Joe Hinman, a.k.a. “Metacrock” continues to refuse to publish my comments on his blog when I try to (politely) criticize something he says about me, or when I try to post my scathing rebuttals of his poor arguments.This time I was commenting on a post where he quotes, what is apparently, his favorite comment from me about the lack of evidence for religion, where I said, “Faith is bullshit.” I guess little old Joey believes this is some kind of example of atheist “hate” mongering, rather than simply expressing an opinion in very harsh terms. This isn’t the first time he has reposted this comment of mine; something I told him about two years ago and he’s posted it repeatedly in various posts of his.
I decided to post a comment rebuking him for his pathetic attempt to use that quote to, in essence, attack my character, since he doesn’t put it in context and explain how I already refuted each of his arguments he touted on his blog (I discuss this above), so I am entirely justified in saying this. My rejected comment was the following,
I see you’re still using my comment as some form of “proof” as to the irrationality and “hatred” of atheists. Allow me to make my position clearer. I am not saying that people can’t express their beliefs. Where did I say that? All I said was that belief in something without verifiable evidence is nonsense...or put more harshly, bullshit. As for the large numbers of arguments you referred to, which I’ve already refuted a few years ago though you refused to publish my rebuttals in your comments, thus ignoring them, they are god of the gap arguments - every single one of them. I’ve already explained to you why a long time ago, but you refused to publish my response, much less respond to my objections.
I guess “Metacrock” didn’t want everyone to know about my rebuttals to his work, to which he’s never acknowledged, let alone responded to.
It’s obvious Hinman has a history of censoring his critics, and I find his attitude to be disturbing and hypocritical. The reason is because despite all of his complaints about these “hateful” atheists, the only one being hateful is Hinman since I have him on record as saying, “I think [atheists] are nothing but Nazis and we should not try to argue with them, we should try [sic] ot have them banned by law.” And he says that atheists are the hate group?! I call hypocrite.
It seems to me with Hinman’s history of censorship, hate group mentality, and just plain old being hateful in general to others who do not share his (silly) views the only hate group activity I see is on “Atheist Watch.”
AA, you are no doubt aware that many, if not most, atheist blogs censor.
ReplyDeleteOne of the worst is that of John Loftus, who not only censors anyone who is giving good counter arguments but has been CAUGHT altering posts.
Given the comments he allows, I would say it qualifies as "hate group mentality".
Lets not kid ourselves...atheistis offer nothing superiour in this regard.
Morrison Gang Member
A good example is the current series of attacks that John is mounting against Victor Reppert of the Dangerous Ideas blog.
ReplyDeleteVic does not censor posts, and he deftly dissects atheist positions.
And John comes on his blog and launches smears and attacks on his commenters.
But those who try to defend Vic on JOHN's blog are routinely censored, and worse.
Go figure.
Morrison Gang Member
As to the "New Atheists" there is cause for concern.
ReplyDeleteBy labeling religion the "root of all evil", Dawkins, and claiming it "poisons everything", Hitchens, and saying that people can be killed for BELIEFS, Harris, they have sided with the totalitarian camp.
So, yes, I think they could qualify as Nazis, because they have labeled believers as the "other" as that evil which, if only it were eliminated, our world could be a wonderful place.
In all serious, I will never submit to be under the political control of anyone like that.
Morrison Gang Member
Morrison,
ReplyDeleteAA, you are no doubt aware that many, if not most, atheist blogs censor
One of the worst is that of John Loftus, who not only censors anyone who is giving good counter arguments but has been CAUGHT altering posts.
Can you show me some proof of this?
Given the comments he allows, I would say it qualifies as "hate group mentality".
Assuming he even does this, I don't see how moderating comments is an example of “hate group” mentality. That's a far cry from saying, like Hinman does, about how he wants atheists made illegal.
But those who try to defend Vic on JOHN's blog are routinely censored, and worse.
I've seen some of those posts and I saw many people defending Vic and their comments were not deleted so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
By labeling religion the "root of all evil", Dawkins, and claiming it "poisons everything", Hitchens, and saying that people can be killed for BELIEFS, Harris, they have sided with the totalitarian camp.
So, yes, I think they could qualify as Nazis, because they have labeled believers as the "other" as that evil which, if only it were eliminated, our world could be a wonderful place.
In all serious, I will never submit to be under the political control of anyone like that.
These accusations are nothing more than propaganda about and misreadings of the new atheists. I've dealt with each of these charges in my several reviews.
I wish you would begin providing evidence of your claims instead of leaving these many unsubstantiated comments because you almost sound like a religious nut spammer, spreading propaganda on my blog about atheists. All I ask for is some evidence. Thanks.
By the way, didn't you say you were planning on writing your own blog soon? I'd like to check it out if you would give me the address.
Hey guys. Look I'm a skeptical atheist, I've read the four horseman's books, loved them and I'm your side so to speak but I hadn't realized how big and organized the movement was. Quite frankly I find a great deal of the movements behaviour embarrassing and sometimes, quite frankly, simply pathetic. P Z Myers has to blog about how to comport yourself to "get laid" at an atheist conference. Rebecca Watson complaining about getting asked for coffee in an elevator of a night of drinking? The ridiculous schism in the movement over Dawkins comments about it? Phil Plait having to ask if screaming in someone's face might be counterproductive to convincing people? Making asses out yourselves waisting time confronting people in "Creationist Museums"? Barbara Drescher claiming only "Machiavellians and sociopaths" would choose not to push the giant fat man off the bridge in front of the train to save the innocent victims tied to the track? (A totally absurd scenario in any event.) No, I agree with the movement's ideas, but what a joke as far as understanding the world (i.e. human behaviour, ethics and the like is concerned) I think I could find more intelligence and fewer idiotic nerds at a science fiction convention.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYeah the movement is fairly large, and I agree with you about many of the petty disagreements, such as Rebecca Watson's over reaction to her elevator situation. Of course, the New Atheists' views on human nature on based on science and facts. What exactly is so wrong about them?