Subject: Huh, duh?
You don't get it, do you? The Nazi death camps have just been instated in my home state of New Jersey. Our liberal, left-leaning, pro homo, anti cigarette, anti gun legislators just voted through a law that will allow women to grow, as an industry, cloned and frozen embryos in their wombs for the harvesting of the baby's body parts upon their removal from the womb. These are liberals just like you growing people "just like me" for the perpetration of absolute evil, which evil you, as an atheist, do not acknowledge due to your denial of the existence of God and Slewfoot. Hitler and Stalin were socialists liberals. So is New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey. So are you.
A while ago I linked to a letter written by Bill Romansky to The Illinois Leader, criticizing the message of morality and religion that he promoted. Bill was kind enough to write a response to me, encouraging me to post it on the site - and I'm only to happy to oblige. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, so it's always a pleasure to be able to have something like this from an original source.
The truth about what is going on in New Jersey is quite different from what Romansky writes. Governor James E. McGreevey signed a bill that allows patients at fertility clinics to donate unused embryos to stem cell research. Thus, researchers will be able to work with newly cultivated stem cell lines created from unused embryos, whose owners have given explicit, written permission. No one will be growing embryos in their wombs for body parts. No one will be growing embryos in their wombs for the purpose of human cloning. No wombs will be transformed into factories for body parts.
Now, Bill Romansky might consider such a situation to be intolerable and that's fine - he doesn't have to like it, does he? The problem is that he misrepresented the facts to such an extreme degree that one can hardly tell that his description has anything at all to do with reality. In our reality, unused embryos being stored in frozen containers might be used to create stem cells for research; in Bill Romansky's alternate reality, embryos are grown in women's wombs for the harvesting of body parts. Do you see any similarity between the two? I don't.
"[A] a loving and intimate relationship with a member of the same sex" is how you refer to my example of the homosexual rape of a male child. What a twisted puppy you are. Or, rather, your brain was stunned with my in-your-face example of the truth of homosexuality and you completely overlooked the child rape issue altogether, which is more than likely the case here.
This is bizarre. "[A] a loving and intimate relationship with a member of the same sex" is how I referred to homosexuality, not pedophilia or the rape of children. Now, Bill may believe that the two categories are the same, but that doesn't mean that they actually are - the real world doesn't change to conform to Bill's prejudices. I stand by what I said before: it's twisted and sick to assert that one is morally superior to gays even as they wishe "eternal suffering and torment" on gays.
Bill Romansky's violent fantasies about what should happen to people like gays and atheists reveal the truth about of his moral and religious ideology. Wishing for violence to suffering to happen to others is not the same as causing others to suffer, but the step from one to the other isn't as large as we might wish it to be. If Bill Romansky truly believes that eternal suffering and torment are a just consequence of atheism or homosexuality, there can't be much that would prevent him from causing a little temporal suffering for them here and now.
You also fell into my intellectual and moral trap set especially for stoopid atheists and agnostics. You got offended at a particular version of God, via hell, to which I told you to go. You are not an atheist. You are offended at God, you don't like the idea of hell, but you are no atheist. Otherwise, my telling you to go to hell wouldn't have bothered you. A very simple ploy on my part, but it works every time. Hell is not a prison camp, and I never stated that you, or any other lefty should be placed in one. Typical of your leftist atheistic mentality is drawing inferences from statements never made by the opposition. Bad form; you would've lost points in high school debate class for that one.
What's interesting here is that I didn't get offended at what Bill Romansky wrote. I explained why someone might take offense - namely, because Bill wished great suffering and violence to befall them - and then speculated that maybe what a person felt wouldn't so much be a matter of being offended but, rather, just thinking that a person who wished such things on others is rather disturbing. And it is. A person doesn't have to say "I am offended" to think "this person has a very warped view of the world and if he lived in my neighborhood, I'd be concerned for my safety."
My analogy to a concentration camp was quite simple: would a person be bothered if someone wished that they be sent to such a camp, despite the fact that it doesn't exist? Probably - and indeed, they might even feel some offense at the claim that they deserve to go there. Does the non-existence of the concentration camp mean that a person shouldn't be bothered or offended? No. The violent, cruel attitude of the ill-wisher is quite enough to warrant such a reaction. Similarly, a person might justifiably feel bothered or even offended at Bill wishing them to go to Hell, even if they don't believe in a Hell - and for the exact same reasons.
It may be that Bill is so happy with himself and his "trap" he set that he simply can't see that I didn't "fall" for it - or that there may not have been a real "trap" there in the first place. The idea of being able to call an atheist "stoopid" seems to please him to no end, so I guess it should be expected that no matter what a person writes in response to him that he'll end up saying the same things. Indeed, Bill seems consumed with the idea of "winning" some sort of imaginary debate with someone - if he doesn't "win" somewhere, somehow, then I fear that his day just won't be complete.
You also lose points by mentioning morals. You are probably an evolutionist, like most of the stoopid leftists who still can't explain the homo sapien footprints next to the dinosaur footprints in Tuba City, Arizona (check it out on the net-I was there, it's the real deal). Morals reflect spirituality, a concept that a true Darwinian would absolutely deplore. Austin, you are truly a hodge podge of ethical and philosophical contradictions.
These "footprints" appear to be along the same mold as the infamous "Paluxy Man Tracks," which means that they aren't evidence for anything other than the fertile imagination of those who use them as a reason to believe that dinosaurs (or dragons) once lived at the same time as human beings.
Morality isn't a product of "spirituality" (whatever that is), although a person's religious and spiritual beliefs may indeed affect their moral principles and conclusions. Bill Romansky may believe that evolution and morality are incompatible (an idea which is shared by many in the anti-science brigade of creationists), but he has about as much chance of supporting that claim as he does of supporting the claim that I am a "hodge podge of ethical and philosophical contradictions." You'll notice that throughout his message Romansky likes to make lots of grandiose claims, but he spends no time whatsoever trying to actually defend what he is saying.
I doubt that Bill would have much success at trying to construct a logical defense of his ideas. I don't question the sincerity with which he holds his views, but I have to strongly question the degree to which any of his views can be argued for on a logical, rational basis. If he were capable of creating such an argument, I'm sure that we would have seen some hint of it in some of his writings, but so far all of his work has been a logical void - we can find many words to read, but no coherent ideas that are clearly defended. In fact, if we were to remove all of the personal insults and other sundry attacks, there wouldn't be much left to read.
I won, you lost, your left-ness has clouded your logic.
Curiously, Bill wasn't able to cite a single logical error in anything I have written, either in response to his writings or on any other topic. I honestly don't think that Bill Romansky knows a great deal about logic. I'm sure that he can quote the Bible all day long, but if he were asked to analyze an argument in order to identify errors in reasoning, I wouldn't expect much success. Bill acts as though he knows something about high school debating, and that may be the case, but that certainly doesn't mean that he has any clue about logic and reasoning. Live debating is often dependent more upon emotional and psychological appeals to the audience than upon coherent, logical arguments.
As a matter of fact, upon reflection that seems to be a very accurate description of how Bill Romansky writes. He's very good at the use of emotionally charged language, but that all comes at a great sacrifice: accuracy, logic, and coherence. I wouldn't doubt that he would do well in a live debate, and his apparent occupation as a street preacher would probably bear that out, but there is also no question in my mind that he has never had to seriously subject his views to rigorous analysis and critique. I doubt that he has much of an idea as to what a logical fallacy is, much less any of the other reasoning errors that a person can commit.
I DARE YOU TO PRINT THIS AS A REBUTTAL, BUBBA!
Jesus loves you.
100% improved, 50% insane
I won't argue with that last comment, though I'm a little disturbed that this level of reasoning represents a "100% improvement" over his earlier skills. I'm not sure why, but Bill doesn't seem to think that I would be willing to publish this message of his. I certainly don't need to be "dared" to post something like this.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment