an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People

Over the last 10 or so months that I’ve been engaging with theists, and blogging about those encounters here, I’ve discovered something that I thought worth sharing. First, a little background – I’ve been using messageboards and forums for over a decade, and I’ve come across lots of different people – from the Jockrock Scottish music forum where a chap calling himself ‘No Name’ took against me with a rare ferocity, insulting me at every turn until it turned out he’d got me mixed up with someone else, via the bulletin board for the online FPS DDay: Normandy, where I got permanently banned for daring to (correctly) say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the Yahoogroup about Canadian indie rock, where a total douche called Kyle held his insider knowledge to jealously that he wouldn’t even answer questions.

Wherever one goes online there are people who want to belittle, bully, act like self righteous dickwads, and generally think they’re better than everyone else, and I’ve encountered some of the very worst of them…..or so I thought.

In a move that’s surely running contrary to the teachings of their supposed ‘saviour’, online Christians have been the very worst of the worst, whether it’s Keith Roberts spewing out hideous homophobia, Rhomphaia….er…spewing out hideous homophobia, Bob Sorensen spewing out hideous homophobia (bit of a theme emerging here) and rabid anti science nonsense, Raissa Nkuba spewing out hideous homophobia, Sye Ten Bruggencate gibbering out insane rubbish in a smug and self-satisfied manner, Dan of Debunking Atheists showing a disgusting lack of empathy for fellow humans (read the comments on this post), Eric Hovind lying to people for money, Joe Cienkowski insulting those who disagree with his creationist crap, Chris Bolt seemingly setting up a whole blog to attack me (and subsequently acting like a colossally self-righteous dickwad on that same blog), Matt Slick insulting anyone who isn’t him on his radio show, or Youtuber ‘VenomFangX’ showing zero contrition for his numerous failings, all of them are amongst the more unpleasant people I’ve ever encountered.

What is it that makes these people so unbearable? Why are they, to a man and woman, arrogant, rude, dismissive, and wishing hell fire on others? Were they attracted to Christianity because it encourages their style of unpleasantness, or did they become unpleasant because of Christianity?

I’ve no idea, but I can safely say I’ve never met anyone quite as vile as online Christians – which is odd, considering they constantly lecture others on how much better they are than everyone else.

EDIT: As if by magic, Dan has proved my point perfectly with this disgusting parp of hatred.

Single Post Navigation

18 thoughts on “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People

  1. You sound like a marcher complaining that he is the only one in step 😀

  2. This post has been removed by the author.

  3. Oh please. When I bothered defending Alex from the atheist strawmen you set up, you deleted the comment; claiming that I was "preaching atheism". You have a very low standard, it seems, of what a "fundamentalist atheist" must be.

  4. This post has been removed by the author.

  5. This post has been removed by the author.

  6. "shrill, arrogant proclamations concerning your fundamentalist atheism."Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly, Chris! The peace of Jesus be on you too!

  7. Chris, if you're going to make the claim that I 'hate' Jesus, then you're going to have to do a few things first…1. Prove that gods exist, 2. prove that your version of your particular god is the right one, 3. prove that I believe in your particular version of your particular god, 4. prove that Jesus Christ existed, 5. prove that he was the son of your version of your particular god, 5. prove that I believe that he was the son of your particular god, 6. read my mind to understand my true feelings towards this individual (if you've been able to successfully fulfill the previous 5 steps)Good luck with that.Sye, thanks for helping make my case.

  8. Sye, how do you know that?

  9. This post has been removed by the author.

  10. Make your mind up, Chris! You were saying the exact opposite about omniscience less than a week ago (blogged about here -http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/wow-arent-i-lucky-one.html)Pot roast argument: JC's argument stands, as it neatly shows that your TAG RUBBISH doesn't actually tell us if a god does indeed exist. As YOU are claiming the positive position, the burden of proof lies with YOU.I see you're 'pulling a Sye' here, and refusing to supply your evidence here. No dice, Chris – this is my chosen venue for this discussion. I'll reiterate the challenge – You claim I hate Jesus, and I've said that to know that you have to – 1. Prove that gods exist, 2. prove that your version of your particular god is the right one, 3. prove that I believe in your particular version of your particular god, 4. prove that Jesus Christ existed, 5. prove that he was the son of your version of your particular god, 5. prove that I believe that he was the son of your particular god, 6. read my mind to understand my true feelings towards this individual (if you've been able to successfully fulfill the previous 5 steps)The ball is in your court.

  11. Tell you what, Chris, let's have you on the podcast, see if you can answer my challenge there.

  12. This post has been removed by the author.

  13. Chris, I've addressed where you contradicted yourself, I'm not going to hand hold you through this.As for a 'formal debate', I've absolutely no interest in debating you. A standard format 'Fundamentally Flawed' podcast, yes, a formal debate, nope.Surely you can make your point here? I'll restate the different stages of my challenge here, just in case you've forgotten them – 1. Prove that gods exist, 2. prove that your version of your particular god is the right one, 3. prove that I believe in your particular version of your particular god, 4. prove that Jesus Christ existed, 5. prove that he was the son of your version of your particular god, 6. prove that I believe that he was the son of your particular god, 7. read my mind to understand my true feelings towards this individual (if you've been able to successfully fulfill the previous 6 steps)You can even list it 1-7 if you like.

  14. C.L. Bolt,One doesn't actually have to be omniscient to simply state that they see no evidence for something. I think you might be confusing that with actually stating that something doesn't exist, period. Slight difference there, subtle even, but different.BoB

  15. Chris,I'm curious if you would accept my claim that there are no square circles. This is a universal negative claim of course, and I'm sure you could suppose my reasoning for affirming this claim. Would you accept my claim that there is no evidence for the existence of square circles? Would you say that I would have to be omniscient to know this? If so, I think this indicates that we're operating from two completely different views of knowledge. I operate from the perspective that knowledge is conceptual in nature. In the past, you've indicated that you operate from the JTB analysis of knowledge, which you may recall I have criticized (see here). Meanwhile, I have not seen a presuppositionalist critique of the conceptual analysis of knowledge. (Indeed, I don't think Christianity has any theory of concepts to begin with.)At any rate, I have already shown how rejecting god-belief is epistemologically analogous to rejecting belief in square circles here.Regards,Dawson

  16. This post has been removed by the author.

  17. Chris/Sye,Participating in an online discussion such as this, and then claiming that you will only answer certain points in a formal debate is simply a cop-out. What guarantee do Alex, Dawson et al have that you will even fulfil your promise to answer the points in a formal debate? We have heard Sye say plenty of times that he will be 'happy to discuss these things' when posed difficult questions, but the simple fact is that he will never do so. None of the presuppers that Alex has talked with have been willing to explore anything other than what they perceive to be lacking in the atheist 'worldview'. They even admit this. Rarely do the discussions get down to the nitty gritty of the presupper worldview.From what I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), essentially, Chris wrote that atheists hate the God they know exists. Then, Alex wrote that he disagrees with Chris and listed several points that Chris needs to prove to support his argument. Then, Chris suddenly decides that only a formal debate will do. What a cop-out!Furthermore, Dawson consistently provides a robust critical analysis of the flaws in the presupper approach and a reasoned grounding of the atheistic position. But when he asks for interaction, he gets nothing much from Sye (mostly more taunts to formally debate and that his articles are too long) and complete avoidance from Chris. Again I ask, what guarantee does he have that any of his points will actually be addressed in a formal debate? The odds seem extremely low on the basis of previous debates (formal or not) involving Sye et al, given that he almost never allows the discussion to focus on his own worldview.Based on their behaviour here, there is no reason to suspect that Sye or Chris would actually address the points at all in a formal debate. Indeed, one wonders whether they would simply say:"I will be happy to answer that in a written online discussion, but I won't address it here"I think we can all agree that would be a rather ridiculous thing to say, so for Sye and Chris to say the opposite here is equally as ridiculous, and nothing more than a blatant refusal to address a robust critique of their worldview.Sye and Chris – you are here now (although Sye seems to have vanished). The discussion is here now. Interact with the points please.Rhiggs(Login not working)

  18. C.L. Bolt,Negative claim/positive claim: purely semantics!JoE

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: