Writers: if you're not Judeo-Christian, chances are you suck.

[Jackalope]

And why would I want to talk to him?

Seriously. I get way more than my fill of religious kookery just from the nutjobs that wander in here. Why on earth would one go seek them out?

[Mycropht]

Because it shows more class than mocking.

[frankiej]

These people deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. I'm done with debating. It gets you no where with these schmucks.

[Faith No More]

Because it shows more class than mocking.

Debating someone who thinks absolute good and evil is purely a Judeo-Christian concept is like emptying the ocean with a spoon and just as futile.

[Ryft]

So evidently Mike Duran has in some way or other learned of this discussion over here and, in a recent article, responded to several of your comments (e.g., Faith No More, Reverend Jeremiah, padraic and so forth). Unsurprisingly and quite appropriately, he was rather disappointed with the quality of the objections, including the title Summer gave it (presumably for the lulz). Unfortunately he is right. The gratuitous invective and unrecognizable caricatures aside, whatever is left over in the posts here certainly did not even grasp his point, much less interact with it.

Duran felt that the volatility which his article generated here was a product of either a lack of clarity on his part in expressing his point or an outright rejection of it by those commenting here. In his follow-up piece he chose to take ownership for the mess and assume that the problem was primarily the result of him expressing his point with insufficient clarity. Although shouldering some of the responsibility like that is commendable, I do find myself contemplating a more fundamental problem: If you did not properly understand his point, and clearly you did not, then how could you reject it? In other words, I am dismissing as untenable his second option, that the resulting volatility had anything to do with an outright rejection of his point, since the only thing being rejected in this thread are crude caricatures of it.

So Duran thinks that clarifying his thinking should simply accomplish more rejection of his thesis. "Which I'm fine with," he said. "I prefer clarity to agreement." I concur with that sentiment; however, such clarity will not lead to further rejection of his thesis, because no relevant rejection of his thesis has yet occurred. Hopefully with his response and clarification, a rational and specifically relevant rejection can be had.

----------
References:

Duran, M. (2012, January 9). "Why a Judeo-Christian worldview is essential to good fiction." DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/01/why-a-judeo...d-fiction/

__________ (2012, February 6). "Without moral absolutes, your story sucks!" DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/02/without-mor...ory-sucks/

[thesummerqueen]

My last give-a-fuck was killed about an hour ago.

[Minimalist]

lulz.

http://mikeduran.com/2012/01/why-a-judeo...d-fiction/

The truth is, as every one knows, that the great artists of the world are never Puritans, and seldom even ordinarily respectable. No virtuous man -- that is, virtuous in the YMCA sense -- has ever painted a picture worth looking at, or written a symphony worth hearing, or a book worth reading, and it is highly improbable that the thing has ever been done by a virtuous woman.
-- H L Mencken

I'll take Mencken over yet another jesus freak.

Unsurprisingly and quite appropriately, he was rather disappointed with the quality of the objections,

Disappointing the terminally dull has never bothered me a bit. Fuck him....and his god.

[AthiestAtheist]

This is just like that Conservapedia article about how comedy didn't exist until Christianity or something.

[genkaus]

This is just like that Conservapedia article about how comedy didn't exist until Christianity or something.

That sounds about right.

[thesummerqueen]

On a more serious note, this is entirely his opinion of what makes compelling fiction. That's part of why I laugh.