A Tweeter on the blog (http://957chatterton.blogspot.com/p/suspended-twitter-atheists.html) writes his frustration regarding Twitter's action of suspending Atheists. He whines about this course of action but refuses to accept that suspension results from the actions of these Atheist tweeters, not censorship.
I posted on his blog and he deleted my comment for obvious reasons. I wrote that Atheists get suspended not for their beliefs, but for their ignorance, hate and overall immature behavior.
I understand debates and discussions can bring about great passion and emotion; however, there is no need to bully, put down, harass, stalk, or mock those who believe in God just because you don't.
There is no reason to be condescending and disrespectful by calling someone a moron, idiot, retard, backward; or by attacking beliefs in an immature manner.
One can present reasons for not believing in a calm intelligible and polite manner. This is where Atheists fail greatly. They claim to be intelligent and rational, but intelligence and rationality cannot co exist with immaturity.
Atheists on twitter roam around harassing believers and bullying them to the extent that it can be criminal. In this time, where so many anti-bullying campaigns are surfacing in order to prevent the aforementioned, it is absurd to think that these so-call rationalists contribute to the bullying epidemic.
Twitter has every right to suspend any account that is breaking its rules, harassing others, bullying others and spreading around ignorance, hate, anger, and profanity.
If you are an Atheist reading this and you harass believers, mock them, curse at them, bully them, invite others to bully them, spread around ignorance and hate, what do you expect Twitter will do?
- I invite everyone to report Atheists who cannot keep their composure and online etiquette in check.
- Report Atheists who only seek to bait and insult.
- Report Atheists who only seek to offend, bully and mock believers.
- Report Atheists who spread falsehoods and ignorance that promote bigotry.
- Get them suspended. They are providing nothing but hate and ignorance to the discussion.
Here are some encounters I've had:
Moreover, you write:
"Sacerdotus on my blog Do You Want To Convert An Atheist where he brags that he can easily provide the evidence required, then proceeds to make excuse for not doing so and abuses me for pointing out this failure. There is absolutely no way that Sacerdotus is ever going to admit that he has no evidence for his god and so could not meet the challenge posed in that blog. Clearly, that's someone else's failure, not his."
This is far from the truth and is a Straw Man fallacy. A careful reading of my words will show that I never offered to do anything other than to tear apart your arguments.
I commented on your blog:
"Sacerdotus23 June 2012 09:50
This is too easy to debunk. Stay tuned to my blog. I will debunk this post and the 2 links Rosa provided. :)"
Notice that I wrote that I will debunk your post. I do not understand how you equate this with providing evidence for God. This is a lack of reading comprehension on your part not a failure on my part to provide evidence for God because no such offer was made.
Also see my blog, it clearly shows my intention of destroying your arguments: http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html
Moreover, you write:
"However, absence of evidence is evidence (not proof but evidence) of absence where evidence is to be expected. For example, the absence of evidence for any wild elephants in England is normally taken by sane people as evidence of the absence of wild elephants in England. No sane individual would behave as though there are wild elephants in England despite this lack of evidence for them."
This is an appeal to ignorance and false cause. You are not in every part of England and at every moment in time to make such a claim. Your "evidence" is based on a particular present moment where there were no wild elephants roaming. You therefore concluded that there are no wild elephants based on that spatial and temporal point of your observance.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is what you're describing here with the elephant.
A- There is an absence of wild elephants in England (supposed evidence).
"After this, and therefore because of this," (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
B -therefore it must be true that no wild elephants exist in England.
It is interesting to note your use of "normally." This indicates that you are aware that there is a probable factor to the contrary of the non existence of wild elephants.