Atheism S*cks! S*cks

If you want to read a really stupid, insipid blog, one where you have to park your brain at the door, with beliefs and assertions we atheists tend to emphasize for their idiocy, do a Google search on the first two words in the title to this post (replace the star with the letter “u”). I’d use the full spelling and link to it, but I really don’t want to give the owner the benefit of a link or call attention to his blogs, although attention is something he apparently seems to crave. He has three other blogs, all devoted to roughly the same topic. I’m not sure what he fears to have to manage four blogs to counteract atheism, but there they are. We all know that Christian beliefs are strong and unassailable, with impeccable logic and common sense behind their faith in their god, but apparently he needs constant and massive reassurance.

Normally I wouldn’t give these people the time of day, but I thought some of the Christians who might stumble upon my blog (along with my regular readers) would get a kick out of the logical moronic culmination to their religion. I actually have PhillyChief to thank, since he pointed him out in one of his recent posts. I tried to engage the owner and his minions a bit on a post or two, but they really are not interested in having any kind of intellectual discussion. Instead, what passes for discussion are comments like:

dude, you’re stupid.

or

What part of Carrier’s ass haven’t you kissed?

or

Whatever, ass-kisser.

What causes me to post this is that in his November 12 post about the upcoming PBS NOVA program on the Dover trial, (in which he claims, without seeing the show, that it will be biased, based solely on the word of the really reliable people at the Discovery Institute), I responded to his claim to bias, by arguing:

You post a clear piece of propaganda created and posted on YouTube by the Discovery Institute, which exists for the sole purpose of creating propaganda that tries to convince Americans that Intelligent Design is science, and you accuse PBS of propaganda?

Have you seen the show? How do you know it will be biased? Because the Discovery Institute tells you it will be? That’s using your brains. Why don’t you do what I would think most people would do, especially college students such as yourself, presumably being trained to think, and watch the show first, then pontificate on its bias.

His response was to reply:

*LONG SIGH*

Spanish Inquisitor,

Have you even bothered checking the PBS link? Uhm, have you even bothered checking *any* of the links?

Anyway…

So I bit my tongue, read his links and posted:

**EVEN LONGER SIGH**

(OK. Now it’s your turn. You get to type **LONGEST SIGH IN THE UNIVERSE**. Is this what passes for intelligent argument here?)

The answer to your two questions is yes and yes. And I saw no bias in the program BECAUSE I HAVEN’T WATCHED THE PROGRAM YET, and neither have you.

You know, the DI won’t be happy, and will probably claim bias, because the program will not show all of the testimony of their witnesses and evidence, while at the same time emphasizing the Plaintiff’s witnesses and evidence, even though that would be what you would expect when showing a docudrama of a trial in which you already know the outcome. You show the winning evidence and argument. You show what convinced the Judge, and what resulted in the verdict. Not what didn’t.

But of course, PBS will be biased if they do that. Remember, you saw it here first.

Let me ask you, Frank. Have you read the transcripts of the trial? Have you attended any portion of the trial? If you asked me, I’d answer, again, yes and yes. And I’ve read the DI version on their website, pathetically whiny as it is, about their side of the case.

Did you know that the DI, while initially instigating the matters in Dover, dropped out of the case mid trial, because they knew it was a loser and didn’t want their name associated with it? That’s right, all the big guns abandoned the Defendants when it was too late to find alternative witnesses. And now they whine about bias.

I’m just wiping away my tears here.

OK, I was starting to get a little snarky, primarily because he was dismissing me by claiming I didn’t read the links, when I had, and told him I had. I responded to his post with something of substance, yet instead of answering me, he deflected me with the following:

*ROLLS EYES, SHAKES HEAD*

You didn’t even address what I said. Instead, you’re hacking and trolling away. Typical. I’ll say it again, dude, read the links. When I post a blogpost, especially with a link, that means you actually explore it. The truth is you probably and finally read the links and figured out that indeed the PBS documentary will be biased. So, after finding out you goofed in your first post, you knew you had to save face in your second post. And so you put your blame and insecurity on me.

Spanish Inquisitor, you won’t be allowed to hack and troll away. If you do not address people’s post directly I won’t allow it. You’ve been warned.

Hugs and kisses,

He wanted me to comment on his links. OK, I’m a nice guy, the links were pure BS from the Discovery Institute, in the nature of the Big Lie, but I took the time to respond. Here’s my response, which incidentally you won’t see on his blog, because he moderates all comments, and has chosen not to post it:

Spanish Inquisitor, you won’t be allowed to hack and troll away. If you do not address people’s post directly I won’t allow it. You’ve been warned.

Oh, Frank, that’s bull. I addressed your issues, and raised you, and you have not addressed mine.

But I’ll bite.

I said I read your links, and I did. You want some response to the links, OK.

The first one was a 4 page whine from Robert Crowther, primarily complaining about how ABC’s Nightline program misrepresented the DI and ID. There was nothing in there indicating that he had seen the NOVA program yet. He anticipates bias because of his experience with Nightline, and because he could not come to terms with PBS about secondary recording of interviews for the NOVA program. In fact, he doesn’t even let us know if the DI eventually participated in the interviews. For all I can tell, they backed out of that also. If that’s the case, they’ll be able to say the same things after the program is aired that they said after the Dover trial – that the results were biased. However, in both cases, they were given the opportunity to participate and they backed out (if, in fact, they were not interviewed because of the dispute I mentioned – I don’t know which way that went because Crowther is unclear).

So I’ll reiterate. They are claiming bias in advance of seeing the show. I know they won’t like the programs, so I know they will probably claim bias after the fact. But it clearly doesn’t help if they go on record, in advance, before seeing it, and claim bias.

It’s true that ID gets bad press, but you folks won’t even entertain the possibility that it’s deserved. If we don’t accept your religion, then we are biased and are persecuting you. If you and all the other ID proponents thinks it’s such wonderful science, prove it. That’s all. Like relativity, and the Big Bang, and a whole host of other previously thought of cockamamie theories that turned out to be well substantiated, go ahead and prove it. Until then, stop whining. It’s so unbecoming and pathetic.

Now your second link was just another propaganda streaming video piece put out by the DI, again with a bunch of whining, and an attempt to lay the groundwork for their anticipated claim that they were not treated properly by PBS. They raise that old chestnut about Judge Jones copying the ACLU brief in his opinion.

I wonder, every time I hear that: Doesn’t the DI have any attorneys that do trial work on staff? What Judge Jones did is what all judges in all courtrooms, or at least most, do. They ask both sides for Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and legal authority, and they use them to create their own opinion, especially if they are any good.

I’ve had many of my work products “stolen” by judges, and I’m quite proud when I do, because that means I did my job right, and produced the evidence and the argument to win my case. What the DI’s complaint really means is that the Defendant’s lawyers did NOT do their jobs, so their work product could not be “stolen” by the court.

See, the DI makes these kinds of statements to people (like you?) who they think won’t understand the true nature of what they say, and then buy it hook, line and sinker. It sounds so underhanded.

Ooooooo, the big bad judge and the ACLU are in cahoots! Isn’t that awful?

When it fact, it’s business as it’s supposed to occur everyday in courts of law all over the country.

In short, the DI lies, so when they say that PBS is biased, I have to see some proof. So far your links are not even close to proof.

OK. Two down, one to go. The last link was something called “The Truth About the Dover Trial”. It consists of a page of many more links, many quite lengthy. I’m sorry, but I really didn’t have the time to read them before I posted, because:

a) The DI, in my experience, wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face, so whatever they deem the truth is probably the exact opposite (but that’s my bias, deal with it); and
b) it has nothing to do with your assertion, in the OP, that the PBS NOVA film is biased; and
c) I read the transcripts of the trial as the trial was going on, I attended one day of the trial, and I think the truth of the trial can best be gleaned from reading those transcripts, not reading some marketing spin they have on their website.

If you still think I’m a troll after that, then my guess is you won’t even allow this to be posted. [EDIT: Just call me Nostradamus]

If you don’t, please answer my questions posed to you, which you so nicely deflected the first time by accusing me of being a troll.

Let me ask you, Frank. Have you read the transcripts of the trial? Have you attended any portion of the trial?

My prediction?

No and No.

As of the date and time of this post, he has not seen fit to allow this last comment to be posted, or to respond to it, despite the fact that many have commented after mine was sent in (approximately 5:oo PM on November 12). This seems to be a common occurrence on so called Christian blogs – over moderation. The purpose behind it is to allow the owner to see if it’s something that cuts too close to the bone, and to allow him some time to consult with others to formulate a response, before it all goes public, or, as in this case, to prevent reeasonable dissent from the blog theme from even appearing. In fact, there were three comments I posted earlier in the thread, but he posted the first one last, so that he could have his little troll accusation posted immediately thereafter. I find it ironic that Christians ask for and invite comments, but only if they are in the form of a Christian cheer. Dissent does not seem to be welcome. I invite him to come here and comment, and see if he can hold his own. I invite his minions to come over here and see what he refused to post. If I was a betting man, I’d bet that if he finds this post, he’ll show up, call me an ass kisser or something similar, as he did on PhillyChief’s blog, then disappear.

I know what my friend the Exterminator will say: “You had it coming”; “that’s what you get for trying to debate with imbeciles”; “what a waste of time”; “you’re not going to convince people who willfully shut down power to their brain”; etc. I agree with him, but I enjoy a good discussion, if the other side engages. These people don’t want to engage. You point out that they are wrong, and more importantly, why, and they persist in their beliefs. Their wonderful, benevolent, supernatural deity gets in the way of all intellectual discourse, because they know that faith is a virtue, and all knowledge come to those who have faith. The owner of the blog appears to be some kind of egocentric college student, who’s been given a little power when his mama bought him a computer with an internet connection, and now gets his jollies preaching to a choir of half-wits. It makes him feel like a big man. If you can’t agree with him, then you are a troll.

So I’m a troll. Yippee.

[I find I’m not alone]

23 thoughts on “Atheism S*cks! S*cks

  1. It provides something to do all day though.
    I found something that might be worth a read, so I posted it. Answers in Genesis satire.

  2. Oy. I’m actually amazed that this guy can (a) spell, and (b) form a complete sentence. IMO most of these types write in all caps.

    Since when has bias meant simply sticking to the results of the case?

  3. As I said to PhillyChief in response to one of his posts, I admire your patience– dare I say “saintly?”

    I’m totally willing to engage the opposition, but I have far too low a frustration tolerance to argue with someone so totally blinded to the rules of argument by his bias.

    Nevertheless, the discussion makes for hysterical reading if for no other reason than to imagine that such a buffoon exists (meaning him… not you)

  4. Well, SI, not to disappoint you, (and begging Philly’s pardon for borrowing the name of his blog): You made me say it.

    You had it coming.
    That’s what you get for trying to debate with imbeciles.
    What a waste of time.
    You’re not going to convince people who willfully shut down power to their brain.
    etc.

    I do agree with you in your comments elsewhere that there are some rare, wavering religionists who can benefit from reading or hearing interchanges with atheists. If they learn nothing else, they can find out that we’re intellectually generous and are always — despite any personal disagreements — supportive of one another. Those seekers of truth can come to us to solicit information or to hear our ideas. They can ask the hardest questions they can think of, all of which we’ll answer with honesty and humanity. They can even find sympathy and empathy within the Atheosphere, if that’s what they need as they go through their own “crisis of faith.”.

    However, … (return to TOP of comment).

  5. (in my best Bugs Bunny voice) That Frank, what a maroon!

    I think it’s been brought up online before that some think he’s a concoction, a character so ridiculous that he’d actually turn people away from christianity. Ah, us devious atheists! I doubt this of course, well, because I’m a skeptic.

    Now what’s interesting is you say you’d like your christian visitors to see this guy’s blog. Brilliant! If only we could function as some sort of introduction service, connecting the moderate christians with the full on loons and let them mix it up. I’d be interested in both the loons’ attacks and how long the moderates could turn the other cheek and keep their composure before loosing their cool. Fabulous entertainment there. I’ll buy the popcorn!

  6. Getting down to the nitty gritty – I still say the damned Romans ran out of lions way too soon.

    It was rather fun watching the Nova piece and listening as those people condemned themselves every time they opened their mouths. Especially, at the end of the show, the fat guy from the school board blubbering on about the judge.

    As for A.S., he would appear to be living proof that evolution goes both directions.

  7. Ric said: “I still say the damned Romans ran out of lions way too soon.”

    Yeah, but that’s just because you’re one of the grumpy ones who didn’t get a meal.

    SI said: “I know what my friend the Exterminator will say: “You had it coming”; “that’s what you get for trying to debate with imbeciles”; “what a waste of time”; “you’re not going to convince people who willfully shut down power to their brain”; etc. I agree with him, but I enjoy a good discussion, if the other side engages. These people don’t want to engage.”

    And that’s WHY he says those things… you knew it when Philly Chief told you about them. After I read his post, I had absolutely zero interest in pursuing it further. But, as “A” says, you are some kind of a atheist saint or something, with patience aplenty. Either that or you’re still in your “excitable years” of your atheism. I give you about 5 more and you’ll be as grumpy as Ric.

  8. Just how long is this “excitable” period? It’s been over 20 for me where instead of merely thinking the god thing was bunk, I’ve actually been challenging god assertions.

  9. I find that trying to have an actual argument (insert Monty Python’s brillian argument over what an argement is here) with some christianists is an exercise in futility. I would rather roll the damn rock up the mountain (I don’t know about having my liver eaten, though) than try to have actual give-and-take argument with someone such as you just did.

    In a college philosophy class we got into a discussion/argument about how to conduct an argument. My professor said that an argument should be constructed the same way you construct a paper. Make a statement, prove it, and defend your statement against contrary evidence or opinions.

    Reading the ‘argument’ posted here, all I can say is “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!” You (Spanish Inquisitor) did a very good job of marshalling evidence and drawing logical conclusions. Your oponent, however . . . Well, let’s just say I lost track of how many logical errors were commited and I was amazed at how quickly the ad hominen attacks started.

    At the risk of making a blanket statement (logical error on my part), why can’t religious and political conservatives defend a thesis using rational arguments which follow the rule of logic? At the risk of making another blanket statement, my theory is that many (not all) arguments put forth by the current crop of neo-conservatives and conservative christianists cannot be defended in a logical, coherrent manner.

    Sorry for the ramble. In my line of work, it just tends to happen.

    Who needs mind altering drugs when we have …

  10. Sorry. I forgot the last part of my post.

    Your mistake was trying to hold a rational argument with someone who is irrational and does not know how to argue.

    Who needs mind altering drugs when we have . . .

  11. Monty Python was always brilliant.

    At the risk of making a blanket statement (logical error on my part), why can’t religious and political conservatives defend a thesis using rational arguments which follow the rule of logic?

    I keep plugging this post of Ironwolf’s whenever I hear this question, or variations thereof. It is so concise, and so explanatory in its simplicity. I don’t even bother explaining; just point to it.

  12. John Evo —

    Picture yourself at a museum, historic site, park, etc. You have questions. Who do you ask? You ask a ranger, or docent, or volunteer. These three are ‘interpreters.’ An interpreter in the museum, historic site, natural park setting does not translate language. Rather, they translate an unfamiliar thing (labor history, military history, geology, paleontology, archeology, etc.) into concepts with which a non-specialist can relate. Interpreters are communications specialists who also have an intimate knowledge of a resource. We provide the ‘why’ or ‘how’ to go with the ‘what.’

    If you have ever been to a museum, park, etc., and suffered through a tour which consists of multiple facts (factoids is the term used by interpreters) but with no story and, more important, no connection with this visitor, this is either not an interpreter, or an interpreter in training.

    One of the side effects of learning to be an interpreter is that, because we learn so many different ways to connect a resource with the visitor, we tend to become, um, shall we say, verbally enhanced? When I write, my first draft is almost always a long ramble since I seem to see many ways of approaching the same concept. When I write for a web site, a display or exhibit, or a pamphlet (non-personal interpretive media), I will usually cut it down by about 75% just on the first rewrite.

    That’s why I say that in my line of work, it tends to happen.

    [EDIT: Sorry this took so long to post. I found it in the spam bank, though looking at it, I see no reason why it got deposited. SI]

  13. Frank is such a colossal idiot that it’s absolutely amazing to me that apparently sane, rational atheists continue to feed his ego and his site by “debating” him. His tactics are always 1) lie 2) deflect 3) delete posts demonstrating his lying deceitful ways.

    The troll is Frank. Please don’t feed the troll.

  14. Thanks, Slut.

    I can’t agree more. I figured that out from the above exchange (if you could call it that). I won’t be back to comment, but I see he has an idiotic post on the PBS program up now, that has so many lies and nonsense in it, I’m just itching to comment. I’m thinking of responding here, where he can’t censor me. I’m still thinking about it though.

  15. Regarding the ‘Spam Bank’ (as my daughter would say, “Heh, heh, he said ‘spam bank’) I figured I just messed up while making a post. Just answering a question from another poster but I am not good at making short posts. Why? See above.

  16. With this sort of thing, I never know whether it is better to publicize the stupidity or ignore it in order to deprive the person of attention or the blog of hits. I don’t suppose I have a consistent policy on doing either and that my reaction probably depends on my mood.

Comments are closed.