Apparantly, theists are too cowardly to debate publicly on this forum.

LeftofLarry's picture

This is my old blog about why I'm an atheist, my perspective. This egotistical theist named Frank..decides to cut and paste it on his blogging account and then decides to "debunk" it. Ironically, his whole diatribe is an ad hominem attack, because he fails to see that this was MY perspective and not necessarily the vews of all atheists. so anyway, I had re-cut and pasted his blog as a comment to my original blog and retorted. If he was a true debater.. he would have left comments here, instead of hiding. So instead of giving this guy's blog site traffic, please post comments here. I think he just wants attention. someone to PLEASE listen to him... Sad (tear.)

http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/leftoflarry/20060822/why_im_an_atheist_and_what_atheism_means_to_me_my_perspective

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

LeftofLarry's picture

oh and this is his profile

oh and this is his profile statement on his blogging site:

"Frank has demonstrated unprecedented mastery at scalding refutations, hasn't he? He really leaves all the other apologists in the dust. How does he do it?" from atheist Dawson Bethrick (May 15, 2006 7:31 PM)

I think...he's lost in his own ego.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

LeftofLarry's picture

he also makes it so that

he also makes it so that people cannot leave comments on his site. Smells like fear of a real debate to me...hmmm....

what's worse than a theist?

An egotistical thiest who's afraid to debate but who builds himself a temple of narcism.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Sapient's picture

Knowing the guy in question,

Knowing the guy in question, his arguments are so weak and childish, at this point I don't give him the time of day. Having him attempt a rebuttal to something you wrote is the highest form of flattery. It is a feeble attempt to ridicule that which makes abundantly more sense than his belief system. His dishonest response is his coping mechanism to try and deal with the inadequacies of his untenable beliefs.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

AtheismSucks's picture

My response

What's going on Sapient and LeftofLarry? Good to hear from you guys. Here's my response:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com

[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]

AtheismSucks's picture

My response to LeftofLarry's testimony

This is what LeftofLarry is talking about, my reply:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com

[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]

RationalResponseSquad's picture

MODERATOR

MODERATOR COMMENTS:
"AtheismSucks" is named Frank Walton. LeftofLarry recently responded to Franks ad hom attack of Larry in a blog of his own.

Frank recently responded to 4 items on our forum by making a post on his blog that you can't post at unless you register, and he deletes your comments if he doesn't like them. (he's deleted tons of comments in the past)

Frank is an ad hom king and a liar. A shining example of Christianity, note the love in his name "atheismsucks."

Evidence of lying here. He represented himself as "Uponthisrock" and claimed to have found someone elses blog, when in reality it was his.

We will not allow Frank to link to his site from our site, enforcing an InfidelGuy.com policy. See here.

We are tempted to ban him however he deserves a fresh start should he choose to accept it, we would be glad to allow him to post here. FRANK, that means, post HERE. This will be your last warning, DO NOT link your site again.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

AtheismSucks's picture

Honestly, you guys make me laugh.

What's the harm of people checking out my blog? *SIGH* Oh, well. But you didn't have to lie about me being "Uponthisrock."

RationalResponseSquad's picture

Quote:What's the harm of

Quote:
What's the harm of people checking out my blog?

No harm in that. Where did I say there was? And you're preaching a need for honesty?

Quote:
*SIGH* Oh, well. But you didn't have to lie about me being "Uponthisrock."

I didn't.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

AtheismSucks's picture

Well, all I could say is at

Well, all I could say is at least Christians (like Gene Cook and DeeDee Warren) leave links in their blogs and forums - even to opposing websites.

Sapient's picture

You're using Gene Cook as an

You're using Gene Cook as an example? Jesus Christ. His claim to fame is incessant banning of people who conquer his arguments and show him to be the dishonest man he is. You can't even view posts on his forum unless you register!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

AtheismSucks's picture

Hi Brian, Quote:You're using

Hi Brian,

Quote:
You're using Gene Cook as an example?

Yes.

Quote:
Jesus Christ.

Where?

Quote:
His claim to fame is incessant banning of people who conquer his arguments and show him to be the dishonest man he is.

That's not true. You know, I've noticed something about you Brian. Dude, you have a lot of anger in you. You have to calm down, and just relax, my friend. You (or whoever) were probably banned because you were being like an out of control, immature little brat with a potty mouth.

Quote:
You can't even view posts on his forum unless you register!

That's not true. I'd prove it if you guys would let me put links, but go ahead and go to the unchained website and press forum and you'll see the posts without having to register.

Hope that helps,

Frank

todangst's picture

Frank Walton is an angry

Frank Walton is an angry troll, lashing out at reality, because it refuses to match his ignorant fantasies.

You might enjoy this:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-399177-.html#399177

Here, Frankie, Man-boy, Walton declares that "barker says that rape could be moral'. He then goes on to hold that rape is "always wrong' in the bible....

Watch him get spanked both for the disengenuous implications behind his complaint against Barker and for his clearly false claim about the bible.....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

AtheismSucks's picture

Hi Todangst, that forum was

Hi Todangst, that forum was actually fun to read. Thanks for linking to it. But yes, it still stands, Barker thinks that rape can be moral.

Sapient's picture

Quote:That's not true. Yes

Quote:
That's not true.

Yes it is. This thread will soon prove it.

Quote:
You know, I've noticed something about you Brian. Dude, you have a lot of anger in you.

You're projecting. I am not angry at Gene for not having integrity, he's free to lack integrity if he chooses. It doesn't bother me at all.

Quote:
You have to calm down, and just relax, my friend.

I'm calm as can be man. You're projecting.

Quote:
You (or whoever) were probably banned because you were being like an out of control, immature little brat with a potty mouth.

I never signed up at his forum as I don't want my IP linked to my name on his site. I don't trust him. Again, you're projecting. You my friend are the "immature little brat" with a screenname like "atheismsucks."

Quote:

That's not true. I'd prove it if you guys would let me put links, but go ahead and go to the unchained website and press forum and you'll see the posts without having to register.

I stand corrected. However as recently as two weeks ago, I was unable to view his forums without being registered. And you're dishonesty rears it head again. Nobody told you that you can't post links, we told you you can't post links to your site. Stop being an "immature little brat" and face reality.

Here is the link to the newly unprivatized Gene Cook forums:
http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

todangst's picture

But only given the

But only given the context... if the 'rape' were able to help prevent an even more immoral act.

You dishonestly leave that part out, even as it's pointed out for you over and over in that thread! So you lie, even after your lie has been exposed.

Pretty stupid, considering that everyone here is going to go and read it!

What I really enjoyed is how you even used the concept of 'context' to defend actions in the bible... which means you relied on the same methods Barker used.... making for a particularly humorous self refutation.... (do you have any other type of argument?)

Barker is not saying "rape is ok if you want to destroy a people" or 'rape is ok if there are no other men around to have a baby with". - the sort of "context' the bible uses to 'justify rape'. He's not giving such a flimsy context. Barker is saying something different... he's saying that there could potentially be some extreme context where rape is not the immoral choice... but only in some extreme cases: an example would be where the act saves multiple lives.

So not only is your implication about Barker disengenuous, you end up using his own argument - based on context, in a much, much weaker fashion, to defend your bible!

And finally, you're clearly and obviously wrong that the bible holds that 'rape' is always wrong. This is demonstrated several times in the thread you ran off from.

'God' supports rape here:

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. (20:10-11)
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

todangst's picture

It's amazing how he

Brian, isn't its amazing how he continues to lie, even when the evidence is right in front of him?

AtheismSucks's picture

Quote:Yes it is. This thread

Quote:
Yes it is. This thread will soon prove it.

Soon prove it? I already disproved it a long time ago - I'd let you know about it but you wouldn't let me put in a link of mine. Oh, well.

Quote:
You're projecting. I am not angry at Gene for not having integrity, he's free to lack integrity if he chooses. It doesn't bother me at all.

Are you sure? Because you seem awfully insecure.

Quote:
I'm calm as can be man. You're projecting.

Not really. I'm quite composed.

Quote:
I never signed up at his forum as I don't want my IP linked to my name on his site. I don't trust him.

Well, I don't really trust you either but at least I have the guts to sign up on your site.

Quote:
Again, you're projecting. You my friend are the "immature little brat" with a screenname like "atheismsucks."

If you think about it, Brian, it isn't immature, because atheism does suck. It cheapens life.

Quote:
I stand corrected.

Indeed.

Quote:
However as recently as two weeks ago, I was unable to view his forums without being registered.

Well, as we've seen that isn't the case anymore.

Quote:
And you're dishonesty rears it head again. Nobody told you that you can't post links, we told you you can't post links to your site. Stop being an "immature little brat" and face reality.

I have and it seems that you guys are trying to find a way of "legitimately" banning me from this site, let alone you don't want me to post in these blogs. Smiling But I'm not going anywhere, Brian. I'm staying right here.

Quote:
Here is the link to the newly unprivatized Gene Cook forums:
http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums

Great then you shouldn't mind if I put this link in:

http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=14408#14408

Thanks again, my friend,

Frank

Sapient's picture

Quote:Brian, isn't its

Quote:
Brian, isn't its amazing how he continues to lie, even when the evidence is right in front of him?

Yes. As a psychologist, do you think that I'm justified in thinking this is a coping mechanism for him? Has anyone ever analazyed Frank that you are aware of to hold any serious mental conditions (other than theism)?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

Quote: Are you sure? Because

Quote:

Are you sure? Because you seem awfully insecure.

Yup I'm sure. You're still projecting.

Quote:
Not really. I'm quite composed.

I never said you weren't composed. I said you were "projecting."

Quote:
If you think about it, Brian, it isn't immature, because atheism does suck. It cheapens life.

And theism sucks, but I'm mature enough to not hold it as my screen name. You however are not.

Quote:
I have and it seems that you guys are trying to find a way of "legitimately" banning me from this site, let alone you don't want me to post in these blogs. Smiling But I'm not going anywhere, Brian. I'm staying right here.

My whim or the whim of other mods is legitimacy enough. We don't need any specific reason. For you, the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position, forcing RRS to spend too much time debunking your drivel. Hopefully someone else will spend the time on you so that the core RRS members can work in other, much more important areas. If debunking your incessant dishonesty becomes too much of a hassle, you're likely to disappear from these forums. We don't have the time for the "immature" games, you choose to play.

Quote:
Great then you shouldn't mind if I put this link in:

http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=14408#14408

I don't mind at all, I don't mind Gene being linked. Gene is twice the man you are, and he still has almost no integrity. (says a lot about you)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

AtheismSucks's picture

To Brian

Quote:
Yup I'm sure. You're still projecting.

Really? But I'm very secure, Brian. Honestly.

Quote:
I never said you weren't composed. I said you were "projecting."

Laughing out loud LOL, then I am composed and calm because you said I was projecting you when I told you to calm down. Thanks!

Quote:
And theism sucks, but I'm mature enough to not hold it as my screen name. You however are not.

Personally, I think it's a matter of having the guts to have an in-your-face username like mine. And having guts is a very mature thing.

Quote:
My whim or the whim of other mods is legitimacy enough. We don't need any specific reason. For you, the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position...

Aw, so if I have someone who agrees with me about a refutation on you guys it necessarily has to be a dishonest tactic on my part, right? I think that's an unfair way of seeing it. Someone may agree with me and find my position reasonable enough to hold, thus they'll hold my position. Honestly, your quote seems like a way of preempting anybody from paying attention to my posts here. That's quite dishonest.

Quote:
... forcing RRS to spend too much time debunking your drivel. Hopefully someone else will spend the time on you so that the core RRS members can work in other, much more important areas.

You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to, Brian. Nobody is forcing you to.

Quote:
If debunking your incessant dishonesty becomes too much of a hassle, you're likely to disappear from these forums.

You mean, you'll ban me for just responding? That's unfair. You guys could just ignore what I say if you want.

Quote:
We don't have the time for the "immature" games, you choose to play.

Well, not everything I say is immature, Brian. So far, I've been cooperative in responding to the blogs and the blogs only. I haven't made this argument about me like what you guys are doing. LOL, talk about ad hominem.

Anyway, I'm still staying here. And yes, I'll still be responding and linking.

Sapient's picture

Quote:Really? Really. Quote:B

Quote:
Really?

Really.

Quote:
But I'm very secure, Brian. Honestly.

You should steer clear of referring to yourself as honest. Nobody with half a brain, buys it.

Quote:
Personally, I think it's a matter of having the guts to have an in-your-face username like mine. And having guts is a very mature thing.

One might argue that kids who are immature often have loads more guts than adults. You get "guts" at birth. Keep in mind you're talking to a man who points out that "theism is a mental disorder" and as you can see above receives death threats on a near daily basis. I got guts Frank, I'm just more mature about how I use them.

Quote:
Aw, so if I have someone who agrees with me about a refutation on you guys it necessarily has to be a dishonest tactic on my part, right?

No, I never said that. And insinuating it was once again dishonest. You're great at the dishonesty game, really it's mind blowing how easily you do it over and over and over and over.

Quote:
I think that's an unfair way of seeing it. Someone may agree with me and find my position reasonable enough to hold, thus they'll hold my position.

Notice, your question was a strawman, and then you answered it yourself, completing the logically fallacious act.

Quote:
Honestly, your quote seems like a way of preempting anybody from paying attention to my posts here.

You really should stay away from saying that you're being honest about anything. However in this case you were actually right. Any reader of my blog deserves to know that virtually nothing you say deserves any credit.

Quote:
That's quite dishonest.

On the contrary, it's the most honest thing I can do, to expose your lies over and over.

Quote:
You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to, Brian. Nobody is forcing you to.

I force myself. I like readers of my blog, or threads I participate in to know the background behind bullshit when it gets spewed. Unfortunatly, not all of the readers here know your history. Considering this, it's important I refute your lies as you post them.

Quote:
You mean, you'll ban me for just responding? That's unfair.

Where did I say that? See how dishonest you are? You even used another strawman. You asked a question only to answer it yourself with the wrong answer.

Quote:
You guys could just ignore what I say if you want.

No. We leave the "ignoring" up to you. You ignore reality, we'll embrace it. The reality is you're a dishonest man posting on my blog, I'll debunk it.

Quote:
Well, not everything I say is immature, Brian.

Agreed, I never said it was. Once again, your insinuation was dishonest. Please stop making me sound like a broken record.

Quote:
So far, I've been cooperative in responding to the blogs and the blogs only.

I never said your participation on this site was limited to the blogs. You're not "cooperating" by participating here only. In fact as Amber pointed out in her blog, you are bothering her in her blog and would better be suited for the forum.

Quote:
I haven't made this argument about me like what you guys are doing. LOL, talk about ad hominem.

This might be the most ironic argument you've made so far. You just insinuated that I've used ad hom, might dishonest of you. Now, while you insinuated that I used ad hom, you actually made an ad hominem attack yourself. "Making an argument about me" is not an ad hom attack as you seem to claim. However attacking someone for making an argument about them rather than attacking the argument, IS an ad hom attack, which is exactly what you just did.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm still staying here. And yes, I'll still be responding and linking.

Good for you. Maybe you can link your readers to these blogs, so people can see you being exposed for your dishonesty. Or maybe you'll selectively pretend as if the posts exposing your dishonesty, don't exist. And don't count on you staying here, your stay here is not likely to last long at this rate.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

todangst's picture

Quote:Yes. As a

Quote:
Yes. As a psychologist, do you think that I'm justified in thinking this is a coping mechanism for him? Has anyone ever analazyed Frank that you are aware of to hold any serious mental conditions (other than theism)?

He's basically a dishonest person..... he lies about people like Barker, and even when his lies are exposed, he continues the lie.... this shows me that he also has very little self awareness.

Then again, it's not all that hard to determine that a guy calling himself 'atheismsucks' who complains about rudeness has very little self awareness.

So I'd say that his main mode of defense is simply denial... he lies and then denies it, even when caught. He asserts something ridiculous, and then runs from the refutation.

He won't deal with anything here that refutes him... he can't.. because all he can do is deny.

In the thread I've linked to, we pointed out that Barker was actually arguing that the moral nature of an act could change given the context.

What is so ironic is that our DENIAL loving friend argued this

Quote:

The Bible never said this was morally right. Go ahead and read the chapter: Genesis 19.

And as another poster responded:

Quote:

Perhaps you should read the chapter, as it happens to refute your ass.

And it does. Because the passage in question holds that the potential rape of Lot's daughters is preferable than angel's being raped.. meaning that our clueless friend USED THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT BARKER DID - that this action's nature would change, given the context!

Except of course, this 'justification' hardly works.... I don't think having your daughter raped to save 'two angels' would be justification enough to make rape moral..

But this is precisely what the bible says:

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

The men of Sodom were going to gang rape two angels, but Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men in order to save the angels. 2 Peter 2:7 says that Lot was "righteous" when Yahweh saved him from the destruction of Sodom...

2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless

Therefore, according to the Bible, Lot was "righteous" when he offered his daughters to be gang raped, and thus the Bible permits rape in certain contexts.

**********************

This is the same argument Barker used... that context changes the nature of an act. So not only does our clueless friend refute himself through his own citation, he's not even able to see it!

So he not only endorses Barker's own views... he endorses it even when the justification is extremely weak - whereas Barker only said it was potentially good, given an incredible circumstance, such as saving multiple lives...

The fact that Frank Walton can't see this just proves, yet again, that he deals with difficult parts of reality through denial.

This sort of self refutation is what happens when you use denial as your main method of dealing with the world.

And here he is., months later, still unable to see it, still dodging the key points.....

It's painful to see...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

todangst's picture

Quote: I'm calm as can be

Quote:
I'm calm as can be man. You're projecting.

Quote:
Not really. I'm quite composed.

Frank doesn't seem to know what projecting is.

"Projecting' has to do with denying away your own flaws and putting them onto others... so you would feel quite composed as you projected out your anxiety onto others....

Quote:

Again, you're projecting. You my friend are the "immature little brat" with a screenname like "atheismsucks."

Quote:
If you think about it, Brian, it isn't immature, because atheism does suck. It cheapens life.

Notice how Frank uses context to reevaluate the moral tenor of an action! This guy just loves to contradict himself!

Anyway, keeping with the current exchange.... this is just another projection from frank. It is theism that clearly cheapens life.... it says our works matter not... it says our time here is inconsequential... it says we are worthless - only 'saved' by 'grace'!

Going around calling yourself 'atheismsucks' is immature, no matter how you try to defend it....

Quote:

And you're dishonesty rears it head again. Nobody told you that you can't post links, we told you you can't post links to your site. Stop being an "immature little brat" and face reality.

Quote:
[I have and it seems that you guys are trying to find a way of "legitimately" banning me from this site, let alone you don't want me to post in these blogs.

Another projection... these closed minded theists deal with difficult posts by banning people... so he places his own guilty conscious onto others...

Quote:

Smiling But I'm not going anywhere, Brian. I'm staying right here.

Good. I call your posts "target practice"

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

Sapient's picture

Quote:Quote: His claim to

Quote:
Quote:
His claim to fame is incessant banning of people who conquer his arguments and show him to be the dishonest man he is.

That's not true. You know, I've noticed something about you Brian. Dude, you have a lot of anger in you. You have to calm down, and just relax, my friend. You (or whoever) were probably banned because you were being like an out of control, immature little brat with a potty mouth.

As I said... evidence was forthcoming. Here are stories from people who were banned from unchained radio after demolishing Genes arguments. Like you wanting people to come to your blog so you can delete comments that destroy your arguments, Gene removes anyone who pwns him.

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-22198-days0-orderasc-0.html

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

LeftofLarry's picture

wow...all this action, while

wow...all this action, while I've been away...

Frank, glad you could join us. It seems as if my blog must have ruffled some feather to have caused such a vehement, albeit, illogical reply from you on your blog. I'm glad, however, that you were able to come on here to defend your attacks, and not hide within the confines of your blog. Even though it doesn't make up for the logical fallacies, and complete irrational diatribe, possibly due to the complete misunderstanding of my blog, it does show that at least you are willing to defend your position after the counter attack. I will not visit your site...because you have chosen to attack me. If you want a debate you can do it here, and if you want your readers to read it, then you can link them here.

I've always been under the opinion that integrity comes with no fear. Since this forum was the original post, why did you not answer directly here? I had actually pondered on whether I should've even given you the satisfaction of an answer, because what you did was in fact cowardly. But then, in the end I caved in.
Never have I been on anyone's thread, forum etc... and rebutted their argument on MY own blog and frankly, I've never seen anyone else do it either.

Welcome aboard. Maybe your mind will open up a bit around here.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

AtheismSucks's picture

To LeftofLarry

Hi LeftofLarry,

Good to hear from you at last!

Quote:
wow...all this action, while I've been away...

Pretty amazing isn't it? I've enjoyed my discourse with Sapient and Todangst.

Quote:
Frank, glad you could join us.

Thank you, my friend.

Quote:
It seems as if my blog must have ruffled some feather to have caused such a vehement, albeit, illogical reply from you on your blog.

Well, I decided to bring my blog to your blog - unfortunately it was deleted so I had to actually post the whole thing here.

Quote:
I'm glad, however, that you were able to come on here to defend your attacks, and not hide within the confines of your blog.

I figured that was the logical thing to do.

Quote:
Even though it doesn't make up for the logical fallacies, and complete irrational diatribe, possibly due to the complete misunderstanding of my blog, it does show that at least you are willing to defend your position after the counter attack.

Thank you.

Quote:
I will not visit your site...because you have chosen to attack me.

I'm sorry you see it that way... *SHRUGS* but okay.

Quote:
If you want a debate you can do it here, and if you want your readers to read it, then you can link them here.

Well, I was hoping to debate you one on one, LeftofLarry. You remind me of so many atheists that I reply to who insist that I go to their forum to debate the issue. But what they want is other atheists to argue against me and not the original person. To me, that's quite cowardly.

Quote:
I've always been under the opinion that integrity comes with no fear. Since this forum was the original post, why did you not answer directly here?

I did. Go ahead, look up your original blog and you'll see my reply.

Quote:
I had actually pondered on whether I should've even given you the satisfaction of an answer, because what you did was in fact cowardly. But then, in the end I caved in.

Great. I like a challenge.

Quote:
Never have I been on anyone's thread, forum etc... and rebutted their argument on MY own blog and frankly, I've never seen anyone else do it either.

In my experience, plenty of atheists have done that to me. I'll give you names if you want.

Quote:
Welcome aboard. Maybe your mind will open up a bit around here.

Thanks, LeftofLarry, I hope your mind opens some more too.

AtheismSucks's picture

Quote:Really. Well...

Quote:
Really.

Well... Okay.

Quote:
You should steer clear of referring to yourself as honest. Nobody with half a brain, buys it.

Well, I'm selling it. And more and more atheists are buying it.

Quote:
One might argue that kids who are immature often have loads more guts than adults.

Well, I'm talking about mature kids who think with their guts and their brains.

Quote:
You get "guts" at birth. Keep in mind you're talking to a man who points out that "theism is a mental disorder" and as you can see above receives death threats on a near daily basis. I got guts Frank, I'm just more mature about how I use them.

I haven't seen that yet. You haven't even begin to reply to my arguments against your arguments against God. The only thing you've done so far is veer off in another direction and say I make ad hominem arguments against you. Figures.

Quote:
No, I never said that.

Sure, you did. You said,

Quote:
"My whim or the whim of other mods is legitimacy enough. We don't need any specific reason. For you, the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position..."

See?

Quote:
And insinuating it was once again dishonest.

As we've seen that wasn't the case.

Quote:
You're great at the dishonesty game, really it's mind blowing how easily you do it over and over and over and over.

Well, if you would stop being dishonest about my honesty, you wouldn't see how mind blowing it is. I guess, you would have to have a blown mind to say that I'm dishonest Laughing out loud

Quote:
Notice, your question was a strawman, and then you answered it yourself, completing the logically fallacious act.

My question wasn't a strawman because you actually said "the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position..."

Quote:
You really should stay away from saying that you're being honest about anything. However in this case you were actually right. Any reader of my blog deserves to know that virtually nothing you say deserves any credit.

Laughing out loud Yet you give me the credit of actually responding to me! Thank you, my friend.

Quote:
On the contrary, it's the most honest thing I can do, to expose your lies over and over.

Well, if I made a lie I would like to see it too, so I won't make the same mistake twice, but so far you haven't even exposed any lies from me.

Quote:
I force myself.

Well, as a materialist, I can see why.

Quote:
I like readers of my blog, or threads I participate in to know the background behind bullshit when it gets spewed. Unfortunatly, not all of the readers here know your history. Considering this, it's important I refute your lies as you post them.

*SHRUGS* Okay.

Quote:
Where did I say that?

Here:

Quote:
If debunking your incessant dishonesty becomes too much of a hassle, you're likely to disappear from these forums.

See? All I'm doing is responding, Brian. You don't have to be so angry about it.

Quote:
See how dishonest you are?

No.

Quote:
You even used another strawman. You asked a question only to answer it yourself with the wrong answer.

As we've seen that wasn't the case, because you did actually say said quote.

Quote:
No. We leave the "ignoring" up to you. You ignore reality, we'll embrace it.

Well, I've been giving a dose of your own reality and you don't embrace it. You just blame me for making strawmans when we've seen that wasn't the case.

Quote:
The reality is you're a dishonest man posting on my blog, I'll debunk it.

You haven't so far. In fact, the opposite is happening.

Quote:
Agreed, I never said it was. Once again, your insinuation was dishonest. Please stop making me sound like a broken record.

Well, you insinuated that you think I told you that you thought everything I said was immature. But my insinuation wasn't what you insinuated if you read it. You said, "We don't have the time for the "immature" games, you choose to play." And then I said, "Well, not everything I say is immature, Brian." And that's it. See?

Quote:
I never said your participation on this site was limited to the blogs.

*SHRUGS* I never said you said that.

Quote:
You're not "cooperating" by participating here only.

Why can't I? Does being a member at RR have to obligate someone to go to the forums or chats?

Quote:
In fact as Amber pointed out in her blog, you are bothering her in her blog and would better be suited for the forum.

I just pointed out her fallacies. That's all.

Quote:
This might be the most ironic argument you've made so far. You just insinuated that I've used ad hom, might dishonest of you.

Please, use proper grammar.

Quote:
Now, while you insinuated that I used ad hom, you actually made an ad hominem attack yourself. "Making an argument about me" is not an ad hom attack as you seem to claim. However attacking someone for making an argument about them rather than attacking the argument, IS an ad hom attack, which is exactly what you just did.

Well, as we've seen that wasn't the case.

Quote:
Good for you.

Thank you. I'm glad to be a member here.

Quote:
Maybe you can link your readers to these blogs, so people can see you being exposed for your dishonesty.

Actually, they'll see the opposite, as your, uh, "misunderstanding" above showed.

Quote:
Or maybe you'll selectively pretend as if the posts exposing your dishonesty, don't exist. And don't count on you staying here, your stay here is not likely to last long at this rate.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm having a lot of fun! And it's all because of you, Brian.

Thanks, buddy,

Frank

AtheismSucks's picture

Hi Todangst, How are you

Hi Todangst,

How are you doing?

Quote:
He's basically a dishonest person..... he lies about people like Barker, and even when his lies are exposed, he continues the lie.... this shows me that he also has very little self awareness.

I didn't lie about Barker. I quoted him verbatim. I'd prove it if I would be able to link here.

Quote:
Then again, it's not all that hard to determine that a guy calling himself 'atheismsucks' who complains about rudeness has very little self awareness.

*SHRUGS* I don't care about people being rude to me. I think it's quite funny how atheists get really uptight with me.

Quote:
So I'd say that his main mode of defense is simply denial... he lies and then denies it, even when caught.

Don't go denying my denials, Todangst. You'll be in denial, even when caught Laughing out loud

Quote:
He asserts something ridiculous, and then runs from the refutation.

That's not true. In fact, I've been posting against Brian Sapient and he hasn't even given a reply. Figures.

Quote:
He won't deal with anything here that refutes him... he can't.. because all he can do is deny.

As we've seen that isn't true, because I've been responding to refutations of me.

Quote:
In the thread I've linked to, we pointed out that Barker was actually arguing that the moral nature of an act could change given the context.

... Okay.

Quote:
What is so ironic is that our DENIAL loving friend argued this

Quote:

The Bible never said this was morally right. Go ahead and read the chapter: Genesis 19.

And as another poster responded:

Quote:

Perhaps you should read the chapter, as it happens to refute your ass.

And it does. Because the passage in question holds that the potential rape of Lot's daughters is preferable than angel's being raped.. meaning that our clueless friend USED THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT BARKER DID - that this action's nature would change, given the context!

Except of course, this 'justification' hardly works.... I don't think having your daughter raped to save 'two angels' would be justification enough to make rape moral..

But this is precisely what the bible says:

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

The men of Sodom were going to gang rape two angels, but Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men in order to save the angels. 2 Peter 2:7 says that Lot was "righteous" when Yahweh saved him from the destruction of Sodom...

2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless

Therefore, according to the Bible, Lot was "righteous" when he offered his daughters to be gang raped, and thus the Bible permits rape in certain contexts.

**********************

This is the same argument Barker used... that context changes the nature of an act. So not only does our clueless friend refute himself through his own citation, he's not even able to see it!

So he not only endorses Barker's own views... he endorses it even when the justification is extremely weak - whereas Barker only said it was potentially good, given an incredible circumstance, such as saving multiple lives...

The fact that Frank Walton can't see this just proves, yet again, that he deals with difficult parts of reality through denial.

This sort of self refutation is what happens when you use denial as your main method of dealing with the world.

And here he is., months later, still unable to see it, still dodging the key points.....

It's painful to see...

Wow, after all this time, you're still holding a grudge, and bringing up an issue that technically doesn't have to do with the nature of the blog. It looks like thedude really got to you. Are you so mad that he refuted you that you feel like you have to come with a come back again and again and again? But let me urge everybody to look up the link Todangst gave. It's well worth reading.

I thank you for that, Todangst. You truly are a friend.

Frank

Frank Walton

Over the last few weeks I have challenged Frank on why his blog is closed for comments. Finally I called him a coward for this policy. In turn he turned our email exchange into a blog post and has allowed comments on that ONE blog post. Judging from his comments on other blogs, his responses to me, he is simply very immaturre and disrespectful. That is his nature. He can only be credited with one virtous act. His ranting alerted me to the existence of your blog.

Very nice to make your acquaitance. My relatively new blog can be found at:
http://humanistobserver.blogspot.com/

Take care,
Sheldon

Man, this guy really thinks

Man, this guy really thinks he's as smart as he seems to think? Laughing out loud

LOL. Atheism cheapens life?

LOL. Atheism cheapens life? Tell that to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the name of theism.

Atheists never carbomb.

Bill Johnson's picture

AtheismSucks wrote:Wow,

AtheismSucks wrote:
Wow, after all this time, you're still holding a grudge, and bringing up an issue that technically doesn't have to do with the nature of the blog.

Fallacy of begging the question. Your statement implies that todangst had a grudge to begin with, yet you have not established this.

Quote:
Are you so mad that he refuted you that you feel like you have to come with a come back again and again and again?

Fallacy of begging the question. Even if todangst answered, "No," his answer would imply that he had been refuted...another thing that you have not established.

Note: I realize Frank's question is rhetorical and that no answer to it is expected. I was just demonstrating the fallacy he committed hypothetically. By responding to the question with the answer "No," one would essentially be saying: "No, I'm not mad that I was refuted..."

Frank, do you still commit basic errors in logic? Smiling

If I hadn't just proved that you commit basic errors in logic, I'd be begging the question.