In case anyone is interested, the post is here. Part of it is him talking about his exploits on Twitter, a messaging service, as I understand it, for the teenage crowd -- although I do hear that it has users up to the "ripe-old age" of 25. Ah, yes, the "I'm gonna block you coz you don' agree wit' evertin' I say!!!" Oh, well, at least they're equally matched on the maturity spectrum.
"Remember, I said that I knew of atheists who became Christians and defenders of the faith. I did not say that I knew of them on Ray Comfort's Weblog."
That would have been a useful objection to requests for examples from Ray's blog if he were willing to provide examples from elsewhere. But he didn't do that. Surely the man of a thousand screen handles doesn't object to being asked for an example, just the restriction to Ray's blog? (No, Norman, while you have many screen handles, I don't think they number a thousand. But, then, I don't think the "man of a thousand faces" could actually construct that many different faces. Don't worry if you don't know about him. He was actually a little before my time. When I was young, movies already had sound.)
"Cap also stated, 'Well how about because your entire argument was based upon the idea that these people exist. Now you are saying that you don't actually know if any of these people exist, which invalidates your entire argument.' He had some other stuff that was not worth quoting."
"At the conclusion of my reply to this (I mentioned the first example of bad logic, shown above), I stated, 'In both your case and his, putting words in my mouth, then saying that my argument is invalid, is, frankly, a lie. Where do people like you learn logic?'"
Well... Let's look at what's not in dispute. Norman says there are people who were atheist but who now are not only christians but "defenders of the faith." He doesn't give any examples. Captain Howdy may have made an honest mistake or a dishonest restriction. But either way he is right in that Norman claimed atheists-turned-christian exist and failed to produce any examples, instead resorting to insult. In checking the relevant thread, I can't find anyplace where he specifically objects to the restriction of the discussion to Ray's blog. He talks about "putting words in [his] mouth." But that is just as easily interpreted as trying to back away from his original claim. It's rather strange that he only becomes clear in his objection on his own blog where he can delete responses that don't fit his portrayal of "atheism."
"If I'm wrong about something, fine. But don't lie about others to build up your own fragile ego."
Awww, Norman doesn't like his tactics turned against him. Meh, I've met a lot of people like that.
"But first, I'll mention that the atheists in both of yesterday's examples refuse to admit error. That happens frequently, probably because they hate [c]hristians so much, we cannot be allowed to be right, and God forbid (heh!), they cannot be wrong."
I don't know about atheists. But Norman, who is decidedly christian, seems utterly incapable of admitting error. I don't think I've seen him admit to making a mistake anywhere, ever. Here's a challenge, find an example of Norman admitting to making a mistake.
"It's against the atheist code for [a christian] to be right, you betcha."
Norman seems a bit confused here. My experience with christians -- the ones who advertise the fact, at any rate -- is that they don't produce any evidence in favor of their position. Telling me I have to believe the bible is not evidence. The accuracy of the bible is in dispute. Saying there is "a morally justifiable reason" for (described) actions found in the bible is of no use unless you produce such a reason. As near as I can tell, they refuse to present any evidence for any position on principle, possibly because that would give evidence a value greater than "the word of god."
Now, unlike Norman, I will admit I am wrong when the evidence shows that to be the case. Here I admitted that some comments really were getting tagged as spam because I saw it with my own eyes. I still don't think it happens with the regularity that Dan was claiming; and the comments that were disappearing from Dan's blog were only the one's against his position. It would be a rather amazing coincidence for Dan's innocence on the matter to be genuine. And here I admitted I was wrong about Norman (this was before he came up with that moniker) deliberately sending me spam comments to flood my blog. I had to admit that because I found that the spammers had been attacking blogs longer than Norman has had an account. Naturally, I found this evidence without Norman's assistance. He kept true to the "no displays of evidence" principle. So, since I can admit when I'm wrong, why can't Norman?