left biblioblography: The Soul Of An Atheist - The Chimera Of Doubt That Became Faith

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Soul Of An Atheist - The Chimera Of Doubt That Became Faith

(Cross-posted at God is for Suckers!)ex-atheist

In my ongoing efforts to find the wild, the weird, the diverse (I rather enjoy pissing on the shoes of the Young Earth creationists as much as the next infidel, but let's face it: fish in a barrel is the adage that comes to mind), I present unto you that most unique of perspectives, the atheist that changes her mind.

How I stumbled across this, I cannot say or recall. One hundred clicks later, one wonders to himself, "How did I arrive here? What onramp on the information highway did I take?"

I dug into this website, hoping perhaps there was some new, unusual content, perhaps actual evidence, perhaps a new methodology to explore, perchance an angle I'd missed over.

It's...strange, I'll give you that. Some of it old hat (I'll demonstrate that in a touch), some of it just...perplexing.

One A.S.A Jones at Ex-Atheist.com (I wonder what the initials stand for? 'A Satanic Asshat', perhaps?) goes on at length about her 're-conversion'.

First, the personal account:

I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn't into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth.

In the absence of a religious belief to answer life's questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality.

I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school's early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh.

So far, so good.

Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn't live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual's death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted.

My first response was, "Oh, wow." Second was, "Oh my." A bullet to the head? I see the gibbering monkeys of madness gnawing away at the fringes of this person's psyche.

I'm skipping a few paragraphs here (not trying to strawman this, just an overview), so forgive me.

That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn't know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were.

My jaw dropped. WTF?!? So you missed that personal touch of the supernatural (that vast, unprovable 'what if?), and elevated yourself above the hoi polloi via your imagined intellect?

The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn't be seen and they would reply, "You can't see the wind but it's there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith.

Interesting.

Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible's authority. "The Bible says... the Bible says... the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn't. "It's all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can't you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it.

My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn't as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn't keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion's effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil.

Here's the thing: not all atheists are moral relativists. I know I'm not - it's morally bankrupt. I rail against religion on a personal level, because humanity has been lied to. Well, that and the fact that most Christians are a tad overly anxious to share, whether any of us like it or not. Oh, and the efforts made to infiltrate our lives on multiple levels. Otherwise, you want to live a lie? That's your business, none of mine. Until you make it my business.

Snip:

The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

I confess, dear readers: the bible actually does make a lot of sense to me. I fancy I do understand the major themes, the cultural environment it was written in, the undertones, the allegory and parables.

Comprehension is NOT the equivalent of agreement.

Snip:

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

(Note to self: moral relativism is a BAD thing.)

Continued:

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness?

The book was reading you? Bad news: if a fictional book is reading you while you're reading it, then I suggest therapy. It's not a living being - personification is the word that springs to mind.

The moment I was made aware of my despicable nature, I realized that Jesus had died for me. I never had recognized sin and, therefore, thought that Christ had died for nothing. But this man was able to see the horrible nature present in all of humanity and yet he had sacrificed himself to save us from ourselves. In a very real sense, my sinful nature had caused the death of an innocent man. I never believed in hell prior to this, but one of my first thoughts, after seeing how hellish a person that I was, was that I deserved to be in it.

Talk about issues. A secret envy of mentally challenged people? Why are they happy, and you not? The rest of the testimonial descends into predictable drivel from there.

And the debate methodologies are contemptibly skewed - see here.

And get this:

In trying to find quick answers, I turned from the library to the Internet and ran smack into J.P. Holding’s Tekton Apologetics Ministries. In my opinion, this guy is the most thorough researcher and honest apologist I have ever read. His website is a treasure to any Christian who is bothered or entertained by debate. The anti-Christian crowd is fond of dismissing Christian apologists for telling 'what could have been or the way things may have been', but there is no denying that Mr. Holding's research illustrates what actually was and the way things actually were.

Holding? You're...kidding me, right? The guy in the glass house who throws stones? If I were a Christian, you bet your bottom dollar, I'd most strenuously object to him on multiple levels. Yeah, I'd pull a Scotsman on him on a moment's notice.

I found this to be especially repugnant:

When a Christian did the impossible or the outrageous or lived out the extreme philosophy of Jesus Christ, these were the things that caused me to take notice and offense. No amount of talk about God's Law could have made any difference with me. The only time that caught my attention was when a Christian acted extraordinarily in the Spirit of the Law.

Hey, ya know what? When someone does behave in the manner most pay lip service, I can respect that. I may disagree with their epistemology, but I've managed to make a Christian friend or two via the internet. One of them actually throws me some web work on occasion, despite our obvious differences.

I get hot and lathered when the concern becomes some sort of coercion. I get 'rabid' when some wackjob like Cho goes postal and blithers about Jay-sus. I get bent out of shape when some woman excuses her husband for microwaving their baby by blaming it on Satan. I get pissed off when some drooling imbecile decides that his gawd is going to call the shots for the rest of us. The laundry list is long, and stomach-wrenching.

These, then, are the wages of original sin. That some imagined flaw fashioned into our clay by a cosmic babysitter is our fault (Tsk, tsk, let's not blame the parent for how fucked up the child is, shall we?), that must be washed away by baptismal blood sacrifice (the bloodlust of this phantasmal being is beyond anything that could be termed 'loving').

It beggars the imagination that anyone could even remotely consider this acceptable.

Final analysis: my eyes were somewhat crossed, and glad this person isn't batting for our team.

(Note: I will email her, so have any notes ready.)

Stumble Upon Toolbar

35 comments:

karen said...

But the most astounding change that took place in me was that I was freed from my cold indifference in matters of the heart. My atheistic philosophy had allowed me to lose my compassion for others. I no longer had the ability to love anyone, not even myself. I had become apathetic to life itself.
Poor bay. He/she wasn't an atheist.
He/she was just an asshole.

Krystalline Apostate said...

'Freed from my cold indifference in matters of the heart'.
What a stereotype.
Some wizard of Oz told she did INDEED have a heart.
Tinman made of straw.

remy said...

Humanity had become nothing more than molecules and enzymes?

He was never a thinking, functioning human being. I hate to say it, but maybe religion DOES prevent these mutants from running amuck.

Mesoforte said...

Perhaps this person is just a sociopath. It sounds like it.

Other than that, I've ran through the site recommended as a good one by the person and got a link to a Leadership U website.

I think I'll write something on it later.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF - Holding's a waste of time & bandwidth. I absolutely loathe that guy.
The old saying, "Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them" comes to mind.
Except that Bobby's already taken up residence.

niran said...

Hi krystalline, it's been a while since I last visited this site, where that long long long debate took place.

I don't mean to start a new round of debate but I'm really curious how one can posit moral absolutism within a naturalist framework. You may recall that I noted that the 'is-ought' dichotomy logically precludes an inference of a value from a fact.

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran - well, I reject moral relativism because it gives a tacit nod to any sort of behavior (extenuating circumstances). I think we can all agree that the ancient Aztecs performing human sacrifice was barbaric. Likewise, the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites for select sexual behaviors.
I think reciprocal altruism is a key factor here, as a certain consensus among creatures is necessary for the overall survival of the herd.

niran said...

By why is some one morally obliged by the principle of reciprocal altruism. Why 'ought' we to be nice to others. The problem is that you cannot answer the 'ought' question with an observation or fact. Value must derive from another value until you get to an absolute value.

niran said...

It'd be nice if you can answer this one. I'm really curious since all the atheists I have ever met have been moral relativists.

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran - I have answered it already.
I find discussions about morality a little ridiculous, seeing as we have ample evidence that religion in no way improves folks in the least.
It's obvious that morality has evolved. There's never been a thoroughly absolute codex for it.

niran said...

"I have answered it already.
I find discussions about morality a little ridiculous"

No you have not. You only said morality was linked to reciprocal altruism. You didn't answer why reciprocal altruism as a biological or scientific phenomena morally obligates individuals. You claim to reject moral relativism, yet you have no justification for the validity of universal moral norms.

This is not about whether religion in fact makes people better or not, that's an anthropological inquiry. Don't confuse your categories. This is a philosophical point on how one sustains a conception of binding universality of morality without falling prey to the 'ought-is' fallacy. If you find this ridiculous, good for you. Hopefully one or two of your more intelligent friends can respond. Unfortunately mesaforte is a moral relativist so let's hope there's someone else.

Cheers.

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
No you have not. You only said morality was linked to reciprocal altruism. You didn't answer why reciprocal altruism as a biological or scientific phenomena morally obligates individuals. You claim to reject moral relativism, yet you have no justification for the validity of universal moral norms.
I really don't feel obliged to give you a 500 word essay on the topic, as you won't accept anything a common 'street thug' says anyways. Besides which, I have plenty of essays on this blog on this topic alone.
Nor am I going to do your homework for you.
This is not about whether religion in fact makes people better or not, that's an anthropological inquiry. Don't confuse your categories. This is a philosophical point on how one sustains a conception of binding universality of morality without falling prey to the 'ought-is' fallacy. If you find this ridiculous, good for you. Hopefully one or two of your more intelligent friends can respond. Unfortunately mesaforte is a moral relativist so let's hope there's someone else.
Excuse me, but it's entirely relevant.
Anthropology supplies sufficient data on the topic. Called cause & effect.
'Binding universality of morality'? You're kidding me, right?
Morals evolved, obviously. Anyone w/ 1/2 a brain could figure that out.
Of course, I'm telling this to someone who thinks ID is a valid side in a scientific debate.
& you insult my intelligence.
You people think the morality argument is so powerful - when your own book is chock full of atrocity.
Go figure.

niran said...

Just like I thought, you have no reason to justify a binding universal morality in a manner that does not defy the 'ought-is.' I've actually read quite a few atheists on this and find their answers to be unsatisfactory(which is why I asked you), though their positions are slightly more sophisticated than this 'Christians are evil therefore theism cannot provide a metaethical objective justification for morality' drivel.

Regards,

P.S - I alone do not think ID is science. Scientists who oppose ID do so in scientific journals. They cannot be using science journals to debate philosophy of science questions, i,e- the definition of science, so its obvious that the debate is scientific. I believe that was the content of my debate with Bradley.

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran - I thought you didn't want to start a whole new round of debate?
I've actually read quite a few atheists on this and find their answers to be unsatisfactory(which is why I asked you), though their positions are slightly more sophisticated than this 'Christians are evil therefore theism cannot provide a metaethical objective justification for morality' drivel.
Did I say xtians were evil? No. The epistemology is fairly pathetic, though.
I was giving you the nutshell version.
Define your terms. What is a value from your 'universal morality', then? How does divine command institute it?
Gimme details.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Okay, I'll give you one.
Christianity ought to be benign, but is more malign than it ought to be.

niran said...

Well, it was you who rejected moral relativism. The definition of moral absolutism among philosophers has never been the bone of contention. It means that there is a core set of values that are morally binding universally, regardless of whether they are accepted or not. Relativism denies this universality of moral obligation. I'm surprised you're in need of a definition here, given that you deny relativism.

You're still not grappling with the idea of how obligations can arise that are morally binding. Surely they cannot arise from observations about nature. That's the substance of the 'ought-is' argument.

Re theistic moral universalism, I debated this MF a few weeks back so I'll just do a cut and post job.

"The theist would argue that goodness flows from God's character and thus humans are bound by this moral absolute. There is no ought-is here because God is as much as value as he is a fact. But Kelsen and before him Hume tacitly agreed that ought values can flow from other ought values. So human morality flows from the ought value of God."

and

"God's character does not change because he is by definition absolute. So morality is neither an arbitrary command, nor an expression of a higher norm other than God, because the absolute has been reached. Can the absolute change? Only if you violate the logic of an absolute which is that an absolute does not change. So the unchanging nature of God is not an expression of his will, it is a manifestation of his character which is absolute.

It's the same with logic. Logic is contained in God, who is the locus of logic as it were. Logic does not change because God is conceived of the logical absolute. Can God change the logic absolute? Only at the cost of violating logic itself. The question therefore fails, since it countenances the violation of logic."

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran - oy, talk about canned responses.
Relativism denies this universality of moral obligation. I'm surprised you're in need of a definition here, given that you deny relativism.
I don't need a definition. I reject relativism: it's wishy-washy. It renders all things the same, when evidently they're not.
It's the same with logic. Logic is contained in God, who is the locus of logic as it were. Logic does not change because God is conceived of the logical absolute. Can God change the logic absolute? Only at the cost of violating logic itself. The question therefore fails, since it countenances the violation of logic."
What a sophistic crock.
So let me get this straight: you want to attribute anything resembling our good behavior to an unprovable, unfalsifiable, ephemeral abstract?
Do I need to give you a lesson in logic as well as science?

niran said...

Given that all your supposed lessons to me have led inevitably to myself having to point out the multiple idiocies in your assertions, I think I'll pass. If I remember right the last lesson I got from you on science was that E=mc2 was a figment of my imagination. "You're spinning matter and energy into equivalence" you quite disconcertedly proclaimed, much to the embarrassment of your fellow atheist friends.

But why are you running away from providing a logical basis for binding moral obligation. Your philosophy is bankrupt if all you can manage in response to my challenge is to ask me the same question and then feign incredulity at my answer. The crock of sophistry sir is an argument, and as far as I know random remarks that reflect an inability to grasp the complexities of philosophical investigation into abstract concepts never really constituted a valid rebuttal. You may shake your head and walk off muttering that all this philosophy is a waste of time, but you may not claim that my position is wrong. Of course, not every human act that is good is because of God in a causal sense, but the categories of good and bad have no meaning unless you posit a moral absolute. I want to know where your moral absolutes(read:the bases on which you reject moral relativism)come from given that you may not derive a value from a fact. As long as you will not attempt answering this, or answer it with an observation of nature your position is only consistent with a regress back into the folds of moral relativism, where many honest atheists will accept you with open arms.

Engage or bugger off, I'm used to saying. I cannot say it here, it's your blog. Cheers.

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Given that all your supposed lessons to me have led inevitably to myself having to point out the multiple idiocies in your assertions, I think I'll pass. If I remember right the last lesson I got from you on science was that E=mc2 was a figment of my imagination. "You're spinning matter and energy into equivalence" you quite disconcertedly proclaimed, much to the embarrassment of your fellow atheist friends.
Oh, the silence was deafening, no doubt. /sarcasm off.
You keep viewing the world in this monochromatic manner, when very little is written in stone.
It IS hard to ascertain where energy stops & matter begins. I gave you definitions, which you rejected (due to our obvious disagreements in other matters; were I a theist, you'd probably nod in tacit agreement).
But why are you running away from providing a logical basis for binding moral obligation. Your philosophy is bankrupt if all you can manage in response to my challenge is to ask me the same question and then feign incredulity at my answer. The crock of sophistry sir is an argument, and as far as I know random remarks that reflect an inability to grasp the complexities of philosophical investigation into abstract concepts never really constituted a valid rebuttal. You may shake your head and walk off muttering that all this philosophy is a waste of time, but you may not claim that my position is wrong. Of course, not every human act that is good is because of God in a causal sense, but the categories of good and bad have no meaning unless you posit a moral absolute. I want to know where your moral absolutes(read:the bases on which you reject moral relativism)come from given that you may not derive a value from a fact. As long as you will not attempt answering this, or answer it with an observation of nature your position is only consistent with a regress back into the folds of moral relativism, where many honest atheists will accept you with open arms.
No sir, I'm not running away. Rather than giving your empty epistemology any weight by presupposing that you may be right, I'd much sooner have some sort of proof, being an empiricist.
I reject that which does more harm than good, on both an individual as well as a collective basis.
Your efforts to (feebly) trap me into the naturalistic fallacy are duly noted (& chuckled at), though.

niran said...

It's very kind of you to repeat my entire comment in toto. However, I am acutely aware of my own views and was looking forward to a lucid restatement and defence of your own position. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. You're not going to find empirical data to justify a philosophical position. Your lack of philosophical aptitude shines forth. Good luck to you.

p.s- is there any factual, empirical proof that causes you to reject relativism???

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
It's very kind of you to repeat my entire comment in toto.
Sorry, it's an old habit. Helps when I debate people who redefine definitions on the fly. Like yourself.
You're not going to find empirical data to justify a philosophical position.
Then it's speculation. We can speculate, I suppose.
Your lack of philosophical aptitude shines forth. Good luck to you.
Wow, you've really done zilch in the way of research, haven't you (in re: my stance)?
I'm more than capable of approaching a philosophical aspect, & analyzing it to death - I've done so on numerous occasions.
I repeat:
What is a value from your 'universal morality', then?
Are you on such shaky ground then, that you can't provide 1? I've already demonstrated that your petitio principii is fairly lame.
Seriously, if this is how you've been 'trained' for battle, your taskmaster must be quite soft.

niran said...

Well, this is admittedly boring. I've heard that your reason for rejecting relativism is that it is 'wishy washy'. I'll look elsewhere, but your claims of being able to sustain a philosophical debate with any real appreciation for what it takes to grapple with abstract concepts rings a little hollow when you want tangible evidence as to why relativism may be wrong :-) Oh, sorry, that was the only philosophical claim that didn't need evidence right. The wishy washy assertion provides all the evidence we need...!!! :-)

Good luck in your philosophical quest. Le me give you a little something to work on. Why don't you try and figure out whether scientific evidence exists in support of Kirkham's response to the Gettier problem... :-)

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Well, this is admittedly boring.
& yet you keep responding.
I've heard that your reason for rejecting relativism is that it is 'wishy washy'. I'll look elsewhere, but your claims of being able to sustain a philosophical debate with any real appreciation for what it takes to grapple with abstract concepts rings a little hollow when you want tangible evidence as to why relativism may be wrong :-)
Oh, am I not pwaying your wittwe game the way you're 'twained' to?
Still no sign of a value from your allegedly 'absolute morality'. I guess you have none.
Oh, sorry, that was the only philosophical claim that didn't need evidence right. The wishy washy assertion provides all the evidence we need...!!! :-)
Really? I thought we'd see eye-to-eye on that 1.
Le me give you a little something to work on. Why don't you try and figure out whether scientific evidence exists in support of Kirkham's response to the Gettier problem
You're assigning homework now? Geez, talk about pride before a fall.
Gimmee a few weeks to work up a concern over it.
Meanwhile, come up w/solid evidence proving your deity exists. I mean, outside of a few platitudes extracted from Aquinas & Lewis.

niran said...

What am I saying, that should read

"I'd defend that an absolute prohibition on rape is valid even if there are cultures where rape is not considered illegal or unacceptable...

Krystalline Apostate said...

Another comment like that, consider yourself banned.
Count yourself lucky you're not in arms reach.
Nice way to represent your religion, BTW. Religion has obviously not improved you in the slightest.
Loser.

niran said...

hahaha, boy you are something special!!

You don't like my arguments so get rid of the entire comment on the lame pretext that there is an offending word, (that too on a site where insults like "fucktard" are thrown around without a hint of protest). This is getting better and better... :-)

Btw, the three arguments you still haven't dealt with are

a)how does the atheist posit an absolute morality and reject situational or relativist ethics without violating the 'ought-is' principle.

b) does not the argument that scientific evidence is needed to demonstrate the truth of abstract concepts violate the 'ought-is' at least in relation to normative statements.

c) what scientific proof do you have to prove that only scientifically verifiable statements can be true.

Thank you,

cheers.

P.S- boo hoo, I',m so scared the tough guy Krystalline is going to come after me with his little mouse and ban me from his blog...

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
You don't like my arguments so get rid of the entire comment on the lame pretext that there is an offending word, (that too on a site where insults like "fucktard" are thrown around without a hint of protest). This is getting better and better... :-)
Let's see...you're a guest in my sandbox. I don't recall calling you a fucktard on this blog (albeit I have called others that). I'd have left the entire comment had you not said that little gem of a turd.
Keep on trying to goad me into responding. Meanwhile, you may ask yourself this: Who's goading who? You're telegraphing your shots from a mile away.
Since I'm not a trick poodle, I'll not jump thru those hoops.
'Ask, & thou shalt receive.'

niran said...

Actually you are responding, it's just that none of the responses have the effect of making your position look any less irrational and stupid than it already looks, or shall we say, indefensible, just inc case the two words I used were a little too harsh for my Krystalline friend to handle... :-)Don't worry baby, I'll be nice and tender and lovey dovey with you and never say a cross word!

Meanwhile, you will continue to look for scientific evidence as to why only scientifically provable fact can be true!!! Am I right???

I've had fun, thanks for being so compliant.. ;-)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Oh, I see: I respond, you declare victory. I don't respond, you declare victory.
My Sunday sermon is up, it's about morality (see, all you had to do was be patient).
I might be clear on this: you & I are most definitely not friends, as I find you morally repulsive, obnoxious, & a little too eager to engage in mental masturbation.
Way to represent.

niran said...

How can I declare victory when there wasn't even a contest to start with :-)

Krystalline Apostate said...

I'd advise you look up the word 'compliant', as I've been anything but.
Unless you've changed the definition of that word as well.
I'm going to dub thee Tweedledum.
"A word means what I say it means. Nothing more and nothing less."
Say hey to Tweedledee for me, wouldja? ;)

niran said...

wow, what a comeback!!! You're a funny bugger aren't you??!! :-)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Glad you liked it.

niran said...

I loved it. The 'insult someone by calling them a name from a fairytale' is just such a devastating technique! There can be rejoinder to that quality of wit.... I'll remember next time to call people 'Snow White' or 'Gulliver' if I really want to insult them American style!!!... ;-)

Krystalline Apostate said...

niran:
Maybe you should take a gander at this.
If you choose to comment, I suggest you behave, though.
The moderators are by far a little less...tolerant than I am.