Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Atehist Response to my comments about their hate speech

One of the atheists I spoke of on CARM put up a post discussing what I said here. I responded to his post and this is that post that I put up in response.words in blue are what I said before on CARM

Default Responses for Metacrock

I noticed that you took some of my posts and responded to them on your blog. I'm going to respond to them here; I think you deserve a response since you took the time to make sure that the posts you took were displayed in context and that you didn't do anything like try to misrepresent what I was saying (see, sarcasm doesn't translate well into text). 
o yes very clever. I don't think I did. If you think so I shall be happy discuss it with you.

the first atheist answer on the htread "what If I said atheism is eivl." is this:

No, I'd ask why you thought there was some sort of unifying belief shared among people who don't believe in gods. 
you know that's really a secondary issue, atheism doesn't have to be an ideology for the atheists on carm to tolerate hate speech.

refuses to even answer the question.

I didn't refuse to answer the question, I just answered a different one first. 
I don't think you got around to the answers I wanted at all.

You asked several questions in that OP. The one my initial response was aimed at was "Would you say 'this is wrong?'" And I eventually did address your hate speech question. 
As I recall three people who made some attempt at answering it. Hans, Diet Coke, I guess you (I can't recall the third). But none of them really confront it in strong terms. I guess you can't have everything.

So, you think that the best way to get certain atheists to make sweeping, defamatory statements about Christians is to make sweeping, defamatory statements against atheists? Do you think it's working? 

that's the exact opposite of what I said and ask, that's why its so unfair. you are saying that my motive for pointing out the hate speech is to illicit more hate speech, which is a lie and slander and something you can't nkow anyway. why the hell would you think I want more hate speech anway? why would you think I want you to be "defamatory" *(is that a word?) when what I ask for was a dennunciation of hate?

that's trying to turn the slander upon the one who seeks to stop slander.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that whenever you make your spite-filled posts attacking atheists, you're doing it as some part of a larger object lesson to show that it sucks when people do that. You do it far too often for me to think that you don't mean it. 
that's your problem. atheism exists to vent hatred, it is hate. you can't accept that because it's your thing you are brain washed into the cult so you can't accept the evil of it. so therefore anyone who is critical of it must be evil. So you to turn the slander on me. that's to be expected.

And if you actually don't mean it, and if you really are trying to make a point and care that we get it, I'm going to recommend that you reconsider your strategy because right now it just makes you look like a hypocrite. 
yea how? that's so stupid. the person who denounces hate speech is the hypocrite what sense does that make? Was Martin Luther King forcing white people to sit at the back of the bus becuase he said he didn't want black people there? Maybe you do buy into the reverse discrimination thing. Do you have some special support for "white power?"

that's in response to "why don't you denounce hate speech?" When I say atheist are making hate speech and it's odd that not one of them can denounce it they say this stuffs bout "defamatory statements" and even though they started it with the "Christianity is evil" thread, they blame me as though I started by saying my attempts at getting them to denounce hate speech are really attempts to make them utter more of it!

No, that was not in response to "why don't you denounce hate speech?" That was in response to you claiming that the only reason you make those defamatory comments is because you desire to "motivate" people. And I'm still wondering, have all of the defamatory statements you've made about atheists been a part of this desire to "motivate" people, and do you think it's working?

let's deal with the assertion that I say any "defamtory." what do I say?

(1) that you are brain washe
(2) that atheism is ideoloyg
(3) atheism is a hate group

I'll stand behind those that is what I believe, is that as bad as saying "atheism is evil?" I don't think so. It think those are valid criticisms and I've proved them over the years, many times. I show the definition how they match atheist behavior on message boards all the time. I've proved this over and over. the truth is slander.

I have not made a blanket statement "all atheists evil." like your comrade did. I say some are some aren't. I've pointed out many many times that it's a segment of atheism not all atheists. It's only within the last months  I dropped the qualifying statements because atheists told me they don't accomplish anything. They don't appreciate them they want it to be all or nothing. so so its' all.

Does anyone understand these idiots? why would my attempt to get them to denounce hate speech be an attempt to make them utter more?

that's what I said on my blog. you don't have a right to put it over here. I didn't' put it here because I don't want to get banned it. you don't have a right to bring it over here. I've seen other stuff atheists from this board say on other board I don't' post them here in an attempt to get them banned.

he actually apologized for this in his response to this post.

I've explained this. It's because you've made so many of these comments in the past that it's hard to believe that they were all a part of some grand plan to "give us a taste of our own medicine" rather than something you actually meant. 

that is shallow and hollow. what possible difference could it make to my motive how often I do it? you guys never change your tactic. you are mocking and ridiculing all the time. you never stop. so why should I stop. you stop I stop. understand that? you want to be nice nice I'll be nice nice. get ot it? you guys never try that. you don't' believe in it, you are not here for a nice time you are here to slander Christians.

then ther's this both by Valhekai
again you don't have the right to put stuff I say on my blog on this board. you could link to it.

I thought about that, it could be hypocritical of me because I'm putting his stuff here. The difference is I'm going to ban him. I'm not going to get him banned over there. He could get me banned by putting it there so it's not fair. I'm not going to ban him here and I"m not going to do anything to get him banned over there. So that part was unfair, but as I say he apologized. so its' cool.

How can it not reflect on me if I call myself an atheist? I define "atheism" as "not having a belief in gods." Most definitions I hear are on par that (except for those who insist that it means "someone who believes that gods don't exist"). If you're going to cast atheism as an ideology, you're adding to the generally accepted definition, and when you do that, you're just begging for communication difficulties.

that's a real fallacy to think that defining atheism as just the absence of belief keeps from having an ideology. This is a reality that most modern thinkers understand it goes to Derrida. When you make an absence in something absence becomes a presence. The absence of belief in God takes on life of its own and becomes a shared belief through argument, practice and sloganism and propaganda.

So, tell me, what are the tenants of this atheist ideology? If I disagree with them, I must not be an atheist in your eyes, so what would that make me? 

(1) hate religion and religious people
(2) any bad thin done by any Christian becomes the guilt of all Christians, but anything an atheist does is just that individual's action.
(3) there is no such thing as a true Christian, all Christians are evil all Christianity is brain wshign.
(4) atheism is feeling form the evil chains of darkness and superstition in religion
(5) science is the only form of knowledge and the only thing that can be trusted to give us positive knowledge
(6) atheism is just the absence of belief in God, so atheists can't be collectively guilty the way Christians can be.
(7) no truth, no morality, no over arching meaning of the universe

you will deny all of this but anyone with half a brain can see it's said by atheist every single day on a thousand message boards all over the net. you deny there's an ideology but you act exactly like brain washed lackeys, saying the same things in the same phrases all the time.

Yea that's really important there. should have thought of that before you starting calling Christians evil.

I dare you to find one post where I've called Christians evil. 
You have not denounced it. You never said "this is wrong to say that I'm not part of saying it." That's another aspect of the ideology, they way atheists take up for the cause it's so obvious a shared sense of comradery in working for a joint end.

"Sot the totally reaosnable position of "we should denounce hate speech" enrages them agaisnt me. They equate my saying they have an ideology with hate speech but saying that Christianity is evil is not hate speech-- hu?"

No, what "enrages us against you" is that you're just as guilty, if not more, of making blanket comments that you now characterize as "hate speech." 
Every single time I spoke of "Hate group atheism" I qualified it to say "a segment" "a part." "not all but some" you can look back on atheist watch and see that all over the early posts. Until they started ridiculing that and saying it's half heated an exclusive does not good hypocritical so I ether have to stop ever saying there's any hate in atheism or make it cover all, so hey it covers all because it's clearly there.

someone up a thread "Christianity is eivl." this is typical for you way you cover for each other. some will stop in and say I didn't say that'" and then defend like it's not a bad thing but you can always fall back on "hey it wasn't my thread." while the guy that did say it is long gone. It's a big game and we all know it. we all get it we all see it. all Christians know these things. anyone who has been on message boards knows I'm saying the truth. any Christian who has gotten mocking ridicule treatment by atheists knows I'm right. you are not fooling us.

these are the things we saying behind closed doors.

And I don't equate your saying that we have an ideology as hate speech. I thought that post of mine you quoted was rather straightforward, and I really wish that you would give a straightforward response.

What's going on there is obvious. All the atheists on that board, even the reasonable ones. hate Christianity and want to destroy it and can't bring themselves to disassociate with the idea that Christianity is evil; even when they know its wrong. they are outraged by pointing out that they have an ideology becasue part of their ideology is that they don't have one, and they feel they are betraying the brain washing if they admit they do. They turn the attention to personal against any critic because they have no honor and that's the way they think. Anyone who is not in the ideology if the evil outsider. Any religious person is par to of the great evil they see themselves valiantly standing up to.

Their struggle is so valiant it justifies bulling, slander, lies, person insults, mocking, ridicule, hate speech ect ect.

This is nonsense. My entire family, all of them, on both sides, are Christians. I don't think they're evil. I don't mock and ridicule them. Most of my friends are Christians. I don't think they are evil or mock them. What you are saying here is simply not true.
but you are also not willing to brake ranks with your comrades. Its' not uncommon for people two be different on message boards than they are in real ife. that happens a lot. maybe not in an extreme say it doesn't have to be extreme. who is standing up among the atheist and saying "let's put the troll stuff away and deal with solid ideas and arguments not ad hom?" I don't' see that anywhere among you.

Ok first of all I was heartened that he actually went to the trouble to respond. I also see that he has his own issues that should be mindful of, such as not understanding certain approaches I take or not trusting my motives. He responded to this post in a somewhat favorable as as though he's willing to consider that I might be sincere. I responded to him extending the possibility of friendship or at least understanding, he reciprocated. So he has a standing invite to come to my boards and I will regard him as a friend.

Moral: it takes two sides to make a squabble. both sides usually have their own justification, we should give each other a break, communication is possible.

No comments: