In response to this post, one idiot, who apparently has no problem writing one libel after another against people who disagree with him, interpreted me as saying: “You are demanding that Christians stop believing that Christ has saved them (the central pillar to Christianity) and if they don’t then and future shootings are their own fault.” I have no idea how anyone can read what I actually said and arrive at that conclusion. My point in that post can be summed up in what follows:

It’s hard for me to ask you to set aside your antisocial tendencies because doing so runs the risk of challenging your beliefs as a whole. I cannot ask anyone to relinquish their beliefs; I can only nudge them, ask them critical questions. I strongly believe that a journey away from any faith is a personal one. It is a land to be traversed on your own time and at your own pace. Nonetheless, in order for true peace between yourselves and your enemies, you have to stop making enemies where initially there weren’t any. In other words, they weren’t your enemies from the outset; they only became your enemies when you made them such, when you declared that they must be the persecutors that were promised, the indigenous peoples of this alien world you now find yourself in. You did not come in peace and then you wonder why you’ve hitherto failed to achieve peace. I’ve given you sound advice that will help us to coexist and work together. It is up to you to decide whether or not it is advice worth taking.

To put it simply for idiots like the libelist I’m talking about, everyone is excluded from your circle unless they choose to believe as you do. These outsiders are then considered your persecutors because they, for instance, pose challenges to your beliefs. Historically, all you can show is that adherents of other religions murdered Christians, either as a response to the fact that Christians were murdering them or because of something they believe is mandated by their religion, e.g., Jihad. Atheists, despite the Atheist Atrocities Fallacy, have not tortured or murdered religious people for sake of their beliefs. No atheist in their right mind would advocate that. 

However, when you believe that Christ’s words have to be fulfilled, you make everyone else the antagonists in your narrative. This is why religious people with extremist views can’t live peaceably among each other. This is very different from saying “future shootings are [Christians’] fault.” Rather, what I’m telling Christians is to question the belief that everyone is against them. Jesus supposedly stated: “you will be hated by all for my name's sake.” In other words, everyone who is not a Christian either hates you or will hate you at some point in the future. You’ve set every non-Christian in opposition to yourself.

The libelist and his band of idiots have not learned this; they harbor a dangerous belief: everyone either hates them or is, at some point, expected to--hence their attempt to popularize an appropriated buzzword: Christophobia. Could it not be the case that Jesus didn’t say things like this at all and that other people put words in his mouth? Isn’t such a prophecy a bit absurd: hated by all? Does that even sound like something that could reasonably happen? Consider, for instance, that there are isolated human populations that don’t know about your beliefs. In fact, if any of us, Christian or not, step into their territory, we might be killed on sight. Given that, they won’t know about your beliefs anytime soon! So how can they hate you for sake of your beliefs? How can they come to hate you if they’ll never hear of your beliefs? Such a prophecy is absurdly improbable and yet, some Christians actively seek confirmation of such verses. 

The libelist is a perfect example. It’s no secret that I don’t like him or people like him: he’s rude, obnoxious, intellectually dishonest, and he’s a proponent of a lot of extremist views that I strongly disagree with: he’s anti-choice, anti-women, anti-LGBTQ, pro-war, anti-science, and more anti-atheist than any Christian I’ve come across on Tumblr. Despite the lack of historical support for the notion of Christian-killing atheists, he addresses us as though we’re more of a threat than extremist Muslims. Sure, we actually share the soil with you, but the so called “nones” are at 20% or so in the U.S. and yet, we’re not making the news for our Christian-killing ways. So maybe we’re not as dangerous as you make us out to be. In fact, we’re not dangerous at all despite the fact that you blame our “hateful rhetoric” for the shooting in Oregon--which is nothing more than unfounded blather and a clear denial of the facts, e.g., the shooter wasn’t an atheist.

He extrapolates from the fact that I don’t like him and then concludes that I hate all Christians. Let the record speak for itself: I’ve many times been called one of the most civil and respectful atheists on Tumblr, if not the entire blogosphere. This isn’t diminished by the handful of imbeciles that have managed to get on my bad side by virtue of their constant heckling and levels of obstinacy that pretty much ensure that any dialogue we have is unfruitful: johnnyis, in-the-right, the libelist and his band of idiots, and the now Tumblr-deceased cultureshift (good riddance!). @luke-hamstrings, the Christian I responded to most recently, would be hard pressed to find an instance of rudeness, lack of compassion, or mean-spiritedness in the entirety of my response. I’ve tagged her because I would really like her opinion. She may not agree with anything I wrote, but I doubt she’ll say that I hate her. 

In fact, I’ve interacted with dozens of Christians in the blogosphere. He’s all alone in claiming that I hate him or Christians in general. If my supposed hatred is so obvious, why haven’t they noticed it? In fact, he’s the one who said “fuck you asshole” (see here). No Christian on Tumblr can claim that I use profanity in our exchanges. For a Christian, the profanity is very unbecoming. Then again, I notice a trend on Tumblr; a lot of Christians actually defend their right to use profanity. They totally forgot the following:

7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.

James 3:7-12

At any rate, disliking someone, for sound reasons, is not tantamount to hatred. Disliking one person who identifies with a certain group is not equivalent to a dislike of the entire group. As stated many times over, I have Christian friends and family members; the libelist would be surprised to learn that we don’t spend our time debating apologetics, arguing over who’s right concerning our worldviews, and mutually trying our darnedest to change each other’s opinions. In fact, the only reason they know I’m an atheist is because I no longer go to church, read the Bible, watch Christian programming, listen to Christian music, etc. Furthermore, I express no desire to do any of that and when asked, I respectfully answer that I no longer believe as I once did. I don’t give them a death stare or threaten to hurt them. 

The libelist can try all he wants to defame my character. Four years on Tumblr speak louder and much more conclusively. The likes of you have come around time and time again. I will outlast you; my ideas will outlast you; my civility, my respect and empathy for others, and my humanistic principles will outlast you; my actual words will outlast your lies about them. You can’t admit defeat; I, as promised, obliterated you on that Hitler nonsense you and your band of idiots were trying to push (see here), and your response is less a knee-jerk reaction and more a puerile tantrum, as predicted. It’s not my fault that every opinion you express is poorly worded, misinformed, and ultimately, wrong. Bury the hatchet. I’m willing to do that. 

But I’ll also warn you to tread lightly. I’m patient, but like anyone else, I have my limits. When pushed, I’m quite relentless. Ask cultureshift; oh wait, you can’t ask him because I’m highly likely one of the reasons he deactivated his Tumblr account and I’m definitely the reason he has had not one, not two, but three Facebook pages taken down. I can do what you’re doing, but better. I can, in other words, hover over your blog and reblog one post after another. You won’t be able to keep up; I will overwhelm you. I type a good 120-150 words a minute, but it’s more likely said posts will contain long refuted opinions, so it may be as simple as copying and pasting from previous responses, tweaking, expounding where necessary, and queueing for later today! I’ll expose your ineptitude repeatedly and harm your reputation without the libel you’re so fond of; after all, even some Christians don’t view you favorably! Your reputation is already in the mud. I’ll drag it to the depths. So it’s best you heed my warning. 

I know you’re hardheaded and whatnot, but my hammer is much harder. That Hitler response is just an example. Imagine that on multiple posts day in and day out. What will you do? Write libel every time I write substantive responses. Eventually, people are going to view you as someone who makes things up about people who disagree with you and they’re going to see me as I actually am: intellectually honest, eloquent, well informed and educated, a damn good debater, and a writer that’s far more skilled than you are. I’ve not said any of that about myself because I don’t have to; four years and that’s the consensus. Even some Christians have been honest enough to say that I pose a real challenge to their views, ask critical questions, make them rethink their view on a given topic, explain things clearly, and so on. I’ve, for instance, been quite successful at having young-Earthers question and eventually renounce young-Earth creationism. Some have proven to be quite bullheaded over the last four years, but enough contact with my hammer and every hardhead cracks--and that has applied to some fellow atheists as well. Obduracy is due to ignorance and lack of contact with relevant information and/or people capable of adequately defending an alternative view. You’ll look stupid after being drudged for a few rounds and refusing to concede defeat. Don't try your luck. 

You did it before and got manhandled in discussions on ethics by both me and Soy. My response was short and to the point because you don’t know what you’re talking about, e.g., moral relativity; everyone point and laugh at this idiot. As I told you in your inbox when you offered this up as your latest red herring (see here), philosophy is my field; I’m no layman and I’m more than capable of explaining not only my position, but various position in ethics--a capacity you definitely do not have given that you conflate subjectivism and relativism, show no awareness of the differences between them, throw around “greater good” as if I’m supposed to be impressed with an oversimplification of utilitarianism, and assume that every atheist is simultaneously a utilitarian and normative relativist. 

Furthermore, I have more than one approach to your veiled Moral Argument. That Hitler post would pale in comparison if I decided to draft an exhaustive response on this matter. Last Christian to push my hand on this deactivated her blog the same day! She was obviously too embarrassed, especially after trying so hard to give the impression that she knew what she was talking about. I tell you this (!), she actually knew more than you do. So how in the world do you expect to be any match when all you do is repeat the same drivel? Like Soy said:

You have put very little consideration into what atheists actually believe, and the mere fact that we do not all believe the same things about reality, nor do we all share the same moral beliefs. You did not need to rant about how atheists are rude in order to say that they are not intellectually superior - I think the fact that you have offers evidence to the opposite. If you would not like atheists telling you that they have “greater rationality”, prove it to them by offering good rational arguments.

YUNG DATABASE ITZ YABOY YUNG DATABASE

ITZ YABOY YUNG DATABASE MUSIC VIDEO