“…The world can only hope that people like David Wood, Ken Ammi, and all the other conservative Christians, catch Zika or Malaria and disappear from the face of the Earth…
‘You People’ are the most despicable, violent, sub-humans on the planet
…”
—Neo from the (pseudo) Skeptic Arena
Herein I continue considering Neo, of the Skeptic Arena (and at this link you can find this whole series), condemning David Wood, Christianity, the Bible, God, etc., etc., etc., whilst failing to provide a premise upon which to base his condemnations.
You will recall from the first segment that I wrote the following to Neo, “before you launch into condemnation
you first need to provide a premise upon which to do so. So, upon what premise do you condemn anything that David did or does?” One would think that he would provide a premise and go on from there but, alas.
Playing off of reference to the Holy Spirit as Holy Ghost, Neo replied:
Ghost Dude,
Take a moment to reread what you just wrote, and then realize that in your mind, you weighed a man who confessed to bludgeoning his own father in the head with a hammer and leaving him to die – against someone whom you disagree with on theocratic issues … and what conclusion did you draw? “as intolerant as he”
Let us pause to note that he merely assumes and thus merely asserts that David Wood and I “disagree…on theocratic issues” without bothering to note what those issues are. Sadly, this is typical Neo and the point of this whole series: he insists of making assertions without a premise, without evidence, etc.
Now, one might think that he has a good point as in the case of David Wood we are dealing with a person who, before he became a Christian, attacked his own dad in a shockingly violent manner. On the other hand, Neo is authoring condemnatory emails so how could Neo he “as intolerant as” Wood.
Firstly, this is great news because it demonstrates that Neo is playing off of some standard (even if unstated) via which he weighs the actions of Wood versus his own. It is that standard that I continuously beg him to reveal and yet, he never does.
Secondly, he is taking himself out of context. The reference to intolerance was not about Wood’s physical violence but another thing that Neo condemned which is the, now Christian, Wood engaging in Christian apologetics (which Neo condemns as being “full of hate and intolerance,” etc.
Neo then eruditely elucidates the issues as follows:
You have just shown everyone what religion does to the brain. In your case, it has turned into a quivering mass of useless jello, incapable of making rational comparisons. Do you defend that horrendous piece of human excrement because he is a superstitious Ghost Worshiper like you? Or do you have a rational reason? See what I’m saying? Your mind is so ****** [expletive removed] up by religious nonsense you can’t even think straight. I’ve pulled stuff out of my nose that had more intelligence than you do. Advice: lose the imaginary friends, grow the **** [expletive removed] up, and then come back and play with the adults. Or … you can just live out your miserable existence, enslaved by the terror of an invisible murderous monster whom you worship like a Kim Kardashian fan. [ellipses in original] There is nothing I can do to help you, Dude. You are the only one who can free yourself from the threats of this evil monster who controls your life.
Either find the courage or die knowing that you will have pissed away your entire life down the toilet.
I want you to think about how easy it is to get emotively sucked in to Neo’s emotivism. His emails are written in very large and bold font and peppered with jabs. One must trains oneself to remain focused on the issue at hand and ignore all else. Would you get angry at a blind person who steps on your foot? Also, if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that got hit is the one which yelps.
Neo is blind and got hit with the fact that his worldview does not even allow him to condemn anything. Thus, he reacts with anger. As noted above, since he takes himself out of context, he concludes that I am “incapable of making rational comparisons” yet, this is logically fallacious.
On Neo’s worldview philosophy, I am merely a temporarily and accidentally existing bio organism and so if I die knowing that my life went down the toilet: what of it? You see, he is again sneaking in an unspoken standard: my temporarily and accidentally existing life would have been a waste and his temporarily and accidentally existing life would not have yet, upon what basis from which to come to this conclusion? He does not say and never does.
Well, I decided to remain focused and replied as follows:
As per usual you replace reasoned discourse with childish taunting.
Here is the point: it is not good enough that you feel something. Before your condemnations can be taken seriously they must have a premise upon which they are based.If not, you might as well tell David that he is wrong for liking vanilla ice cream because you like chocolate. On your worldview, one accidentally and temporarily existing bio organism treated another accidentally and temporarily existing bio organism in a manner that yet another accidentally and temporarily existing bio organism, namely you, have decided not to like: so what of it?
Please elucidate your worldviews superiority by providing a premise before launching into condemnations.
We will consider Neo’s reply in the next segment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/paypal 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.
Twitter: #SkepticArena, #DavidWood, #Atheism
Facebook: #SkepticArena, #DavidWood, #Atheism