An article on Dan’s blog, entitled Atheist Tactics makes a blatantly false allegation about me, and he has 24 hours to correct it.
I’m going to go ahead and assume regular readers know what this is about, but if you need to catch up, check out the most recent posts and comments.
If these factual inaccuracies are not corrected, within 24 hours of this post going live, I will begin complaint proceedings to blogger.com, to have the article removed completely.
I do not want to do this, because the rest of the article contains opinions and views which he is fully entitled to hold. I do not want him to remove the entire article, because despite that I strongly disagree with his opinions, I celebrate his right to hold them and express them, and removing the whole article would also remove views to which he is fully entitled.
What he is not entitled to do is tell blatant lies about me, and it is these portions of the article I want him to immediately correct.
Dan knows perfectly well which parts of the article are false, because he has had the actual facts surrounding this story explained to him half a dozen times already. But he continues to lie about them nevertheless.
I don’t know why he has chosen to do this, and frankly I don’t care. But I will not be accused of trying to silence people, when any dispassionate observer knows full well, that I have extended numerous invitations to Dan, for him to talk freely and openly on the podcast, about his opinions. I’ve invited him to explain the Christian position on biblical inaccuracies, and the evidence which shows that the historical Jesus probably never existed. Despite this apparently being his area of expertise he has said exactly nothing about it. He did however find the time to write comments on this blog, which were aggressive and petty, despite that he has been warned not to use threats of hell and eternal torture, or other abusive language numerous times. I simply fail to see how this could be seen as trying to silence anyone.
He also goes on to incorrectly assert that myself and Alex tried to silence a guest on our podcast, who is attempting to financially gain from our content, despite having agreed to the terms of a very specific disclaimer, previous to our recorded conversation.
Dan seems to think that we’re operating some kind of “cognitive dissonance”, simply because we are fully aware of what was agreed to, who agreed to it, and why they were asked to acknowledge TWICE that they understood why we specifically refused them permission to use our comments out of context, or in a commercial setting.
This speaks to the level of confusion people can fall into, when their inability to think critically allows them to swallow hook, line and sinker the fantasies of charlatans and hucksters, simply because they dress up their nonsense in religious terminology — and I feel desperately sorry for anyone who thinks that behaving as Dan is doing, is the best way of spreading a message of peace, tolerance and understanding, which they constantly claim it is their religious obligation to spread, when in reality they are obsessed with the exact opposite.
We started the podcast, to engage with Christians and other religious, to show them that beneath the smutty jokes and foul language, people who aren’t religious are just as capable of seeing the good in people as anyone else. All Dan has achieved, by sticking his nose into something which had nothing whatsoever to do with him, is confirm the stereotype which perfectly capable and intelligent Christians around the world have been fighting so hard to dispel, and it is for that which he should be most ashamed.
But more than that, he should recognise that you cannot publish things about people, on-line, which are simply not true, and expect to get away with it. He therefore has 24 hours to amend the offending article, so that it presents the actual facts of this story, or I will have no choice but to ask the blogger.com administrators to remove it entirely from their service.
Dan had the full facts about this story explained to him here, here, here and here. As you can see from the timestamps, he had more than enough time to ensure he got his facts straight before he published his article here, which he failed to do.
I hope you will agree, I am being as firm and as clear about this as I can possibly be. There is no ambiguity. He either corrects it himself, or it will be corrected for him.