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

 

I am putting this up again (from april) becuase a friend was attacked by one of these tactics today and it's important for us to understand this is a standard tactic they use all the time.

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.

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.

examples of Atheist Hate

These are exampls of stage 3, gathering to mock the target (FBI 12 step development of hate group ID).






There are many more that little insubstantial theists can drop on message boards all over the net. Why are these act of hate? First of all there is a major probelm with re-describing. In his brilliant novel 1984 George Orwell brings out the basic brutality of re-describing another person's world view or bleief system. That in itself is wrong ethically and its dishonest, but to do it in such a way as to mock and deride their beliefs while passing it off as what they really believe is nothing more than hate, and hat demonstrates the Orwellian nightmare in the atheist movement.

Someone runs an industry selling these things to someone, either used as clip art or bought by those who use them directly, they are sources of money at some point. Their only purpose is to mock and ridicule becuase if the people making them cared enough to describe Christian belief Accurately they would find out what Christians really belief and be sensitive enough to sort out the difference between illogical and cruelty.

Saying that Christian belief is illogical is not hate, that's to be expected and it's the prerogative of those who do not believe in Christian beliefs. But to purposely misrepresent them, to twist them in such a way as to cause ridicule and then pretend that's a frank and honest summary of belief, is evil and stupid.

The only reason someone would use these is because they hate Christianity and they want to make it look stupid, and that is an act of hate.


First we have to distinguish between a fair summary and unfair summary.

If you say "Christians believe X and X is basically saying this, you talk abou tthe logical implications of X then that's fine. But to say "here is my distorted crap taht you don't believe but I"m going to believe that that's waht your beliefs really do mean," that is nothing more than distortion and dishonesty and refusal to respect other people.

these aer not just little games to those who believe. They are very important to us, they are our sacred beliefs, they are part of who we are. When you say "your sacred belief is shit" you are saying "you are shit." Understand?

Now here is why they are wrong.

"the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father..."

the phrase cosmic does not describe anything Christians belief about God. I don't even know what it means, but it's not part of any Christian belief, and since a modern joke term to ridicule fake swamis druggies in California it's probably there to mock and humiliate.

can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh...

"make you live forever" is not an adequate description of salvation, but let's let that slide because it's close enough for a skeptic. But the actual notion that we are saved by partaking of the Eucharist is not the case, in any version of Christianity. No creed and no chruch I know of says that we are actually by that act. Igantious said that but he's just one chruch father a long time ago and that view did not make it into Orthodoxy. Of course it's phrased in such a way as to make it sound stupid.

telepathically tell him you accept him

describing prayer as telepathic is totally inaccurate and is done so for purposes of distoring and ridiculing becuase it's stupid, it connected it to knew age stuff.

as your master

I guess that's fair enough but it's phrased in such a way as to make it unpalatable to modern people.

so he can remove an evil force form your soul



a total distortion that is used for the purpose of making it sound really stupid. No one thinks that sin is a force or that salvation means a force is removed form our body. Only fundies, get off on talking about demons and casting them out, most Christians don't believe in that, but even then it's not connected to salvation per se and that demons are "an evil force" I suppose fair enough.

That is present in humanity becuase a rib-woman was convinced

evoking mythological claims that not all Christians accept. At least half the chruch doesn't' take it literally. describing Eve as a "rib woman" is idiotic.

by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

that's the problem faced by inerrentists but it's structured into the whole in such a way as to compound the sense of it begin stupid and mocking and ridiculing. It's also unfair to try and put mocking and ridiculing labels on all Christians for something only about half believe.


the second banner is the same kind of thing. it's a statement in the worst possible light. Mary was not impregnated by God. She may have been artificially inseminated but not has sex with. The overall statement is not reflective of the Gospel. It's dumbed down to make it sound stupid and you nkow it is. You know that it is.


compare that dumbbell talk with real theological statements:

my view on atonement:



salvation and other faiths.