The Atheists True Colors
I apologize for language in this post. I think it's important for all to see the true colors of the atheists. If BK wishes to take it down it will be on my blog too and I will understand.
On Debunking Christianity, a site devoted to bullying Christians, to mocking and ridiculing all who do not cow-tow to mob rule, an atheist named Ty starts a dialog with me. Supposedly he intends to rationally discuss my arguments.
He says this:
I respond thusly:
He says this:
Now I wrote three long responses. Three because his overall post long, at this point it was all very civil. I said this:
We also discussed having a debate and some other things. Then he came back with this astounding bit of brilliance (with some of the language edited by BK for crudity):
What was the reason for this? Because on my site I said my view was liberal and on their blog I said real liberals think I'm neo-orthodox. How in the hell does that warrant this kind of childish tantrum? Do you really think that someone who blows his cool so easily had anything to say about matters philosophical, theological, scholarly and complex? Isn't it clear what atheists are by now? They are a hate group. They exist to brow-beat anyone who disagrees with them, to mock and ridicule religion and anyone who gets in the way is a fool and will be promptly disposed of through psychological methods of ridicule and brow-beating.
I don't think it's possible to have rational discussions with these people. I don't see the reason to even try. I beg my fellow Christians on the net. Stop trying to communicate with them. have nothing to do with these God-hating violent creeps who cannot think or reason or have an intelligent discussion.
Or was it just that he got himself into a position to have a formal debate before his cronies could tell him I would have him for lunch, then he did this to back-out without saying "Oh, I can't debate you; you know too much." So he just stages a blow-up. Now they are going to be saying "Oh, that Metacrock; he's so insulting." They are going to turn it to be my fault. I know they will. They will make out that I started it and they will spread the word all over the internet that I began the insults.
I said nothing insulting. to prove it I will post the three sections I wrote to him in the comment area and you tell me what is insulting?
On Debunking Christianity, a site devoted to bullying Christians, to mocking and ridiculing all who do not cow-tow to mob rule, an atheist named Ty starts a dialog with me. Supposedly he intends to rationally discuss my arguments.
He says this:
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission.
I respond thusly:
No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox.
He says this:
So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
Now I wrote three long responses. Three because his overall post long, at this point it was all very civil. I said this:
same way you would determine that in any document. We have to assume that miracles are taken on faith. Is it always important to understand the miracles as literal? Use historical analysis and literary cit to understand what is mythology and what is real history. Seek the theological point because that's the real truth content that is being communicated.
have you read my peice on Doxa about
The nature of Biblical revelation?
10:15 AM, July 11, 2008
Delete
We also discussed having a debate and some other things. Then he came back with this astounding bit of brilliance (with some of the language edited by BK for crudity):
Joe,
you're an a*****e.
On your f***ing website you wrote, "My views on this section ar fairly liberal" in refering to your views of the canonical gospels. I was merely quoting your website and you write me back about your own words the following bu****it, "No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox."
Well, f*** you and the horse you road in on. Debate is about honest intellectual discussion, not the bu****it you're tyring to pass off as debate.
"why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read?"
Again, you're an a*****e.
What was the reason for this? Because on my site I said my view was liberal and on their blog I said real liberals think I'm neo-orthodox. How in the hell does that warrant this kind of childish tantrum? Do you really think that someone who blows his cool so easily had anything to say about matters philosophical, theological, scholarly and complex? Isn't it clear what atheists are by now? They are a hate group. They exist to brow-beat anyone who disagrees with them, to mock and ridicule religion and anyone who gets in the way is a fool and will be promptly disposed of through psychological methods of ridicule and brow-beating.
I don't think it's possible to have rational discussions with these people. I don't see the reason to even try. I beg my fellow Christians on the net. Stop trying to communicate with them. have nothing to do with these God-hating violent creeps who cannot think or reason or have an intelligent discussion.
Or was it just that he got himself into a position to have a formal debate before his cronies could tell him I would have him for lunch, then he did this to back-out without saying "Oh, I can't debate you; you know too much." So he just stages a blow-up. Now they are going to be saying "Oh, that Metacrock; he's so insulting." They are going to turn it to be my fault. I know they will. They will make out that I started it and they will spread the word all over the internet that I began the insults.
I said nothing insulting. to prove it I will post the three sections I wrote to him in the comment area and you tell me what is insulting?
Comments
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission.
No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox.
So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
same way you would determine that in any document. We have to assume that miracles are taken on faith. Is it always important to understand the miracles as literal? Use historical analysis and literary cit to understand what is mythology and what is real history. Seek the theological point because that's the real truth content that is being communicated.
have you read my peice on Doxa about
The nature of Biblical revelation?
10:15 AM, July 11, 2008
Delete
Blogger J.L. Hinman said...
Ty part 2Because they apply the "everything is true no matter what standard," I think they need to be challenged. So, yes, I too commend Evan for his efforts. His debate will hopefully open their eyes to needing to look at the facts for what they are. This may not be the killer subject like God's atrocities to win them over, but its a start.
that's fine to challenge them on such things. not fine to express such contempt for them.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira?
they were trying to rip off the community.
Why did he make people sick or die for taking communion wrongly?
He didn't. that's a natural process like germs cause disease. the point of it is that the attitude in the heart is the important thing. Why can't you just appreciate that and not worry about the literalism of it?
Why did Jesus lie about the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer?
O that's not a loaded comment is it? Do you still beat your wife?
why would you think Jesus lied? Because you are interpriting something he said as literally as you can to the exclusion of all common sense.
God wrote that he cares for us like the little birdies in the air. Seems fitting, given that the majority of them die from sickness, stravation, and don't even make it out of nest.
why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read? Come on! you are trying to interprit everything exactly as litterally as you can ans though writing is a blue print. how can anyone with a degree in psychology not understand literary devices? why in the hell doesn't this alleged "scholar" Hector Avelos teach you guys about the things are written? People talk in figures of speech, in metaphors, and hyperbolically, they are not lying they are using something called "literary devices." you can't understand everything as though it was a blue print to a house.
How many millions of children die around the world each year in spite of the cries to God for mercy?
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
10:26 AM, July 11, 2008
Delete
Blogger J.L. Hinman said...
Ty part 3 about those theodicy questions see my essay on Doxa:
Soteriological Drama
I think John should debate you.
I think he should too. You guys draft him and let's get it on!
But if he doesn't have time, I'll gladly debate you Joe.
Great! you guys decide and let's get the show on the road
And I've got decent credentials too. Though my PhD is in Psychology, my Masters in Counseling was from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and my bachelors is in Theology from North Central University.
don't worry about credentials. I do not think I have great credentials, they are adequate. But you don't need credentials to know things.
Here is a decent topic Topic: God does/does not supernaturally interact with humans in the material (matter/energy) realm?
To affirm that proposition one must already be able to prove the existence of God.The proposition assumes the existence of God. The proposition I'm interested in defending is this: Religion is rationally warranted to the extent that one might honestly and intellectually place confidence in the proposition: there is a God.
all of those qualifying phrases are important, I do not claim to be able to absolutely prove the existence of God. I claim I can offer enough 'evidence' (counting deductive logic as evidence) that one can see that belief is a rational choice.
Rules: 1 Page 12 point Times New Roman Opening, same thing for a rebuttal.
how do you count pages in a text box?
However, we select a 3 person panel to judge the debate. You pick one panel member, John picks one panel member, and the swing vote is Ken Daniels.
I don't know who Ken Daniels is. where is his testimony? We can't have it two atheists to one theist, or vice versa. I would not mind having three atheists if I knew they could be impartial.
I suggest either no judges and just let the reader decide, or Tiny Thinker (Dan Stump he's an anthropologist and an atheist on my boards) Fleetmouse, another atheist from my board, and a judge of John's choosing.
the thing is you easily validate that these guys I name are not biased to vote for me. I argue with them all the time. But I knew they are fair minded. you can validate their atheism by looking at them on CARM and their websites. Tiny (Dan) used to argue with creationists all the time he was in a group known as "the gang of four" in the 90s they were well known throughout the net. They exposed Ken Hovand as the liar he is. they were the first to epose him.
but if this is not acceptable I may be willing to do it your way, If I can see more about Daniels.
I just read his testimony and I think if you read it to you will argee that his is extremely fair minded. Having come up with the basics for the mini-debate I am open for improvements/suggestions.
where do I see it?
How about it, anyone game?
sure.
Pretty interesting.
Once again, you threw the first punch and are using the retaliation (which was not unprovoked, even if it was a bit extreme) as "proof" of how bad atheists are.
Stop being such a crybaby.
O so that's it! You mean people don't like that? now go back and look at it and see when it was said in relation to his post?
Pretty interesting.
7/11/2008 03:09:00 PM
what's the point?
I'm not saying I wasn't wrong to say that about go to college. I gues sthat is what made him mad. but the statment above is what he said that set me off to say that. Look how stupid the argument is.
first of all it never says god cares for us like little birds. Jesus said "you are wroth many birds." but then he concludes from that because birds die a lot that means God doesn't care for us. that's stupid. the original statement says he cares for us more than birds anyway.
even if I was rude, which I was, that's not nearly as outlandish as his outburst.
Do you ever take responsibility for anything?
Anonymous A Hermit said...
"even if I was rude, which I was, that's not nearly as outlandish as his outburst."
Do you ever take responsibility for anything?
7/12/2008 11:19:00 AM
Of course you haven't been to the site have you? you conveniently ignore what I said on my own blog about it was ultimately my fault to set him off, even though he overreacted.
do you ever think fairly?