Showing posts with label more mocking and ridicule from carm atehists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label more mocking and ridicule from carm atehists. Show all posts

Monday, November 8, 2010

Atheists Use Ridicule as Brain Washing

Photobucket


Mocking and ridicule are acts of hate. To mock ideas is to stifle thinking. It's true that some ideas worthy of ridicule, the problem is that accepting such a standard replaces thinking in the minds of those who don't like to think. Thus all one need do is ridicule and idea and the groupies accept the mocking as judgment that the idea is no good, one need to think about the idea. Stupid people and ignorant people always mock things they don't understand. When mocking and ridicule replace real thought in a community then the mere presence of ridicule is enough to stifle thought on the subject.
thus ridicule takes on a hateful aspect, it is the work of the lynch mob. Mocking and ridicule are nothing ore than mob rule.

More and more atheists advocate ridicule as a valid approach. That's nothing more than an excuse to stifle thinking among ignorant people.

 planet atheism oct 21 2010

Why Criticism and Mockery are Important

Published
by
Staks
on October 21, 2010
.
Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”

The problem is, you can't allow that becuase people have a hard time distinguishing a truly absurd idea from something they don' know about. Atheists don't' want to learn about theology anyway. There will be times when one can't help but mock something, to actually employ it as a strategy even a last resort is just creating an environment of hatred and negativity.

Ridicule becomes a form of atheist brain washing. Daylight Atheism argues that it's a valid and effective means of changing people's attitudes. They don't seem to concerned with the ramifications the effectiveness of it seems more important to them. In fact this guy tells how his own conversion include being ridiculed out of his beliefs.


This was around my last year of high school. I was surfing Internet chat rooms when I saw someone in one of them give an offhand reference to the site Things Creationists Hate by Bob Riggins, a sarcastic list of things that contradict creationist belief - everything from sand piles to the apostle Paul.
I read the whole page the first time I saw it, and I was hooked. I went back several times in the following weeks, reading new things as the author added them, and then branched out into exploring other websites, including some with a snarky and irreverent attitude towards religion (there was one I remember called Fade to Black, now defunct). I wasn't yet an atheist at that point, but it got me to realize that claims made in the name of religion could be questioned, even mocked - and that was what set the stage for my subsequent deconversion.
I bring this all up because, yet again, there's an ongoing tiff with an accommodationist - in this case the astronomy blogger Phil Plait - who's chastising the skeptical and atheist community for being excessively vitriolic and insulting:
"How many of you here today used to believe in something - used to, past tense - whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that... [and] no longer believe in those things and became a skeptic because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged and a retard?"
It's hard to disagree with the point as he phrases it, but the problem is this: Plait never said who, specifically, he was talking about. In fact, he made it a point not to cite any specific examples. This makes it very difficult to evaluate the merit of his argument, and raises the suspicion that he's just throwing up an inflammatory straw man. I don't know very many skeptics whose approach consists of getting in people's faces and screaming insults at them. But I do know many skeptics who mercilessly mock ridiculous beliefs, who argue using snark and sarcasm, and who forthrightly call irrational nonsense what it is. Is Plait talking about them? Is he talking about me? Where, specifically, does he think the line is? His argument isn't helpful if it doesn't answer these questions.

What they are really describing here is actually the Atheist Brain washing process. A bunch of thugs pick out weak lonely people who need friends and support, mock them and ridicule them make them feel like shit then give them a sense of belonging when they give in. This is as anti-intellectual as you can get. It's nothing more than thugs forcing people to change their minds. I put it on a par with torture. Its' a very tame for of torture. Ridicule can cause people to commit suicide. Ridicule can scar one for life. These people are thugs and there basically just admitting to be psychological kidnappers.

one comment on Daylgiht Athest says:

Thomas Paine obviously disagreed with Plait and his writings certainly utilize ridicule (a lot):
"The hinting and intimidating manner of writing that was formerly used on subjects of this kind [religion], produced skepticism, but not conviction. It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." (from a letter to Elihu Palmer)
Comment #1 by: EvanT | August 30, 2010, 6:34 am

Thomas Paine (ass though he was) did not just ridicule everything. He reserved his ridicule for his oppoents policies in politics, he didn't' try to ridicule all of philosophy, all of theology, all of literature, as many many atheists do.

Not all atheists agree of cousre. There are dissenting voices that council not to mock and ridicule. Paul Kurtz of the Free Thinking Blog (Center for Inquiry part of the atheist propaganda echo chamber) has some intelligent things to say about it.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.
His readers disagree:


Randy on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:10pm

Two problems I have with this post:
(1) Nazi reference, already in the second paragraph.  Really, do we need to go there every time?
(2) “What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?” I nearly fell off my chair.  This happens on a daily basis, in all media, and usually is not meant as a lighthearted joke either.
The old "they do it to us so we can do it to them." I never hear atheists ridiculed in the media. I think he's confusing general sense of disagreement and cultural unacceptability with actual ridicule.

wandering on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 5:19pm

It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era.
There is a great difference between denigrating a living person, or an existing nation and a mythical god/leader of religion.  A person has rights; God, Jesus and Mohammed have no rights.
What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?
How is drawing Jesus an insult to anyone that is not Jesus, and the drawing of the pope, an insult to anyone that is not the pope?  People have no rights to be insulted on the behalf of a third party, just because they believe something about that party…

Those are thoughtless and stupid comments because Jesus and Mohamed are not just abstract ideas. To a lot of people they are cherished beliefs, and more, they are friends, they are people some people love. when you ridicule Jesus you are hurting me. It hurts me deeply and offends me deeply to see Jesus ridiculed. I equate Jesus with the basic symbol of all that is good and holy. To mock and ridicule that is totally evil. It requires only a modicum of brains to understand the ability to distinguish between the cultural construct of Jesus the icon  of the good and the religious doctrine that the man of Nazareth was incorante logos. Not that mocking the logos would not also be offensive to me, but respecting Jesus as a cultural icon does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

We can see clearly that atheism flourishes on mocking and ridiculing. it's my theory that they equate that with their intellectual superiority. As the studies indicate atheists have poor self esteem, they feel anger and frustration toward people who feel loved by God. They love the sense that they superior to these people because they can mock and ridicule what they don't understand. They use it as a tool to hijack people's brains and force them to give up their beliefs. They probably have to find boarder line people to work that on. Those are have low self esteem, struggle to feel accepted by God, have no support group need a sense of belonging. Being mocked and rejected creates the desire to be accepted by their persecutes and then the sense that one has finally ache-ivied belonging when one renounces the hated beliefs is enough to bring people into submission. Free thinkers, O yea, they are free thinkers. Free thinkers really bleieve in forcing people into submission don't they?





another one
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/08/on-the-uses-of-ridicule.html



here an atheist takes  a dissenting view

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/a_disssenting_view_about_blashphemy_day/Bookmark and Share
Posted by at 7 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Answering Atheist Noncognativism

 arabic god symbol




Ooberman on CARM writes:


From a site I can't link, but you can paste and google it.

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
1. Primary Attributes
2. Secondary Attributes
3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.
The person making the argument on Tremblays site has a very fine write-up on the possible counters, but I'd like to see what the Christians here think. I know it's mostly Fundi's in this section, but maybe a few reasonable people will see this thread.


p3 is a false statment:

primary attributes:

a. ground of being
b. eternal
c. necessary (ontologically and logically)
d. primary condition or "first cause" to all existing things.
e. Transcendental signified.
f. personal itself.




4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

false statement because it assumes 3 which is a false statement.

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.


  arbitrary assumption disproved above
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

based only upon false assumptions and arbitrary assertions of ideology.

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

false statement. I just demonstrated it's false hood. what he really mans to say is "concept invalid given my language game."

I don't play his language game.

The person making this argument doesn't demonstrate the truth of it and doesn't even attempt supporting it. to be true p3 would have to be true of all God concepts. he doesn't bother to show that it's true of one.

He says he got the original argument from an atheist website. goggling the argument above it wound up on the iron Chariot site.  So it 's the work of amateurs who don't know philosophy.

That site is the atheist answer to Josh McDowell. Some atheist dude said "let's show these fundies that they have no monopoly on cheap apologists! we can up a dogmatic site that pretends to have all the answer but is really just a bunch of high school kids giving superficial crap from their book reports, too."

an exaple of the stupidity of the people doing the Iron Chariots site.

here's what he think via negitiva means.

"A. The Non-Accomplishments Of Negative Definitions.

In this section, the insufficiency of negative definitions to provide meaning to the god-concept will be discussed, which will provide further understanding toward the need of specificity in identification.

The theist, in attempt to provide meaning to the term “God”, may object to this argument by saying that we know “God” to be infinite, limitless, and immaterial. These descriptions, however, amongst others, do nothing to help their position. This is because these descriptions are not identifying in nature—they are “negative definitions”.

A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is. It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but informing us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification:

“I am not George W. Bush, Jr.” "

I. not via negativia, not even close to what it means

II. those are not negative definitions

saying "God is eternal" is not saying "God is not temporal." its' a positive affirmation of something God is.

III. since he doesn't know what via negativia means (it doesn't' man attributes like eternal, all knowing all power, all present) then he can't argue with it or say that it's false because he has no idea what he's talking about.

IV. mystical theology is way over this guys' head I wouldn't even bother to discuss it with him. But the fact of it is accepting that God is beyond our understanding is not the same as saying that he has no attributes.

these are very clear and definite positive attributes and this guy in doing is not only showing off his ignorance but merely demonstrating that his own concept is fallacious.


there's more, he makes it worse. he supossedly spikes out any future come back by suppossedly showing that defintiopn is impossible:

On The Impossibility Of A Definition


We’ve established that the word “God” is meaningless, and thus that atheism is a justified position.

we did, how? by misusing the term via negativina and asserting something we don't bother to demonstrate, such as p3 in the original argument.

This is, however, only until a theist should provide a valid definition. While I will not leave out the possibility of a god-believer doing so, George Smith does provide an argument against the prospect when considering the secondary characteristics theists would wish to apply to the term “God” thereafter.

here he says "a believer might have a definition" after saying there can't be a definition, then he claims someone esle preempts the possibility how do they do that? by asserting without proving that there can't be one and arguing with secondary qualities, which are not essential to a definition.


Smith develops his argument by noting many of these character traits that are applied to the term—specifically omnipotence and limitlessness. Considering these attributes, he argues, defining “God” is an impossible task.

I've already disproved those fallacious assertions that are just based upon ignorance and using the definitions wrongly.
but even so most theologians don't' use the omnis now anyway.



Why? Smith argues that this is because of the consequences of a thing’s identity. To have an identity, Smith observes, is to be presented with various limits. Things one simply cannot do by virtue of its nature. However, since a “God” is supposed to be both omnipotent and limitless, a valid definition for the term itself is unattainable.


The God os process theology and the Tillich concept of the Super-essential Godhead (being itself) are not open to this charge because they don't require an "identity" in the same way that an individual man does.

all of his arguments leave out the two major moves of theology in the 20 century he obviously doesn't even understand them.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 15, 2010

More Examples of the Hate Group in Action: The Need to Mock and Ridicule

CARM,  1/15/10 Poster named "Dr. Petter" "Important Questions for Christians"


I would love to be able to ask these questions in a forum where the majority of Christians might be able to read them and give answers but that is not possible. Maybe a Christian frequenting this sub forum can pass them on to others and report back.

1. Where did the words used in the bible come from? God, man or both? If both how much is God and how much is man?

2. If the words are primarily from god why are there contradictions and different interpretations of those words?

3. Are there any ORIGINAL ideas in the bible that can only be found in the Jewish culture? For example creation in a short period of time, resurrection, the golden rule, the idea of sin and sacrifice, everlasting life, honor your father and mother, etc.


Walt give reasonable answer:

Uniquely Christian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Pepper
1. Where did the words used in the bible come from? God, man or both?
Man.

Quote:
2. If the words are primarily from god ...
N/A

Quote:
3. Are there any ORIGINAL ideas in the bible that can only be found in the Jewish culture?
Chrisitianity teaches that the definitive revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, is the Crucified and Risen son of Mary, Jesus.

The UNIQUE teaching of Christianity is that the Holy One, blessed be He, came into this world between the knees of a Jewish girl, was killed, and was buried in a borrowed tomb.

The Apostle (1 Corinthians 1:23) says this is a "stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

walt
DP comes back:

So God presented the ideas and man wrote the words. Is this how you get an unambiguous message to those you want to believe. How do you know all the ideas are original and some of them are not borrowed from earlier times. Stories like the Creation and Flood are found in other religions. Resurrection stories are not unique to the Christian religion.

Now that's not a question seeking information or belief, it's an attempt at brow beating copied after Hamilton Berger on Perry Mason. It's an attempt to scorn. It's a rhetorical question. So what he means by "important questions" is brow beating and scorn. So this pattern holds up. Walt gives serious answers and DP gives more brow beating and scorn.

DP:
You said the words were Man's words. Not Gods. Therefore, we are talking about ideas. Words are man made and mean different things to different men.That is the problem with the bible and why we have so many religions and sub religions and sub sub religions.

Quote:
In another thread, I said, as I have often said before:'
I infer the characteristics of "God" from the life and death of the crucified Jesus, as his life and death are remembered in the community which acclaims him as LORD.
You are going on "words" written by men. You don't have any direct input from God. That is the problem. You take on faith that these men are communicating directly with God. That is too common a situation in human history that turns out wrong.


Quote:
There is nothing "unambiguous" about a God who discloses himself through a particular crucified Jew, rather than in a catechism.
Again if it wasn't ambiguous then why do not all peoples get the same message. Some do not even recognize Jesus as divine. Others do not even accept that he lived. Even you say you have more questions than answers.



Quote:
You began a thread "What is going on here"? and I responded with a post with the title "Impossible events"?

If you are not interested in the responses to the threads you begin, just say so; then we won't have to waste our time answering your questions.

Your answers don't make sense in the light of the facts. Which are few and depend on emotion and knowledge from authority.

The most valuable gift Matt has given a-theists by hosting these Forums is not the gift of faith -- as far as I can see, most a-theists who come to these Forums remain a-theists. I don't expect you to become a Christian -- in any sense of the word -- as a result of my conversations with you.

My only hope is, that as a result of your conversations here, you would have a broader understanding of Christianity and Christians. The most valuable gift Matt has given a-theists by hosting these Forums is an opportunity to see the diversity of those are 'not ashamed of the Gospel."

[Disclaimer: It is only fair to note that Matt has, in the past, said that I am a danger to Christianity, and it is equally fair to note that I have received far more abuse in these Forums from Christians than I ever have received from a-thheists.

[But up to now, I am the only Christian who has responded to this thread. Perhaps Matt and/or his acolytes will join in later with their point of view.

Or perhaps they won't.]

It is not easy for a Christian such as me to be a Christian in the 21st century, as my .sig file shows.

It would be a lot easier if I could content myself with cliched rhetorical questions, such as you have offered in this thread.

But I can't do that, and still be honest with myself; sophomoric bull sessions were for when I was last literally a sophomore, a half a century ago.

walt
What has this to do with any thing I have said. I am sorry if I upset you in any way. I didn't mean too. I am also sorry I am an atheist, I can't help it. I simply asked questions to see if any theist could come up with something other than I have faith. Which is about the only thing that makes sense.

 Walt's answers essentually amount to saying "it's my faith and i don't mind that the words are human interpritation of what God told them." Here is DP's answer to what I see a reasonable reply to this loaded rhetorical questions:

But you haven't come up with anything factual all you have is the word of others and you don't know if those words came from God so you must have faith. You don't say you have but you must. I do not understand why you are going on and on about you and your position and how I don't read what you wrote.
Quote:
There is nothing "unambiguous" about a God who discloses himself through a particular crucified Jew, rather than in a catechism.
This disclosure was written 2000 years ago well after the fact by some people you never met. You do not know for certain if any God had anything to do with what they wrote. Therefore, you must have FAITH that what they wrote was factual. Problem is that others have written similar stories about resurrections and divine individuals that you do not believe are factual. Why do you believe this one is?
__________________
He's defending brow beating and ridiculing with in sincere questions not taking the answers on face value but insisting that they over objections he has yet to state.

Then an atheist ally pipes in to get in on the fun:


this is another post by Walt "What's going on?"


In the minds of those who believe in a personal God?

After being involved with CARM for a number of years and having read the thoughts of theists and atheists a question comes to mind. Why do some insist that they know God exists and feel that they have a personal relationship with said god? These folk are convinced they are right and cannot understand why other people do not see what they see is so obvious. They point to the scriptures and how these writings are the word of God and are convinced that God was actually involved in the transmission of information to a handful of Jewish men some 2000 years ago in the Middle East.

Why do they accept these unlikely events as fact and all other religious claims as false? What evidence is there that God actually communicated with these individuals other than their own written word? Is it not fair to say that the bible was written during a time when superstition and myth were common and extraordinary claims were accepted as truth?

What is it that causes people today to accept these extraordinary claims from people they do not know who lived and died so long ago? They will not accept similar claims made by someone still alive today.

Believers will insist the non believers are simply blind when it comes to seeing the obvious; there must be something wrong with them. Many actually become hostile and angry at nonbelievers who do not share their views. Can not any believer here understand why unbelievers may not believe that the scriptures are fact and not myth and that all Gods are imaginary? Do they not feel this way about the hundreds of other gods conjured by humans in the past and even present?

What's going on in their minds, the implication being it's either stupidly or delusion. Of course he spins it all to make it sound as stupid as he  can. This is all the kind of thing that atheists will never understand is slap in the face. They will go "you are being insulting" when I answer this by saying 'you are an idiot" that's becuase you calling me an idiotic, you re calling my father mother idiots you calling my grand mother an idiot you are spitting on everything I've ever cared about and all because you are stupid to understand it. These guys are so stupid they can't see that we know that they are not representing our beliefs but their beliefs about our beliefs. so we are insulted!
__________________

On this one he's joined by an ally who thinks the mocking and ridiculoing looks like fun and wants to give it a try too:

Roundearth, (reflect upon that screen name)

I see each of these factors at work in some theists some of the time:

1. Failure to seriously engage the case for atheism, e.g. most new theist posters here.
2. Dogmatic reliance on an argument(s) for God to the point of blindness to all objections, e.g. Metacrock, Matt Slick.
3. Mistaking emotion for evidence.
4. Inability to grasp the law of large numbers.
5. Some simply do not have a concept of evidence, e.g. Mark Dreher.

Here's my answer to him

I was an atheist big man. you are unwilling to think seriously about logic, or about philosophical issues. you are brain washed by an ideology of hate and you are not willing to open your little mind and try to understand the position those who don't subscribe because that;s what ideologues do. they rationalize the superiority of their own position and the unworthiness of those who don't subscribe to it.

you don't know anything about my God arguments. you are not wiling to think about them seriously because you know that they would destroy your ideology that you need psychologically to feel whole, you apparently need to put other people down to feel good about yourself.

you make this little list of what you see the non subscribers doing that makes them inferior but you just forget that I can show you exampel where do everything thing on there you say we do, and where most atheists on this board do that.

when the board comes on line go look at my exchanges with so called "Big thinker" and see how totally confused he is about the nature of logic and arrangement. I dare you would fair no better, if you understand logic and argument you would not rely on the need to make and ridicule arguments rather than arguing them.

if you think you have an objection to any of my arguments that are not just refusal to think, then debate me 1x1 where you can't hide behind a bevy of ridicule artists to detract from the fact that you can't answer the arguments.

if you really believe you have those answers you will debate me. how come when I make this challenge every single atheist shuts up and stops saying it and wont debate? if you really thought you could beat the argument you would debate.

the truth is you don't really mean things like "logic" and "objections" your only real objection is "that's not my ideology that doesn't make me special." __________________
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)