Lessons in Shutting Down Atheist Mocking:How to Beat an Atheist Riducle Gauntlet

 


The gauntlet: Seen in this post on CARM, Atheists Murdering Logic.


That stems from the thread on CARM I discussed in last post on AW.

A "Ridicule gauntlet" (my term) is one of those feeding frenzies where twelve atheists will just take apart one Christian and no one will help him. They go down the line each one saying stupid little ridicule things to tear down his self esteem. Let's look at the first few in this one:

Their first impluse of course to go for the spelling since they know that's my weakness: I made a couple of typos so they went for that.

Square one (the guy I bested in the thread in question)

Whats an "athesit?"

Whatever Man:

Someone who always stands?

Someone who rejects the existence of thesis-es?

He's going for the big yucks. This tells them right away: "this is to be a gauntlet." That's not what they call it. I made up the term. But I'm sure that's a non verbal que that tells them "we are just gonna mock this guy.' Down the row they go one after another. 12 of them:

Reverendog:

i don't think i've ever read a thread where he ever really understood a single post by anyone who disagreed with him. everything is filtered through the "does this make me look smarter than everyone else?" algorithm.
after all, who has a website to argue against someone who doesn't read it?

Nonprofit (he was the nut case in the last one; go to the previous post and see:

Originally Posted by Nonprofit

This is NOT the first time Meta has started new threads on a false premise by misrepresenting what others said.

 Whatever Man:

I actually think that's his only form of argumentation.

So we know it's a gauntlett because we see these charactoristics:

(1) long string of mocking statements, most of them one liners that have no content on the issues just talk talk about how amazingly stupid, in-component, or generally bad one guy is.

(2) no holding back, he's the worst guy ever, everything he does is wrong

(3) They aim for the thins that will hurt him the most based what they know about him: foe me spelling and ridiculing my logic because they know i know more about than they do. I'm always harping on "you didn't answer the logic of the argument" so they try to imply I am not good at argument.

(4) Of course insistance that I never understand, I always do wrong, ect. ect.

It short it's 12 people trying to rake one over the coals, they have no substance and don't care what they say. I think I did a good job of holding my cool and not falling apart, and shutting them up, at least for a time. How do I know? becuase they are not posting, and because they haven't come back with any thing.

Keys to dealing with the gauntlet.










(1) the gauntlet derives it power form numbers. Each one of them can hide behind the others, you can't focus clearly on one guy. They are all saying it. Each one of them takes his cue form the others and derives strengths from the fact that he's just one of many. The gauntlet is like a shark's feeding frenzy it works by building up. They more then can get you to get up set the more will come in to take part becuase it makes them feel important and successful. They more you shut them up they more they will fall out.

(2) first step is deflate the power of many. Do this guy confronting each one on a personal basis. For one's you don't know are making one liners that aren't that easy to answer, just say something blow off. Just indicate you are blowing him off too. He below off your post so blow off his. Then if you have a history with him remind him of times when you have beaten him. Remind him he's never read theology as 99% of atheist have never read a page of the stuff. "how childish." "how old are you"  ect.

call out each one and make him conspicuous so that he no longer hides behind the numbers. He's out in front showing his importance. Take away their  strength in numbers. Go down the line responding to each one in that way as much as you can.

(3) unload the goods. For example here I put up a list of the exchange between Square one and I. after each one I said "this is exactly what i reported, how did I lie?" They can't deny he said it it, or whatever. prove you point. Lay it out.

(4) be as factual as possible. get experts to quote, list the facts the stats whatever. prove the point deliever the blow with as much authority as you can.

(5) continue to denude them on a personal basis. I don't mean say personal stuff to them but confront them 1x1 and say "you said this or that i the past, remember when I beawt you in the 1x1 debate" then force them to answer teh stats or the specific evidence. Keep harping on it.

(6) ridicule them for their ridicule. every time they say stuff say "you can't argue without putting people down personaly. you are not dealing with hte issues. then repeat the issues.

the major principles are: deliver powerful blow right away, remove the power of numbers by confronting them personally. Each one you call attention to you cut off form the power of numbers.

Athesits murdering Logic:Stop the presses a new winner for Stupid atheist tricks.

Actually it's very close. Two guys I've been arguing with today who just managed to say the stupidest things. The issue was another throw away post on CARM about isn't God a big horrible meanie to have murdered all those first born sons in Egypt. The first guy, Square One, I offered a dilemma. I said if it happened it's real that means there's really a God since we know God is the basis of the good he can't be evil then he must be the basis of th good so you better find a way to figure out how it's good. But the more obvious point is that he wouldn't do it, because it's evil, God is good, so he didn't do it and we are not obligated to believe it. I really do believe this. we are not obligated to believe the story. Rather than accept that or try argue that I have believe it or something like that he says that I haven't said that it's good to kill the kids, so that means that I know in the back of my mind something is wrong with doing that. I said hell yes I know that that's why I don't believe he did. He goes on this big production about how i'm a stupid fundie and I can't adm it taht my God would do anyting evil.

Well, actually I can't. It doesn't make sense to. The thing is  other atheist speaks up and says I"m not a literalist so he's making a fool of himself.

Murdering the First born children of Egypt

Wateru

 Last I checked, Meta's not a literalist. So, he may claim that God is the standard of good, but he doesn't necessarily claim that God committed genocide, killed kids, sent bears to kill teenagers, or similar. So, trying to get him to justify God doing this stuff is just a little bit silly.

 but does that stop him NOOOoOOOOOOOoooo!


Squre One

I find it curious that you seem unable to actually write the words

"Yes, killing the firstborn of Egypt was a good act".

Rather you obfuscate and say "well, it couldn't have been a bad act". But you won't positively come out and say it was a good act. What restrains you?

Because I don't believe it I protest, he  goes on talking as though I'm defending it. I wonder at this point if he isn't so married to script that he can't get off it. Even when he gets answers he's not prepared for he just pretends like he's getting the one's he wants. I keep saying I don't believe God did it. I don't believe that story happened. He clearly believes it did, he's just looking for a reason to hate God.

I want you to say the words to prove to us that you can. If you do not, I can only assume it is because you cannot bring yourself to put into writing such a repugnant statement. You know that your god was not right, and that is why you cannot say "Killing the firstborn children of Egypt was a good act."

I know he wasn't right? what sense does that make? If I don't believe it happened how is it a matter of him being right? That implies hat he real believes it, he knows God is real but just hates him. Or at least he's determined to blame him for things even he knows he's real. I continue to protest, these posts are piling up. this is going on and on an on.
 Then he lays down the gem:

Square one:

Why does it matter that it didn't actually happen?

Is the act not representative of the true character of God?

you are actually trying to argue that if God didn't do it its representative of God? Based upon what?

how can not doing something indicate that his character is of a sort that would do it?

that's about as irrational as you can get. according to that kid of thinking, the best evidence of soemthing is lack of evidence.

if District thought way they would say "He didn't commit the crime that's the he just the type who would."

wow I am having a hard thinking of anything more irrational!

But I didn't need to think long, enter irrational atheist no 2.aka Non profit. He actually argues that God is evil. He says it's not a matter of logic. he doesn't need logic he has faith. His trip is to just repeat everything he thinks fundies say but in reverse. God is evil, satan is good (although he claims not be a satanist). So he's just a troll. He's just messing with fundie minds by reversing it all. I made my three arguments form this blog that i posted here at one time, three arguments how do we know God is not evil?" He only attempts to answer one. I had argued that evil can't come first. He says I'm only taking it on faith that God came first. Then I say know it's logical because God is the ground of being that has to come first, moreover it's a priori because I use the term "God" to mean "that which created as eternal necessary being." Then he say evil came first and good rejects evil. That has some pretty big problems logically. I think I basically tore him apart. first he had said my position is illogical because it's based upon faith. now that snow it's logical he says he has no place for Logic it's faith that matters and his is better than mine.

Nonprofit.

My faith is better than yours, because my faith is correct. I understand your faith base deposition disagrees. That's fine.

I finally wound up leaving him a link "this is the philosopher that best sums up your thinking."

what can do with such a movement of morons?

What Have the Atheists Been Doing With Paul Tillich?

 
Paul Tillich (1886-1965)

......The other day I was answering the atheist attack on CARM that said I don't know anything about Tillich. In looking for online docs about him I found a remarkable thing: atheists are making use of Tillich in one way or another. They either try to reduce him to being a sort of cowardly atheist who couldn't actually admit he didn't believe in God, or they try to just assault his views of God straight out much as the CARM atheists have done for years against my arguments; that's not the image of God in the bible so it's unchristian. I really kind of feel that it's a mark of Tillich's growing popularity among theists and I like to kid myself into thinking I had a lot to do with it becuase of this blog. On the other there's enough of it going around that it's probably time to answer the assertions.
.......First of all another blogger Thomas Adams on  "Without Authority" writes "Was Paul Tillich An Atheist?" Of cousre that article was up in (March 9) 2009 before I ever talked about Tillich on this blog. O well. In any case he quotes some character named Lenard F. Wheat who says that "Tillich's chief claim to fame will be that he fooled a lot of people... Tillich is a complete atheist who lost his belief while completing his higher education. Intellectually he despises Christianity ..." He goes on to deal with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, atheist gurus, who write that the world of believers can be reduced to fundamentalists are closet atheists who dont have the guts to own up. Thus all the intelligent well educated believers are int he latter category so any true belief is stupidity and atheists don't have to listen to the more rational kind of theist. Having reduced all rational theism to atheism then of cousre Tillich falls in.
......Adams goes on:

As the quote at the top of this post shows, such atheists frequently take aim at Paul Tillich, who represents, for them, the epitome of the "atheist theologian." They've referred to Tillich's theology as "semantic hocus-pocus", "strictly bogus", a "bold masquerade", and "nonsensical hokum and claptrap". But do the charges stick? Was Paul Tillich really an atheist? The following quotes of his would seem to say yes:

"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

"God is the symbol for God"
"The God of theism is dead"

 Apparently he saw atheists taking aim at Tillich back then, thus another cherished illusion is shattered. Still, I've seen a lot of them doing it recently this may a mark of Tillich's rising popularity, regardless of what produced it. Of course in the phrase that God does not exist Tillich is not saying there's no God. To think that he is saying that (in the recent may-lay on CARM some did try to argue this) is a classic mistake and shows immediately that one has not read Tillich. He uses the phrase "exist" in relation to contingent things only.So for Tillich existence is a lesser state than being and denotes dependence upon being. God is not contingent but is being itself. God demarcates the higher state upon which existing thins (which are contingent) depend.
.......An example of an Atheist taking on Tillich straight out is one I've covered on Atheistwatch before, the "Camels with Hammers" blog by  Daniel Fincke. On December 21, 2011 he posted an article "The Impossible God of Paul Tillich."  The one thing that marked this blog when I reviewed it on AW was his ignorance. We see it in action:

Tillich says he’s a Christian.  But here it’s worth pointing out that Tillich’s “God” is so far from the God of the Bible (and traditional Christian theology) that it’s hard to take his claim of being Christian very seriously.  And Tillich has widely been criticized by Christians as offering a strange new theory of the divine.  Some might say that Tillich was a Christian atheist.  Anyway, here are some relevant points from Tillich:

1. God is being-itself.  Tillich wrote: “The being of God is being-itself.  The being of God cannot be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or above others. . . . Whenever infinite or unconditional power  and meaning are attributed to the highest being, it has ceased to be a being and has become being-itself.” (1951: 235).  And he affirms again that “God is being itself, not a being” (1951: 237).   Since God is not a being, Tillich famously affirms that God does not exist (1951: 205, 237).
2. God is the power of being.  Tillich says “the concept of being as being, or being-itself, points to the power inherent in everything, the power of resisting nonbeing.  Therefore, instead of saying that God is first of all being-itself, it is possible to say that he is the power of being in everything and above everything, the infinite power of being” (1951: 236)
3. God is transcendent.  Tillich affirms the transcendence of God when talks about God as being above all things.  He writes that God is “the power of being in everything and above everything”(1951: 236).  And he says that “As the power of being, God transcends every being and also the totality of beings – the world” (1951: 237).

 These are good quotes but he doesn't try to learn what they mean. These are all things I've said here on this blog. They are not hard to grasp if one does of background research, he doesn't. He assumes that these are just high tone words designed to hide his unbelief, the reason being this is not the Christian stuff Fincke learned when he was Christian.
.......Of course if he really doesn't know that much about it he would probably still be one. So all he's really telling us is that that doesn't know anything about the real Christian view of God held by the great theologians of the past because all he ever learned about was the usual fundamentalist Biblical literalism. He accuses Tillich of having to "pull himself back from the brink of paganism." That's becuase for Fincke the real Christian view expounded by the great theologians of the Orthodox church seems like paganism becuase he knows nothing about it. For example he makes the specific charge that Tillich is a pantheist. He attirbutes his escape from pantheism to belief in God's transcendence. As though some passage in the Bible say " thou shalt not be a pantheist" and any understanding of God as present in nature is pantheism and any theological point of view that separates Christianity from pantheism is some sort of trick. Fist of all what is he calling Pantheism? Pantheism is either the belief that God is the sum total of all things, or (old school) a personification of nature; nature as a force is worshiped as deity. Neither one of these options is implied in anything Tillich says.
 .......Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Pantheism thus:"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." [1] The article goes on to say that philosophical opinion on the subject is too divided to be more specific. Yet if that is a valid interpretation than the transcendence issue would divide a pantheist form a non pantheist since the definition would say there's nothing outside of God, and saying that God is transcendent of all things would be the contrary.It is from Webster that I get my view that patheism sees God as nature, or the sum total of all things:

1

: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

2

: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

— pan·the·ist noun[2]

 Certainly the second definition is not used anymore. The first one would not apply to Tilllich. Forces and laws of nature are seen as products of God's mind but not synonymous with God.
.......Another great jewel form Fincke that Tillich's God is impossible becuase it's impossible for God to be both immanent and transcendent:

For Tillich, God is both “the power of being in everything and above everything”.  I’d say that’s absurd – for Tillich, God is both immanent and transcendent.  But it’s impossible to be both immanent and transcendent.   To be sure, if Tillich wants to claim to remain within Christianity, then he’s got to affirm the transcendence of being-itself.  But it makes very little sense to do so.  Much of Tillich’s first volume of Systematic Theology looks like a pantheistic or pagan theology onto which a superficial layer of exhausted Christian ideology is painted.  That paint peels off easily.

This first phrase "the power of being in everything and above everything" is one of Tillcih's most profound and powerful concepts. Fincke tosses it aside as though it means nothing because he doesn't understand it. He does see that it implies transcendence but does he see that it really disproves his earlier notion? His comment about Tillich's Systematic vol 1 looking like a pantheism handbook truly reveals his ignorance because nothing could be less so. Tillich even has a section on why he's not pantheistic and he shows that Pantheism violates his basic canon and would reduce God to a thing in creation. In fact Tillich makes this same argument. It's the transcendent nature of God (which contradicts pantheism) that makes Tillich a panENtheist. God in and beyond creation.
.......Fricke merely demonstrates his ignorance of historical Christianity, as do all who try to argue that Tillich's notion is "not the Christian God." The basis of Christianity really formed up in the seven ecumenical coucils of the Orthodox chruch. Tillich's mission in life was to bring that era of theology into the modern world. His notions of God as being itself are not only echoed by the Orthodox church but in History of Christian Thought He grounds them in the Trinitarian doctrine of homoucisos.[3] Thus the great expositor of the Orthodox chruch to the west, Timothy Ware writes that the Orthodox understand God as being "on the order of being itself."[4]





 [1] Mander, William, "Pantheism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
[2] Merriam Webster's online Dictionary. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism
[3] Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought. Touchstone Books 1972.
[4] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin books, 1963, 65

Posted by Metacrock at 6:15 AM

New War Between Science and Religion? Or Old New Athiest Refusal to Admit Defeat?

 
 from 1960 Hollywood version of Inherit the wind: 
three of my favorite actors:Harry Morgan in background.
 Spencer Tracy as the Clarence Darrow figure 
(Henry Drummond) and Frederick March as the 
William Jennings Bryan figure (Matthew Harrison Brady).



Mano Singham writes a guest editorial for The Chronicle of Higher Education, "The New War Between Science and Religion." Singham has some academic credentials, he is director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education and an adjunct associate professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University. His article bemoans the fact that The Academy of Sciences is openly making room for religion and accepting the existence of religion as a domain beyond the level of scientific investigation:

The former group, known as accommodationists, seeks to carve out areas of knowledge that are off-limits to science, arguing that certain fundamental features of the world—such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the origin of the universe—allow for God to act in ways that cannot be detected using the methods of science. Some accommodationists, including Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, suggest that there are deeply mysterious, spiritual domains of human experience, such as morality, mind, and consciousness, for which only religion can provide deep insights.
Prestigious organizations like the National Academy of Sciences have come down squarely on the side of the accommodationists. On March 25, the NAS let the John Templeton Foundation use its venue to announce that the biologist (and accommodationist) Francisco Ayala had been awarded its Templeton Prize, with the NAS president himself, Ralph Cicerone, having nominated him. The foundation has in recent years awarded its prize to scientists and philosophers who are accommodationists, though it used to give it to more overtly religious figures, like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. Critics are disturbed at the NAS's so closely identifying itself with the accommodationist position. As the physicist Sean Carroll said, "Templeton has a fairly overt agenda that some scientists are comfortable with, but very many are not. In my opinion, for a prestigious scientific organization to work with them sends the wrong message."

....Just a couple of problems with this take on things. First of all labels those who are wise enough to understand that more forms of knowledge exist than just scientific knowledge as "accommodation" is like accepting the Marxist label of all those who have not joined the party was "obstructionist" or the label of all those who dont' want to do it Stalin's way (which means other communists) as "revisionists." Who are these guys accommodating? The enemy of course. Just in using the term this self professed "new atheist" has drawn the battle lines. What's pathetic is the fact that he's not describing a new war he's describing a new peace, but clearly he doesn't want peace. It seems that the world of science has reaches a point where they are willing to accept religion as an area beyond their domain and to strike up a new peaceful co-existence. But the new atheist can't have this. Religion is the enemy it must vanquished and driven out of existence. Any attempt at understanding is mere accommodation, selling out. His rationale:

Those of us who disagree—sometimes called "new atheists"—point out that historically, the scope of science has always expanded, steadily replacing supernatural explanations with scientific ones. Science will continue this inexorable march, making it highly likely that the accommodationists' strategy will fail. After all, there is no evidence that consciousness and mind arise from anything other than the workings of the physical brain, and so those phenomena are well within the scope of scientific investigation. What's more, because the powerful appeal of religion comes precisely from its claims that the deity intervenes in the physical world, in response to prayers and such, religious claims, too, fall well within the domain of science. The only deity that science can say nothing about is a deity who does nothing at all.

....In the first line we can see the problem, the typical atheist understanding of religion ideas as "explanations." everything is science to the worshipers of scinece (scientism) the only possible form of knowledge is scientific knowledge; thus they can't see understanding supernatural as experience they see it as an attempt to explain natural phenomena. If that were the case it would make sense to see science as constantly expanding and taking over the real of SN. But the fact is the term SN was not invented as an expatiation but as a reference to an experience.[1] It is about the experience known as "mystical" which more often than not is understood as an experience of divine presence. The fact of it is he sees science as constantly expanding and taking away all the territory and crowding out the SN because he doesn't see the SN as having any basis in reality becuase it's not derived by means that he and his side control. That can't acknowledge any basis to it because to do so they would have to accept the notion of the validity of other forms of knowledge. He here pulls a bait and switch:
....In setting up a straw man argument he quotes what he terms a spurious argument" by NAS, the arguemnt is "many scientists and theologians have written about how one can accept both." But then in answering the argument he reduces it to "But the fact that some scientists are religious is not evidence of the compatibility of science and religion." That wasn't the argument, the argument was that both scientists and Theologians write about how both can fit together. So it's not just an argument by association that he reduces it to, but that intellectual content goes into proving the compatibility, a content that he doesn't even acknowledge let alone try to answer. He says: "As Michael Shermer, founder and editor of Skeptic magazine, says in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (A.W.H. Freeman/Owl Book, 2002), 'Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.'" That's just a means of dismissing the intellectual content without examining it. Some atheist guy says "this this stuff is no good but smart people are adept at making it seem good," so that means I don't have to investigate it now. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to investigate the contest becuase it totally side steps the issue "if they are smart why do they believe it in the first place?" Besides all of that why should we allow the atheist to set the definition and tell us "this is wired stuff." He wants 3% of the world population to tell 90% "your ideas are the wired stuff." Not by any stretch of the imagination can this be possible.
....Religion is a hell of a lot more than just an intellectual proposition. It's a way of life, it's culture, it's all our most cherished aspirations, self understanding, and sense of meaning in reality. Putting God concept in the "wired" category is reducing God to the status of being a thing in the universe. It's making God out to be just another thing added to the universe. A single piece of baggage that can be ejected as easily. That's necessary for the reductionist who has to see all reality as being one thing,that one thing is him, what he can control with his mind,[2] or what he gains the illusion of controlling because he's rented out his brain to the thought police to be used as they see fit, thus making him a small part of the controlling apparatus of all human thinking and understanding. The idea that this evil enemy that made him the ting he hates most (himself) is a real damper on this single reality that blows his illusion of control. Why should we assume that the standard is the atheist view so that departure from it is the "wired idea?" If the New atheist are as brilliant as they want to believe they are how do we know they aren't the "smart people who believe wired things?" Why Should we allow them to set the agenda? Especially when their views are represented by 3% of the population and belief in God is represented by 90%?[3]
....He spends the rest of the time trying to draw analogies between the Scopes Trial and the new situation. That's just circular reasoning because it assumes the standard is already set as the new atheist's view point and all opposition to that view is relegated to the category of "wired stuff" and put in with Scope's view. The problem is Scopes was a creations and we are not talking we are talking about scientists. We are not talking about just scientists who believe in God we are talking about both scientists who are willing to accept that belief can be a both valid and beyond scientific scope even if they don't believe in God, and Theologians and other believers who accept the value of science but still understand their faith as compatible with that value. To the New Atheists they are accommodating the enemy but to the rest of us they are the normal people because they represent over 90% of everyone. In that we also see another value to the concept of scientists who believe in God, not just that they do, not just that there's a content they have to talk about, not just that they are smart and they believe in something, but that they don't accept New Atheism as the standard of human rationality. They don't want to set the bar according to New Atheist ideology and the represent the majority of the scientific community (if the NAS is really the great hallmark of science that atheist have argued in the past that it is). It seems in reality that there's a new peaceful co-existence bewteen  science and religion not a new war. New Atheists want to go back and fight the old war again, re-living a victory they can't match now, trying to pretend that all religious belief is on a par with the Mathew Brady character form Inherit the Wind.


 Sources:

 [1] My article on the truemenaing of supernature has appeared both in this blog (see "the Original Christian Concept of the Supernatural,"August 15,2012 URL:http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2012/08/normal-0-microsoftinternetexplorer4.html ) and on my webstie The Religious A prori. URL: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-empirical-supernatural.html
[2]Richard H. Jones, Reductionism: Analysis and the Fullness of Reality. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 2000, 39. Google books online preview:
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=sUgnio874NUC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=revolution+against+reductionism&source=bl&ots=RfQNUal7yQ&sig=Wputdv-lWVTdRJ0lJem2hrXHKZI&hl=en&ei=rWusTp3zG4risQLZzKXdDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
[3] Metacrock, "How Many Atheists Are there?" Doxa: Christian Thought in the 21st Century, Online Resource, URL: http://www.doxa.ws/social/percentage.html

Take that Spelling Facist!

I should not have to ever explain dyslexia. I put a note on the mast head about it that should be enough. There are still some idiots who can't figure out that spell check doesn't help that much if you can't see properly. I still had another little spelling fascist who had to make a comment. I suspect becuase that person was really upset at my denunciation of the Borg but could not figure out an intelligent comment in reply.

Now, first of all. I have firefox so I always have spell check on. so these dunderheads say "can't you use spell check" are extremely irksome. Secondly, I did look at that several times before and after. I saw no read lines. I put it in email and I saw a few read lines, but guess what?

The words underlined are not words that are really spelled wrong. they are words that spell check might not know.

First was Borg. I spelled lower case and that was why it was underlined. I wasn't sure if the Borg should be given a capital since they kind of not human and ficitional.

It also underlined Firefox. that should have been capital. Then sometimes I look at a world I think it's capitalized because that's just the one of the Dyslexic tricks. Letter don't just transpose. Sometimes I see totally different words. It's really Freudian seeing.


Experiences was underlined. I guess I spelled that wrong. But there were no red lines in the firefox it was the email that caught it.

Also robotoid. That is probably becuase the checker doesn't know the words. The alternatives it offers are Torrid but not robot.


someone tell me why it's so very important? I undersatnd about wanting to look right, but why should our society make us think that spelling is indicative of intelligence when the dyslexia training people tell me it's not? When I went to Scottish Rite Children's Hospital language lab to learn how to cope with dyslexia as a kid, they told me spelling is to a sign of being intelligent or stupid. Why has society been brain washed to think that it is?

Stupid atheist quote of the week: Humans are the interlopers

We live at such an extremely sad time in human history. We live at a time when humanity had died out (1980) and the remains of it are being distorted and belittled and spat upon.They wont even let it die peacefully. Killed off by scinece and money and big busyness the need to incorporate everything to the business model. The atheists are reductionist and they are anti-human. They deny the most fundamental truths of human experience. They despise experience itself.

 CARM
William Rea:

I ascribe this "experiential" crap to the rise of self centered "New Age Religion." Self centered evangelical Christianity is a reaction to this phenomena in the West in the 90s. Take a walk through Glastonbury.

experience, religious experience has been around since the beginning of religion. that's why there's religion is because there was religious experience.

Sorry we were here first. We humans have been here for a million years. Your borg have only been here since 1980. Experience is endemic to being human. Denying experience is the new thing is' the stupid thing.

  Experienceis about life and it gives us a view of the top down. you want to be a robot and serve some master who controls you without thinking, and tell yourself you are free because your master tells you not to feel or believe in anything; that's your problem. Do not try to claim that your robotoid ideas the the norm and that we humans are the interlopers. we are the one's who live here and have been all along.

the kind of religion you are talking about goes back 56,000 years. Experimental religion is part of being human. it's one of the basic human traits that lifts us above the animals.

we are not goign to give it up because you want to be a robot.

At Leas some Atheists can't Read

 This is an old conflict I've had with atheist "Mary Jane" who doesn't know the difference in a study and an article. "She" (?) made comments about the so called study (Mohad study on religious experience) but she was really talking about the article. She didn't realize they were two different things. Now an atheist called Phoenix jumps in trying to show that she's right. This is all coming out of a concerted effort the carm atheists have been making for a couple of years now to create the myth that I"m a lousy scholar and I'm dishonest about sources.

Here is Phoenix trying to prove that I'm dishonest with sources. he claims that I'm being dishonest when I say the Mohan article is not the Mohan study. It's obviously not:

(1) if you read it you see it's not a study, it's summary of other studies.

(2) in that summary he talks about his own study

(3) he lists his study in the bib and it's different form the article being read, different title, different venue, the talks about methodology he doesn't use in the article. It's clearly and obviously a different source.


here is phoenix's accusations of my work:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...89#post4211989

I couldn't copy the whole list (it is available if you click the link above), but that looks like more than 50 and the reference highlighted in red is a religious text. Once again, you are misteinterpreting other peoples' work by claiming that

a) Mohan's article is a study
b) his bibliography is a list of empirical studies

It's the highest form of dishonesty in academics to misinterpret other people's work in this manner. And you continue to do it with with Mohan, Wuthnow, Noble and now with the studies only you think prove that atheists have low self-esteem. Stop and reasses, Meta, before you embarass yourself with that book you're writing. I say that with the best intentions.

----END MaryJane's Post-- (NOTE: The link to the Mohan article on Meta's blog didn't work, so I fixed that and converted the link to Meta's blog to url that can be copied and pasted)

Do note that it is YOU actually referred to the Mohan article as "STUDY" on your very own blog (forgot that did you?) and MaryJane QUOTED you EXACTLY (posted your words from your blog). You are actually accusing MaryJane of calling the article a "study" when she did no such thing, so who's the one lying here, Meta?

I refereed to the Mohan study at one point the article at another. here's the proof there are two different works.

this is the article refereed to in the index on the Indian Psychology website:

Mohan, K. Krishna (2001) -- Spirituality and well-being: an overview**

URL: http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php

"This paper shows the close relationship between spirituality and well-being by presenting research based evidence that spirituality or a spiritual way of life has a bearing on well-being. In addition, it shows that ideas or concepts drawn from spirituality can be effectively applied to counselling and psychotherapy."


listing in bib in the article just cited:

Krishna Mohan, K. (1999). Spirituality and Well-being: Effects of spiritual experiences and spiritually based life style change programme on psychological well-being . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.

It has a similar title but it's form 1999, if you look at the other article it says it's based upon a presentation and it says it's an overview. this one says it's his dissertation it's not called overview and it's not form the same year. So obviously the article is a summary of his findings and not the study itself.

It's also listed with his first name first so maybe they alphabetize funny over there but it's under K rather than M.


paragraph in the article where he mentions the study:

speaks of himself in the 3d person but he's clearly taking about himself and his study:


"Another recent study by Krishna Mohan (1999) looked into the effects of the spiritual experiences of 200 respondents aged 20-70 years, belonging to 13 various spiritual organizations based on Hindu Philosophy. The subjects were administered the Life Experience Questionnaire (LEQ), Index of Changes Resulting from Experience (ICRE) and Checklist of Effects of Experiences (CEE). The findings revealed that after the spiritual experiences they were generally happy, cheerful and at peace most of the time, and rarely downhearted or depressed. Among the values and motivations which give them meaning in life, they reported that the need to achieve personal growth and maintaining close relationships with loved ones who are important gave them a purpose in life. The majorities of the respondents reported having excellent health, and were satisfied with the meaning and purpose they found in their lives. A significant number of respondents said that the spiritual experiences they had were valuable or beneficial to them. It was also found that most of the experiences contained references to the spiritual leader, God and a “Higher power”. Further they have reported an increase in areas reflecting humanistic and spiritual concerns, and a decrease in negative feelings and beliefs."

If the article is the study what is this? It's in the article? How could he be talking about a work in the work he's writing and the study he's talking about isn't' there? Its' obviously a different work.


now Mabye I'm not always clear and maybe they can't keep up with the things I say because it's over their heads, or mabye since htey are so convened the article is the study they just don't even think about it when they run into it, but it's obvious there two different things. when I have I have spoken in the past of the Mohan study they assumed I was speaking of the article and I was not.


no more petty BS. I have proved I ran an academic journal. I'm not gonna to put up with this busy work make trouble bull any more.


 The first ingenius response comes form Muffins:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?143534-The-campain-to-assasinate-my-rep-as-scholar-is-failed&p=4217108#post4217108

 What academic journal did you run..? Let's see the evidence of this claim. Someone who can't spell, and lacks even a semblance of grammar and syntax, I'll need to see the ocular proof of this assertion. Or is this academic journal like your and Tillich's deity, and just the ground of being a journal but not really a journal..?

 notice how with deft strudel he sides steps the issue of the OP and moves to something irrelevant but something he can use to make people think "yes, this guy can't be a scholar."


 Originally Posted by BlackLight

This is the journal that Meta founded and published: http://negations.icaap.org/

Mary Jane:

Interesting. I almost cannot believe that the person who wrote articles for that journal is the same person who posts in these forums.

you get the feeling they are avoiding something?


 Originally Posted by bigthinker

Being able to spell, use proper grammar and syntax are skills necessary to running a reputable academic journal. These are not personal attacks, they are a skeptical challenge to Meta's claims of having run an academic journal. Besides, Meta is defending his person -his reputuation.

#3 Meta fails to produce evidence for or otherwise convince on the only point we see as being important -that being whether God actually exists.

that's begging the question Instate because the issue came up in the first place based upon allogation taht you have not answers any of my God arguemnts. you still have not.

I have 52 proofs that are unanswered. so you are wrong. i have prove it 52 times.



Ibid: (BT)

Meta does a great job of providing evidence of belief and his arguments that people have reason to believe are valid(ish) but he utterly fails to demonstrate the actual existence of God outside of his imagination -which is the only thing most of us atheists really care about.

you totally ignore my argument which shows actually poof is not a valid thing to require. so we should us what I call "level 2" which my God arguments provide. you just kind of side stepped that.

I've proved that Mary Jane was talking about the article and never read the study. the fact you are all avoiding this completely proves I hit the nail on the head.Now you can't show any place in the Journal where I mispell or use bad grammar.

My grammar is good yours is so so. my grammar is better than yours, you don't know what grammar is.

In an attempt to save face Mar Jane says:
 this is the first refrence to the op after 45 posts:

 Everybody knows that, Meta. Especially those of us who read the article and saw that you stole your reference list from the article and not the study.

 That's a laugh. First of all, what in the hell makes this illiterate think that using the sources in a bib is stealing? Secondly I combined it with with sources from other bibs to  make a huge master bib, there is no rule of any kind anywhere that ays that's wromg. MOreover the only way she knows I did is because I said I did. Meaning I didnt "steal it' I knowldged where I got the sources.

this is another lame attempt to change the subject and shed blame back on me and distract from the issue that I proved her wrong.

btw this is going to be on fine on my site so you might well be on notice if you bring this up again I will show the proof again.

Freedom to Destroy Religion Foundation

The actual Statue Under Dispute

....One of the major atheist organizations is the freedom from religion foundation. It should be called the Freedom to destroy religion foundation since it is one of he major tools the atheist movement is using to try and destroy religion. It's a non profit and has huge membership, appeal to the general public to join and contribute.



Their own website: http://ffrf.org/

What Does the Foundation Do?

•  Publishes the only freethought newspaper in the United States, Freethought Today
•  Sponsors annual high school, college and grad student essay competitions with cash awards
•  Conducts lively, annual national conventions, honoring state/church, student, and freethought activism
•  Sponsors an online forum…

More »

On the side bar blog roll to AW I quote from a site called "Militant Atheism Exposed." they list the following was the FFRF's stated agenda:

fundie site linke on my side bar:

STATED AGENDA

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism."

What is the Foundation's purpose?

The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

More »

Examples of Action: Cross on Public Land

What this means in practical terms is an attempt to denude from society any vestige of religious belief wherever they may be found. Case in point, a Statue of Jesus that has stood for sixty years Whitefish, Montana, "as a monument to soldiers who died defending our freedom in World War," according to an article by a similar kind of organization but one that defends religious freedom, The Becket Foundation. The statue was erected by Veterans after the war and it stands on public land. Permission was granted by the Forest service and has been renewed all these years. A Wisconsin based  FFRF group sued the forest service denied the renewal. The Becket fund joined the law suit.
....This effort is typical of the many successes the FFRF has scored. It's not usually conservatives or believers or evangelicals who start such battles:

USA Today: 
Michael Medved
Updated 5/13/2012 5:28 PM

 A simmering controversy surrounding the "Ground Zero Cross" exposes the intolerance and absolutism behind ongoing battles over religious symbols on public property. Contrary to popular belief, it's not Christian conservatives who normally start these bitter disputes. It's more often atheist activists who seek to alter the long-standing status quo by scrubbing the landscape of the most visible signs of the nation's religious heritage.

 American Atheists, an organization representing the civil liberties of agnostics, filed suit in 2011 to block display of the Ground Zero Cross anywhere on the grounds of the new memorial museum planned for the World Trade Center site. The artifact in question became the best known piece of debris recovered from the terrorist attacks, when workmen spotted it on Sept. 13, 2001. The huge cross beam, presumably detached from the collapse of the North Tower and hurled down with many tons of rubble onto the stricken eight-story structure to its northeast, somehow survived intact and almost immediately became an informal shrine for the tireless crews who labored to clear Ground Zero.

(from Militant Atheism Exposed)

MAJOR SUCCESSES 

• Winning the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturning a state Good Friday holiday
• Winning a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removing Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land
• Halting the Post Office from issuing religious cancellations
• Ending 51 years of legal bible instruction in public schools

Foundation complaints have:

• Halted prayer at public institutions, and public financing of nativity pageants and Easter service
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Stopped Job Corps trainees from being assigned to work on a Catholic shrine
• Ended a 122-year abuse of commencement prayers at a Top Ten University
• Declared unconstitutional the creation of a state post to "assist clergy"

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal/> (18 February, 2009)
OTHER SUCCESSES

- University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University
- Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions
- Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted
- Crosses Downed from Public Land
- Abuse by Preacher Exposed
- City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended
- Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor
- Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired
- Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended
- De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped
- School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped
- Bible Proclamation Rescinded
- Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"
- Creationism Removed from City Zoo
- Discount for Catholics Ended
- Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended
- Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land
- Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property
- Religion Removed at Playground

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal4.php> (18 February, 2009)

RECENT COURT CASES

- FFRF Challenges School Child Evangelism Subsidy
- FFRF Files Suit Against Green Bay Creche
- FFRF Challenges "Under God" in Pledge in New Hampshire Schools
    with New Hampshire family & Mike Newdow
- FFRF Challenges Public School's Promotion of Religious Activity
- FFRF Wins Challenge of "Chaplaincy" for Indiana Family & Social Services
- FFRF v. Gonzales : FFRF Sues Federal Bureau of Prisons over Faith-based Prison Programs
- FFRF Sues Veteran Affairs Department Over Religion
- FFRF Sues Over Bush's Offices of Faith-based Initiatives
    Hein v. FFRF
    Challenges Emory Grant
    Challenges Funding of MentorKids
- FFRF Halts University of Minnesota "Faith/Health" Entanglement
- FFRF Challenges New Mexico Faith-based Prison Program
- FFRF Stops Dept. of Education Grant to Bible College
- FFRF Wins "Scopes II"
- FFRF Wins Ten Commandments Case
- FFRF Wins Montana Faith-based Challenge
- FFRF Wins First Faith-based Challenge
- FFRF Wins Against Direct Funds to Parochial Schools
- FFRF Wins Lawsuit: Post to "Assist Clergy" Unconstitutional
- FFRF Lawsuit: Jesus Statue in Public Park Sold, Fenced
- FFRF Lawsuit: Pope Monument in Park Modified
- FFRF Wins Good Friday State Holiday Challenge
<http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal2.php> (18 February, 2009)

"FFRF": OTHER COURT CHALLENGES

• Gaylor v. Risser
• Year of the Bible Challenged
• Round One; Ten Commandments
• Illinois Chapel Litigated
• Ten Commandments Suit in Denver
• In God We Don't Trust
• Money to Enhance Catholic Seminary
• Challenges Creche in Waunakee Park
• A Banner Case
• Christian County Sued

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal5.php> (18 February, 2009)

 O but atheism is not an organized movement, o course not. It's just a loose collection of people on message boards who happen to have the same idea that they don't believe in God, but nothing else in common. Don't believe that! It's so obviously an organized effort with big money behind it. How could mount such a campaign?  I could understand the need to just defend one's rights. Why should that statue be on public land? If I don't believe in Jesus why should my public land that I am part of be affixed with a symbol that I don't feel represents me? How many Christians would like a Buddha statue put there? Would that be fair? isn't it fair to represent all the public on public land? Sure it is but is that all there is to this group? How about the books they publish?

partial list includes: Losing Faith in Faith, Dan Barker, Just Pretend, Dan Barker, Lead us not into Penn Station: provocative pieces, Anne Nicol,
 

 why so many Dan Barker books? Barker is a Zealot of the Atheist Movement. He's an attack dog. He is professional twenty four/seven atheist apologist who is tirelessly working to destroy religion. He is a former minister, Church of Christ, and piss poor apologist at that. Many are Baker books. Why? They are not all by Barker but they are all atheist book that seek to destroy the faith of the reader to argue one out of belief in God. This is clearly not just a matter of defending rights but a concerted attack upon religious itself. Other books include Robert Ingersoll (historical atheist) and Born Again Skeptic by Ruth Hurmence. There's a huge list of events and a huge list of conventions and ways to get involved. It's clearly an organized to the teeth big money operation. Only a major movement could produce such an organization.It's based in Wisconsin but has braces in every state. It's the largest national organization advocating for non theistic causes. according to the Militant Atheism Expossed site:

"Formed in 1976 by Annie Gaylor Jr. and Sr., the foundation was incorporated nationally in 1978. It has grown ever since and is now supported by over 11,000 members. It is run out of an 1855 building at the corner of West Washington Avenue and North Henry Street in Madison, Wisconsin that once was a church rectory. With a minimum annual membership fee of $40, the foundation has saved over $3.3 million (US) and receives over $1 million in dues per year. The foundation primarily uses this money to pay legal fees in cases contesting the separation of church and state of various United States governmental organizations, but it also pays salaries to its staff of four, distributes advertisements and sends out news publications to its members."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation#_note-aboutCalling> (09 Dec. 2007).



This is not about rights or being misrepresented it's an organizing tool. The foundation is a well oiled propaganda machine and what they do is classical political move; create organizing platforms by using whatever issue is available on the logical level. That's the way the Moral Majority fed into the Regan movement.

ex christian net

One of the stupidest atheist sights I've ever seen is Ex Christian.net. This one ranks up there as the atheist answer "Christian soldier's mighty fortress." It's a profussion of whining and stupidity. The sight is more than just forums. They have linked in blogs, a main blog, forums and other things. They offer articles written by voluntary contributors. They demonstrate the same ignorance as all of the hate God club we find at work in the atheist movement.

An article linked off the main blog, "Sin: Religion's Straw Man" by Lilly Black, uses the term straw man in the sense of a focal point that more like one would use the term "propaganda." Straw man is an argument one constructed to attack that is supposed to be the opponent's argument but is actually not really Representative of the opponent and is made weak so it can be attacked successfully. Thus these guys don't know the proper use of the term. That always bodes ill especially when people crow about how much smarter they are than the opposition. This explanation demonstrates the misuse of the term:

It's a straw man: It creates a problem that doesn't exist so that we need a deity with a solution that is not needed. Sounds a lot like politics, actually. We are saved from a problem that does not exist, and thus we think we are free- even if we have actually been bogged down with more restrictions.

 Of course that's also not a very bright concept because she might want to explain what takes the place of the concept of sin in her moral philosophy, or are we just supposed to do without the concept of being morally wrong now? They have article by zealot nut cases Richard Carrier and Victor Stenger. The article for Stenger (who is one of the most idiotic people I've read) is an ad for his book "god the failed hypothesis."

Debunking Christianity by Harry McCall some of the most idiotic ranting I've ever seen.

This religious superstition belief system is the default setting for the mind that refuses to be objectively educated about reality. In short, it’s a reward for mental laziness.

Of course he has no data no foot notes no sources to relate to. It's mental laziness but where is his critique of Leibniz or Spinoza? where is his critique of William Alston or Palntinga? he's not exactly dealing with the thinkers of the Christian tradition. I actually don't see any traces of former belief. Would a former Christian be this ignroant? If I quote belief in God I wouldn't stand around criticizing surface level stuff like praying with your eyes closed (keep reading) why is he doing this? I suspect it's not only ignarntce per se but he wasn't really ever a Christian. maybe he went to chruch a few times and never really paid attention.

B. The reason one needs to bow the head and close the eyes when praying is to help their mind fantasize over myths.

there it is. that's whi whole analyssi. nothing else to it. that's why peole close their eyes when they pray. profound.

C. The main reason churches don’t have windows or have them covered with stained glass is due to the fact that there is a hell of a lot more interesting reality going on outside (even if it’s just simply watching a bird in a tree) then hoping non-reality into an imaginary existence inside the artificial environment in the church’s sanctuary !

I've never been i a chruch that didn't have windows. Yes chruch architecture does try to evoke another wordy feeling. That's very appropriate considering their submitter. what do you want them to have on there? pictures of food so one can drool over the meal to come, or football so we can be distracted by the game latter? Marcuse he's not. Marx rollover!

D. The only difference between a child’s fairytale story and the Bible is that this story book not only has acquired a nation myth status supported with tax exemption, but is one of the major employers of people who profit from sermonizing others with superstitions.

NO dub ass I think if you read some Karaney you would find some more differences. At leat there are different kinds of biblical texts. They are not all mythological, this guy is not even aware of this fact. Notice he doesn't even to draw upon anthropological understanding of myth and fair tales or any kind of social scineces.

E. Religious Freedom is the only government sanctioned myth that can discriminate on the freedom of others and make money while doing it!

 NO I think capitalism in there too somewhere.

It seems this is just catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not putting forth any of well read aspect but just carping on all the superficial trappings. I also find a sort of cultural antimony such that
they are more involved in cultural clash than escaping a bad experience. I really doubt they were Christians at all.

 speaking of the lowest common denominator:

Forums

Example:

Ravenstar whines:

 religion is evil... it's so evil I can hardly find words to describe it's vileness...

these guys don't go in for subtle approach. It's all hard sell.

My deconversion, if you will, seems to have gone in a spiral... in steps. For a very long time even after I rejected Christianity I clung to my various conceptions of god, or whatever—fuck—I don't even know what to call it anymore.

I've studied and practiced various forms of theism.. from pantheistic witchcraft to Rosicrucianism, to Pentecostal, to... well, let's just say I've been to a lot of different branches of this faith thing, always thinking, nay believing, deep down that somehow there must be a loving force and if so, I can find it... call it god for lack of a better descriptor.

That's because it's so evil she can't get a clear thought about it. Although I have my own theirs why why she can't get a clear understanding. BTW Pantheism and Witchcraft are not forms of theism. So with the thought that there must be a loving force somewhere why did she decide there isn't one? Because she was too hating the one she fled to find another one? Of cousre the guys on exchristian.net are there t help her nurse her hate. They keep that hate alive.

We see the clear grasp of understanding evoltuion:

And christians are upset to think we are related to chimpanzee's, because they believe it devalues them? Their own book devalues them—the entire concept makes us less worthy than any animal.. animals are innocent! But we are the scum of the earth, and by making us believe that we become so incredibly gullible that we will do ANYTHING to relieve that sense of vulnerability and worthlessness, whether that's believing lies, or killing others... anything. It's an untenable psychic state. Throw in a good dose of fear (but make us believe we deserve it) and that's it folks... wrap it up.. you just created a battered woman out the majority of the human race.

FUCK THAT!

Nothing but the intellectuals on exchristian.net. So articulate too.We are related to chimpanzees. As long as she understands evolution. At least she has a clear idea of that (evolution doesn't say we are related to chimps it says we have common ancestry with apes). Of course there is no bible passage that says "we are the scum of the earth."

God is love? Not from where I stand. And the evidence is all around... in spades.

AND... If there is a different god, a loving god, why would it hide from me? I call bollocks. Fuck faith and the horse it rode in on. Absurdities.

Religion makes people unbelievably stupid, mentally unbalanced, vengeful, arrogant and morally bankrupt. Yet hides behind this 'light and love' clothing. It's the very definition of passive-aggressiveness, malignant narcissism, and delusional projection.

Getting out of it makes them unbelievably stupid apparently. Her outburst has five stars by it. I guess they are measuring intensive of hate expressed. She tells us "I'm a seeker," what seeking did he do? there are no specifics. We know nothing of her experiences how do we know she was a Chrsitain. This is my suspicion that most of them were never Chrsitians.


Rational Materlist Skeptic says:

I've always wondered this, myself. Why would a loving god force his creation to have to seek him, and even after they've supposedly found him, why would he force them to continually grovel and beg for him to reveal himself to them in some way that we can sense? That doesn't sound like love to me. It sounds like abuse.

Ellwood says:

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:05 AM

I Loved this rant! There are so many good "one liners" that it would be hard to mention them all.

However I loved your point that even our creator cant accept us as we are. Great point! What a FAILED creator in that case! And the old free will argument just doesn't work anymore. Screw that crutch for god.

One more that I loved. The chimpanzee thing! Great point! I am going to use that next time I have the old "I don't come from an ape" line!

Great job Ravenstar!

So it's all just a game. It's just a big troll game just feels good to be ranting. I don't find anyone on this sight who even remotely seems like they knew beans about Christianity. The Chimpanzee thing was a great point? So what if she doesn't understand evolution, who needs to understand stuff, as  long as we are big fearless intellectuals, who dont' understand things. We sure are smarter than those stupid old Christians.


Sybairs says

I personally do not understand why religion has a get-out-of-ridicule-free card. Religion requires ignorance to perpetuate so it doesn't bode well for a society to turn a blind eye to willful ignorance.

Interesting. She seems to assume that ridicule is some kind of obligation that all must go through (sing of low self esteem) and then of course the myth that religious people are ignorant (as well related to chimps). The guys on this forum are even stupider than the one's on carm. These guys make the carm guys seem almost intelligent.

these guys, the whole site shows absolutely no trace of any kid of intellectual content and no signs of having been Christians. This is the biggest sham. it's clear new atheism is about stupidity, catering to the unwashed uneducated masses. IN my day atheism was about being an intellecutal, now it's about resentment of the intellectuals in the chruch and anti-intellectual venting of anger toward the better educated.

http://bolenreport.com/skeptics/Skeptics2/hate%20group.htm

Bolen Report, atheism is orgniazed hate group

Atheists Live out Life of Brian:Battle Each Other Over Islam And Racism

Life of Brian: People's Front of Judea


A terrible faction fight has developed between atheists, it's almost produced a schism. Now there's a new organization called "atheism plus" that's sort of acting as the Political correctness police to enforce the party line. It's creation has led to more resentment. I became aware of this split a couple of years ago and followed it now and then. I didn't post much on it becuase it seemed too much like gossip. Now it's reached a point where it counts as real news. Atheist watchers should take note: now they are becoming like the chruch, dividing and battling each other. Here's a post on carm that reflects a basic confrontation between two leading atheist figures.

That post contains a link that reflects the confrontation. Greenwald calls Harris a bigot in speaking of the "bigotry of new atheism." This is Harris quoting the thing by Greenwald and then responding to it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2



here is the quote by Harris that enflames the Greenwald side:

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.
While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.
The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.
To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

here is Greenwald discussing it in a way that shows Harris is clueless about the issue:

Sam -
To be honest, I really don’t see how that full quote changes anything. You are indeed saying - for whatever reasons - that the fascists are the ones speaknig most sensibly about Islam, which is all that column claimed.
I know Murtaza’s writings really well and he’s always trustworthy and diligent, and I think he was here, too.
I’m not sure how you can blame me for tweeting an article published in Al Jazeera and written by a respectable commentator, but I’m happy to post your email to me - or some edited version of it as you wish - and tweet that, too.
Glenn Greenwald

Built in conflict there over the idea that multiculturalism is allowing Arab terrorism to grow, and the racist implications of that statement in treating all Arabs as though they are all part of the terrorism. This kind of conflict has given rise to "the atehist third wave," which actually seems like an attempt to police the faithful.



atheist "third wave" to promote politically correct view:

Kate Toth in RD magazine
Sept 20, 2012

Atheism has taken its lumps lately. Here on RD, in the wake of the murder of six Sikhs in Wisconsin, humanist chaplain Chris Stedman critiqued atheist bigotry and silence in the face of violence directed at religious minorities. Meanwhile, at least since last summer’s “elevatorgate”, outspoken atheist feminists describe continued, aggressive harassment from men in the atheist community.

In response some atheists have broken off and created “Atheism Plus” which aims to make space for women, people of color, and other marginalized groups within an atheist movement that's historically white and male.

Atheism does have a problem with xenophobia and anti-Islam rhetoric, she says, and “it's appropriate and right for other atheists to criticize [that rhetoric]. And many of us have done so... and will continue to do so.” As an example she points to popular blogger and biology professor PZ Myers' continued criticism of Sam Harris, adding: “To be horribly angry at the leaders of the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East is very different from being angry at the guy who’s sitting next to you on the bus. We treat moderate and progressive Christians differently from how we treat hardcore, homophobic, misogynist fundamentalist Christians. I think we need to do the same thing with Islam.”

Amazing and amusing to see how strident and radical Carrier has become. He's itching to get into the faction fight. He's picked his side and he's out there condeming the other side, he refers to them as "dead wood" he's ready to cut out the bastards and leave them behind. This is so telling:


Free Thought Blogs,
"New Atheism plus"
no date listed

There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all (I mean people like these and these). I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment generated an idea (inspired by Anne C. Hanna) to start a blog series building a system of shared values that separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values. Then I just got overwhelmed with work and kept putting it off on my calendar for when I had a good half a day or so to get started on that project.

the first "this" is a woman who is castigating the atheist ridicule gauntlet "read it" for their mindless stupidity and lauding the need for a politically correct form of atheism. So if she's the dead wood then Carrier is agisnt the PC crowd?

Amazing. He says "we need the rift" and he's welcoming the strife. It's unclear who he's blaming though. When he says "these" and "these" as people to disown the links go to a site called 'skepchick.org" which is someone who spouts the same kind of pro PC rhetoric that Carrier seems o support. I don't know if his dead wood is the person doing the blog or the people she's against.

One major aspect of that quote that really amuses me to no end is this:
"to start a blog series building a system of shared values that separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement...." That is significant for two reasons. First, becuase he admits atheism is a movement. While on message boards every single time I call it a movement they are quick to say "Its' not a movement, no it's not!" Movements have ideologies, so all their protestations that they have no movement and no ideology goes out the window when they say that. Carrier is not the first I've seen to say it's a movement. I've seen several people call it that in relation to this schism. Not only do movements have ideologies but they also have parties and part lines. If this is not a party line nothing is. When you start breaking up into factions and having factions, especially when it's acrimonious enough to call people "dead wood" (better dead wood than red wood?) you have a movement and an ideology; not only so but your ideology is now subdivided. They have two parties vying for control of the same movement, they have their Menshevik and Bolsheviks split.

The second amazing thing is that Carrier (who is apparently a true Zealot and political gladiator) is willing to label part of the community of the movement "the dark side." This is another concept I've pushing for since I started AW and they have never never never never never given a single inch on admitting it possibly be the case, that a core element within the atheist community represents some form of dark side. Yet here one of their true stalwarts is willing to say it because he's so locked in factional battle that he's totally sold out to vanquishing the other side. Reminds me of that scene in Life of Brian where they remember their common enemy is the Romans, and all the various factions of Jews who have been fighting each other go "O yea, the Romans."

The bipartison nature of Carrier is awesome. He is quoted is the Guardian as saying:

 "Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."

Peter McGrath in that same article:

Those of us who do not wish to extend our atheism into someone else's definition of progressive politics may take rather unkindly to being described as immoral scum, useful but unsavoury body parts, and outdated contraceptive devices. In the week when American atheism made its appearance in the Economist's editorial pages, it seems to have been sowing the seeds of that most religious of events – a schism.
St Paul would be laughing his head off, had a Roman soldier not already deprived him of it. "See," he might now write after reading those modern epistles, the blogs, comments and tweets around the birth of Atheism+, "how these atheists love one another."

He links to a scene from the life of Brain demonstrating nearly what I've said above. they are talking about the factions they hate Eric Idle goes "we hate the People's front fo Judea." John Cleese says "we are people's front of Jeudea!" I've been through all of this in my communist days. I know exactly what it's like I could have predicted it. I've been confirmed in what I've predicted so far. It's just another movement it's just another faction fight, and they are already committed to it. They have a dark side and now they have to admit it.


There is no way they can deny that they have a movement and an ideology. When they are saying "these are the values we hold, those who are not against racism and sexism and so on are dead weight" they are saying "here is the ideology." This is it in front of our faces. That just renders all their denials into a big joke.