I recently came across a website that talks about atheist bullying. I left my comment and moved on. Lo and behold I was contacted by the owner of the blog with some rather nasty comments. You can see them here.
I was thoroughly confused with this attack. I did respond, but unfortunately I did not save them so that I can post them here and I doubt that Joe Himman aka Metacrock will allow my comments to be shown on his site (as my research has shown that he does indeed block or delete comments when he losses or is shown to be an idiot. Here.)
Since I will not fall prey to the same filthy tactics let's look at the comments by both people. This next link has a partial viewing of the comment I made to Joe's initial blog. Unfortunately, now I cannot find the original blog ( how convenient) Here. As you can see my comment had nothing to do with "atheist propaganda". But of course metacrock has to twist things to make himself sound a bit better. Now on his site, he is not as abusive, but as you can see from his blog, he didn't have anything to really say about my comment besides that one point. Yet look at his response brutally attacking me here.
As you can see, his exact words are, "It's amazing how quickly you given in to atheist brain washing. are you lonely? You have no friends, you need an identity need a group to join, and you hate God because you hate yourself?" How is any of this relevant to a discussion? I hope that Joe does allow all my comments to be shown on his site. You can check if he does. My comments
I am not going to dedicate my life and time to arguing with a numb nut. Thank you Joe for showing me that once again, Xian ignorance knows no boundaries and you are just a common person in a group of common delusional people.
"I recently came across a website that talks about atheist bullying. I left my comment and moved on. Lo and behold I was contacted by the owner of the blog with some rather nasty comments. You can see them here."
ReplyDelete>>> you began your lecture of ignorance by telling me that "you are dense." that's a pretty inflamatory way to begin a relationship. turns out you can't maintina that arrogance when you are confrunted by someone who really knows something you fall back on name calling.
You didn't know what circular reasoning meant. I had said certain atheists were using circular reasoning in making a certain kind of argument. Not knowing what that means you threw up a bunch of standard atheist propaganda misconception based upon thier tired old inapplicable slogans such as the believer has the burden of proof, which with not context means nothing and has noting to do with the issue.
On the basis of not understanding the nature of circular reasoning you said that I"M Dense! so I showed you what it's like to be bullied yourself. you don't like it do you? instead of keeping your ignorant mouth shut and learning you go on prattling a vain attempt to defend your ignorance.
"I was thoroughly confused with this attack."
>>> let me clue you in. I am not dense. that is insulting, especially coming for someone who doesn't understand circular reasoning.
"I did respond, but unfortunately I did not save them so that I can post them here and I doubt that Joe Himman aka Metacrock will allow my comments to be shown on his site (as my research has shown that he does indeed block or delete comments when he losses or is shown to be an idiot. Here.)"
I'm showing them to show how childish and ignorant you are.
"Since I will not fall prey to the same filthy tactics let's look at the comments by both people. This next link has a partial viewing of the comment I made to Joe's initial blog.
you began by insulting me. You started by saying I'm dense when in fact you did not understand what circular reasoning is.
if you want to cancel the little pissing contest and have a real discussion I'm willing to.
I suppose I was wrong to respond in kind. My whole site is about the arrogant stupidity of atheist in thinking they can bully all Christians out of their beliefs. I will not put up with that crap for a second you can just stop your bully boy nonsense now. you don't know as much as I do so shut up and learn!
"Unfortunately, now I cannot find the original blog ( how convenient) Here."
You think i hid my blog from you? how could I do that?
"As you can see my comment had nothing to do with "atheist propaganda". But of course metacrock has to twist things to make himself sound a bit better."
My comments were about "the Ciarcular Nature of Atheist reasnong."
http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/circular-nature-of-atheist-ideology.html?showComment=1320968184087#c5805695349230270347
your response to that was to ignore the circular reasoning bit and say I'm dense because I don't just give up belief based upon your misunderstanding about burdens of proof.
"Now on his site, he is not as abusive, but as you can see from his blog, he didn't have anything to really say about my comment besides that one point. Yet look at his response brutally attacking me here."
It seems that way because you don't understand what's being said. But we could try to stop pissing on each other and start actually talking. if you are willing to curb your ignorance and listen to what I say.
Metacrock,
ReplyDeleteYou have misinterpreted and made assumptions from the very beginning and that is where I think the miscommunication is. Yes I did initially start off by saying you were dense. And I must apologize and rephrase or rather extrapolate on my meaning. In the argument you were presenting, yes I feel that you were being dense. It had nothing to do with not understanding circular logic or that I believed that you should just give up belief. And as far as I can understand it, I have a pretty firm grasp on the subject of burden of proof. But we will get back to that in a moment.
On the topic of atheist circular reasoning. My statement was not about your beliefs. We hadn't even reached that part. I was basically showing that your argument or example was structurally unsound. Here is why.
1. To present an argument that atheist use circular reasoning you must provide examples of what you are talking about. Just saying that the atheist does not accept evidence with out eluding to the evidence that the theist is presenting. For example. I cannot be justified in saying theist use circular reasoning just because I feel they do.
Atheist: Here is the evidence for my non belief in god.
Theist:I don't except that answer, etc.
Using that argument worded in that way, then yes, the response does seem circular. First we have to have a guideline. In this instance the base is evidence. Then it must be determined what is acceptable evidence and what is not acceptable evidence. From there the argument can be started with clear guidelines on definitions and parameters. Would you not agree?
As far as CARM goes. I dont' read CARM that often but I do remember an argument that Matt Slick had with Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience, on the argument of TAG. I do know that Matt Slick when back and changed the writing in CARM after his premise had been dismissed as not viable. That in itself is not a bad thing because science itself changes theories based on evidence. But what makes it bad is that he maintained his position during the show and then went quietly to change the CARM site.
But anyway. This is my challenge to you. What argument do you have where atheist use circular reasoning or logic. Let's talk about it and see if it is true?
SM, I've had a LOT of experience with Metacrock, back to the early years of the IIDB/FRDB messageboard.
ReplyDeleteYou may be familiar with a stereotype of atheists as belligerent know-it-alls who brag about how smart they are. Metacrock fits that stereotype remarkably well, it seems to me.
Loren, I know what you mean. Some people are that way. I will say the he probably had a point. Perhaps I started out a bit smug, who knows. I thought that perhaps we had called a truce and I tried to engage him into a serious debate/conversation about his topic. Still waiting to here from him. lol. But thank you for your support.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Metacrock, I find his argument from mystical experience rather interesting. It's almost like he's arguing that mystical experiences are from an additional sense going into action.
ReplyDeleteBut he piles a lot of ponderous, turgid verbiage on it, like verbiage about a "Transcendental Signifier" and a "co-determinate" and so forth. So I'm not sure whether my statement is a good description of what he thinks.
Hmmm, interesting. I have not read this. It would be great if you could supply the link. I would say that I have my own ideas on this topic. But since I have not done any "real" studies on this topic.
ReplyDeleteI find that I can't leave comments on Meta's blogs. Either I am blocked or they have been disabled.
ReplyDeleteHe's made a big List of God Arguments
ReplyDeleteThese arguments include arguments from mystical experience, along with various versions of the ontological argument, the First-Cause argument, the argument from design, arguments from miracles, etc.
Loren, when you are going to make a blog?
ReplyDeleteI'd never thought of having my own blog, but I've been blogging off-and-on at NexusZine, what's left after the collapse of a comprehensive-resource project. I mainly post at Secular Café and some other places, however.
ReplyDelete