Atheism and universal loneliness

Probably because your complaint seems petty and disproportionate to the offense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess you are probably right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On second thought, no, you are not probly right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Almost had some respect for you.

 

Bullshit. Plain and simple.

 

well, that's why I changed my mind. I hate having to keep up appearances. Just going ahead and claiming all the unpopular positions right off the bat is a great way to keep the pressure off.

 

That was a pretty badass wot though. At least I thought so.

 

Pretty much.

Because the board is open to a very wide array of contentious topics (religion, alternative/fringe theories etc.), it attracts a lot of highly fringy people with very poor communication skills.

It also attracts a lot of more mainstream but relatively combative people who wouldn't cut it on other sites where respectful behavior is demanded.

And finally, since rules of behavior are rarely enforced here and there is little supervision, there is nothing stopping people from digressing to their most base tactics. It tends toward the lowest common denominator.

 

The reason I ask this is because you are against ideas that seem to be perfectly acceptable. You're making it sound like he's out to burn down churches or lynch Christians.

I certainly do condemn dishonesty, which is why I'm taking you to task right now. Stop lying about what you said to him. You challenged his credentials as a scientist. You said he hadn't done science in ten years. He answered your accusation with a list of what he's up to just this year. Please stop pretending this was an unprovoked response.

You're lying again. Or do you not remember saying "I in every possible way oppose every single sentiment he expresses in this speech"?

You must have been working on this post for well over 12 hours, because I edited the post heavily a while after posting it (and getting a chance to do some more reading, both on you and PZ), so let me reiterate what I said in the edited post: PZ is currently a research scientist. Part of what he cited for you is research that he is currently doing, and from what I understand he publishes work frequently. Your assertion that he is not a research scientist is a lie, and from what I can tell a knowing lie. The fact that you dismissed those credentials only makes you appear as a troll. All you're interested in doing, apparently, is assassinating this man's character. Whether that's because this Abbie is a friend of yours, or simply because you didn't like it when he made those comments about her, you have not managed to argue the merits of his criticism, and reduced yourself from the very beginning to lies and ad hominem.

You could have helped your cause immensely if you had simply explained why he was wrong about Abbie (though given her comments, it's hard to imagine a good defense for her), but opting to attack PZ's credibility and lie about his credentials was suicide. Now you just look like a troll.

Earlier in this same post you said you don't care about his anti-theistic position, yet now you're so concerned you claim to be a martyr in the fight against it.

Yet despite all this piss and vinegar, you can't bring yourself to make a reasoned argument against his essay. You are of course excusing yourself from making one with the proviso "I'd do it if he'd talk to me," but then you already had your chance, and opted to troll his blog and hurl baseless accusations at him instead. Well, for the second time, I'm offering you a chance to make an argument against his position here and now. And I don't want to hear "Nobody thinks that's a good idea," I want to hear logical reasons why he's wrong. You wanted a chance, so here it is.

Translation: "I actually don't know, but I'll lead you down the road a little further until either you forget the question or you're sufficiently confused by my nonsensical rhetoric."

A lie. He is a researcher.

They apparently have had a bit of a sparring session prior to his latest post about her, so there is more to this than just his refusal to attend events she's invited to. He also linked to a crude joke she made about other scientists' looks that many found insulting. I don't know why you have no problem with her for saying such childish things but do when he draws a line. That's not logical.

But you're not asking the question, you're making the assumption that they would not. Need I remind you of your previous statement? "I suggested THAT HIS CRITICISM OF ABBIE WAS EMPTY AND DESIGNED ONLY TO INVALIDATE HER IF THEY DON'T GET INVITED TO THE SAME CONFERENCES." So you didn't ask the question, you assumed that he didn't he get invited, and that this was his way of coping with that reality. This is a baseless assumption you made in order to extract some blood. You were out for revenge.

Oh no, lying troll, that what not your inference. From the comments section at freethoughtblogs.com:

You were not assuming Abbie does not get invited to atheist conferences, but that PZ does not get invited to science conferences.

He's doing research now. Is it that you simply can't tell which of the credentials he's listed involves research, or are you just pretending not to know?

If you had paid attention, the reason those who called you "tone troll" took offense was because they don't know or particularly care what kind of scientist PZ is. Those folks found him and follow him for his social commentary, not his work in the field. Of course, he still does do work in the field, as he showed you, but some people there wouldn't know or care if he did.

But you don't have that crutch to lean on anymore, because you now have someone who very much takes issue with the content of your posts standing in front of you. From now on you can address my criticisms of you, not those of the group who smashed both your tone and your argument to bits in the comments section.

How delusional of you. That's exactly what you've done to PZ. You've challenged his claims of being a research scientist, then blamed him for responding.

As for Wynn, there's a reason she's on the ban list. It has nothing to do with having a dissenting opinion.

It's almost as if you're reciting this at a mirror, because this is precisely the kind of thing that could, would, and probably has been said about you. Instead of discussing this with me, you're having a pseudo-debate with some imaginary third party, instead of arguing merits you're simply mudslinging, and you're misrepresenting PZ's argument. Where do you see prejudice against Muslims or Christians in his blog or his speeches? And don't give me the "If you can't see it, you're not looking" BS. Give me an example.

No, people have refuted your words directly, including PZ himself. The ALL CAPS is the foot-stomping of a petulant child who can't have his way. Your arguments crumbled, no one will listen anymore, and you hate that. Instead of being the kind of scientist you claim PZ isn't, you'll just hide in your cave and throw rocks at passers by.

Well, as crude as that comment is, it's very obviously true. PZ is a very intelligent man and a good scientist, and you're a comments section troll. I mean, a greater contrast there cannot be.

Consider why they jumped on you, BWE. They did so because didn't make one single argument to the merits of his position. Instead, you said things like "You haven't done real science in ten years" and "What kind of conferences still invite you anyway?" You launched a personal attack on him. Even you said you expected a negative response to that, so why are you complaining about it now that it has come?

As for apologies, you're the one who needs to be doing that. He never even addressed you until you made absurd claims about his credentials and his person based on nothing but your apparent preexisting distaste for his writing, particularly the anti-theistic stuff (which you on one hand claim to not even care about, then on other claim to be the lone opponent of).

A good sport? You've been nothing but a liar and a troll about this. Back up one accusation you've made. Even one.

You made false accusations, he answered them. He gave you a chance to list your own credentials, you failed.

While some of Wynn's comments have bordered on the insane, I have yet to see her say things that would reach the level of ignorance that yours have, either in this thread and the comments section at PZ's blog. All of your claims are unfounded, all of your attacks personal, and when shown the error of your ways you simply adopt the argument used against you as your own against others.

I'm seeing one such meltdown right now. And yes, you are having it quite spectacularly. Long, rambling posts, usually senseless, always insincere.

As to your question, which is essentially "Do you think I may have owned up to my lies if you had been a softer touch?" the answer is no. I tried to be exactly that earlier on, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. I made no assumptions about you at the beginning. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least in the sense of not assuming you were a lying troll. But you reacted to that with insults of my person, and even preemptive insults by saying that one who doesn't agree with you is "an echo chamber for PZ" or that there's something wrong with them. Insinuating conspiracy of all of your opponents is not the best way to cultivate civil discourse.

I think you already know this, however, and are just attempting once more to pass the buck. You know you've been outed, and you're trying your damnedest to turn the tide in your favor. (I don't say "back" in your favor, because any semblance of a valid argument you may have had was lost in the very first paragraph of your response to his blog post about Abbie when you called him a "laughingstock.")

See, this is me no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Save that for someone who hasn't already read your inane and insulting diatribes. Your accusations have all been debunked, your excuses for them all shown to be lies, and yet you won't give an inch. You're long past being able to make the claim of being an ethical person. Clearly and demonstrably you are not.

So you're saying you don't really believe that he isn't a research scientist, nor that his arguments against Abbie were invalid and self-serving, and that this was all for show?

Again, this is all hogwash. You're not talking about yourself here, and if you think you are, then I suggest you seek therapy immediately, because this is clearly a delusion. You are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and yet you continue on as if correct.

As to your question, I'm not confused by your demeanor. I see it often in forum trolls. It's the self-confidence of someone who knows they will never have to admit they are wrong, because they know they have the stamina and lack of ethics to outlast virtually anyone, and that when the inevitable banhammer comes, they will flee to another forum where they can claim martyrdom in the name of truth and inquiry. Until someone there figures them out, of course, then it's simply a case of rise and repeat.

If I'm confused by anything, it is your often inane rambling. You're very stream-of-consciousness, and at times it takes a few read-throughs to get the gist of what you're saying. And even then...

This is a perfect example of your very serious delusion. I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, allow me to restate what really happened:

(1) You made claims about PZ's credentials and his motives.

(2) PZ refuted those claims and asked for you to list your own credentials.

(3) You failed and were banned.

(4) You have come here in an effort to seek out followers of PZ's blog and have restated your claims with the additional one that he has lied about one of the items listed. You've also ignored several items within his list by saying that he hasn't done research in ten years, a claim which is debunked by the very list he offered you, but can also be dunked by looking up anything to do with PZ Myers nearly anywhere on the internet.

(5) Your claims have again been refuted.

(6) You attempted to backtrack by saying your false assumption about the conferences he attends had nothing to do with him, but with Abbie

(7) this claim was refuted.

And now here we are, with you pretending no one properly refuted your claims, no one exposed your lies, and that PZ somehow owes you an apology even though you were the only one who made any false claims about the other.

Again, this is a serious delusion. Or it's simply you trying to outlast me by continually restating your original premise until I get bored and walk away.

What pain has he inflicted on others? Who has he devalued?

Another lie, because your motives in this thread are obvious. And anyone who disagreed with your assessment of this situation was cordially invited by you to read your lie-filled post on PZ's blog, so clearly your intent was to hammer PZ to anyone who would lend an ear. After all, you can no longer spread your poison on his blog.

The significance is that you're pretending to be an atheist and then denouncing atheist in an attempt to legitimize nonsensical arguments against people like PZ Myers. You figure that if you pretend to be an atheist, people might actually listen to you, rather than dismiss you for being a Christian, or whatever it is you actually are. It's like the Eagles fan who calls into the drivetime talk shows purporting to be a fan of the Giants so his ad hom criticisms of the Giants are given weight rather than dismissed as the jealous ramblings of a frustrated Philly fan. It's not uncommon.

 

You are amazing.You entirely invented my positions without a single bit of evidence other than what you imagine I must have to be. I can only guess because your universe is too small to imagine any alternatives. I am sorry I touched a nerve.

PZ lied. The quotes are in this thread.

I am not an anything-ist. This whole thread is about how unquestionable truths cause suffering. Exhibit A: your posts.

 

This may be the most paranoid quote I've ever seen on a forum.

 

and by the way, PZ is not a research scientist. He doesn't claim to be one usually.

 

BWE1

So you are not a theist posing as an Atheist? I don't believe that either. I know everything you claimed about PZ is lies, why would you change your MO when you claim you're an Atheist? I stopped reading your drivel after the first half page diatribe, realizing you are a firm believer in the old maxim "If you can't dazzle them with wit, baffle them with bull shit. You posted so much bull shit no one knew where to start digging and few of them thought it worth the effort. But it doesn't fit with what we know of PZ and his work, but such messianic, reasonless rages are a sure sign of a troll and trolls don't last long here. You will not be missed. You now have the honor of being the only one on my ignore list. Ta Ta asshole.

Grumpy:fart:

 

You lied. The quotes are in my latest post.

Apologize for lying, or get lost.

There you go again. Rather than defending your position, you attack me personally. This is all you've done since this conversation started. You haven't backed a single claim, and you ignore points that refute them. You even ignored my question of how you know PZ is lying about the keynote business. Why is that? Because you know you can't answer it without having to rethink your position and admit you could very well be wrong about that?

But just so we're clear: Your actions are those of a person who is pretending to be something they aren't. Just as a poker player raises when a third spade drops on the river to demonstrate that he's made a flush.

Trolling.

Are you serious? From his "cv":

"Got a publication coming out this fall, got a major grant award, was the keynote speaker at SDB in Hawaii, UNLV White Distinguished Lecture, taught a standard 3/2 load (including developing a new upper level elective), had 35 advisees, have 3 students working with me this summer on a new field project."​

You don't need to be scientist to recognize that a publication coming out in the fall, a major grant award, and a field project amount to research credits, you just have to not be a dishonest troll. So, again, you lied. Now apologize for it.

 

I read that whole post and I can't se the connection between what you wrote and what you quoted. If i made a mistake of course I will correct it. Please quote what you think I lied about and youfr evidence proving it's falsehood. It's only fair. I provided the sourced and material to support my claims.

 

oh boy. I am sorry. You appear to be delusional and I am unwilling to continue this discussion.

 

Uh, no you haven't. Where is the evidence that he's not a research scientist? Where is the evidence that he hasn't done "real science" in ten years? I just showed you evidence that he is and does, so where's yours? Where is your evidence that he is acting inappropriately in condemning Abbie? Where is your evidence that he doesn't get invited to scientific conventions?

You want evidence of your lies? I've already given then, but here's a recent one:

versus

Oops!

Next:

versus

Next:

versus

Next:

versus

Shall I go on? There are more.

 

OMG. Do you own guns?

 

Troll's Handbook, Pg 7:

When an argument is defeated, all lies are exposed, and there is no recourse--regardless of the size of one's sucking void where one's integrity should be--the Troll's Handbook suggests dismissing all opponents as delusional and terminating the discussion. It won't be the total victory that watching as the thoughtful and intelligent drop out one by one, frustrated and befuddled by one's obfuscations, evasions, and outright lies, but there is certainly satisfaction to be taken from the arhythmic thumping as those left standing bang their heads against the wall at one's ability to duck out of a long debate without conceding a single point and even inferring a small measure of victory.​

 

Look, you actually inserted the word required to make my statement a lie in brackets you quoted pz's original lie in support of your accusation that my mention of it some 30 posts later was a lie, you quopted pz saying he would ban me if i didn't post my credentials, I posted my credential, you are seriously delusional.

The last refuge of an insane true believer is sciforums.com

Mods. This is really uncomfortable. I reported huis post and asked if I was dealing with a delusional person, I reported one yesterday which made a threat asking how I was allowed to respond. So far no contact. This is ridiculous though. It is either cruel or dangerous to engage with these people. Is that the way these forums outside the science fora run?