OK Hermit where's the insult?

this is on this thread on carm:


here are the links to the various posts. they are not linked but you can see where the other guys began to attack me. Where the read bold is starts the insults. You can see clearly that before they start it's going ok and I am not insulting them. Below are the eight posts I make between my first on the thread and their beginning of the attack. Now you tell me where I made the big insult that really deserved what they are doing?

also note these are in reverse orde. So the lat one is first. and going down on this list is like going up on the board.


Naturalist Did Jesus exist? 2 Days Ago, 11:02 PM
Mada How do we know you exist than. 2 Days Ago, 11:08 PM
Naturalist Are you serious? I'm not interested... 2 Days Ago, 11:15 PM
Metacrock I hae stunning proof. I have tons of... 2 Days Ago, 01:14 AM
Billi How do we know if Santa Clause is a... 2 Days Ago, 11:13 PM
Naturalist This is the stuff I hoped to avoid....... 2 Days Ago, 11:19 PM
Metacrock yes fine, read this link. I have tons... 2 Days Ago, 01:14 AM
Notorious Some guy named Jesus who was a rebel of... 2 Days Ago, 02:17 AM
Metacrock no you don't. I call you on that. As a... 2 Days Ago, 02:26 AM
Notorious I'm not going to take the time and... 2 Days Ago, 02:32 AM
krew07 lIKE mEAT SAYS, the evidence is... 2 Days Ago, 02:57 AM
Metacrock (1) you are expecting a guy living in... 2 Days Ago, 01:35 PM
MFFJM2 The Josephus mention of Jesus, occurs... 2 Days Ago, 01:46 PM
Metacrock wrong. there are a few historians who... 2 Days Ago, 02:33 PM
Gao While I agree with you that there was a... 2 Days Ago, 02:41 PM
Metacrock He didn't say "the Mishna." He said... 2 Days Ago, 03:02 PM
Metacrock I am getting all those little guys out... 2 Days Ago, 03:09 PM
Metacrock Suetonius G. Galen H.Celsus ... 2 Days Ago, 03:10 PM
Gao You seem to be conflating the idea of a... 2 Days Ago, 02:19 PM
Metacrock that sux. what an attitude! Give me the... 2 Days Ago, 01:04 PM
Notorious Meta, you know as well as i do that i... 1 Day Ago, 08:38 PM
Metacrock that's just ideological bunck. Science... 1 Day Ago, 09:58 PM
Dr Pepper The problem with history is that it is... 1 Day Ago, 11:14 PM
Metacrock that's why you need the documents. ... 1 Day Ago, 12:07 AM
Harry C True, that’s why you can’t call Jesus... 1 Day Ago, 12:15 AM
Metacrock It doesn't take much to prove someone... 1 Day Ago, 12:43 AM
Notorious By science i mean natural science, i... 1 Day Ago, 11:17 PM
MFFJM2 Maybe he keeps coming off his... 1 Day Ago, 11:49 PM
JHFC Amen! 1 Day Ago, 12:06 AM
Metacrock He asked for the evidence... 1 Day Ago, 12:15 AM
JHFC Quoting for posterity. 1 Day Ago, 12:18 AM
Metacrock what is your problem? you just don't... 1 Day Ago, 12:19 AM
JHFC I'm not the one calling people stupid... 1 Day Ago, 12:28 AM
Metacrock you are the one destroyed the therad... 1 Day Ago, 12:37 AM
God-free I guess I should've read further into... 1 Day Ago, 05:28 PM
Metacrock so when you get your *** kicked in... 1 Day Ago, 12:14 AM
JHFC Wow. LOL. OMG. 1 Day Ago, 12:17 AM
Metacrock here is what the first post says: ... 1 Day Ago, 12:23 AM
Harry C He does this all the time. Pay no... 1 Day Ago, 12:25 AM
Metacrock face your dishonesty troll. I tore the... 1 Day Ago, 12:40 AM
Dr Pepper You remind me of Howard Cosell. He too... 1 Day Ago, 12:57 AM
Metacrock Look I used to value your opinion and... 1 Day Ago, 01:04 AM
JHFC YOU are responsible for your own... 1 Day Ago, 01:43 AM
Metacrock you are so transparent. One can only... 1 Day Ago, 04:16 PM
JHFC That's a good thing. Well you see,... 1 Day Ago, 07:21 PM
Metacrock But the problem is I don't have time to... 23 Hours Ago, 09:03 PM
JHFC EDIT Nope. It sure doesn't stop you.... 22 Hours Ago, 09:48 PM
MFFJM2 Amen. 8 Hours Ago, 12:24 PM
Metacrock Yes but you are shallow,... 6 Hours Ago, 01:32 PM
Dr Pepper The problem is that history isn't fact... 1 Day Ago, 01:10 PM
Metacrock (I) that does not help your argument... 1 Day Ago, 04:13 PM
Dr Pepper I'm afraid I am off thread a bit here. ... 1 Day Ago, 05:40 PM
JHFC Unfortunately that is true.... 1 Day Ago, 01:40 AM



couting from the post where he started and moving back up the therad toward the first:

Suetonius

G. Galen

H.Celsus

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus7.html

Talmud

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Talmud_JC.html

that's one

---------------

I am getting all those little guys out of order like Galen. I admit those are not major sources. But the overall effect of all of them means there was quite a bit more about Jesus being said in the first two centuries than mythers want to admit.

here are links on my pages on them.

Thuallus and Phlegan

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus5.html

Lucean

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus6.html
__________________
Metacrock

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."
that's 2

----------------

stop me when we come to the insult

He didn't say "the Mishna." He said "the Jews."


you know his works don't survive we have to take the apologists refutting him at their word:

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28


Quote:
"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
more (you may have to scroll down on this page).

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus7.html


Quote:
What passage was this, and was it something they found or "reconstructed?"

Could you be a bit more specific here? Which book and where?
I think all we know of his writing come from other people. But I don't think it would be a good argument to accuse the apologists of lying. maybe they left our or never saw damaging stuff but it's not cricket to accuse them of lying.






Quote:
[COLOR=blue][COLOR=#000000] Please provide a specific reference.

First of all, please provide the specific Celsus passage where he says this. Second, didn't Celsus also say that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier? Doesn't that contradict the whole geneology thing?

I'm not sure that we should take that as propaganda any less than the Gospels. After all, the Christians had motivation to exaggerate and change things in the opposite direction.

Celsus didn't say anything about the genealogy that is from the Talmud. the issues that are the same between the two are the implication that he was illicit, implication that his mother was a whore, the specific allegation that she was a hair dresser (which carried the connotation fo lose morals). there are some other things.




Quote:
How do you know Luke ever met with them?
I may be wrong,I might to re read that passage but I believe he was on that trip where Paul met them. If not, it doesn't really make sense that he knew Paul and he searched for different source and did research but he wouldn't contact them? If not they they aren't a major source for Luke perhaps but for Paul they would have been.

contrary to popular opinon Paul has a lot connection with Jesus teachings, so much so that Koester argues taht he had a say source.


Quote:
I'm not sure that these two points tell us anything about whether this Gospel had good sources. It just means that they wrote something in a more personal way than the other Gospels.
Not sure to what you are referring.



Quote:
Seriously? We know nothing about what he wrote, and the only reference that comes close to talking about Jesus just says that he mentioned an eclipse that he believed to be natural. I don't think you can use this as evidence for anything about Jesus. In addition, I've heard a lot of arguments about the date of his writing.
what we know comes from Africanus. Africanus was a highly respected historian. Holding and Miller both have big things on how good he is as a source.


Quote:
I'm pretty sure that he got this information from Pliny the Younger or a Christian, and I doubt he researched it much, since it was essentially a brief footnote.



Quote:
Wrote about a Chrestus who caused problems in Rome. I agree that it was probably a mangled reference to Jesus, but it's hard to tell what he knew. There is nothing here that says that he researched much about Jesus or Christianity at all.

He briefly mentioned that there were followers of Christ. This tells us nothing about a historical Jesus or whether he existed.

right right but it's he thought Christus was his name. He didn' t know about Jews to understand they used Christos to mean Messiah. He neither knew nor cared what "messaih" meant. He's not a great source but it does mean the followers in Rome understand Jesus as a historical guy at that point.



Quote:
Possible, but I'm not sure if "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished," really fits Jesus that well, since Judea stopped being a kingdom in 6 AD, which was well before Jesus was even an adult.
that's what a foreigner would have understood of "Messiah" that's he's the decedent of the line of kings and that makes him a King. there are deposed kingdoms in exile that go on. There's in Guatemala that's been around since the Spanish conquest and they still know and keep secret who the decent of their king who would be on the throne is at this time.




Quote:
I'm just going to say that from what I've seen, this is a much more debated point than you make it out to be. It's hard to tell what's a reference to Jesus (if anything), and it was oral tradition anyway, and that's not the most reliable method of preserving information. In addition, these texts were not intended as history, so I doubt anyone tried to check the facts in them.
Oral tradition is highly relaiable in cultures where they used it and taht's demonstrated in modern bardic survivals.

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Community2.html


Quote:
Could you give specific references? I'm having trouble finding relevant passages.
to what exactly?
__________________
Metacrock

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."

"things don't just pop into reality" (Ibid)
Metacrock is online now Add to Metacrock's Reputation Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
Metacrock
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Metacrock
Visit Metacrock's homepage!
Find More Posts by Metacrock
Add Metacrock to Your Contacts

vBulletin Message

Cancel Changes

Quick Reply

thats' three

-------------------

wrong. there are a few historians who regard it as a forgery, the vast majority regard it as either totally geniune or a tweked version of a genuine core and they regard the core as good evidence Jesus existed.

here is the documentation on major scholars:

Quote:
A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.

John P. Meier
Raymond Brown
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan
E.P. Sanders
Geza Vermes
Louis Feldman
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor
John O'Connor-Murphy
Mark Goodacre
Paula Frederiksen
David Flusser
Steve Mason


Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.

The TF controversy from antiquity to present

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.








Quote:
The second simply mentions him as having been crucified, and appears to be more credible than the aforementioned. Unfortunately, much of what is written in the Gospels is wrong or internally inconsistent, like the fact that Nazareth didn't exist until much later than the reported death of Jesus.

your opinion about the Gospels is unsubstantiated and merely based upon the ideology. The second mention of Jesus by Jo is enough to prove he existed as a man in history. that's the issue here. we are not discussing deity or the resurrection.
__________________
Metacrock


that's four

------------------


(1) you are expecting a guy living in the boonies to have the same access to information and outlets of media that someone living in a major center would have. that's just not realistic.

(2) you are expecting people in the aincient world to have the same access to information that we do today. If a guy in Jesus' day died in a town more than twenty miles away it would take them at least two days to hear about it through their fastest source of information. We could find out today in a matter of seconds, they would take at least two days.

(3) Romans didn't care about what happened in Palestine. It was the Romans who had most of the writing, most of the literate people, most of the people who wanted to read the writing. They did not give a rat's you know what about what happened in Palestine. So they have no motive and no mechinism for knowing about Jesus.

tat means we are dependent upon source sin Palestine, a backwater with few literate people to even know about his existence.

(4) Jesus was imortant and famous aruond the area we know as "Isreal" or what used to be "Palestine." But if you go outside the radius of a three day journey (big undertaking in the middle east then) you beyond the radius of Jesus' fame. They would have been very limited to what we would think of as a very small area. His total fame would have limited in his life time to an area the size of Dallas Texas today.

(5) to top all that off you are making an argument from silence. you are just saying 'we don't have sources that show x,y,z therefore those things never existed. argument form silence is a fallacy. It's known as illogical. The whole Jesus myth theory is based upon illogical fallacy.

(6) The sources that prove Jesus did exist are almost good enuough to be called "certain." They are fine sources and they prove it well enough to dispel any reasonable doubt. One can always doubt. you could stand before God on Judgment day and say "prove you are the God of the bible." But for a reasonable person the evidence is clear.

(a) Celsus was a skeptic. He hated Christianity and he wished to destory it. So he went to the Jews in Palestine (second century) and said "what's the scoup on this Jesus guy?" They did not say "o he never existed." They said "we know all about him.

In fact Jewish sources do prove he existed:

*The Talmud spoke of him a lot but they censored themselves and we know they did. They did this to prevent being persecuted by Christians for defaming Jesus. We have them talking about how they did it. We have the little circles they made to replace his name and they can be seen in copies of that era. We have passages they took out (Lightfoot the great Bible scholars presents a passage that was form a pre censored Talmud that talks about Jesus of Nazareth and the claims he was Messiah).

*a famous book on the history of the Talmud by a Jewish historian speaks of the late first century debates between Jesus' followers and other Jews. So they were believing in Jesus as historical guy in the late first century and he already had followers. In the Mishna which was first century material.

* A Talmudic passage says that they found Jesus' genealogy and can trace his family and it agrees with Luke's genealogy.

Celsus tells us that the Jews told him about Jesus "true" history and the material that he mentions is exactly like the things said about Jesus in the Mishna. So we know that he did see those sources, which are first century. This proves that the Jews know of him in the first century and accepted that he was a real guy. This is especially truer of the genealogy thing, he had a family.

Some of what they asy about him is obviously propaganda but they did not say "he never existed." They accepted him and claimed they know about his family.


(b) Pauline-Peterian-Clement of Rome connection.

(1) Paul knew people who knew Jesus.

*Andronicus and Junia

*Met philiip
*met James
*met Peter
*met Andrew

*Knew people following Jesus from the earliest period (Pricilla and Aquilla had been with John the Baptist).

* Paul met the four daughters of Philip of Hyropolis (Philip above was the Apostle but not this guy). These daughters are said by early chruch fathers to have acted as the first historians keeping track of their materiel and the formation of the early chruch. Luke met them and probably used them as his major source for his Gospel. Luke includes the meeting with Paul in Acts.

* The author known as "Clement of Rome" (whether really Clement or not is unimportant) claimed to know people who saw Paul die and saw Peter die and knew them and met them in Rome. It's pretty obvious he actually claiming to be one of them but is too humble to brag about it. Read between the lines.

So the whole nexus of Peter and Paul and people they knew are tied together in that epistle of Clement and the four Daughters who independent sources document.

c Johanine community

the John community is very complex and too much so to go into here. But thumb nail is this: The Beloved Disciple of the fourth Gospels was probably Lazarus. He founded the community. It may have been that the Apostle John also had a hand in it, or they mereged with John's bunch from Samaria. But be that as it may, the final redactor was probably the elder John of whom Papias speaks. There is good evidence of first hand knowledge in John.

*the only glimpse we get into Jesus social life, his inner circle of friends that he know outside of his ministry. that include Lazarus.

*The only portrate of Jesus' emotions

(7) Church Fathers

(a) Papius tells us he knew two people who saw Jesus:

*Elder John

of whom he quotes many sayings and testimony some of which exist in independent fragment.

*Aristion

(b) Polycarp

Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp told him personally about his days learning from John (It is thought he meant the Apostle but he may have meant the Elder--but he was also an eye witness, the Elder was).



(8) secular sources



existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ.

* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).


* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)
__________________
Metacrock

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."

that's 5

-------------

no you don't. I call you on that. As a youn atheist that was one f the first things I noticed the unique nature of Jesus.

(1) No other world religion has the concept grace. It's the only one in the whole world that wanst to save you as a free gift of God's love. All the others want you to earn ti or do somethnig to merit it.

(2) Jesus is the first one who ever claimed to be the incarnation fo the ground of being. some have imitated him since then but none did it before him.

Alexander the great doesn't count because he did not believe he was the incorporate creator. He only believed he was the the spawn of a contingent god, small case "g."

(3) only Jesus rose from the dead with a phsyical empty tomb.

the bs about dying rising savior gods is jsut that,. it's al ie. when study real mythology you see aren't any. it's all made up by Jesus myth liars.

(4) the only ethical teacher in history who anticipated Kant's categorical imperative.
__________________

that's 6

--------------

yes fine, read this link. I have tons of evidence read it. I have many arguments all backed with evidence:

seven
------------

I hae stunning proof. I have tons of arguements and lots of evidence.
read this link:

eight
-----------

that's all. those are the only eight posts I put on the thread before he started his crap. where's the insult?

more stupid atheist tricks

a poster called HS Friend (probably a high school kid)
carm 15 august 2009

Science tells us that death is the end of existence for a human being, based upon the decomposition of the body after life functions cease.No life after death. If you accept the underlying assumption, you must accept the conclusion of science. You are trapped in a logical construct of your own making and cannot get out!

this person is claiming that science not only proves there's no life after death but actually "claims it" "tells us" as a scientific fact.

Need i say more?

Are We All Atheists? Answering an Atheist (Bill Walker)

On Metacrock's blog I got this comment from Bill Walker:

I do not understand this insistence that Atheists are a 'hate group'.We are the same as christians & they are like us. We're both agreed on the non-existence of a huge number of gods created by our primitive, tribal ancestors. We atheists simply disbelieve in one or a few more than Christians. Period ! Try to wrap your mind around this.

First of all, the argument of this blog is not that all atheists are members of a hate group. I say that a segment of the atheist community is heading down the road toward formation of a hate group if they don't stop and examine their attitudes, some of them already constitute a hate group. In analyzing the FBI profile of hate groups I have determined that this segment of atheism is in stage four now, that's one step away from violence, but I think there are seven stages so still have some to go. Most atheists are not violent, or at least not the stage of committing violence against religious people. Although there have been a couple of cases there plots of small groups to burn churches were discovered and stopped in time. But the supposition that anesthetist are responsible for the wave of chruch burnings is not verified. For this reason I say this segment is "approaching" the level of a hate group.

For the many the attitude is there now. I've seen people on message boards say that religious people should be put in jail. I've seen them contend that religious people are mentally ill, they are all brainwashed, that they are victims of hypnotism. These are extremeists and these attitudes are not things you hear everyday. I have seen many websites where atheists use the phrase "burning churches" as metaphors, symbols, screen names, ideals expressed, expressed as wishes, and one one Googles this phrase there are hundreds of websites where it is used in that way.

There hundreds of atheist message boards and every single one of them reflect a tone of arrogance, anger, hatred, people group up as a feeding frenzy to mock, deride and ridicule any Christian who goes on. This is standard. This not an extreme it's very single one! for years now I have been challenging atheists to go on atheist boards and pretend to be Christians to see how they are treated. Not one has ever taken me up on it in years! They don't need to see, they know they will be treated like shit.

As for the idea that we are all atheists, that is a total misunderstanding of what belief in God is. God is not a big man in the sky. Atheists think of all concepts of God as just a collection of personalities and that is not the case. The real difference the God of the Bible and Zeus or Thor is not that they have personalities. God of the Bible is not a contingent being, he' snot a man in the sky he's not just limited localized being with his own little personality; he is the basis of all reality. There can only be one and all the gods of different mythologies are merely pointing to that one reality behind all religions.

Belief in God is not just adding a fact ot the universe; there's also this guy named God. God is not just another opinion to argued with God is the basis of all reality. The world of the theist and that of the atheists are totally different worlds. They are not just one world has one guy extra in it. They are totally different. One world is based upon a purpose it has a meaning and it has a moral nature that part of it's very fabric. The other is meaningless, it exists by accident and has no propose and no reason for being. That means in the one world all the individual creatures and people have reasons for their lives, they can accomplish something, they have theological significance, it matters and each and every person lived. In the atheist world it doesn't' matter that you lived. you are nothing but worm food, all you ever could be.

It a vast difference that one believes in God or not. To say "you just believe one fewer God" is groundless and absurd because the different is vast. That one God is the only one there could be and all those little personalities are just place holders that point to the one god.

why are atheists so very stupid?

On a post at carm the op asked for historical evidence of Jesus' existence:

I'd like to see the hard historical evidence for Jesus Christ. I'm not interested in what your Bible has to say about him. Aside from your holy texts, how do we KNOW that Jesus Christ was a real person?

first I tried summarizing my historical Jesus pages but he didn't want that. He wanted a briefer summary.

I'm not interested in your religious beliefs. I'm interested in it's historical accuracy. Can you provide some evidence for Jesus' life without invoking your holy texts?

very stuipd demand because it assumes that the Gospels are not artifacts of people's beliefs and knowledge which of course they must be, simply because people wrote them.
He wont read my links so I begin to summarize.

After quite a bit of listing of evidence with quotes to prove my points,one of them argues from analogy and basically says in effect, "Joseph Smith was an idiot and his stuff was obviously bs so therefore the Bible is also Bs." I tell him argument from analogy is illogical and he tries to sneak it in as a non argument by saying that it's not argument from analogy it's just "unmistakeably parallels." What the hell do you call an analogy? that's exactly what it is and anyone with half a brain knows that.

Then his buddy comes along and denies that the historical has any place in the thread (the title of the thread is "did Jesus exist?" So historical evidence has no place in a thread called "did Jesus exist?"

By science i mean natural science, i thought you could infer that since i have told you that i am a biochemist but obviously you are more interested in rambling than in intellectual discourse.

Because that is what you are doing, we have a discussion and a fairly good one, we've had that in many threads, then you leave and when you come back it's like talking to a completely different person. You're just rambling now and there is no use continuing this, i will give you one more chance for reasoned debate, after that i'll put you on my ignore list.

so hes saying my historical arguments are rambling. then argument from analogy guy comes on and goes:

Maybe he keeps coming off his medication. I'm not a scientist by training.

they high jack the thread and take it away from the historical arguments so it's about me and my personality and how bad I am.

Atheists are resorting to cheating to win God arguments

Their new tactic is more and more to deny the basis upon which making arguments is valid. But arguments for God is a mainstay of the believer's reasons for understanding belief as rational.

the atheists have various grounds from dismissing God augments but they are all invalid.

(1) We have beaten them all show me a new one.

That's too bad, we (Christians) have to cope with hearing the same old crap form atheists all the time now many times we answer it. So their assertion that they beat all our arguments a million years ago and we don't have news ones is not a valid way to argue.

(2) God arguments are philosophy but only scientific fact is a valid from of knowledge.

this is just another stupid excuse. All they are saying is "anything that does not tally with my world is false a priori. I don't like philosophy so I ignore it. But that' snot more than dishonest. It would be ok if they said "I just can't really see believing something based upon philosophy." But to say "philosophy isn't valid" is idiotic, especially science came to exist as evolution form a form of philosophy.

They are tacitly admitting that they can't beat God arguments by logic or by arguing so they have to rule them out a prori.

I don't mind the idea that arguments don't prove anything. But atheists don't just stop and say "arguments don't prove anything so why argue?" They want to go on and insist that they have the only valid means of understanding the world. They then try to hijack science and turn into some kind of enforcement mechanism for atheist ideology.

they can't have it both ways. They can't insist that all forms of knowledge but the one they think backs them, are invalid and then demand that we still come up with "proof" or else our views are irrational. What they are really saying at that point is, 'agree with me or you are irrational.' Their insistence that only science is a valid form of knowledge is just a means of poisoning the well.

So more and more atheists are resorting to dishonesty in an attempt to bully believers out of their faith upon invalid and illogical grounds.

Ipertrich: Atheist Persecute free thinkers: Exampel of Atheist hate group taticsIpterrtich:

I am being persecuted by atheists for having a mind and trying to think. Here is the persecution of a little atheist bully boy who is totally stupid and have the reading or the education background to understand anthing. He should not be talking about God with people he should being learning, but he's too stupid to know that. This is nothing more than pure hate.

Metacrock
Posted 19 Apr 08 at 07:16:38 AM by lpetrich
I have completed reading his blog, to get a better picture of his ideas and interests.

Perhaps the first thing one notices about Metacrock's writing is his repeated, persistent misspellings. He simply cannot stop himself, and he once complained that he does not have the time to proofread what he writes. Yet he has plenty of time to compose those writings. And one of his admirers once posted in one of his forums
Quote:
Meta, please don't start any more threads with subject lines like "supid atheit tricks" -- it's like you're doing a self-parody.
He is dyslexic, and he has been that way since childhood, when his parents were relieved to discover that his difficulties with reading and writing were something other than laziness. Yet he seems reluctant to use spell checkers, despite their being readily available.

Isn't this what the FBI mode said hate groups do in stage four? This is ridicule, bad mouthing, mocking the target, the hate group gathers to mock the target, that's what happens in stage four.

They always say "he doesn't seem to ever use a spell check." What unobservant little know nothing bigots ridiculing people having handy caps. I use a spell check every single every one every little time. But what do I always say? I can't see the words the y way you do! what do you think that means? Can't you figure it out stupid?

Someone I know online found him very annoying for this reason, calling him someone "speshul", someone who wants to be given extra leeway for no better reason than his whining about wanting it. And although some people have complained about carping at his misspellings, there is a more serious problem with them. Many of them occur in some of the more obscure words that he uses and names that he mentions, words and names that may be difficult to guess from context. That can make it VERY hard to understand what he is writing about.

someone I know found him annoying. O did they? someone I know found Ipertrich to be a fucking piece of shit shit hold mother fuck.

Now for his ideas.

O yea! Now we are gonna talk about his ideas! yea,as though you could! First we bad mouth him and rak his personality over the coals, we mock and criticize him for his handicap then lie about him, they we talk about his ideas. As though really could really understand anything I have to say.

BTW do you know now many people have told me that they can understand what I'm saying? huge number. like maybe 80% of those who read my stuff profess to understand it. In fact that little turd will claim that he understands it. How can he claim that if he can't read it?

Although he claims not to be a fundamentalist, he spends MUCH more time criticizing atheism than criticizing fundamentalism, even though the latter features a lot of beliefs that he considers contrary to True Christianity. He complains about supposed atheist caricatures like God being "a big man in the sky" and the Bible being "a memo from the boss", but he is VERY reluctant to challenge any fellow Xian for believing in such things. But considering Xians' long history of fighting over even the smallest points of doctrine, such silence seems strange. However, Metacrock is far from alone there; many other "liberal" Xians much prefer denying that they are fundies to criticizing or challenging them.

The little monkey has learned some of my phrases. But does he really understand what they are talking about. Notice the internal contradiction here. He starts out arguing that I must really be a fundie because I criticize atheist only a fundie would criticize atheists. He cherishes this stupid illusion because he is obsessed with hating fundies and also because the only thing he knows about Christianity is some slogans of fundies. He doesn't really understand what a fundie is obviously. Look at the slogans by me that he talks about. These are indicative of things a liberal would say against the fundies. But he's clearly too stupid and too ignorant to understand that.

Notice the uses the atheist equivocate of hte N word "xian." If he was a KKK guy he would have just aid the N word. He's not full of hate is he? He's just having fun ridiculoing something he can't understand and he just uses this hateful insult name for the enemy group just for the hell of it right? His reasoning is of course idiotic. He argued I am laoth to criticize fundies therefore I'm a fundie. brilliant.

Of course the analysis that real fundies don't calling themselves fundie is of course stupid because that's I got teh term. It was a fundamentalist bible teacher in a class at UT Arlington (Bible chair) who first used that term. That's where I heard it first. I am the one who introduced the term on the net. No one called them "Fudnies" until I came to CARM back in 98.

According to Metacrock's Virtual Office,
Quote:
All religions seek to do three things:
a) to identify the human problematic,
b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the problematic,
c) to mediate between the two.
"Problematic" as a noun makes me rather suspicious. Why use that word when the word "problem" already exists?

Another illiterate atheist who had never heard the term "problematic." He's too stupid to go read some comparative religion stuff and see where I go tth term or why ti's used that way. He would rather be "suspeicious" but of course he would say about Paul Tillich, Issac Newton, Lock, Spinoza anyone. He would not respect any thinker he's stupid to know a great thinkers when he sees one.

I know this is hard for little highschool students and freshman to comprehend but in the intellectual world people often color outside the lines with words. They streach meanings and say that stuff sound different to make points. Derrida spells "difference" with an "a" as "differance" to make a point. I know this is hard for this little to face. He's never read any books and thinking is foreign to him.

Also, he seems to be claiming that all religion is Metacrockianity in drag, something that does not fit very well. Although in fairness, I've seen all too many discussions of religion that show basic ignorance of the nature of many religions.

that's what he makes of the common core thesis of William James. Because he's so fucking stupid he doesn't know about it and he's so hateful that he can't think to himself "well mabye I should go learn something maybe someone talks about this." He's an idiot so he can't learn. He just assumes I made it up because he's an idiot.

He talks about God quite a lot; the Metacrockian God is apparently "being itself" or a "ground of being", the sort of god that some other highbrow theologians, like Paul Tillich, have believed in. How something can be pure being he does not quite explain, but something that's pure being would apparently have no properties, and thus would be a VERY unsatisfactory kind of god.

Really when you think about it, what's going on here is I am being persectuted for having ideas and knowing things. I'm being called names, and ridiculed and called a lair and told that I don't know anything because I know stuff this imbecile doesn't know and will never hear of because he's too stupid to get an educated. So I am being hounded and bad mouthed for being smart.

Why are they doing it? To intimidate people who might consider learning about God. They want to sacred, ferigten cajole ridicule and bully anyone they can into not seeking God. So they are hounding and persecuting the people who know things. This is nothing more than the lynch mob driving the teacher away through aggression.

He makes lots of arguments for the existence of God, though he makes the two-step of how they are not "proofs" but "warrants for belief". That seems to me to be an evasion; those arguments have the form of proofs. His favorite arguments are cosmological arguments and arguments from religious experience; he does not find the argument from design very impressive.


His favorite cosmological arguments are the first-cause argument and related ones, like the necessary-being argument and the argument from temporal beginning. He denies that an infinite causal regress is possible, though it is difficult to follow his argument; he seems to think that the mathematics of infinity somehow does not follow.

The necessary vs. contingent being argument was stated by the Catholic Church's official philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. "Contingent" being means being dependent on something else for an entity's existence, while "necessary" being means being independent. However "necessary" implies something that ought to exist, thus making it a very misleading term. Something can be independent of the existence of anything else, yet not have any necessity of existing.

In any case, the argument is that if you track back entities' dependencies, you will find entities with independent existence.

This argument has the problem of how one tells what is independent and what is dependent, and also whether an independent entity would necessarily have the properties that a theologian might want out of a god.

His argument from temporal beginning led him to discuss quantum cosmology a lot; he seems out of his element there.


He loves the argument from religious experience; he uses words and phrases like "co-determinate" and "transcendental signifier" a lot. He seems to be arguing that we perceive the Metacrockian God in such experiences, though it can be hard to tell from his mass of verbiage. He also claims that we have a "God pod" in our brains that acts as a "God antenna", enabling us to perceive God.

He also objects rather indignantly to the view that atheism is somehow humanity's default state, claiming that it is religion that's humanity's default state. He makes arguments about mystical and "peak" experiences, even though many of those who have them have belief systems rather far removed from Metacrockianity.

He also claims that devotion to religion makes one happier and healthier, even though it has not cured the "Venus ulcer disease" (venous ulcer disease) of his legs. In fact, he got rather indignant at a site that points out that God never cures amputees, despite allegedly being responsible for numerous other cures.

Perhaps related to this, he once moaned that atheist deconversion testimonies seem like pale imitations of the "real thing", but did he expect some sort of Great Mystical Experience?


He likes postmodernism, which he considers a devastating argument against atheism, but the proper postmodernist position is dogmatic agnosticism,

"I don't know, and neither do you!"

which is hardly an improvement.


About Jesus Christ, he admires how the sixties counterculture treated him as a great hippie, and he gets annoyed at how present-day atheists don't seem to like JC very much and how they seemingly want to argue away his existence. He gets very annoyed by Jesus mythers; while he regards the early Old Testament as mythology, he nevertheless considers the Gospels reliable history, miracles and JC's resurrection and all.

I remember arguing with him about Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile on IIDB, and he claimed that it was invented to discredit JC's historicity. However, Lord Raglan himself avoided that question, because of the obvious potential for controversy; Alan Dundes later took it up, finding that he scored very high, about 19 out of 22.

that was so stupid. this cow turd thinks that's some kind of big scholarly thing he got hold of. My friend who is a real scholar at Cambridge laughed his head off about that.

His home page: DOXA, "Christian Thought in the 21th Century"
Some others' opinions on him: Debunking Christianity: Metacrock's Blog - including some very unflattering ones

I don't find enough substance there in any of this trash to actually bother answering. but what it really proves is the deep deep level of hate that atheist hold toward people who think and who have different ideas and don't cow tow to the atheist dunder head ideology of know nothingism. It also shows how well they conform to the FBI profile of hate groups. they are donig exactly what stage four says they will do. This is a perfect exampel of satage four.

Basically they are ridiculing me because I know stuff and I want to talk about it. That's so obviously hate group stuff. I can't see what thinking person with any kind of brain would associate with those people. They are pariahs.

Hermit,Do atheists have to start lynching Christians before you admit what they are?

Do you believe this?

Here's a thing on CARM calming to be a "christian" giving up the faith.

I am a currently an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but have been experiencing doubts for a long time now and have finally come to a place in my life where I am ready to at least look at the other side of the coin. What would be most helpful to me is a suggested list of the very best skeptical/atheist resources, such as books and videos (mainly looking for books). I am not looking for a list of hundreds of books or videos, rather I am looking for a list of your top 5-10 suggested resources. Thus, please give me a list of your top 5-10 books, videos, or any other authoritative atheist recourses that present a solid argument. I am not that interested in web based resources as they tend to be sketchy as to credibility, but if you think something is a must, by all means suggest it. Here are some specific things I am looking for resources on:

1. Evidence that there is no creator, god, and/or Supreme Being. In other words, resources that makes the case for atheism. I am not so much looking for material that makes personal attacks on Christians (i.e. the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, hypocrites, etc), but rather more scientific and/or rational based proofs/arguments.

2. Biblical Errancy: Proof that the Bible is not divine, but mythology and human in origin. I am not just looking for a book that only shows perceived "biblical contradictions", but something that actually demonstrates that biblical history is itself false or a man-made myth. For example: Did Moses actually live and lead an exodus out of Egypt? What about Noah and the ark? How accurate is Old Testament History? Was Jesus a real person or a myth or was he real, but the information on him is false? What about the historicity of the New Testament?

I am genuinely seeking for answers and would appreciate any help I could get.

It's just too pat. Why would anyone throw away God if they knew god just for stupid little questions like this? Why not give the liberal thing a chance or the mystical thing or whatever. I especially don't believe that an Orthoie would do this. that's just ludicrous.


I believe this person is an atheist and they made up this crap beause it's influential to undecided people.