Another statement from the not-as-mighty-as-he-imagines-himself Norman

     Norman has decreed: "Typical. Playing the Ridicule Card or otherwise attempting to insult and hurt someone is a frequent opening gambit in lieu of actual thought."
     Well, do you know what? He is actually right on that point. And I have criticized both christians and atheists for using ridicule in place of argument or thought. Yes, I am aware that I laugh at Norman. But I do not pretend that Norman's inanity is a reason to believe that christianity is false. He's just fun. At any rate, I would like to give a perfect example of someone doing just as Norman criticizes.
     "I have been wanting to call CARM Radio and ask Matt Slick if he supports my hypotenuse hypothesis: Atheists are control freaks. (Relax, we can talk about them. They're too busy at their Treason Rally, celebrating their use of logical fallacies and how they are motivated to take action by things in which they lack belief. Yeah, makes sense to me, too.) I have had several instances of control freakness that cause me to wonder if it is more than just a couple of individuals."
     Yep, that's Norman. He hasn't given any coherent thoughts. But he has said "control freaks" and "treason rally." I often wonder if he is aware of the irony of his posts.

I am going to have to see if I can find a new site for blog hosting.

     When I first got started with Blogger, all you needed was an e-mail address. That's not a problem. You can get an e-mail address anywhere. Then, a day came in which Blogger would not allow me to log in without providing a "confirmation phone number" ostensibly for security reasons. I didn't believe it for a moment. But I do have a land-line telephone and I can pretty much ignore advertising that comes through it. But now, Blogger is getting more and more aggressive about wanting a "mobile phone number." (Locally, they're called cell phones.) I have gotten by for forty years without a cell phone. I don't want one now. I think they are too expensive. And I refuse to incur a $50/month expense just to have the priviledge of continuing to use Blogger. If I ever do get a cell phone, it will be for a more compelling interest than that.
     Google is also a rarity among modern companies. Although they have a "contact page," it provides no way of contacting them. All it really is is a FAQs page. It will allow you to get answers to questions that Google wants to answer. And it can't be a set of questions that are frequently asked because THEY ARE IMPEDING ANY ATTEMPT ACTUALLY TO CONTACT THEM!!! I was able to find a mailing address. I may attempt to send them a letter. Then again, it might be futile. If they are as adverse to being contacted as their contact page suggests, they probebly just throw letters away unopened.

Hezekiah vs. Hezekiah

     I'm still waiting for an apology. After being challenged over and over to produce evidence against me you failed and failed and failed.
     That's your problem. You are the one accusing me. The burden is on you.

     You won't admit it. so quit my time. [sic]

     We both know you have no evidence and in fact never had any.
     When you are ready to present your evidence let me know.

     Well, I have been told those words.
     In regards to you, you never said those exact words. In fact I never said you did. However,, from your behavior on Alex's blog and mine it's a conclusion that I could apply.
     If you want to argue against it go right ahead. We both know you will never admit it.

     Now, the excerpts are from him demanding an apology from me for my conclusion that he made offensive and libellous remarks on Alex's old blog that got deleted (conclusion based on the responses he got which were still available at the time) and from his deciding he could make a false charge against Reynold. Please note that on either side of the argument, he considers the burden of proof to be on not him.

A message for Dan

Dan:

     I note your most recent change to your banner, and so I would like to proclaim some truth.
     When this blog was created, Dan openly claimed in the banner that the purpose was to "debunk atheists and praise god." Now, he denies this was ever his purpose. He lies. He knows his god is a fiction. It's really that simple. At this point, his purpose to to get donations from the "suckers."
     I hate to break it to you Dan. But I don't think you'll be getting any donations any time soon.

Dan has decreed that 9/11 was an inside job.

     I can't dismiss the possibility. But, personally, I don't find his word sufficient.

I feel like laughing at an idiot. Hey, let's check out Norman.

     As always, there's a chance I'm being set up and some juvenile-minded individual will say, "Haw, haw! He went for it!" So be it, Soviet. On the other hand, it could be real and this inquirer has taste, discernment and obvious intelligence. I see that he landed at Piltdown Superman, a great place to begin searching for answers."
     As we can see, Norman is flattering himself yet again. Norman's sites are terrible places to look for answers. They are pretty good for comic relief, though. Those who manage to grow up understand that there will be smart people who agree with them, smart people who disagree with them, stupid people who agree with them, and stupid people that disagree with them. Norman thinks (or acts like he thinks) that there are only smart people who agree with him and stupid people who disagree.

UPDATE:

     "You've had atheists lie to you about not having an agenda, haven't you? Well, they want to evangelize us away from our faith."
     Some do, some don't. Personally, I suspect that Norman is projecting his own "us vs. them" mentality on anybody who doesn't belong to his little group.
     "While attempting to destroy the faith of individuals (if you don't believe me, you're not an open christian on Facebook or Twitter), they also want to destroy religion itself. Especially christianity. Just ask Richard 'Daffy' Dawkins about his hypocritical crusade [to] destroy christianity."
     You know, Norman, if you want people to contact Dawkins, you should give them a contact address of Dawkins, not yourself. But, yes, if everybody stopped believing in christianity, christianity would crumble.
     "I still don't get it. Why do people get together to celebrate what they do not believe? Does your 'lack of belief' motivate your actions? 'I do not believe that the ChiComs are going to invade Brazil in the next few days, so I'm going to protest.' Atheists will troll the sap out of christians. Why? Because they 'lack belief' in god. Like, duh! Norman the paranoid troll is about to say I'm lying again because he lacks belief in what I'm saying (snicker)."
     Well, Norman, I am fully aware that you don't get it. People are protesting the use of religious textx, like yours, in forming draconian laws. If christianity had no power in government, you wouldn't see anything like that. And, frankly Norman, if you think yourself a liar, then you should probably stop lying.
     "Many modern internet atheists are not so much 'freethinkers' and 'rationalists' as they are 'nonthinkers.' That's right, I said it! I keep tripping them up in very basic logical fallacies."
     I haven't seen this. I've seen you beat up your strawman on your blog. But that's about it. It has been months since I have seen you make a comment on anyone else's site. Is everybody banning you?
     "Being an atheist does not automatically make someone smarter or freer than anyone else."
     Well, this is true. (The blind squirrel finds a nut!) I will even go so far as to say that the atheists who proselytize use the same tactics of intimidation, ridicule, and coercion that christians do.

Yes, I like to laugh at Norman. Yes, I know there are sensible christians out there who are not so ridiculous.

     Norman begins his latest post by "talking" to one of the voices in his head and then acting as if he has just noticed the reader. When I was a child (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) this type of technique was used only occasionally in children's shows; And I thought it rather stupid then. From what I have heard, it has become more prevalent. It has some place in children's shows because children (unfamiliar with the world) can actually believe that there are really people in the television set that are responding in real time. However, as adults we understand that the shows are pre-recorded and that the characters cannot actually see the viewers. Personally, I think this shows the level of mental capacity that "Stormin' Norman" thinks conducive to following his message.
     "I don't think Norman the yap-dog paranoid troll and his master Rotten have heard what you said about them in the podcast."
     What? He wasn't paying attention to what he said, either? I do, however, think it appropriate that he refered to Jesus as "Rotten." The stories are surely fictional; but the character portrayed is, indeed, quite rotten.
     His main post is about appeals to emotion. He should be familiar with the concept as he uses the technique almost exclusively. I lost track of how many times he told non-christians to "man up" on Dan's blog. I also note that he says "unfortunately, some people are skilled at the more subtle forms of manipulation." The only thing I think he considers unfortunate is that he does not. Happily, all of his attempts to manipulate are blatantly obvious. That is, perhaps, why he feels the need to pre-screen comments. Allowing uncontrolled dissent would shatter his manipulation even of the faithful.
     "Brand someone with a label that has negative connotations and you can win over the weak-minded to your side."
     And, again, he is bragging about the way he operates. Note well: He never actual names for any of his critics. He picks terms that he intends as derogatory. Now, the reader may ask if I am not avoiding using Norman's actual screenname. Well, to this I answer that Norman is one of the names that he has chosen, and that it is quite appropriate to use it. Now "Stormin' Norman" may be taken as a bit of ridicule laced with sarcasm; but I really think that is the way he views himself.
     "One of the most blatantly stupid attack labels is liar for Jesus.' It is immediately laughable to anyone with a grain of sense because it implies the accuser has some kind of godlike power to know the thoughts and motives of the person they are attacking."
     As a matter of fact, it implies no such ability. People accused of being liars for Jesus, openly claim that they do what they do "for Jesus." And Norman is no exception. So that part is really not in dispute. The "liar" part is quite evident. We are talking about people who claim that non-believers really believe in the christian god but are "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." It's not a true claim. The conclusion that they are lying (deliberately making false claims to trick their followers) is completely reasonable. I may not be able to read your mind directly. But your actions are a reflection of it. If I see enough of your actions, I can develop a reasonable (though incomplete) model of your mind. I can predict future actions and I can predict what you will believe. The predictions aren't perfect; but they are useful. Furthermore, people do this and will continue to do this because it works. Indeed, Norman does this. His predictions tend to be faulty because: 1) He doesn't really pay much attention to the actual actions of his critics. and 2) He has a tendency to insert motives that make his religion look better when the straight prediction makes his religion look bad.