“Skeptic Arena” Atheist condemns “your violent, bloody, inhuman history” 5 of 9

skeptic arena.jpg

That which follows is a discussion I had with a certain Neo from the The (pseudo) Skeptic Arena with whom I have had many interactions all of which, including this parsed one, you can find here.

Picking up where we left off, Neo replied

Ken, glad to see that they finally released you from the ICU after the near-fatal heart attack that I gave you in my last email. Good luck on your recovery. So what have you got for me this time?
Ken wrote:

That which follows is a discussion I had with a certain Neo from the The (pseudo) Skeptic Arena with whom I have had many interactions all of which, including this parsed one, you can find here.

Picking up where we left off, Neo replied

Ken, glad to see that they finally released you from the ICU after the near-fatal heart attack that I gave you in my last email. Good luck on your recovery. So what have you got for me this time?
Ken wrote:
It seems like a good time to recommend how you can save yourself a lot of time
Ken, thanks for being so concerned about wasting my time. I appreciate that; I really do. But I just happen to have some spare time around the holidays, so it’s really not an imposition for me. But thanks again for the concern. It means a lot to me.
so I will inform you that your childish taunting has no effect on me except to make me feel very sorry for you.
Ken, the fact that you can feel sympathy for others is a good sign. It’s not very Christian, but it shows that underneath all the immorality and violence that pervades your horrid faith, there still might be some good in you after all.
So now we have 1) concern for my time, and 2) empathy.
You’re off to a good start Ken. So what else is on your mind?
Just because you function on emotivism does not mean that I do as well.
Ken, “emotivism”:
The meta-ethical stance that ethical judgments, such as those containing the words “should” and “ought to”, are primarily expressions of one’s own attitude and imperatives meant to change the attitudes and actions of another.
Ken, I thought I made it clear numerous times that I see no hope for Ghost Worshipers, such as you, who are being terrorized by threats from the Spirit World. Did you forget so soon?
But what is ironic, is that while I do not waste my time trying to change the attitudes and actions of Ghost Worshipers, you on the other hand, beg for money to run a ministry which does exactly that.
Ken, the irony meter just exploded. I believe you called that “projection.” And I believe that I told you that you were describing yourself. Thanks for going out of your way to prove me right. (Sports Fans: sometimes these Ghost Worshipers make this waaaaaaay too easy)
I also find it interesting that you write, “Glad you came back to play”
Ken, let’s add that to the list above. In addition to you, caring about wasting my time, and showing empathy, you also find my replies interesting.
My, we are just full of compliments today, aren’t we?
as that this is all a game to you has been very clear for a long time.
Ken, it’s all in how you look at it. Some people see it as a game, while others take it more seriously.
The irreparable harm that you Ghost Worshipers have done, and still do to humanity, is no game. That claim is easily provable by opening a history book. I merely expose what “you people” so desperately try to hide: your violent, bloody, inhuman history.
That’s why you never answer any of my questions, like the Passover question that I’ve asked a dozen times. You can’t answer. You worship a murdering monster and no excuse you offer can change that … but you don’t even offer an excuse.
But no matter how many times you try to hide from it, I will continue to remind everyone, while you sit at your keyboard turning beet red with the anger and hate that can only come from worshiping an invisible murdering thug.
This is why even when I beg you time and again to engage in reasoned discourse and actually explain to you how to build an argument, how to formulate your thoughts so as to go beyond mere assertions, beyond merely jumping to conclusions: you simply refuse.
Ken, you, trying to lecture me on rational thinking, is like Paris Hilton giving a speech on Astronuclear Physics to Bill Nye the Science Guy.
You possess one of the most illogical, delusional minds that I have ever encountered; and considering the thousands of debates I’ve had with some the craziest minds on the planet …
that’s sayin’ sumpin’.
And after all the nice things you said to me earlier (see previous list) I feel kind of bad having to break that news to you because I know that your ego is built upon the fantasy that you are some kind of genius freethinker.
But someone has to tell you; and since your friends won’t … I will.
Whether you are unwilling or unable or both is something I cannot gauge.
Ken, there are a lot of things you cannot gauge: reality being the main one.
Compared to you, I could have a more challenging debate with a syphilitic jellyfish.
However, that you metaphorically pound your chest in victory when you have utterly failed to even make a cogent statement is quite evident.
Ouch Ken, it sounds like my replies really fried your onions, huh?
You must have used up half a gallon of butt cream.
You were probably just “a flick of a bic” away from looking for a stake and some straw like you Ghost Worshipers used to do before modern laws put an end to your horrific murders.
Ken, some advice: Never let them know they’ve popped your balloon. Once you’ve done that, they will eat you alive (like I’m doing now). Naw, don’t thank me. I would do the same for a Goy.
This is likely why you break complete thoughts into fragments and reply to me sentence by sentence:
Ken, your mind-reading skills are as pathetic as ever (so you get a bonus point for consistency). I would explain why I do that, but it would be like trying to discuss the Red Sox-Yankee game with my cat. It might appear that it was listening, but I would know that I wasn’t really getting through.
this certainly makes it easier for you but is it un-contextual.
Ken, nothing I write is out of context. That is the same excuse you Ghost Worshipers always resort to, when you are confronted with biblical atrocities. At a loss for a valid defense, you simply fall back on the old evasion “it’s out of context.”
But Ken, notice how badly your brain misfired on that one. Breaking my replies up, forces them to remain in context – yet you completely missed that – and assumed the opposite.
Ken, remember the anaconda breeding ball?
That described your mind perfectly, as that last glaring mistake of yours just demonstrated.
This is also likely why you puff up your non-replies with childish taunting, expletives declarations of victory, etc.
Ken, you already complained about that. Boy, those replies must have really busted your balls, huh? It sounds like my emails have clawed their way so far up your ass, that your tonsils will spasm for months. I would have thought that by now, you would have gotten used to having the holy living [****]snot beat out of you by atheists.
Ken, remember my advice from earlier: Never let them know they got through to you. For a sadist like myself, that is a death sentence for a masochist like you. Once they know that they are really inflicting pain, they are only going to increase it to get more satisfaction. It’s like throwing blood into a shark tank.
Ken, try to stay cool and calm. Even though your incoherent ramblings still won’t make any sense, at least you won’t give them the satisfaction of masturbating to your agony (which is what I am doing right now).
yet, a discerning reader can see that you waste a lot of time stating nothing.
Ken, don’t worry about that one. If you take a close look at the cc list, you might notice that it is filled with Ghost Worshipers like yourself; so there are no discerning readers to worry about.
If you think that we are debating then I would recommend that you actually listen to some debates to as to get some idea as to how it is done.
Ken, you’ll have to forgive me. When I read that, I lost a mouthful of Cheerios all over my keyboard. Give me a minute to find a washcloth.
I have to admit, that your fantasy-based ego is extremely entertaining. The picture you have of yourself in your own mind, compared to reality, has got to be one of the greatest mismatches in history. The closest comparison that comes to mind is when Mike Huckabee looks in the mirror and sees Brad Pitt.
Tragically, you appear to have taken on Atheism for the same reason as so very many Atheists have: so as to have an excuse to express anger.
Ken, this has been explained to you over and over. Damn, you are one dense dude. My disbelief in invisible ghosts was the result of having the courage (that you do not possess) to free myself from threats from the Spirit World based on the fact that in 2,000 years, Christianity (nor any religion for that matter) has failed to produce even one speck of evidence that their claims are anything other than ancient gruesome fairy tales designed to control the masses through fear.
Just as tragically, Atheism has ruined you as it has left you unable to offer ordered thoughts (which is all you can expect from believing that your thoughts are random mixtures of accidental chemicals in your brain and only able to express emotions (which is all you can expect from believing that your emotions are random mixtures of accidental chemicals in your brain).
Ken, nice Straw Man demonstration. Can you provide the evidence to support your claim … that I think that?
You couldn’t possibly do so because … I don’t think that. Hence, Straw Man confirmed.
First, I don’t know what accidental chemicals are. It sounds like something you made up in desperation when you were getting your ass shaved off in a debate with some atheist.
Second, chemicals in an organism do not mix “randomly,” but mix according to the laws of chemistry and physics.
Dude, you are waaaaaaaaay out of your league here. Trust me on this one, Bubbles. You have just demonstrated that you do not possess the knowledge to debate science with Charlie Sheen …even if you could catch him sober.
You should stick with what you know best … your magic ghosts.
neo
P.S. (for those of you who just can’t get enough, or are new to the cc list – I have included the previous emails)

skeptic arena.jpg

Ken Ammi

Friend, I will yet again attempt to simplify matters.
Let us imagine that I am performing some action.
You tell me to stop it because it is wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
I ask “But why is it wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.: how have you come to that conclusion?”
You tell me to stop performing the action because it is wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
I point out that you have failed to even begin making a case.
You tell me to stop it because it is wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
I ask for the reasoning behind your assertion.
You tell me to stop it because it is wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
You see, since you provide me no reason for even beginning to think that there is something wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc. with, for example, the Passover events then there is nothing for me to reply to.
Thus, the way that this does not work is the way you have been attempting to make it work: by you merely authoritatively asserting in an emotive manner that the Passover events were wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
Rather, you must employ standards of truth, logic and ethics in explaining to my why it is that you believe that the Passover events were wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
Then explain why I should agree with you that the Passover events were wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc.
Only then can we even begin to get around to whether you have provided me with anything for which I have to answer you.
You are putting the cart before the horse and asking me why I fail make the horse pull the cart. Rather, you must first put things in their proposer order.
Of course, I have pointed this out to you very many times—which anyone can verify here—and you have simply failed to provide any reply except for more emotivism-by the way: emotivism, “the theory that moral utterances do not have a truth value but express the feelings of the speaker.”
And so, let us try it this way: the reason that Passover events were wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc. is ________________________: you fill in the blank and we will take it from there.
Note: the key is that merely reasserting that that Passover events were wrong, bad, evil, immoral, unethical, etc. in slightly different terms is not an explanation as to why you assert that this is the case.

While you are at it, see my book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors starring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Neil deGrasse Tyson and also my book Reasons for Being An Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.