A true exampe of a riducle Gaultlet: Atheists extrot aquiestence on Prision stat issue

The little character assassination squad keeps on going with the fourth thread on CARM about the prison stats. Still trying to argue that I did the fabricating! I found those tables existing on the websites year ago and copied them and responded to them now they are trying to claim that I made them up and adherents.com copied mine! That's absurdly stupid it can be proved their version existed long before mind did. This began with my pages on Doxa where it seemed I had proven that Rod Swift (I called him "Boyd" back then) fabricated the data, altering a table by adherents.com. I also wrote an addendum to the original mapping out the issues that are largely the ones being bandied about here.

The two major issues are:

(1) 20% category for "none, no answer, no religion" was put into the table of adherents.com but no in Swift's table. That was the thing that made me think Swift fabricated it. Yet he uses that statistic he just doesn't list it on the table.

The assert that since I've said 3% of U.S. Pop is atheist then I'm inconsistent to assume that larger proton of the 20% could be atheist. Is aid that's because the Prison population doesn't mirror the general population. For example about 7% of prisoners are Muslim while only 3% in the general population if that many are Muslim. I show that this also true for age, sex, education, and other such factors. I found about eight differences.

They are talking like this makes me utter scum. They talk like this is just an obvious lie. actually they haven't even acknowledged that gave an answer. They act like my refusal to just give and admit the 20% can't be atheists is an utter and proves that I'm totally dishonest.

(2) A new issue has emerged in this latest where they are demanding that I take the arguemnt down and accept that Christianity causes crime and that most prisons are Chaitin and Christians are immoral. If I don't do that I'm being so totally dishonest and this proves I can't be trust with stats.

There is a whole body of other arguments that have nothing to do with Swift's table they have never answered them. For example, I said most of the prisoners could be claiming Christianity to get parole. Sure enough there's a Pew study that indicates that persons change affliction with religion all the time to jockey for greater protection or get parole or anything. They don't even acknowledge that I said this, they have no attempt to answer it. They just demand that I take the argument down and if I don't that proves I'm totally dishonest.


This is what I have termed "ridicule gauntlet." Like the gauntlet native Americans made Daniel Boone run on the old tv show. They line up and two sides and hit the guy who runs by until he falls to the ground they beat him until he dies. Atheist will descend upon an goalpost keep saying silly, stupid mocking ridiculing things until they blows up and goes away. This is what they are doing to me to avoid the facts of the case.



Backup quotes this:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

no get this through your head. I will not take it down because

then says this
Back up:..you don't care about honesty.

notice he sticks in the "because" but cuts off what the "because" is. The full quote said I wont take it down (the whole page) the overall argument is wrong. I did add a disclaimer saying I can't prove that Swift fabricated the stats. The specific nature of that Backup totally ignores becuase here's a chance to claim that I'm dishonest. They wanted me to take down the whole page and give up the entire argument just because I can't prove they fabricated their table. That doesn't grant them the whole argument.


Phoenix 702

Your red herrings won't distract us from your misrepresentation of the Swift data...

Originally Posted by Metacrock

no get this through your head. I will not take it down because
(1) you are wrong about the issue. nothing proves Christian as a whole 60x more likely that's a foolish silly thing to say.

The ONLY person making the claim that Christians are "60x more likely" to be in prison is YOU. Here's your comment below (and repeated on your thread):

Originally Posted by DaDevil

yes you grasp of the english language is not in question(at the moment) but you grasp of arithmetic and survey methodology is. The entire point is it is dishonest to say that no-response = atheist.

Of course what I really said was that since it's not representative you can't assume its' going to trnafur. GP has 2% atheist that doesn't mean the PP will have only 2% atheists. That's proved because I showed all the other ways it' snot representative. More Muslims than the GP, more elderly than the GP, fewer women than the GP, more uneducated than the GP and so on.

Maybrick quotes me
Originally Posted by Metacrock

so typical of the word twisters and people who don't care about truth. they are trying brown beat and intimidate me into taking down the page they know I have destroyed their argument. they try to push it as me being dishonest when in reality they are dishonest.

If you think that is the case I feel sorry for you.

Maybrick

A reasonable person might have realized their mistake and sorted out the errors.

No one is browbeating you with anything...other than the very obvious fact that the adherants site is wrong on this and that you are refusing to accept this issue.

....Can you explain how this is relevent to you using dodgy data to prove an ideological point, when said dodgy data is in fact, dodgy?

The reference to Doggy data is really absurd becuase no one in the whole four threads has claimed that the data itself is bad. I'm using the same data the atheist Swift used, and it's fromt he bureau of prisons. No one even hinted that the data is bad. It's all a matter of how it's interpreted.

Originally Posted by maybrick

Have you been following this thread at all?

None is not the same as unknown.

yes it is. there's no pre set break down guaranteed for the 20%. We have to examine them to see what they believe.

It is really very simple.

yes it is. that's why it amazes me that you don't understand. that shows you are not reading.

maybrick:

Frankly this is quite embarassing, if I were you I would either let this thread die (although be prepared for us to use it against you whenever you are being less than honest and refuse to admit it) or accept you are in the wrong here and do the various things that have been suggested.

Meta:that's a real bold kind of statement that sounds real cool and tough but it just shows that you don't know the issues there. you are not reading it you are just blabbing to help the atheists.

Maybrick

An apology to Skylurker would seem to be appropriate also.

Meta:no it would not there was good reason at the time to thin he did fabricated. I'm still not sure. since you are all lying about me what else are you lying about?
I might actually have considered that if they had not started this lying frenzy and trying to destroy my reputation and ignoring my answers.

Maybrick

I am not psychic...but I suspect you will ignore my/our advice and keep up with the humiliation.

Meta:
I am not humiliated because I understated the issues, I know they are lying so since I do they are lying about me I know they are lying about the other stuff too.


talking tough becuase you don't know the facts.

how many hundreds of times have I stood alone against the atheist on CARM and faced them down against their ridicule gauntlets? Too many to count. But I'm going to do it again.

Catching up with Atheist Comments

Just a couple of comments I think deserve the spot light, so I can debunk them! :-)

thanks for your comments.

May 28, 2012 5:36 AM

Josip Kuleš said...

The fact is that the Bible does encourage violence, you talk of evidence, when you have none either. Atheists do not believe in things without evidence, you do, that is the only difference. Don't get me wrong, atheists that say they know god does not exist is equaly annoyng as fundamentalists. The only problem i have with people like you is that you think everything you don't like is religious persecution. No one ever didn't get a job because they were christian, but that happens to atheists, that is persecution, but if i call your religion stupid that is my opinion and i have a right to express it, if it offends you that is not my problem. (sorry about my grammar, english is not mi first language). My name is Josip Kules, and i don't care if you delete this.

The Bible dos not encourage violence. There is no passage that says "make ye some violence." It dos say things like "blessed are the peace makers," and "be not a fighter or brawler." Ancinet Israel emerged from a very violent milieu in a bloodthirsty era. They had to fight to survive. The OT is largely based upon the nationalism they mustered in order to foster that survive. So depict heroic battles with the children of Israel standing up to the bullies. It's not more encourage violence than it is encouraging peace.

Atheists claim to believe in evidence, but when they need some propaganda of a scientific theory it doesn't matter weather they have evidence or not. there is no empirical evidence of the Multiverse. None there is none at all not one little centiliter. They need the multiversse to beat fine truning and CA so they talk about like it's a proved fact. It's way way way beyond proved. They are pulling universes out of their you know whats.

You have no idea what my attitudes are toward rebellious persecution. There is genuine persecution n message boards but I'm not sure that's a big deal.It's only a big deal if you are a message board addict like me. you don't know anything about who gets jobs. yu have no empirical reserach. You are assuming no one is turned away for being a Christian. I'm sure you could find that somewhere. For one thing it happens in sociology.

You have a right to express your opinion and say that religion is stupid if you think it is but:

(1) It's an expression of bigotry and hate. Weather you have a right to express it or or not. You probalby have a right to express racism too, but I'm willing you wont cling that one so vehemently. Doesn't make you any less bigoted just becuase you have a right.

(2) when you express that on a message board where Chrsitians ware restraining themselves and trying to conduct a serious discussion it's disruptive and unfair.

(3) probalby an expression of hate.

(4) you don't have a right to get personal. you try to attack teh person rather than the idea because they are religious (you stereotype people a because you are narrow minded). That's not right you don't' have a right to do that.

I didn't delete your comment you didn't attack anyone personally.


Old friend and Loyal oppoent Bill Walker:

Hi Meta, EVERYONE was born an atheist. Then, depending on parents & geography, you get one dumped on you by your parents, who got it from theirs, etc. Religions - ALL of them, are dragged through the centuries, sort of like a cosmic security blanket. I realize that I'm one of a small minority. But take a look at Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, & most of Western Europe. Our hotbed of Xianity, has a much greater incidence of crime than everyone else. I have wondered if Xianity is too forgiving. We non-believers have to live with all of our deeds & misdeeds. Perhaps this is why only one fifth of one percent of everyone in prison is a professed atheist in the U.S.A. . We have over 3 million in our prison system. That's a huge disparity. Oddly enough, the 'bible belt' has a much greater percentage of prisoners in out penal system than the more secular states.

Everyone is not born an atheist. That is a misconception and ignores what we now know about the God modul (so called). That's a misnomer but there is scientific evidence that there's an innate concept of God that all or most of us are born with.

You have an interesting spin on the crime issue. Some try to say that athist northern Eroupe is more free of crime than Christian America. You try to sell it as America being too lenient due to Christian background. The conservatives would (see comment section) argue that it's the liberals that are too lenient. Surely atheists are supposed to think that Christians are narrow minded and want to kill criminals.

Your assertions about prison population have been disproved. The atheist website that makes that arguemnt the bogus atheist study that makes it are lies. They are proved to be lies and the statistics they are are fabricated. I caught them and adherents.com also caught them before me in the lie. this is proved. They changed the data to grossly underestimate the numbers of atheists in prison.

It's no secret that not all chruch going people understand that being a Christian is a personal relationship with God not just going to chruch and reading the bible. Way too many "Chrsitians" understand it only a set of rules and behaviors. Only about 33% of the 73% who identify as Christians actually claim to be "born again."

A lot of those in prison begin claiming they are Christians to get parole or to get things easier in jail. Many are no doubt scared. So they are caught they think back to going to chruch a few times as a kid and say "I went to chruch as a kid didn't do me any good I don't' really believe that stuff." A couple of months latter they find themselves in prison with all the violent people aground and fearing everything. They start saying "I'm a Christian" in hopes God will protect them. The prison statistics don't reflect the time line on conversion.

click here for proof atheists fabricated prison stats.

click here for link to God on the Brain (not born atheists)

A Lesson in Arguing with ATheist "Greasie Debaters"

Here's an exchange that is instructive. Blondie is continuing his character assignation/disinformation camp again against me. This consists of treating everything I say as though it was a doge of his previous answers, when in reality he has not answered the previous argument that I made.

posts 4, then 9-11

Originally Posted by blondie View Post

#4 is an argument against your position. There are lots of different gods and some religions have no gods at all.

Actually all of the examples are bogus. No one cane agree on what the Bible says, I have shown you dozens of times that "mystical" experiences are in no way limited to religion and deductive reasoning leads to atheism.

my answer to these which has gone unanswered:


your arguments are silly and ignorant as usual.

(1) no 4 is not agaisnt my position. you refuse to listen and you can't understand it anyway. This is my position not yours. you are working from stereotypes you think in stereotypes rather than actual reasoning.

It's the basis for Anthropocentric universalism. It's based upon the universal nature of mystical experience, the common core thesis. Take the names and references to doctrines out and just describe the experiences they are all describing the same thing.

(2) The assertion that one can agree no the bible that applies to all form of knowledge and every book and all ideas. pointing that out is useless. that's like saying "the lights are on in this room." So what? That's just par for the course.

then he comes on talking like I didn't answer what he just said: This is the very next post.

Originally Posted by blondie

I've corrected you on these issues time and time again.

Meta
Notice no mention of what I said abobve labled (1) and (2). no mention of studies no mention of what I said at all. He starts speaking as though what I said was evasive and didn't respond in reality if you look above I answered exactly both his comments which he doesn't respond to at all!
(still speaking to him:)

You never defend them or address the objections. You just restate your bogus assertions again.

you are full fo it. all you ever do is make groundless remakes with nothing to back them up and when I site source you say "your sources are always bad and must never taken seriously" hen you don't say why you just dispense the truth from on high. you never have counter evidence and you never deal with methodology.

I just answered your crap on issue 4 you have not responded, this is not a response.

your comments are misleading becasue they imply that I somehow didn't respond when in fact you did not respond.

Just the way they do it. forget the facts. Just pretend I didn't answer at all and forge ahead speaking as though your correcting something in reality it's you are didn't respond. "Forge" is a good term (forge ahead) because this the action of someone who doesn't care for truth is not concerned with learning.

This is what you must do to handle these guys. you have to coutner-assert and constantly sum up what's been said so far. cut and paste previous responses to show they have not answered it.

Controversy with CARM athist I quoted

An atheist from CARM was quoted on this blog, his name is cottreau. He claims I took his quotes out of context and then and I'm quoting him without permission. He does not provide a documented source saying that one can't quote message board. I quote form the copyright office website (see the previous post) saying that one can quote a certain amount for educational purposes and permission is not needed. He asserts it doesn't apply to a private message board but the law doesn't say that. IF it does he does not quote it.

I asked him to explain his statement that I took him out of context. He never did that. I was also off line for a week becasue of the heat (My AC broke--too hot to turn on computer). Because I didn't take the statesmen down (regardless of the lack of explanation he get's angry and says he put me on ignore and he's not going to talk to me no more. When I got back on and saw all of this I made some conciliatory statements. Here they are this is me on CARM in the private part where you get "notifications."

--I'm not sure if that's true. Since people feel strong strongly about it I've decided to start a policy of paraphrase and small quotes of the crucial passage.

what did I say here? I said I am not sure there is a legal problem with quoting someone form a message board if you quote for educational purposes. Regardless of this I was willing to change my policy and just paraphrase. Ah, you see this is not the real issue. He doesn't care about being quoted, he doesn't want the illogical and hatred of atheism to be exposed for what it is. I actually said I'm going to keep demonstrating to th world the inadequacy of the carm atheist arrangements and that's what pisses him off. He doesn't care that I'm wiling to not quote them as much. That was never the real issue.

But I say more:

getting something out of context or not fully representing what the person said is always a problem--it can happen to anyone, it's a communication error not malicious.

That is to say that I was not merely ignoring the context, if I got it wrong it was an honest mistake.

Communication theory tells us the one sending the message never understandings fully how it's been received. so you may think you are being real clear and you are not.

this is saying here is why it's better to quote more than less.

All I can do is be willing to listen to you when you explain--you have not explained.

Here I'm saying I'm open to your concerns and I'm willing to listen to your point of view. But that's not nearly good enough because it's not really what he's after. he's reatlly trying wreck the blog by finding an excuse to make me look bad. He never once not one single time acknowledges that I said any of this. He goes on talking bout how ignored what he said I didn't take it down and I refuse to stop quoting (when in fact I said I would stop).

he says:

(this is quoted from the comment box on this blog it's in my domain it's not a violation of anything because he volunteered to make the comment)

I will not be engaging in any more CARM discussions with you, so you won't be able to quote me in discussion with you any more anyway.

So I said "I'm going to concede to what you ask and not quote" he says "I'm not going to talk to you any more." He pretends like I've been totally unreasonable when in fact I have tried to be totally conciliatory.

I explained how you misrepresented me in further discussion IN THAT THREAD. I have had a Christian member give me reps and thank me for my explanation, saying that they understood my reasoning and agreed with it on the Robin Lane Fox statement.

He's complaining about the way I represent his view in the discussion on CARM what does that have to do with this blog? Its' a matter of opinon and the Chrsitan who gave him rep points (probalby someone he thinks of as a total idiot normally, because he thinks Christians are idiots I'm sure) did not give him the rep points saying "this is because Meta is wrong." So in fact these "rep points" prove nothing and have nothing to with anything.

He goes on but look what he's talking about:

1. I responded to your statement "If it has happened there would be someone somewhere in that era writing about it."

My reply to this is that there are lots of things that happen in history that are not written about. You are stating that I am claiming that the council of Nicea burned the books and because it went unrecorded. Ridiculous - I said no such thing. READ my statements before you claim to understand them. We KNOW that there is lots that happens in history that is not written down. I disagree with your statement that is basically "if it's not written down, it must not have happened" - which is clearly incorrect.

Side bar issue on CARM that has nothing to do with the reason I quoted him here.

2. I said, "Fox is an atheist as well, so I consider it meaningful." and you replied "that proves your confirmation bias right here. you are so biased you automatically discount any evidence except from an atheist. that is brain washing."

NOTE: you must have missed my follow-up. Fox is an atheist, yet is stating that the Gospel of John is historically accurate. This is an atheist going against any atheist bias, thus, is more meaningful than a Christian stating that John is historically accurate, since this isn't going against the natural Christian bias.

This is just a jumble of confused ideas. First of all, I quoted his statesmen which is stronger than just "I consider it meaningful." Look at what he really said:

I'm just quoting Robin Lane Fox, a Greek speaking/writing, Oxford classics scholar from the same book I mentioned in the last post ("The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible"). Fox is an atheist as well, so I consider it meaningful.

All kinds of Bible scholars read Greek but it's only meaningful when the atheist does. I agree if the atheist scholar agrees with the religious view that's a good sign it's right. That makes it good evidence and in fact I try to use non Christian schoalrs as much as I can. Time and time again I've quoted atheists who agree with my position and atheist deny that they are atheists, or say they are stupid, or demand that they are really creationists and imply I'm lying about it. One of them said Thomas S. Kuhn was a creationist! I think it's pretty irnonic when it helps them then they have confidence, when it helps me they are not really atheists.

The confirmation bias clearly comes into play where he can't trust a religious scholar to say something about Greek but when an atheist doesn't it's meaningful. He goes on dragging into it these side bar issues about history that pertain to the argument on CARM and not my reasoning for quoting him here. He has actually demonstrated for me that the quoting of him here is not out of context. He tries to claim the fact that the guy Fox was lauding the historical value of John and I don't say "O that's so wonderful" then that means I'm taking it out of context. that is not out of context it has nothing to do with the context. The context is the confirmation bias that when the atheist says it then he's willing to find it "meaningful." That's exactly the context in which I quoted him. There has no not talking out of context, I merely failed to give up the argument just becasue he has an atheist saying that John is historical.

I would listen to solid reasons in either case, but I didn't have to, since I was reading an atheist scholar.

Here he tries to give an indication that he's not biased. I understand why he's saying since the atheist is quoting it he doesn't need to argue. I get that. That's not confirmation bias. the confirmation bias comes where the atheists sweep aside the atheism of people I quote even though it can be proved. Here he excepted it here becasue it's ultiamtely backing his position.

holly said...

dear meta,
you have indeed misrepresented cottreau. It is easy to see. He clearly explained why it was important, and you miss it again.
it is your own loss, for cottreau is another intellectually honest, truth seeker. You cuss him out, AND ignore his requests to not quote him without permission. What kind of christianity do you represent? You keep saying one has to read your blog. But you are taking conversations OFF of carm, and not replying there, making a person think you are through with a conversation, then your are carrying it on, here without telling them. I really don't think you care...I don't think this will have any effect on you,and yet...i try....

She has stated wrongly in every case. I didn't misrepresent him in any way. I didn't say he's not quoting Fox on the accuracy of John and I understand his use of the atheist scholar in relation to the validity of the argument (it's sort of a reverse criteria of embarrassment in a way). I think that maks the implication that we can't trust Christian scholars. If an atheist says it's ok. The should be reasonably willing to accepted the educated view of any scholar and his religion should be of no consequence. That has to be talking on a sliding scale. I would trust a Yale guy before I would trust a Wheaton College guy. She also asserts that I "cuss him out and ignore his requests." I didn't do any "cussing." We apparently have differnt notiong of what that means. To me "cussing' is when you say words that are not acceptable such as "shit, hell, dman, fuck , ass hole, ect. " I don't think I used such language.

Nor did I deny his request. I quote myself at the top where I said I would honor his concerns. They have totally ignored that statement as though I never said it. They love to make a fuss. I'm so bad. I"m so bad, I always bad. The bottom line here that says it all for why they are carrying on as though I didn't even say "Ok I'll consider your feelings and I qont quote you anymore" it's all in the phrase Holly says:

"what kind of Christianity do you represent?"

In other words: Propaganda!

They are milking it, just as Hermit taught them, get every drop of propaganda value out of every single word a Christian utters. use every single opportunity to draw the link from this tiny little mistake to the huge gaping untruth of the Christian faith as a whole. What them like hawks use everything little mistake against them.

This is nothing but the atheist drama queen battalion at work. They can't beat the arguments fairly so they have to resort to personal attacks.

one other thing he also says:




I understand his context and reason for saying that the fact of Fox's atheism he finds meaningful. I get that he's not merely saying "he's right because he's an atheist" but that I don't have to argue about the controversy if an atheist takes the Christian position. yet to put it in postmodern parlance, I'm a applying a hermeneutic of suspicion. I think there's more to it than that. I think he would not accept such comments coming from Christians in spite of their expertise.

I am just over whealmed with how stupid they are. several people have sent me emails, intelligent people who don't do message boas they saw CARM and they are just shocked at petty they are. they are stupid! they so stupid. the arguments are just petty like petty little crap that has nothing to with logic. they don't listen they assume I'm like all other Christians. even though own guys will say that I'm not it goes in one ear and out the other.


Why would anyone want to be part of movement of really stupid people who don't listen and can't think?

I put up my post about 8 levels of verification in the Gospels they all they do is go "eye witnesses are bad. eye witness confirm Joseph Smith so therefore eye witnesses are bad." They assume Mormons are really stupid and Jo Smith was a cretin and they had witnesses so therefore eye witnesses suck and anyone who has them is wrong. I make arguments like "hey eye witnesses not bad. the reason the FBI talks about them being inconsistent to say if they all say the same thing it collusion. They are not saying they are bad. No prosecution has ever said let's go to court with no witnesses. They come back and go "eye witnesses are bad becasue Mormonism started with eye witnesses." "you think eye witnesses confirm the bible but Jo Smith had eye witnesses." no extension not response to counter argument. pathetic.

Then in discussing Jesus' historicty they turn right around and say "you can't have a single eye witness to the idea that Jesus existed. we have eye witnesses who saw Cesar!" I point that out and they still say the same thing again!

Are they putting something in the breakfast food at Atheist summer camp or something?



REPATING THE MANTRAS of your little brain washing will not make it come true.

real historians don't say "Jesus couldn't have been a real guy because they say worked miracles and that's impossible." that is not a real standard of what historical evidence is! you can't negate the historical nature of Jesus by doing that. it's an excuse.

your ideological ejection of miracles is not historical evidence.

I prove the Gospels are very historical and you can't make be unhistorical with hysterical atheist apologetic that ignore real historical principles.

you have not answered the 8 levels