM:
Because God exists as Sovereign to guarantee that His will is performed as He so deems

Till:
Still more argumentation by assertion and question begging. How does MM know that "God exists as sovereign to guarantee that his will is performed as he so deems"? Did MM read something in the Bible that led him to this conclusion? If so, how was he able to determine that this was truth and not error? After all, even he admits that the Bible is imperfect.

MM:
-- whether we know His will or not (Hos. 4:1);

Till:
Here is what Hosea 4:1 says. I will quote the verses that follow so that we can see it in its broader context.

Hosea 4:1 Hear the word of Yahweh, O people of Israel; for Yahweh has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land. 2 Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed. 3 Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing. 4 Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest. 5 You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night, and I will destroy your mother. 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. 7 The more they increased, the more they sinned against me; they changed their glory into shame. 8 They feed on the sin of my people; they are greedy for their iniquity. 9 And it shall be like people, like priest; I will punish them for their ways, and repay them for their deeds.

I really can't see that this text is saying that God will guarantee that his will is performed as he deems whether we know his will or not. I taught college literature for 30 years, so I think I have decent literary interpretation skills, and all that I see here are the rantings of an ancient prophet, who was warning that the god Yahweh was going to punish them for their sins. Such prophets were as common as dirt back then, and the Old Testament is full of their rantings, as were extrabiblical writings of the time, but there is nothing here that says that the god Yahweh would "guarantee that his will [be] performed as he so deems." It was saying that the petulent Yahweh, in typical fashion, was going to kick butt because of the widespread disobedience in the land.

The prophet Hosea was probably an ancient counterpart of MM, i. e., someone who thought that he knew exactly what truth is. For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that Hosea 4:1 meant exactly what MM claims that it did. With that concession, let him now explain to us, without resorting to argumentation by assertion, question begging, or special pleading, how he was able to determine that this verse in an admittedly imperfect Bible was truth and not imperfection.

MM:
or whether it is in the Bible or not (Deut. 29:29).

Till:
Here is what this verse says in its broader context.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law.

Once again, I can't see that this text is saying what MM claims. As it was translated, this is a compound sentence consisting of two independent clauses connected with the coordinate conjunction but. The second clause says rather clearly that the revealed things of Yahweh belong to us [the Israelites] and to "our children forever." The infinitive phrase "to observe all the words of this law" modifies the verb belong, so the second clause was obviously saying that the revealed things belonged to the Israelites and their descendants forever so that they could "observe all the words of this law," which would be the law of Moses. In other words, this clause is saying that Yahweh revealed "this law" to the Israelites and their descendants forever so that they could observe all the words of that law. The "secret things" are in the first independent clause of the sentence, so these "secret things" are independent of the "revealed things." The entire verse was simply saying that there are certain "secret things" that belong to Yahweh and not to the Israelites, but the revealed things in the law [of Moses] were revealed so that the Israelites and their descendants could observe them forever.

I don't know what MM's ethnicity is, but unless he is a Jew, nothing said in this verse would apply to him, because "this law [of Moses]" was revealed to the Israelites, who then had the responsibility to observe it. MM's problem seems to be that he doesn't have much hermeneutic or literary interpretation skills, because he apparently can't even understand scriptures that were very clear in their meaning.

Before I leave this point, something else needs to be considered. If the "revealed things" of the law [of Moses] were revealed so that the Israelites and their descendants could observe them forever, why is MM now pushing Christianity as the "ultimate truth" that the law, serving as a "schoolmaster," was intended to bring us to? How could "revealed things" that the Israelites and their descendants were to observe forever now be disregarded by the descendants of Israelites so that they can adopt Christianity?

Inquiring minds want to know.

MM:
In your rejection of God you have rejected from consideration not only the main Actor in the Universe, but the fruits of God's labor as well

Till:
My, my, just look at the questions that MM begged in this one sentence. Is there a "God" that others and I can reject? If this "God" exists, is he "the main actor in the universe"? If so, how does MM know this? Did he read something in the Bible that led him to this conclusion? If so, how was he able to determine that what he read about this, in an admittedly imperfect Bible, was truth and not error? Are there also "fruits of God's labor" that others and I have rejected? If so, how does MM know this? Did he read something in the Bible that led him to this conclusion? If so, how does he know that what he read was truth and not error?

MM:
-- His labor to restore people to fellowship with Himself.

Till:
This is still more question begging. Even if we assume that there is a "God," who is the "main actor in the universe," how does MM know that this "God" labors "to restore people to fellowship with him"? Did he read something in the Bible that led him to this conclusion? If so, how does he know that what he read about this, in an admittedly imperfect Bible, was truth and not just some of the imperfections in the Bible? How does MM know that people even need to be restored to fellowhip with "God"?

What would MM do if he couldn't argue by assertion, begged questions, and special pleadings?

MM:
But those fruits you have rejected,

Till:
When MM proves that there are such "fruits" for me to reject, we can then talk about this. Until then, we can just write it all off as more question begging and special pleading.

MM:
the fruits of experiencing God's friendship for yourself, are those which demonstrate God's word is Truth (e.g., 1 Kings 17:24).

Till:
The verse that MM cited here, without quoting, is from the chapter where the prophet Elijah went to the town of Zarepath, where he resurrected the son of a widow, who then said, "Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of Yahweh is in your mouth." Now why MM thinks that this verse teaches what he claimed above is anyone's guess, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it does. How was MM able to determine that the story about the resurrection of the widow's son related in this chapter really happened? In other words how does he know that this is truth and not just part of the imperfection that he admits is in the Bible?

MM:
So Mr. Till, your efforts to dismiss the Bible, and the efforts of the many other Skeptical Inquisitors who endeavor to discredit the Bible, have served only to elevate the discussion of the Biblical record as being an artifact of history, itself containing the historical account both of God's attempts to teach a rebellious people about His plans and purpose for humanity, and of His concern for each person who ever existed, and who ever will exist.

Till
From what I have said and repeated several times above, readers can easily guess what I intend to say here. How does MM know that my "endeavors to discredit the Bible have served only to elevate the discussion of the Biblical record"? Have the many letters, e-mails, and phone calls that I receive from ex-Christians, who tell me that my articles and debates helped them to see the absurdity of believing that the Bible is the "word of God," helped to elevate the discussion of the Biblical record? If so, perhaps MM can explain to us how the departure of so many people from Christian ranks serves to elevate the discussion of the Biblical record. What MM is doing, of course, is lashing back at me, out of frustration, with claims that he cannot support with specific examples that show that my efforts to discredit the Bible have served only to increase belief in it.

MM:
That service to promoting the Truth by those who "search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11) is to be commended, not ridiculed, regardless of the personal motivations some might have in bringing the many discrepancies found in the Bible to light.

Till:
Well, as I have pointed out, I couldn't even begin to estimate how many people have told me that my articles and debates helped them find their way out of biblical superstition. If MM thinks that this has been a "service to promoting the truth," I would agree with him, because the truth is that the Bible is in no sense the "word of God" and in no sense "contains the word of God." It is a collection of ancient supersititions that, regrettably, gullible people like MM continue to believe even in our enlightened times. I certainly agree that my efforts have encouraged people to "search the scriptures" to see whether what I say about the Bible is true, and many of them have agreed with me when I say that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, discrepancies, failed prophecies, and such like that will prevent any rational person from believing that it was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Why MM would think that such results as these constitute a service to his god is anyone's guess.

MM:
Lastly, I am not certain if I qualify as a "big talker"

Till:
MM does qualify. He is, in fact, overqualified.

Till
(whatever that is),

Till:
A big talker, in the sense that I used the term, is someone who rants and raves about the Bible being the "word of God" or containing the "truth of God," but when he is confronted with clear evidence that it isn't chooses to cut and run, as Tom Kabis did when I dismantled his "solution" to the Luke/Paul inconsistency, or as Travis Findley did when I destroyed his "solution" to the 430-year problem in Exodus 12:40, or as David Sparrow did when I demolished his attempt to solve the same problem. All through his post that I am now replying to, MM has strung together fallacies of arguing by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, which I have repeatedly challenged him in this reply to support with solid evidence, so if he does not respond to my requests for clear evidence rather than assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings, we will just write him off as another "big talker," who couldn't come forth with evidence to support his beliefs when he was challenged to do so.

MM:
but this "forum" is really quite small and there are only perhaps a dozen people who have posted comments here over the past several months.

Till:
This forum began when someone volunteered to be the webmaster but over time proved to have been an unfortunate choice, who would let articles sit for months before he would post them. This discouraged some readers, but I have now taken the time to learn how to serve in this capacity myself, so I am hoping that readership will increase. However, the number of people who post in the Feedback section, who are many more than just a dozen, is not an accurate guage of how many people read the articles posted here, because I receive many personal e-mails. A lot of these come from people who are in the early stages of biblical skepticism and don't wish to make their doubts public. Besides this, MM is probably misjuding the amount of activity in the Feedback section on the basis of what he sees when he goes there. We offer a "delete" option, which allows posters who have second thoughts to erase their posts, and there is also a maximum three-month limit to how long messages will remain posted in the Feedback section before they are automatically deleted. There is a 695-KB Feedback archive in which all posts are kept, and it shows much more traffic than what MM is apparently aware of.

All that aside, MM is again resorting to logical fallacy. He is implying that the articles in the TSR Online forum are inconsequential in the debate over biblical inerrancy, because the forum "is really quite small." Hence, he is claiming that the number of participants here is somehow relevant to the effectiveness of the forum, and that is an argumentum ad populum like the reverse of it that some theists use when they argue that there must be a god because so many people believe that there is. MM would be a little more impressive if he would take one of the articles in TSR Online and reply to it point by point to show that it incorrectly claims errancy in the Bible, but I really don't expect him to do that. It is easier to string together arguments by assertion, question begging, and special pleading.

MM:
Thus, this "forum" is not exactly a popular crossroads for exchanging ideas;

Till:
As I just pointed out, this is an argumentum ad populum, because whether the articles published here are correct in their claims is independent of how many people read them.

MM:
and so when I visit here every few weeks little changes.

Till:
I urge MM to try to give us at least a little bit of substance the next time he visits rather than stringing logical fallacies together one after the other, but I have little hope that he will ever do this.

MM:
So I do not consider myself to have been "run off" by any sort of silly challenges, or whatever.

Till:
We will see if MM answers the questions I have asked throughout this reply, which will force him to reply with logical argumentation instead of the logical fallacies I have repeatedly identified above. If he makes no such reply, we will assume that he has run off from my "silly challenges."

By the way, when he replies, if he does, perhaps he will tell us what is silly about challenging someone who believes that the Bible "contains the word of God" to submit logical evidence to support that claim. Perhaps pigs will fly someday too.

MM:
There simply isn't much discussion here to draw much interest.

Till:
Well, if there isn't "much discussion here to draw much interest," why has he bothered to post his reactions to Brett Palmer's articles and to my reactions to Kabis's refusal to reply to my reply to his "solution" to the Luke/Paul discrepancy mentioned earlier. MM took it upon himself to send those posts, but now that he sees that he is going to face informed opposition, he decides that there isn't enough discussion here to draw much interest.

Can MM say argumentum ad populum?

MM:
But what I have gathered in reading a few of the comments and articles that you (Mr. Till) have hosted is that the Skeptical Inquisitors like to lay the ridicule on thick when it suits them;

Till:
If I lay the ridicule "on thick," it is because I think that the likes of Tom Kabis, Travis Finley, David Sparrow, and now MM deserve it for strutting about as would-be apologists and then running away when their bluffs are called.

Will MM run away? I will be surprised if he doesn't, but if he doesn't, I am going to hold his feet to the fire and demand solid supporting evidence from him instead of the strings of logical fallacies that we have seen so far. I really don't think that this guy can write even a coherent paragraph without filling it will more arguments by assertion, begged questions, or special pleadings. We will just have to wait to see.

MM:
but are very thin-skinned when others complain of the treatment received at their hands.

Till:
Once again, MM is talking in unexplained abstractions. When have the "Skeptical Inquisitors," whatever these are, complained of the treatment they have received? Unless MM communicates specific information, which he seems incapable of doing, how can I be expected to answer a charge like this?

MM:
Hypocrasy?

Till:
In addition to trying to learn how to communicate in specific, concrete language, MM should also try to learn how to spell hypocrisy.

MM:
Maybe. But maybe it's symptomatic of religious fundamentalists in general -- you know, justifying one's ego at the expense of others.

Till:
More abstractions--how can I reply to such ambiguity as this when MM doesn't explain specifically and concretely what he means?

MM:
And you are not the only author here who could be characterized as a religious fundamentalist defending propaganda through elitist bullying.

Till:
What does MM mean here? It is hard to determine, because he continues to spew abstractions that mean nothing until they are clarified with specific, concrete language. If he is trying to recycle that worn-out saw about atheism being a religion, then I suggest that he consult a dictionary to see what the word religion means. My atheism is simply a recognition or admission that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods or other invisible entities, and that will not fit into the standard definition of religion. It seems that MM recognizes that he can't defend his religious beliefs, and so, like so many other religionists who have been unable to meet challenges to defend their religions, he desperately tries to make the challengers to his beliefs also believers in religion.

MM:
What distinguishes the Skeptical Inquisitors from other fundamentalists is that their religion is atheism.

Till:
See what I mean? Faced with the recognition that he cannot defend his absurd religious beliefs, MM tries to put all challengers of his religion into the same boat with him by asserting that they also have a religion. Well, as I said above, I am an atheist only in the sense that I do not see sufficient evidence to believe that gods and other invisible entities exist. In the same way, I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that the Tooth Fairy exists, so in that sense, I suppose that I am an "afairyist." Does this mean that the doubt that fairies exist is a religion? I don't believe in the existence of elves either, so that makes me an "aelvist." Does this mean that the doubt that elves exist is a religion? I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either, so--well, even MM should get the picture. He subscribes to beliefs that are ridiculous, so to try to save face, he tries to put all challengers of his beliefs into the same boat with him by arbitrarily declaring them also to have a religion.

MM:
And their own brand of elitist bullying is geared toward justifying their own religion, and thereby themselves, in their own eyes.

Till:
I could never convince MM that he is dead wrong here, so I will direct my comments to the readers instead of him. As I have explained, I have no religion any more than MM does when he says that he doesn't believe in fairies and elves. I have devoted years of my life to debunking the Bible, because I was once shackled by the belief that it was the word of God, so I would like for others to be freed from that superstition too. If a Christian missionary goes to a foreign land, say, a place populated primarily by believers in voodoo or witch doctors, and tries to convert those people to Christianity, is this missionary trying to justify himself in his own eyes, or is he just acting on a desire to better the lives of people? Although I think that Christian missionaries are dead wrong in their beliefs, I am certainly willing to recognize that they are acting out of altruistic intentions. They want to do what they think will make life better for the people they are trying to convert.

Why can't MM and other "Christians" who have leveled the same charges at skeptics and atheists grant us the same recognition and recognize that our intentions are also altrustic? We want to give to religionists something that we think will better their lives.

MM:
Others here and in other, more populated, forums have pointed out this pathological attitude that often enters into discussion of the Bible, or of "religion" in general.

Till:
Well, yes, I certainly recognize that others, primarily Christians, often make these same charges, but MM's assertion that this is a "pathological attitude" that skeptics and atheists have doesn't make it true. I personally have found nothing that can equal the venom that Christians can spew out when they are cornered and unable to reply logically to information detrimental to their beliefs. Someone has said that there is no hatred that can equal Christian "love," and I have found that to be true. MM has his shorts in a knot, because he is upset with articles he has seen here that give readers good reasons to doubt their belief in the Bible, but he can't reply satisfactorily to those reasons, so he has to resort to insulting those who are opposing his beliefs.

MM:
Yet this attitude is not limited to a scattered few "religionists"; it is an attitude endemic to our society -- because human beings have an innate need to be accepted.

Till:
I would modify that last statement and say that human beings have an innate need to be right, and Christians are one of the best examples of this that I know of. MM feels a very compelling need for his religion to be right. He cannot satisfactorily reply to information that indicates rather clearly that his religion is not right, so he responds in the only way he knows how, by writing a post like the one I am replying to, in which he said nothing logical or verifiable but which no doubt gave him a great sense of satisfaction by knowing that he had lashed out at an opponent of his religion.

MM:
And acceptance often comes from demonstrating one's conformity to some pattern of behavior and belief.

Till:
This is almost too ludicrous to deserve comment. If I wanted social acceptance, I would become a Christian again and even return to the pulpit. I can remember how people in the pews tended to hang onto every word I said, but they certainly don't do that anymore. No one in his right mind would think that one in this country becomes an atheist because he wants social acceptance. Profession of atheism in this country will bring one social distain, and I know that from four decades of being an atheist who speaks his mind in public.

MM:
Atheistic religion is no different from theistic religion in this regard.

Till:
As I said above, atheism is not a religion, but even if it were, only someone who is completely out of touch with reality would think that he could find social acceptance by becoming an atheist.

MM:
But if one can develop a love for the Truth and for the Source of Truth, then to the extent that one seeks the Truth it will be given to him.

Till:
This statement is so riddled with logical fallacies that I hardly know which one to begin my reply with. MM, for example, is arguing here from the assumption that "truth" can be found in Christianity and that the Bible is the "source" of that truth, so he is begging two questions here that he needs to prove. Just how does he know what "truth" is? Just how does he know that "truth" is in Christianity? Just how does he know that the Bible is the "source of truth"? Finally, he asserts that "to the extent that one seeks the truth, it will be given to him," but how does he know this? These are all assertions and questions that he is begging. I have yet to see anything in his post that even remotely resembles logical argumentation.

MM:
(This is a promise from God; Luke 11:9;

Till:
This is what Luke 11:19 says.

"So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.

This statement is patently untrue, and I don't think that even MM would claim that whenever he asked for something, it was given to him and whenever he searched for something he found it. Besides the obvious falsity of this statement, MM must show us--show us, not tell us--just how he knows that this statement is true, whereas, by his own admission some parts of the Bible are imperfect. Just how is he able to determine truth from error in an errant Bible?

MM:
Prov. 25:2.)

Till:
This text says, "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out," so just how did MM think that this scripture teaches that "God" has promised that one who loves the truth and searches for it will find it? It in no way teaches what MM is using it to prove. It is the glory of God to conceal things but the glory of kings to search things out. Just where does this say that God has promised that one who loves the truth and searches for it will find it? MM is showing himself to be just another Bible believer who distorts and misapplies scriptures to suit their purposes. I don't know if he is a preacher or not, but if he is, he needs to understand that the audience in this forum is not at all like pew-warmers in church, who uncritically accept almost everything they hear.

MM:
Those who have developed a love for the Truth are not intimidated by religious fundamentalists (of any stripe) who have rejected the knowledge of God, nor threatened by those who may find discrepancies in the Bible.

Till:
Just what is MM saying here, that religious fundamentalists have rejected the "knowledge of God," or is he accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist? If so, I have already answered this insult above. Atheism is not a religion any more than rejection of belief in the Tooth Fairy is a religion. I am reasonably sure that MM does not believe in the Hindu god Vishnu, so is he an atheist, or is he just someone who sees insufficient evidence to warrant belief in this deity? If MM can reject the god Vishnu without being some kind of reprobate, then why can't I reject the god Yahweh without being a reprobate?

MM said that "(t)hose who have developed a love of the truth" are not threatened by those who find discrepancies in the Bible. Well, I am sure that there are millions of believers in biblical superstitions who would not be threatened by even a million examples of biblical discrepancies, but the only thing that proves is that there are a lot of irrational people in the world (especially in this country). On the index page of this forum, MM will find dozens of articles listed, which explicate in detail obvious discrepancies in the Bible. I challenge MM to take one of these discrepancies and see if he can do a better job of proving the reliability of the Bible than Tom Kabis or Travis Findley or David Sparrow or Jack Kinsella or Robert Turkel or anyone else whose articles I have answered.

MM:
I am quite certain that God Himself knows there are discrepancies in the Bible (cf. Hos 4:1-6).

Till:
I have already quoted this passage, but let's look at it again to see another example of how MM twists and distorts the texts that he cites.

Hosea 4:1 Hear the word of Yahweh, O people of Israel; for Yahweh has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land. 2 Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed. 3 Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing. 4 Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest. 5 You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night, and I will destroy your mother. 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

So just how does this passage in any way indicate that "God" knows that there are discrepancies in the Bible? That meaning simply is not in this text, but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that this passage means exactly what MM has said. How does he know that this text makes a truthful statement? In other words, we are back to square one again. Just how is MM able to determine truth from error in a Bible that admittedly contains discrepancies? I would advise readers not to hold their breaths until he tells us, because I have had debates with others who believe that even though the Bible is errant it still contains the word of God, and they were never able to explain how truth from error can be determined in such a book.

MM:
But the point of God's communication to human beings as recorded in the Bible is to bring them to trust God's provision for their well being

Till:
Just what did MM read in the Bible that led him to this conclusion, and just how was he able to determine that it was truth and not discrepancy? We will eagerly wait for him to tell us.

MM:
-- not the least of which is salvation from eternal rejection when God moves on to construct a "New Heavens and a New Earth" (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1).

Till:
Well, this is a welcomed change. The verses that MM cited here do speak of what he claimed they did, but he faces the same problem that he has faced throughout my reply to his post. If, as he admits, the Bible contains errors and discrepancies, just how was he able to determine that these scriptures cited above were recording the truth when they said that "God" would make a new heaven and a new earth, and how does he know that there is any such thing as "salvation" in the sense that he used it? In other words, we want him to tell us just how he is able to determine truth from error in a Bible that contains errors.

Actually, I can answer that question. MM is just like other Christians. Even if they believe that the Bible is inerrant, they will still practice what I call smorgasbord religion in that they accept from the Bible what they want to believe and reject that which they don't want to believe. That is exactly why MM has cited the scriptures that are in his post. He wants to believe them. He cannot, however, tell us how he knows that these scriptures all contain truth and at the same time cling to his position that there are errors in the Bible.

MM:
That is the ultimate Truth that needs to be learned by each one of us.

Till:
Just how does MM know that this is "the ultimate truth"? If he claims that he found it in the Bible, how does he know that it is truth and not just another discrepancy in the Bible, which he admits contains errors?

MM:
And so some learn it, and some never do.

Till:
And MM, of course, thinks that he has learned it, but he cannot show us--show us, not tell us--how he was able to learn this from a Bible that contains errors. In other words, we are still at square one. Just how can we determine truth from error in an errant Bible?

MM:
No surprise there; that's just the way it is.

Till:
Yes, regrettably, that is exactly the way it is. The reality that we see around us each day contradicts MM's apparent belief that there is some omniscient, omnipotent deity in the sky watching over us and caring for us, but he has let himself be so blinded by religious indoctrination that he cannot see the obvious reality around us. If he wants to discuss this, I will be very glad to point out concrete examples that dispute the claim that there is an omnibenevolent god watching over us.

Anyway, we have now seen that MM's post was completely devoid of substance. He filled it with arguments by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, but he was unable to support them with solid evidence. In other words, MM is a pretty typical Bible believer.