Guest Post By Contrararian. (More here).
Self-appointed "apologist" and christian warrior Wintery Knight has to be the most blatant example of a "liar for christ" that I have come across in my many years of blogging.
The author of a six-page treatise on how morality cannot exist without God has something seriously wrong with his own moral compass.
He seems to think it is ok for him to edit comments on his blog to change their meaning, put words into his commenter's mouths and avoid questions he can't answer.
Consider this comment I made on a thread discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
contrararian says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
04/12/2010 at 4:03 PM
The only authority you cite is William Lane Craig, a man who (circular reasoning central) believes the Bible is the infallible word of God. Need I mention he is also not a cosmologist?
The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true; and (2) it is special pleading to insist that "god‚" requires no cause but that the universe must.
My "authorities" are albert einstein, stephen hawking, and the 90%+ of eary & life scientists who do not believe in "god"
The answer is that WE DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. I don't. You don't. It is as simple as that.
Since that proposition is quite clearly true, it invalidates any traditional form of christianity. Q.E.D.
Rather than show his readers what I had written, Wintery Knight took "moderation" rights to new heights. He removed the bulk of my comments, added words I did not say, and without giving any indication that my post had been edited, he posted the following under my name as if this is what I had written:
The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true.
I DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. Q.E.D.
He completely misleads his readers (and himself) about my argument. He gives no indication of any edits. He puts words into my mouth. Is this not bearing false witness? Is he not lying?
Here is my next comment:
contrararian says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
04/12/2010 at 4:59 PM
You deleted the bulk of my post. How amusing. Afraid, much?
I do not have to prove anything. You have tried to support the Kalem argument and you have failed.
Science cannot explain how the universe came into being. It is as simple as that. That leaves your premise 2 unproven – and worse, you cannot explain why if p2 is true, it should not also apply to your “god”.
I also pointed out that authorities in cosmology do not support your argument – but you deleted that along with the rest of my post.
Are you going to show my full post, or do I have to declare you a coward and a scoundrel? ;>
Wintery Knight edited that comment as well. The next comment as written was as follows:
contrararian says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
04/12/2010 at 5:11 PM
You do not consider that Albert Einstein & Stephen Hawking are authorities on Cosmology?
I have a prediction, Wintery Knight, that you will end up deleting either all my posts or all links to my blog from this thread.
Wintery Knight is the perfect example of why Fundamentalist Christianity* is false.
Its believers and defenders have to lie to defend it. They lie about what other people say. Blatantly, openly and repeatedly.
He has no shame. Why should he? After all, who is the real deceiver but he that denies what Wintery Knight tells us is god's word?
UPDATE: Click here for the latest on Wintery Knight's dishonesty.
[* Edited 18 April to add: "Fundamentalist". I have no issue with moderate religion of any stripe. Moderates do not have to lie about what others says to support their beliefs. By "fundamentalist", I mean the belief that a holy book is "inerrant" and "true". Such beliefs can only be supported by lying about what other people say. Don't agree? Then feel free to argue with me!]
subscribe to PTET
53 comments:
I tried to have a conversation with this toad and he did the same to me. This is why I accept your claim. :) what a douche!
Imagine he's been doing this for quite some time and getting away with it because no-one could be bothered to complain.
Seriously, what a scum-bag.
The irony of the Apocalypse::::
People told not to follow the Second Coming, who fail to recognize the urgency of the moment and die in the Apocalypse because of it.
Today's slaughterhouses have perfected the "quick kill":::The hammer slides across and it is "lights out".
In bygone eras whereas the skilled rancher knew where to place the knife for the quickest kill, it is a different story for fisherman. Fish are the one meat supply which suffers most before death, and it is noted by the Gods.
And why people like the Japanese base their food supply on the sea. Money is a terrible corruptor, and confuses people into thinking the Japanese could be favored, but this clue shoudl help people see that in fact these war mongers are among God's most disfavored.
Christianity is responsible for African slavery. The Italian men who ran the church set out to gain revenge for the invasion of Italy and, still the largest landowner in Europe, used their considerable clout with the thrones of England to achieve this.
Being "schitzo", the internal battle between good and evil, is a deteriorating gernerational issue that is dying off, much like I illustrated for punishment below:::
This new generation, people like Peter's kids, who were the grandparents of their parents, are an early evil generation and one whom became corrupted and fell for societal temptation readily available for them and every generation of the masses thereafter.
The Peters of the world came before that generation, the agrarian masses, God-fearing, absent for the temptation offerings of early modern society (Roaring 20s vs. 60s/70s). As a result whereas Peter has great internal conflict I refer to as schitzo because of his connection to his past his children will be less so, perhaps far less so depending on grade of sins in their prior life, decreasing generationally until they have all become Godless, immoral monsters.
Just as the Gulf oil spill was a clue from the Gods to conservatives about "Drill, drill, drill.", so was the PG&E/San Bruno fire a clue against doing what you are told.
Understand the message behind the act and learn from other people's loss.
If people begin to do the right thing the Gods will punish them for the evil they've done before then.
You're going to lose another church.
Same happened to me. I posted a very clear and concise refutal against his article about atheism being the reason Jared Lee Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords, and Wintery Knight chose not to post it at all. All the comments that are in his comment section are from people who share his views. It's actually quite hilarious how he preaches about morality and justice and yet he can't even run a democracy in a blog comment section. I sent another comment to him explaining the pathetic irony in his actions. I don't expect it to be posted either. Don't worry or waste your time, people.. losers like this one don't go far in life. Karma's a bitch.
I'v attempted having conversations with him, with similar results and have now given up trying (mostly; following his stream of illogical non-d`sequiturs and lies is a sick addictions`...:)) I am actually torn: most of the time he sounds like a hoax. I mean, nobody can be that idiotic and that mendacious at the same time. Can they? CAN THEY? Ouch...
Damn Sun keyboards, with a backtick where backspace key is everywhere else...:)
Old wintery neglected to allow my comments also. They were on topic, profanity free, etc. They just didn't say what he wanted them to say.
It is amazing how often Christians "moderate" their comments. Comment moderation is generally nothing more than a defensive mechanism for people who are afraid of what someone else my say. There are exception, of course, and I wouldn't criticise anyone from filtering spam and pure invective. (Unless they happily engage in invective themselves when it suits)
Wintery Strikes my as the cowardly, tiny fish in a miniscule pond type of moderator.
Yep I have been wondering why only select posts are making it through. Anything vaguely intellectually challenging from an atheist viewpoint is deleted.
Wintery Knight is borderline sociopathic and has serious issues about women:
Selected blog titles:
"Should Christian men marry Democrats who claim to be Christians?"
"How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting"
"Women should read “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”"
"Do men have a responsibility not to marry feminists?"
"What does the common practice of withholding sex reveal about women?"
Sample quote: "if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom."
"I actually had a conversation with a Christian woman once who said that women should not be obligated to do things that they didn’t feel like doing [he means have sex when not in the mood]. I asked her if men were obligated to go to work when they didn’t feel like going. She said yes, and acted as though I were crazy for asking. I just laughed, because she didn’t even see the inconsistency."
He thinks a woman not sleeping with her husband when not in the mood is equivalent to a man refusing to work. In other words, he sees sex as a woman's 'job'.
In another blog he lists advice to men to 'test' potential wives. It's a VERY long list, including:
"Burden her up with the stories of your hard work day and how hard it is to be a man. Express your concerns about women who withhold sex, put on weight, and spend too much, after they get married."
Not surprisingly, the man has never actually been in a relationship.
I hear you guys. Those are valid concerns. I only recently started following Wintery Knight's blog so I don't know too much about him. Anyway, don't peg us all on the same rung! I'm sure you all have encountered asinine atheistic blokes just the same :)
Kind regards,
D
@Andrew Ryan
I will cite the reason for this:
1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Because he is arguing from a christian perspective this is why he said it.
@Andrew Ryan
Rather than just attacking a person's character address his argument like how he is wrong.
@Andrew Ryan
You think it is not wrong for Wintery Knight to lie by deceptively editing comments on his blog?
Wow - you are a moron.
Same happened to American state. I denote a really clear and succinct refutal against his article concerning atheism being the explanation Jared Lee Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords, and hiemal Knight selected to not post it the least bit. All the comments that ar in his comment section ar from those who share his views. It's really quite uproarious however he preaches concerning morality and justice and however he cannot even run a democracy during a web log comment section. I sent another comment to him explaining the pathetic irony in his actions. i do not expect it to be denote either. don't fret or waste some time, people.. losers like this one do not go way in life. click for packers and movers Ranchi.
You are a liar, a coward and a scoundrel.
There, that makes it true.
LOL
Atheists - the greatest dupes, non free thinkers and loser pseudo-intellectuals on earth.
You are a shill for the most vain, empty useless, idiotic position ever devised in a monkey-brained human - atheism.
Nothing created everything.
Yes, I believe! Blind faith in nothing dominates logical inferences to a necessarily supernatural cause.
Duh.
Get informed for petes sake. You are an intellectual ant fighting an intellectual lion compared to Wintery.
Sheesh.
thanks for this inrormation :D slimming capsule
Appreciate you for a well informative write-up! packers and movers kukatpally
If this is the way Wintery Knight has been behaving (and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying) then he is clearly a charlatan. But what I find very interesting is your conclusion about Christianity. Many Christians, myself included, have engaged in lengthy debates about a wide range of issues relating to theism / atheism and (while I can only speak for myself) without running away from the kinds of arguments you present. You rightly accuse WK of cowardice and deceit, but I think you are being rather deceitful to assume that a judgment can be made about Christianity per se because of the actions of one pathetic loser, who imagines himself (herself) to be a great apologist. You seem to forget the many "internet atheists" who are as despicable as this character. I have been misquoted and my words twisted by atheists more times than I can remember. I have made respectful comments on atheist blogs, which have either not even been posted or have been posted and then responded to with a stream of insults! To be fair, I have also suffered similar treatment on certain Christian blogs.
Whatever you may think about Christianity or theism in general, you cannot claim to be rational and moral if you pass judgment on this view of reality on the basis of the corrupt behaviour of one person.
nice shae
info bagus
these is nothing wrong with saying we need God to be moral. I don't think much of WK. From what I can see he's no thinker. But you are wrong. Kant thought we needed God to secu8re grounding for moral axioms. qr3 you going to tell me Kant was stupid?
I challenge any of you to debate me on this on Doxa forums
Hi Joe, thanks for dropping by. There's many people much more qualified to debate philosophy than me who claim Kant doesn't in reality support the need for God. You could try debating them :) Here's an interesting link for starters. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/was-kant-a-closet-atheist-57096.html
Al Graham: Who's judging their view of reality on the corrupt behaviour of one person? Not me.
he deleted my comment because it linked to my website? you guys talk big but you far the knowledge of the other side.
that should say "fear" you fear knowledge
from the OP I see "The only authority you cite is William Lane Craig, a man who (circular reasoning central) believes the Bible is the infallible word of God. Need I mention he is also not a cosmologist?"
you sound scared to death of Craig. why are you so angry because someone thinks y9ou need God to be moral. that's a very standard idea, it was in living memory that almost everyone thought that.
Craig does not have to be a physicist wh0 studies cosmology top argue the cosmological argument His arguments are not circular.
I will also debate on Metacrock's blog
Hi Joe: I've spent quite a bit of time recently talking to Muslims who use the same circular reasoning as Craig does. If you assume your religion is true, of course all the evidence will fit it. They also assure me that we will all have to account to their God on the day of reckoning too. I don't fear them either, and I've no need to debate anyone. Have a lovely new year.
/Apparently you don't know what circular reasoning is. Argument is science. Making an argument is not doing an experiment. Of course bias can blind us it doesn't change logic. Believing your argument is not circular. You believe your views. why is that not circular?
Craig has a Ph.D. from major university. He is an expert in logic. circular is when premise rests on conclusion. It takes more than just being convinced to make an argument circular. show example.
now are you not willing to allow me to link to mu pages?
you have the right to0 spew bull shit on your blog, and that is what you are doing. you do not understand the things you criticize. you are spreading lies then you are too cowardly to face those who know better.
I don't believe in hell so you are without excuse
I'm not stopping you linking to anything. Blogger might be. William Lane Craig specifically says that no evidence could convince him that Christianity is not true, because the Witness To The Holy Spirit tells him Christianity is true. Of course that is circular reasoning. There are countless phd's in philosophy who disagree with Craig. Craig believes in Eternal Hell, and I think he's more of an authority in Christianity than you are. You should take up your issues with him.
That is not circular. He basis his faith upon experience then his premise is not Kalam but the experience. As I said it'; not circular to believe your arguments,
I can't speak for Craig but I don't make God arguments because my faith depends upon them but because I can't give you my experiences. You have to judge an argument on it's on merits not upon the overall belief of the one who advances it.
You are committing the fallacy. If Craig is wrong about hell that doesn't make him wrong about God existing.
Joe: Amusingly, Craig himself admits his arguments for the Christian God are circular: "why do I frequently present the resurrection as part of a cumulative case for God’s existence in debates? Well, the reason, frankly, is evangelistic. I don’t want to leave students with just a generic God common to all monotheists but with some warrant for believing in the Christian God, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/circularity-and-evidence-for-jesus-resurrection#ixzz3vuzvSiAu
Before that he says: "The arguments of Natural Theology aim to demonstrate the existence of God generically conceived and are common property of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Deists. Christian evidences provide grounds for believing in God’s special self-revelation in Jesus of Nazareth. Here one moves beyond generic theism to Christian theism. I include the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection in Christian evidences."
In other words, assuming a generic monotheistic God exists, he argues that the evidence for Christian god supports Christianity. That is classically circular: the same reasoning is used by Muslims for the existence of Allah and Jews for G_d.
I am judging Craig's arguments on the merits of (a) his arguments; and (b) his overall beliefs.
I don't know what reasons you have for believing in the Christian God, and frankly, I don't care.
If Craig his wrong about Hell, it makes him wrong about the God *he* believes in existing.
I am truly agnostic about whether a "god" exists, though I see reason to believe that this question is completely unanswerable.
What I am not agnostic about - I am convinced is true on the basis of evidence and reason - is that the "god" as conceived of by religion, that requires worship in one particular way and punishes those who follow any other or no religion - is nonsense.
As soon as you say "there is no excuse" for not believing in your god, I say #lol.
Have a lovely new year ;-)
"In other words, assuming a generic monotheistic God exists, he argues that the evidence for Christian god supports Christianity. That is classically circular: the same reasoning is used by Muslims for the existence of Allah and Jews for G_d."
Nope. Sure as hell is not. Again Circular reasoning rests the premise upon the conclusion, classic example: I know the Bible is the word of God because it says it is and it must be right because it's the word of God."
Or miracles must not happen because all the previous claims of miracles were wrong,
how do you know they were wrong?
because miracles don't happen.
Craig is not doing that. He's just saying the philosophical type of argument is only lead to a general concept of God so to decide which tradition to accept we need arguments specifically reflecting that tradition,
that is a logical appraoch
Joe: what part of William Lane Craig that that no evidence could ever prove to him that Christianity is wrong don't you understand?
"Miracles" happen all the time. It's a simple outcome of the laws of probability. What reason do we have to believe that the resurrection occurred as described in the Bible? If we don't assume that Theism is true, even Craig can't begin to support that.
If you are telling me that I am dated to oblivion purely because I do not accept that the resurrection happened and Jesus died for my sins, you can go stick your head in a pig. Clear enough? ;-)
Joe: "what part of William Lane Craig that that no evidence could ever prove to him that Christianity is wrong don't you understand?"
>>>that does not make it circular, what part of premise rests on conclusion do you not understand? He has a valid reason for being committed to his belief it is not circular or illogical.
"Miracles" happen all the time. It's a simple outcome of the laws of probability. What reason do we have to believe that the resurrection occurred as described in the Bible? If we don't assume that Theism is true, even Craig can't begin to support that.
>>you are contradiction yourself. If miracles happen all the time why doubt the resurrection" Miracles don't happen all the time, the evidence supports the resurrection.
"If you are telling me that I am dated to oblivion purely because I do not accept that the resurrection happened and Jesus died for my sins, you can go stick your head in a pig. Clear enough?" ;-)
>>> I PUT A LINK SAHINGA'THE BIBLE DOES NOT TREACN HELL AND YOU TOOK AWAY, I said again I do not believe in Hell now you say something to imply that you thin I do. Is English not your native language?
5:42 pm
I'm not touching your links: blogger is probably blocking them. I'm not going to repeat myself. Just one thing: hundreds of people every year are declared dead but turn out not to be, even with modern medicine. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus truly came back from the dead. That, and the fact that you can;t tell the difference between me talking about what William Lane Craig says, and what you say, shows just how little point there is talking to you. As a Christian, I'm sure you'll forgive me and turn the other cheek.
there's no reason to believe that. you haven't documented it. you can't prove those people aren't rising from the dead a(people pray for them perhaps) and other atheists say I'm lying when I talk about that. My father did that he was dead came back and atheists say I'm lying;vget your story stairght.
You certainly do talk a lot of crap, Joe. Go and bother someone else. xx
Another ignorant, irrational atheist tries to crap on people that are smarter and better informed than himself.
You new atheists are the pros at ad hom and irrationality.
So WLC is "circular reasoning central" and uses special pleading huh?
I wish I had bucks for every time some atheist tried to pull that tripe on me.
They all lost on those 2 "points" so I'd be paying my bills easier. Allow the informed people to ROTFL.
You people don't even grasp the fact that your vain worldview denies the existence of free will and thereby all possibility of true rationality and real morality.
"1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." -Will Provine
That's the easily discerned logical conclusions of atheism, as decent atheist thinkers know. No free will, no meaning to life, no rule of ethics, so nothing is ever right or wrong, good or evil.
So what is your hypocrisy in calling WK a "liar for Christ", when under your own empty position there's no wrong in lying... or rape, murder, theft...?
By making such thoughtless accusations you've unknowingly appealed to an objective moral law that says, You shall not lie.
So 1) point out which moral law you have invoked for this moral accusation? Where is it written? On what authority?
Seeing that no such thing as objective morality exists in your atheism, 2) why are you whining at all? Simple, contrary to your atheism, you really do believe in an objective moral standard and free will.
You just got owned.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is... NO PURPOSE, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music" - R. Dawkins, River Out of Eden
No evil or good, all is genetics based. Meaning that no one can ever be guilty of anything at all. Too bad you weren't logical enough to figure that out on your own. So stop your pathetic whining against theists. They, according to your own codswallop ideas, have no free will or meaning either, so what's the point?
All this points out a rather damning fact about you.
You are a vile hypocrite. You constantly invoke moral laws that you simultaneously are obliged to claim do not exist!
You also appeal to logic, which under the atheists bankrupt view, says there are no absolutes and thus logic is not absolute either. Therefore nothing you write can be taken as true since your logic is only subjective and therefore useless as proof of anything.
And then there's that pesky free will thing that you blind irrational atheists are always denying.
Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse: "Morality is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses. . . Morality is a creation of the genes".
Darwin wrote, “The general delusion about free will is obvious… one deserves no credit for anything … nor ought one to blame others” Provine: “There is no way that the evolutionary process… can produce a being that is truly free to make choices”
You're a hypocrite who wants no God but also wants morality whenever it serves his selfish purposes.
Rationality: the ability to choose between conceptual alternatives. But you're a biological automaton, incapable of free choice and thus of rationality. According to atheism you're not rational, ergo you don't even freely choose your own beliefs, your genes do it for you!
A. Cashmore thus claims that the concept of human responsibility is also invalid. The evolution process gave rise only to the illusion of responsibility.” -The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior..., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
So wtf are railing on and on about?
Got it! It's OK for Christians to lie utterly and completely. Understood. Well justified. I hope the makes you feel better.
I posted two comments that I'm fairly sure he wouldn't agree with (for one thing, they were both based on reason). It's been a couple of days and there's no sign of either one.
"Another ignorant, irrational atheist tries to crap on people that are smarter and better informed than himself."
Ignorant, irrational theists constantly try to crap on people that are smarter and better informed than they are. There's no evidence that there are any gods, much less an omniscient and omnipotent God. It would be the simplest thing for such a god to prove His existence to everyone, yet it hasn't happened. Either no such god exists or He really doesn't care if we believe in Him.
"1) No gods worth having exist;" Obviously true (see above)
"2) no life after death exists;"
Again, no evidence of such exists.
"3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;"
Except reason and, perhaps, do not harm others.
"4) no ultimate meaning in life exists;"
Religion doesn't seem to have any ultimate meaning in life either.
"and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
I'm not sure where that one comes from, but religion simply uses "free will" to try and take the guilt away from God for how He made things. Somehow God gets the credit for the good things, but "free will" gets the blame for all the bad things. Strokes, heart attacks, cancer, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, all disease, even animal attacks, are due to free will, and not anything that God has done or failed to do.
Free will is at odds with the very concept of an omniscient and omnipotent god.
Atheism is the default position of barbarians, no education at all necessary. There is literally nothing to know! Its the oldest of all wektenschauungs, the faith of babies and scoundrels since time immemorial. The official faith of neanderthals. Congratulations, we are back to square one. Feel free to believe whatever suits your desires but don't be fooled into thinking it is anything but return to primitivism.
All other species are atheists, it does not require any intelligence or ethics.
Now you have the same religion as a pinworm.
And why should anyone have any ethics? No one is under any imperative to not do as they please as long as the trade-off is better than the consequences. A moral atheist who does anything ethical particularly self sacrificial is a fool. Atheists should strive to implement Darwinism and eugenics like Hitler did. Then maybe you guys all won't be pussies. I am definitely in the process of switching sides, indoctrinated by atheist family and culture all my life finally and seeing how much is just propaganda based on hate and avoidance of any moral code that requires any discipline.
"The freest of men are friendly to murder." -Marquis de Sade.
This is a nice post and it is a great blog.Packers and Movers Madhapur
It’s exhausting to search out knowledgeable individuals on this subject, however you sound like you recognize what you’re speaking about! Thanks online casinos
Post a Comment