I had one person claim that I regard people as dishonest merely for disagreeing with me.

     This is simply not true. There are quite a few people who disagree with me whom I consider honest about their disagreement and their arguments. I consider people to be dishonest when they use dishonest tactics.
     The major players in any "hot button" issue tend to be dishonest. Someone that parrots the talking points of either side in such a debate is likely to be considered dishonest by me. For example, I oppose abortion; but I think the term "pro-life" is just as dishonest as the term "pro-choice." If I find a roach in my home, I am not going to try to preserve that life. But it is life. But, when there is dishonesty, I am more likely to uncover it in someone who disagrees with me, because I am likely to examine his claims more closely. The sad fact is that few people in the abortion debate really start with their own foundational beliefs and argue their own positions. Most people will repeat the talking points, the rhetoric, and the terminology of the camp with which they most closely identify. Here's a tip. If you do not generally use the word "terminate" but instead use the word "kill" in most situations when it comes up, but onthe topic of abortion consistently say "terminate the pregnancy" I am going to detect the insincerity right away.

I find it rather amusing that Norman is complaining about trolls.

     The reason I find it amusing is because Norman is the only internet troll I have encountered. But Norman's standards for calling someone a troll are a little different than mine. I call someone a troll if he regularly attempts to induce emotional responses so that he can tell himself that he is superior to people. Norman calls someone a troll if he dares to disagree with him.
     Recently, Norman has talked about how someone has accused him of blocking scientists (I think on his Twitter account.) He says scientists have better things to do than bother christians with "bad logic." I cannot speak for what scientists do in their spare time. It is not unreasonable to think that some of them would have networking accounts. I do know that Norman denounces sound logic as "bad logic" whenever someone argues coherently against his position. My guess is that he bothered several people (some of whom may have been scientists) that proceeded to reply on his account and he used the names of logical fallacies as a grab bag with which to accuse them; called them various derogatory names; and then blocked them.
     Seriously, there are trolls on the internet. But there aren't that many. If you complain about being inundated by trolls on all sides, the likely reality is that you are the troll.

Norman brags about Slick's dishonesty.

     Norman is bragging about the dishonest tactics of Matt Slick again. He puts it as "arrogant atheists calling in." Of course, previously he talked about "cowardly atheists afraid to call in." Basicly, he can name-call you coming or going.
     In the particular case in question, according to Norman, and atheist caller reasonably called in to point out that there are contradictions in the bible. Everybody have in their head what constitutes a contradiction? I thought so. But Slick, true to his name, could not permit a critic to identify any of the contradictions. His faithful listeners might agree that those were contradictions. It all depends on how fully immunized to criticism of the bible they are. So he used a blocking tactic. He pretended not to know what a contradiction was and asked the caller to define the term. As one can expect, people get frustrated when dealing with the deliberate obtuseness of your typical call-in show host. If you are making a point they don't like, they will not find any definition satisfactory, they will pretend to be confused about what you are trying to present as evidence, they will disconnect you. In short, they will use every trick at their disposal to ensure that your argument is not heard. Now, I don't want you to think that the behavior I described is restricted to christians. This seems to be true of any call-in program. I've heard enough of them. Oh, yes, after they cut you off, they suddenly become coherent and make their point about what you were saying without you able to present your position.
     "If someone wants to debatec challenge, discuss, inquire, or whatever else, go for it. Matt will twist your words, prevent you from speaking and otherwise create illusions to ridicule you."
     Yes, Norman, you have made quite clear the type of person that Slick is. Incidentally, I had to transcribe the above by hand. Your blog prevents direct copying. It is, therefore, possible that some typographical errors may have been introduced. If you wish to prevent transcription errors, allow the tried-and-true copy-paste methods to work.

More christian dishonesty.

     Fundamentalist christians are deceptive. Many of them (far, far too many to be plausible) have a "when I was an atheist" story. Now, Dan has come up with his. I don't believe that Dan was ever an atheist. For that matter, I don't think that he even has an accurate picture of atheists. He invented an element of the story about him and his brother "getting high." I called him on it. He apparently has this image of "atheists" shooting up drugs all day.
     Rather than address the issue that he was caught in a lie because he did not have a valid concept of the people among which he claims he used to be, he feigned indignation and acted like I had accused him of doing drugs. Hey, I don't accuse him of doing anything that is in his story. I think it is complete fiction. But in doing this, he is also exhibiting a point of pride.
     I'd like to talk about this point of pride. Usually, Dan will spout the normal fundamentalist platitudes: "all the glory goes to god," "we are incapable of goodness on our own," "we only have 'christ's' righteousness," etc. By invoking pride, he shows that he does not believe all that nonsense. He is asserting that he was capable of doing good without his god. But, for this one moment, it is more important to him that his audience is distracted from my real accusation (that he has made his story up) and get them thinking that I have made an unreasonable accusation instead (that he made a habit of doing drugs.) He knows that I am on to him and that he can't fool me. His only hope is to get others not to listen to me.

Norman is on his "evolution is racist" kick again.

     And he is so confident that he has the answer to any challenges that... he has turned comments off. What's the matter? Are you afraid that truth might take hold in your mind even though you don't let anyone else see it? Yes, yes, I know. He announced beforehand that he was going to be turning off comments. However, I think he was planning the post in question at the time and he wanted a deflection. He also said that he wasn't going to be posting very often because he had other priorities. And we can see how that turned out.
     Of course, he is also dishonest about the way he supports his claim. Darwin predicted that, over the span of centuries, the more technologically advanced people would wipe out less advanced groups. It's not really an earth-shattering prediction given the tendency of people to try to eliminate the competition. Look at all the people who celebrated the cold-blooded murder of BinLaden. They knew he was nothing but a cheerleader. But he represented the competition. There is no evidence that Darwin was advocating this state of affairs. But Norman pretends this is exactly what he was doing.

What can I say? He's funny.

     Well, Norman is being entertaining again. It would be nice if he could be rational or reasonable. But I suppose we have to take what we can get.
     "It's absurd enough to insult me for using [dishonest sources], but [outsiders] have only emotionally-based insults instead of reasons for disparaging the sources."
     I've pointed out before that Norman's sources continue to make the false claim that Obama was not born in this country despite there being no evidence to that effect and despite the birth certificate which has been presented multiple times that shows that he was born in Hawaii. And this is what his preferred sources continue to post on the main page. However, I seriously doubt that anyone has bothered to insult Norman, himself, on the matter. They have only pointed out that his sources cannot be trusted.
     "The implication is that christian and conservative sources are lying."
     Well, yes, I would say that anyone who continues to claim that Obama was not born in this country (you can think what you will of his policies) is lying. His birth status has been established.
     "In addition the brush-off claim that the sources are lying [even when the lies are exposed outright] is astonishingly stupid."
     You know, for someone who objects to insults, he sure does throw them around a lot.
     "Atheist associations (?) would like nothing better than to shut down 'news organizations' that promote a christian worldview."
     He forgot the quotation marks around "news organizations." I have fixed that here. At any rate, he is correct that there are many people that would like to shut down the christian sites that publish lies and call them "news." There are also many people that would like to shut down the tabloids like "National Enquirer." And it's for basicly the same reason. These sources publish lies. But, let's face it, a lawsuit would only give these liars greater notoriety. And, of course, the christian sources would use the claim of "persecution for their beliefs" as part of a massive fundraising drive.
     "If the sources were lying, lawsuits would be flying left and right, and these agencies would be out of business."
     I believe I've already covered that.
     "Even though we have higher standards than [leftist] rags like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the lamestream networks,.... How dumb can you get? How low can you get,...?"
     And, of course, we see more insults. I seem to recall him saying something earlier about only having emotionally-based insults. It would seem that his claim applies more to himself than anyone else.
     "Disparaging sources, especially without even looking at them, is cowardly."
     And yet, that is exactly what he does with the mainstream media.
     "Saying that they cannot be trusted is slander."
     No, true statements are not slander.

Why do fundamentalist christians spread their message?

     Think about it. They aren't really trying to convince anybody. Dan is spouting the nonsense of "repentence comes before knowledge." Norman is perpetually antagonistic, and in denial of reality. Currently, he is claiming that Hitler was not a christian based on an apologetic site that is manufacturing quotes. It's a little like the "deathbed conversions" of atheists only in reverse. A christian says that someone said something that no one can verify. But, understandably, christians don't want Hitler among their ranks.
     Now, some people might simply think that fundamentalists are stupid or crazy. I do not. Oh, I'm sure that those elements exist. But I think there is something more sinister at play. Christians want to be able to tell people "you had your chance." If they presented their message in any plausible manner, they might win converts. And they do not want that. That would take away from the "ha, ha, you missed out" factor. They want outsiders to dismiss them. Now, I still think that they are wrong. But I also think that any god that would support this kind of behavior is evil.

Norman says that whenever he hears about atheists they are up to mischief.

     Of course, he doesn't rely on any actual news sources. Instead, he uses something that may as well be called "wehateatheists.com." And the group is so out of touch with reality that they are still saying that Obama wasn't born in this country.