The fellow who names himself after a black sword has made another post here. It looks to me like he may have met someone who is, in many ways, his equal. (I wouldn't want to be his equal. I hope never to stoop so low.) Black-sword guy called unknown guy an atheist. But... given how he uses the term, that could mean that unknown guy is a christian who doesn't share all the hate for dissent that black-sword guy has.
"It is indeed unfortunate the this craven little coward cannot back up his (?) accusations, preferring to live in a neurotic, self-created world."
Wow, that mirrors my opinion of the black-sword guy. As he doesn't identify the unknown guy, I can't even tell if the exchange he describes is real -- although I can't rule it out either. There are a few people at Ray's blog that could match that description; and they are not all christians. But black-sword guy is one of them.
"This is the problem that I have with the aforementioned antagonist and to many other "new" atheists who claim to love "reason" and "science" is that they have their preconceptions and cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In fact, contrary evidence is disallowed by default: If it is not offered by an atheist scientist, then it is not science and it is bad reasoning." [Emphasis in original]
I'm not sure what black-sword guy's objection is. He disallows evidence contrary to his beliefs himself. He has even bragged that he doesn't really read the comments of people who disagree with him. The most he'll do is skim.
"As I have pointed out before, atheists are demanding proof for the existence of [g]od, but refuse to look at apologetics links or other arguments that are offered because 'I know what it's going to say, and it's dumb.'"
I don't know about atheists, or even most people that black-sword guy labels as "atheists." But I generally follow a link when I am intrigued. If the summary of an argument looks promising, I will follow the link for more detail. If it looks like I'm being presented with "these links will keep you busy for a few thousand years," then I won't. Black-sword guy will list his position in the links. But that alone does not persuade me that I will find anything of merit should I follow them.
"If one of the few intellectually honest and courageous (or curious) atheists wants to examine evidence for the existence of [g]od, or for the validity of the Bible, I have apologetics links available near the top of the page, just below that introduction box thingie. Hopefully, you won't be like that coward and dismiss things out of hand just because you're afraid of being proven wrong. Follow where the evidence leads — I dare you."
Give a quick summary of the evidence or argument so that I can be sure that I'm not chasing a wild goose. I dare you.
"I try to get these people to think."
If that is true, he is rather counterproductive.
"When I catch them in errors of logic, naturally, I get excuses and the equivalent of a rude gesture to prove that they are my intellectual superiors simply because they said so and xtians are big dumb stupidheads. So they get offended because I show them flaws in the way they use the logic that they claim to admire so much."
Like saying "living in mommy's basement"? I have never seen this guy point out a flaw in reasoning. Then again, if he doesn't actually read people's posts, he's in a rather poor position even to identify such flaws. I have seen him go on insult-fests and wonder why people aren't impressed by his obvious superiority.
"I've lost count of the number of times I've advised people to dump the hate because it clouds reasoning ability."
It's a little like the kid in the story who shouted "lvpvslvpvs."