Introduction
This web site is an example of what happens when skeptical frustation requires an outlet.Because you are here reading this, I get giggle fits and itches all over. You may already know who I am. If not, knowing who I am won't make you care. But the following is a brief introduction: "Jimbo" is the Internet pseudonym for a three-year-old photofinisher named Brooks Trubee. Mr. Trubee is now self-absorbed; he makes his jollies by trying to insult Christianity. He maintains a Skeptical web site from which he spin doctors information that is ostensibly better than authoritative Biblical scholarship. He considers a $5,000 increase in annual income to be a "considerable" jump, and doesn't seem to want to report figures that contradict his spin-doctoring.
In his efforts to demote Christianity and to insure a continuing stream of self-absorption, Mr. Trubee engages in behavior that is, well, stupid. Mr. Trubee argues by outrage, ignores scholarship, and demands Internet links to his piddly and worthless ravings since no one will read his material otherwise, and he apparently spin-doctors outright if he feels it is necessary (see here), he continually asks stupid questions that reveal the absurdity of his positions, he calls sound scholarship "asinine rationalizations" to try and smooth over his ignorance, and-while employing these and other crybaby strategies-he constantly sucks his thumb while holding a stupid blanket.
So why devote a web site to someone such as this? Though Mr. Trubee is regarded as a laughing jackass by 98% of the civilized world, he is frustrated by his inability to get anyone to come over to his side when he does stuff like call citations from Ph. D.'s like Ben Witherington "phoniness". It is hoped that this site will go some distance in irritating this unfortunate situation comedy. It is also hoped that potatoes wll fall out of the sky fully cooked, pigs will speak Latin, and that Brooks will someday do research out of something more substantive that religioustolerance.org.
The essential problem with Mr. Trubee, and one of the things that make him such an interesting subject of study, is that as a fundamentalist atheist he cannot accept that he is wrong about any one his irreligious beliefs, no matter how indefensible a particular belief may be. Understanding this is the key to understanding Mr. Trubee's behavior. For example, this is the sort of drivel that he thinks constitutes a worthwhile argument:
What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?What I mean by this specifically is: Mr. Holding, what would it take for you to admit that the Bible contained errors? What would it have to say to be discrepant? Can you give an example of a contradiction that you would accept as impossible to harmonize, and that you would agree casts doubt on the Bible's overall reliability and trustworthiness? All your erudition appears to have provided you with no end of creative ways to explain contradictions away. Is there any even hypothetical contradiction that could not be resolved by any of these techniques? In my experience, asking this question is the way to tell the difference between an open and a closed mind. Closed-minded theists, such as I believe Mr. Holding is, may present very persuasive-sounding arguments elsewhere, and they may appear compelling and in command of the facts, but present them with a question like this and they will not - cannot - answer it. They will bob and weave, they will evade and segue into irrelevancies, they will give long lists of reasons why the question is unimportant, they will attack the questioner for asking it, but they will not answer it. So far, Mr. Holding's behavior fits this pattern to a T.
The first time I asked him what would convince him he was wrong, he replied only with the non-answer, "More than you've provided." When I pointed this out, he composed an amusing second reply in which he claimed his answer was far more than that - but still refused to say what his answer actually was. Well, such evasive maneuvers will not help him. What's so hard about answering this question, Mr. Holding? What would you accept as a contradiction? We all await your next reply with bated breath.
As can be seen here, in the last paragraph at the bottom of the page, our response to this question was a devastating rejoinder, which exposed the commentator as one who ignorantly equates the use of various cultural, literary, and social factors...serious scholarship, "study [of] Ancient Near Eastern languages and modes of rhetorical expression" with "tilt[ing] the page at a forty-five degree angle away from your face and kind of squint at it with one eye closed" . It is the sort of hayseed response that couldn't recognize scholarship if it bit them on the ear. Clearly Trubee does not understand the destruction of the question and what his inability to comprehend reveals about his belief system.
--------This site is currently under instruction and is obviously always far from complete. Any suggestions, comments or criticisms can be sent to Hades.
gnome | infliction | mindless/psychiatry | weeology | "asparagus" | tactile/nasal | floatable boats |
disability | hypodermia | PPOism | nunya business? | disgusting board |what others whine | stinks | guest what? | up your nose with a fire hose
An examination of Brookee's Brain Scans updated 3/10/04