The Rebuttalist



Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll is fast becoming one of my personal heroes with regard to style and whit. I now must classify him in the same league of extraordinary gentlemen as Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, and Kurt Vonnegut when it comes to witty rebuttals and savvy critical commentary of religion.

In 1878, the revivalist, old Mrs. Van Cott accused Colonel Ingersol of being "a poor barking dog."

When asked if he knew her personally, Colonel Ingersol replied, "I have never met or seen her."

The Colonel's interviewer asked him, "Do you know the reason she applied the epithet?"

Ingersoll's reply was thus:

"I suppose it to be the natural result of what is called vital piety; that is to say, universal love breeds individual hatred."

The Express, a New York newspaper published out of Buffalo, asked Ingersoll whether he wished to respond to old Mrs. Van Cott's crude accusations. Of course, he had already taken the liberty of doing so in the form of a personal letter, and he allowed The Express a copy to republish with his persmission.

His reply is one of the wittiest, and genuinely charming, rebuttals I have ever read with regard to addressing a dogmatically entrenched theist who believes simply because you disagree with them you are in league with the devil and amount to nothing more than a poor barking dog, in their righteous estimation. I republish the rebuttal in full for your enjoyment. I think you'll fin it short, sweet, and to the point.

Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878. Mrs. Van Cott:

My dear Madam--Where you constrained by the love of Christ to call a man who has never injured you "a poor barking dog?" Did you make this remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say these words to illustrate in some faint degree the refining influence upon women of the religion you preach?

What would you think of me if I should retort, using your language, changing only the sex of the last word?

I have the honor to remain,

Your's truly,

R.G. Ingersoll


Touché Mrs. Van Cott.

[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Jesus—not a mythicist
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t
Read more