Another one about Norman

     “I have said before that I can see no valid reason for demonizing christians (and especially creationists). Such immature behavior not only helps illustrate the natural failings of the religion of atheism, but increases the negative public perception of atheists. Indeed, these irrational and emotion-driven atheists make their own ‘poes.’ The libelous hate speech site (ir) RationalWiki does not use reason. Instead, any child with an agenda can use this as a way to attack people instead of using an intellectual approach to deal with issues. Those who have the time and interest to squash annoying insects can do so. Or we can hire lawyers for defamation.”
     I am opposed to demonizing people in general. But here, Norman is objecting to the way certain atheists treat him and his fellow christians. But it is precisely the way he treats all “atheists.” He spent his entire previous post demonizing atheists. Indeed, he proceeds to lie about those who disagree with him, showing his own “immature behavior.”
     Now, he does bring up the negative public perception of atheists. From my own observations, this perception is not based on anything atheists have or haven’t done. It is based on the fact that religious children get it drilled into them that morals come from fear of being caught. In my not-so-humble opinion, that is insane. One’s true morality is measured by what one would do if one thought one could get away with it.
     “Many atheists tell us that they’re brilliant because they’re atheists (a logical fallacy right there), but they will not back up their claims. The ones who want to debate should follow through and make a defense for atheism. If I was an atheist, I’d be embarrassed by these types.”
     And many christians tell us they are brilliant because they are christian. This shows primarily a human tendency toward vanity. But as to Norman’s claim that atheists do not make a defense for atheism, this is not true; they do. But people like Norman just respond with “no you believe the bible 100% and in the bible it says….” I can see where that would be frustrating. For the record, I am not convinced of atheism either. But I have heard many give their reasons why they believe there is no god.


Conservatives want people to starve.

     It has actually made the news that there are people pushing for the elimination of minimum wage.  Together with the fact that businesses seem to be doing whatever they can to eliminate jobs and the conclusion is inescapable.  Conservatives want people to starve.

     Now they do this in the name of “economic freedom.”  But the fact is that they think if people are desperate enough to get something to eat, they can cheat them and make them work very long hours for obscenely low pay.  They can impose terms that no one would accept except in such a state of desperation.  This may be “economic freedom” for the wealthy.  But it is economic slavery for the workers.

Really, this could be any dogma.

     Someone on YouTube blocked me, finding me inconvenient.  Here is the closing comment with the bits specific to the dogma removed:

You are totally ignorant of the nature of [dogma specific.]  [Major tenet of dogma with no support given], and you have shown no understanding of this fact. Instead you prefer to spout [dogma specific] all over this comment section, without making a single objective statement regarding your ideological views. You are therefore philosophically ignorant or reverting to deception.

Good job I’ve already blocked you. You have no interest in expanding your horizon. You are merely here to lecture self-righteously.


     Now, as the three of you that follow my blog know, I don’t think there are very many good reasons for blocking someone as I oppose censorship.  I support blocking threats and advocacy of harm.  I have also been known to block people who block me — although some might think that is petty.  But this person simply finds that facts are inconvenient.  And this person proceeds to use the primary tactic of the dogmatist, blocking the inconvenient dissenter.