Sunday, September 16, 2007

Trinity Baptist Spawn-- Like DaveScot, but YOUNGER!

Myself, and several OU students were discussing the *questionable* ethics of Creationists with some Trinity Baptist spawn on Facebook.

... closed the comments this morning (group admins, Trinity Spawn).

NEWSFLASH: 'penetrating' people with The Word requires censoring dissent. What a shock.


Edit 5 PM, 9-16-07-- The comments have been reposted. Thank you, admins, but you shouldnt have done that in the first place. Its one thing if commenters are being vulgar/posting porn/spam/etc. But deleting dissenting comments is something I will never respect with anyone, any time, Christian, Kemet, or Atheist.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! Your atheist fundamentalism abounds!!!! Linking to some college kids facebook profiles. Again, wow!?

I will just fill you in on something. The way you write here on your blog about Christians, illustrates and exemplifies exactly what they think about Atheists.

You haven't ever argued (read: made logically valid and sound arguments)against the validity of Christianity here on your blog, and yet you seem to think that if someone is a Christian, their thinking is therefore false.

This is either poor thinking on your part or just the unchecked outworking of your fundamentalist bias.

I am sorry that you have such a problem with Christians and their view of the world. I am sorry that Christianity makes you uncomfortable. I wish for your sake that our society was free from the views of Christians. I know that you probably hate our pluralistic society and the freedom of speech and religion. I hope that some day enlightened atheists like yourself will rule over everyone and tell them what to think about everything.

Of course, you probably don't realize how biased you are, how closeminded you are, and believe that you have rejected Christianity for rational reasons. Yet, based upon everything that can be deduced from you blog posts concerning Christianity, we all know that you just really want Christianity to be false. I'm sorry but this is wishful thinking not rational thinking.

PS: I am posting anonymously because I am afraid of your stalking my facebook among other things.

dochocson said...

As an atheist, I have absolutely no problem with freedom of religion, I'd just like to have a little freedom from it.

I also don't think this blog is the place to list the many logical/rational inconsistencies of Christianity specifically and religion in general. That has been done elsewhere. I am, however, certain that our hostess could quite ably give you what you are looking for.

As for stalking, take a gander over at Uncommon Descent, where Christian apologist William Dembski has posted the home telephone numbers of the Baylor Board of Regents. His goal? To have his lackeys call the Regents over the little snit he's having.

ERV said...

Anon-- You just broke Blakes Law. I think youre the first commenter on my blog to do so. Congratulations.

My blog is not an 'Atheist' blog. I have neither the need or the desire to retype "The God Delusion." My blog is about science, viruses, evolution, the activities of professional anti-scientists, and sometimes a post on Atheism. You would have a nice list of atheist books at your disposal, but the Trinity Spawn deleted the posts.

So much for learning about 'both sides' of an issue.

And, those 'kids' are my age. If they dont want their page linked to, they are free to change the privacy setting of their profile. Facebook lets you do that. Polly and Ray made the decision to open an event page for Dembski. They made the decision to post my blog address in the event 'Announcements'. They made the decision to open up the comment board, and when those comments shed light on the lovely behavior of professional Creationists, they deleted all comments.

Oh, and this is the internet. You arent anonymous.

dochocson -- SSSSHHHH! Goddammit youre supposed to say "YES ATHEISTS HATE CHRISTIANS AND WERE USING EVOLUTION TO TEACH CHILDREN HOW TO ABORT BABIES SO WE CAN KILL GOD!"
Im afraid Im going to have to report this to the EAC ;)

Zach said...

Doc, how have you ever been oppressed by religion? Are you serious? Freedom from religion? Really?

When was the last time you went to a class and were told that your view of ultimate reality was unfounded?

I think that what you people really want is to silence religious ideas because you think that if they are silenced, somehow it means you don't have to think about it.

ERV said...

Youre right, Zach. I mean, look at me-- banning people from posting, deleting their comments, sending thugs out to intimidate people-- I want to silence people with alternative ideas.

Oh wait... Thats the Creationists.

Read my blog, Zach. Why dont you start here?

Tyler DiPietro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tyler DiPietro said...

Wow, two separate posters accusing you of wanting to toss the Christians to the lions. It looks like you've really brought in the idiot brigade this time, Abbie. ;)

quantok said...

anonymous said: "I am sorry that you have such a problem with Christians and their view of the world. I am sorry that Christianity makes you uncomfortable."

Actually, most atheists just have a problem with the supernaturalist worldview, of which Christianity (in its 900 forms) is a subset. Our feeling is that life would be better if the first impulse of solidarity people felt was to other people, rather than gods or their self-proclaimed representatives on Earth.

anonymous said: "...we all know that you just really want Christianity to be false."

Well, so do you on some of its major claims. You hope fervently, don't you, that there is no eternal punishment for those who are merely unconverted? You might believe it, but you wish it weren't so, right?

Forthekids said...

My guess would be that you were no longer allowed to comment at their site due to your inability to carry on a conversation without being excessively nasty. You might consider that it is possible to carry on dialogue with those whose views you oppose without the need for all that venom.

Dissent is also being banned from academia. Our students are allowed only one version of the "facts" surrounding the ID/evolution controversy.

Here's an example of one professor who professes to be teaching his students "critical thinking" while offering them a blatantly one sided view of ID.

More of our university students need to be made aware that there are two sides of the coin, and that ID is a scientifically supported inference that may explain the "illusion" of design we find in nature.

I'm hoping that the Expelled movie prompts more of our students to take a closer look at these issues.

Enjoy your time with Dembski, and try to consider the science rather than rage against the fact that his worldview differs from your own.

I'd love to see a fair minded report of the event...minus the rage against the religious implications of the theory. Just remember that the ToE certainly has it's own religious implications to consider as well.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Dissent is also being banned from academia. Our students are allowed only one version of the "facts" surrounding the ID/evolution controversy."

That could have something to do with the fact academia is under no obligation to endorse whatever crackpot notions present themselves as "alternatives", much less incorporate them into the curriculum. We don't "present" 9/11 conspiracy crackpot-ism in Structural Engineering course material for the same reason.

Or to put it another way, there is no other version of the "facts". There is one side that is actually producing science, that has an enormous and growing amount of evidence behind it. The other side that has a collection pseudoscientific pablum and a theological/political agenda to advance.

"Here's an example of one professor who professes to be teaching his students "critical thinking" while offering them a blatantly one sided view of ID."

I don't what your criteria are for "blatantly one-sided", but serial lying shit Casey Luskin lied once again when he stated that their "listing of course readings on ID lacks a single article that is friendly towards ID!". Other than that, I agree that much of the content on the website isn't really appropriate for a university course as a lot of the language used doesn't appear academic.

"More of our university students need to be made aware that there are two sides of the coin, and that ID is a scientifically supported inference that may explain the "illusion" of design we find in nature."

No, they don't need to made aware of that, primarily due to the fact that it's a load of bullcrap, and recognized as such by the vast majority of the scientific community (even the religious sectors of it).

386sx said...

You hope fervently, don't you, that there is no eternal punishment for those who are merely unconverted? You might believe it, but you wish it weren't so, right?

No I don't think that's quite right. It's probably some kind of a horrible dreadful sin to wish that that there were no eternal punishment. Probably one of the greatest sins of all time. In fact if they prayed for God to abolish eternal punishment Jesus would probably cry and zap some people right there on the spot.

Albatrossity said...

FtK wrote: My guess would be that you were no longer allowed to comment at their site due to your inability to carry on a conversation without being excessively nasty. You might consider that it is possible to carry on dialogue with those whose views you oppose without the need for all that venom.

Baloney. Not only is that notion contradicted by the individual evidence (read the thread where ERV was banned at UD and then tell me that she was "excessively nasty" there), it is contradicted in general (read the threads where febble commented, perfectly politely at all times, and tell me why she got banned at UD).

More to the point, all of this focus on personal habits and attributes is pointless. This issue will not be resolved by which side has more bannings, more snark, or more flatulence videos. It will be decided by facts, and logic, and peer-reviewed publications. Once you realize that, it makes sense that folks like FtK focus on the gossip and trivia. They have no ammunition in the real fight.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Ftk:

Dissent is also being banned from academia.

This is one reason to get nasty - lies. Academic dissent isn't banned, but the order of the day.
(But non-factual ideas are disregarded and anti-science movements such as your cherished ID is derided.)

But the fact is that ERV isn't excessively nasty. Most of the reactions is due to the fact that dissent is unwelcome. Which was the reason for the post, btw.