#johnnyis

[hellomynameisliv]

😂😂😂

[academicatheism]

Johnny, Madden, and the Slander Crew

The lengths some go in attempting to scar someone's reputation (see here). Behold the length I’ll go to ensure you two don’t trifle with me again.

I’ve already sent Madden a string of new messages off anon. I want her to go ahead and match IP addresses and prove what she’s claiming. Should be simple. I’ve taken pride in not talking to Christians that way and though, like her anon, I see a blog as an extension of or as insight into the blogger, that’s not enough to establish connection, especially since it’s common sense. I have a science blog, an atheism blog, and a philosophy blog. From this, one can infer that I am a science and philosophy enthusiast, and that I’m an atheist. More importantly, I might make obvious certain character traits and attitudes. I really don’t see why someone wouldn’t make those connections. 

johnnyis is a Christian and that’s fine. There are plenty of Christian blogs on Tumblr and in the blogosphere as a whole, but not all of them put their bigotry and contempt on display. Johnny, speaking of Mormons said, “most Mormons who I talk to are unforgiven, unsaved, unclean, and will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. And why is that? Because Mormonism offers no hope” (see here)! He would say similar things of gays, Muslims, atheists, and essentially anyone who doesn’t believe as he does. How are those statements not unkind, intolerant, bigoted, contemptuous, etc.? Given that, I don't see why he complains when I say something like the following: some Christians I speak to are ignorant, uneducated, uncritical, and do not care about intellectual honesty. Why is that? Because Christianity is about blind faith and not evidence. His observation about Mormons is an inference. My observation about the Christians I have in mind is arrogant, rude, and whatever he says it is. The double standard is apparent. The hypocrisy oozes from his pores. Youth is full of folly, but the greatest folly is that one only realizes it once one has grown older. In other words, Johnny won’t see his errors until he’s older--assuming he ever comes to terms with them. He’ll look back and most likely in private, finally admit that people like me had a point. After all, I’m not the one talking to neopagans in a manner that lacks compassion.

He makes the claim that every sane person thinks their correct in the way they view the world. Everyday people may feel this way, but a veiled argument from popularity doesn’t make his case. Forget about how everyday people view the world. It’s one thing to think you’re right; it’s entirely another to either know that you’re right or, at the very least, show that you’re capable of demonstrating that your view is tenable when compared to alternatives. I have called him out on his lack of epistemic warrant and justification for holding a number of views: his in-the-closet young-Earth creationism, for example. He thinks this is about stripping him of his Christian view altogether. It’s more about stripping him of unwarranted and harmful behavior that stems from unwarranted and unjustified views and what, in fact, amounts to nothing more than blatant assumption. I don’t know of Christians who kill themselves over something an atheist said, but I do know of people who kill themselves because of Christian bigotry (see here). And please, let’s not act as though you’ll treat your child any different if he/she turns out homosexual!

He says, for instance, that he didn’t believe in god for two and half years, which is most likely a disingenuous way of saying that he was a nominal Christian or, at best, an agnostic believer (see here). He acts as though atheism is his only option. He has put his ignorance on display. He knows absolutely nothing about other religions and yet, he says his god is the best alternative. He’s a Christian by circumstance. He’s in a nation with a large Christian population and lives in an area that’s extremely susceptible to Evangelism, and yet, he strongly believes that it was destined to be this way. He, in other words, was chosen by god himself. He doesn’t realize, however, that had he been born elsewhere, he’d probably be a bigoted Muslim. He would say that Allah is the best alternative.

Then he quibbles about the former title of this blog. He says that perhaps “deconverts movement” would have worked better because Deconversion Movement sounds too hostile to Christianity and intent on deconverting people. And converting people to your religion isn’t hostile? Assuming deconverting someone is wrong, why is converting someone right? They are essentially the same activity. You are, in effect, guiding a change in beliefs--which direction this change is going is irrelevant. Your goal is to convert atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. into Christians. You’re not content with the fact that others believe differently--that others were enculturated differently. Your goal isn’t tolerance! To be a deconvert, one has to go through deconversion--and that’s the point. Even if, as you imagine, my aim was to deconvert people, I don’t see how I’m wrong and you’re not. In fact, since you like to appeal to general behavior, it’s quite normal to attempt to convince others that you’re right about something.

This, however, is all beside the point. Even now, under a different blog title, I readily admit that I actively engage in the activity of dissuading people from harmful beliefs. If you’re the kind of Christian that believes your autistic child is possessed, I am happy to deconvert you from such thinking. If you’re a creationist, I’m happy to deconvert you from such pseudoscience. If you’re uncritical, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and so on, I’m happy to offer you a more honorable set of characteristics. This is, in fact, what has been on offer since day one. 

You’re a simpleton. You say I assume x and y about you, but you’ve given me no reason to think otherwise. You, for example, have not shown that you can think critically. You have not shown that you’ve been thorough in arriving at your conclusions. Your methods, if we can call them that, are unsophisticated, unacademic, and most importantly, intellectually dishonest. Your entire blog, aside from the personal photos and unrelated posts, speaks to that. Anyone can look at your blog and conclude that you were lazy in arriving at your conclusion. You took the easy way; you went with what felt good and that’s the end of it. They can then come to my blog and come to the opposite conclusion. Any onlooker, except for your slander crew and worshippers of Madden (e.g. people have called her “Queen,” praised her supposed wit, and since that’s all directed at non-believers, these admirers forget that she’s not being an exemplary Christian when responding to people who disagree with her; compassionalert unless you’re an atheist or a homosexual or Mormon) can see that, like I said, you are not on my level. I’ve climbed Everest whilst you waddled in dirt, and there’s nothing arrogant about recognizing that. In the game of intellect, I’m more skilled; I have a better skill set, and this is exemplified in myriad ways. Again, all one has to do is compare your (to be fair to you) Wordpress blog with my blog. You don’t like the way I talk to you? I’m beyond caring at this point. Just know that there are plenty of people who don’t like the way you talk to them. What was that about taking the log out of your own eye first (see here)? Oh right, in your venerable exegetical wisdom, I can easily predict that you’ll point out that I’m not your brother in Christ. 

Christianity divides the world into the saved and the damned, saints and sinners, the chosen and the cast out. And it would be a problem if someone actively attempted to dissuade people from such divisive beliefs and behavior? That verse essentially implies that you can be a total hypocrite with anyone else save your fellow Christians. Take your ignorance and slander crew elsewhere. This gang mentality you and your little clique have is quite amusing and all, but I don’t do this petty teenage behavior you guys are into.

Lastly, if you really want to convert others, you should try a little tact. Unless people behave like you and Madden, they wouldn’t want to side with you people. Brennan Manning stated: “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” I’m not sure if that’s the greatest cause, but if anyone is out there trying to deconvert people, you guys are quite the allies. You’re hurting your own cause, doing more harm than good. Here’s something that should keep you up at night: all of the souls you “won” in your years as a Christian do not come close to the ones you’ve lost via your blog. You were once Tumblr famous because of that response to some anon who said Olivia is “hot.” Out of all of them followers and visitors who weren’t Christian, I can only wonder how many were turned away by your non-Christ-like behavior toward your interlocutors. Your failure puts the biggest grin on my face. Like I said, you’re an enemy to your own cause and you don’t even realize it. Let this be a lesson learned. You and your gang can trifle elsewhere. This isn’t junior pony. It’s the big leagues and your game isn’t good enough.

[academicatheism]

Blog Stalkers: Why Tumblr Theists Target Certain Atheist Bloggers

I'm going to say something that's going to take, pardon my French, balls to say. However, in the process of exposing johnnyis, I don't mind if people get offended. Note that my intention isn't to offend or marginalize. My intention is to be blunt and brutally so.

Johnny isn't the only Christian blogger who has stalked atheist bloggers. Nikosnature, whycatholicism, and others have done this. It's obvious that they are contemptuous of atheists and atheism, so one has to wonder what motivates them to comment on one atheist post after another. I had stalkers in my earlier days on Tumblr. When I think about what might have motivated them, it becomes easy to see the motivations people like Johnny, Niko, etc. likely have.

It's all about perception. Johnny, Niko, and company have a perception about atheism and whenever they find a blogger that fits their narrative, they target them. They respond to them, so that their followers can see what they say and be convinced that that's indicative of atheism as a whole. They target, for instance, atheists that fit the anti-theist, new atheist narrative. They target atheists who don't have a more sophisticated approach--who haven't endeavored to and therefore haven't reached a level of criticism of religion that's more nuanced, educated, and intricate. That isn't to marginalize targeted bloggers. Again, I was once a target.

There is, however, a vast difference between me and this blog three years ago as opposed to today. Look at the archive. See for yourself. You'll see a lot of so called new atheist influence. You'll see a lot of assumptions. You'll see a lot of philosophical naiveté and scientific ignorance. You'll see someone utterly different from who I am now. My blog then is reflective of that. My arguments were less nuanced, my sources almost nonexistent, my case for atheism and against theism much weaker. So what happened?

I underwent personal growth. I read and studied more. I endeavored to better my writing, to fortify my cases, to care for my philosophical assumptions, and so on. This is something that I can't expect all atheists to want--let alone pursue. This is a climb I can't expect other atheists to make--a plateau I can't expect them to reach and certainly not shortly after renouncing whatever faith they believed in. This takes diligence and time. It takes a willingness to go through the painstaking process of doing all that I've done to be where I am now.

Johnny and company want to go after hatchling atheists--atheist bloggers that are new to Tumblr and likely new to atheism, i.e., atheists that haven't endeavored to become more sophisticated and nuanced in their approach. They also want to give people the impression that this is what atheism is all about. We're all new atheists, vehement anti-theists, meme pushers, etc. We all write naive statements about religion. We all have simplistic cases against religions, facile arguments, and a perfunctory grasp of the relevant disciplines. Forget about Michael Ruse, A.J. Ayer, Kai Nielsen, Jack Ritchie, A.C. Grayling, Steven Pinker, Stephen Law, J.L. Mackie, and anyone attempting to attain such levels of sophistication. They're the exception, not the rule.

That assessment might, in fact, be correct. However, the case made by the majority shouldn't reflect on atheism. Likewise, the case made by simpleton believers--who are, no doubt, the majority--shouldn't reflect on theism. We should approach what is said by William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Mike Licona, etc. We should then ascend beyond them and approach the likes of David Bentley Hart, Charles Spurgeon, Edward Feser, Thomas Aquinas, etc. A theist would ask this of us, but we're suddenly wrong to make a similar request of them. We have no right to act as though their simpletons aren't representative of theism, but they have the right to act as though our simpletons are representative of atheism. A curious double standard indeed.

Like I said, this would take a lot of balls to say, but it has to be said. I'm tired of seeing idiots with a lot of pull give people the wrong impression. If we are to go by the majority of what's on the atheism tag and the types of posts such people like to target, then they're giving people the impression they want to give them. It's clear that they want no part of the stronger cases being made--hence Johnny's insistent avoidance of me. If you feel marginalized reading this, please see it as tough love. When I first started blogging here, I didn't have anything even closely resembling a mentor. I had no one pressing me to be better. I've been the target of such stalking. I've been there and done that. They targeted me for the same reason they're targeting you.

Ultimately, you can think of this as an admonition. We play for the same team and have many of the same goals. Theism is known for its deadweight. That's not something we should aspire to. We consider ourselves the smart ones and yet we have so much unchecked naiveté and ignorance. Intelligence is characterized by its ability to improve. I've just offered some suggestions.

[askbirdbloggers]

Hey, my tiel is usually very well behaved and very docile (hand tamed to the point that I can basically pick him up [if needed -- he's not the biggest fan]), but lately he's been much more vocal. I mean, he straight up starts screaming if I'm not in the same room. Do you know of a way to fix this?

sounds like attention screaming to me!

If he only screams when you leave the room then you will need to not respond.  He will probably keep screaming for up to 15 minutes if he’s really desperate but you can not go and quite him down.   Every time you enter that room you are reinforcing the idea that “screaming = playtime with human”.

Just leave the room and wait for a while, if he doesn’t shout tell him he’s a good bird and reward him with treats.  If he starts screaming just sit outside the room and wait until he stops.  Once he quiets down count to 10 then walk back in, that ten second pause will help to reinforce being quiet if you were to step in the room too quickly the bird will associate him screaming with you coming in the door rather than what you want.  Take the 10 second pause, if he is still quiet after that 10 seconds then walk in and reward the bird, he will then associate the silence within that 10 seconds with you coming in. 

This will take a lot of time but eventually it will dim the attention shouting!

Remember don’t yell at him to get him to quiet down, that only encourages more screaming, don’t come and see him, just leave him be until he gets bored and quiets down.

- Courtney (thepacificparrotlet)

[wisdomfish]

In response to johnnyis

Original post here

I appreciate the encouragement you’re trying to give to brothers and sisters, but don’t turn a story that’s about Jesus’ mercy into something about yourself. You’re not the blind beggar. The Bible isn’t about you.

johnnyis

I can't quite figure out the motivation behind this comment. It's a bit beyond the black stump. However, let's tackle it and attempt to clarify the original post,

...he (blind beggar) neither dropped the character of Christ, nor his request to him; but called out more loudly, and with greater vehemence, earnestness, and importunity: so persons sensible of their need of Christ, and of his worth, excellency, and ability, are not to be discouraged from an application to him, by whatsoever they meet with from men, or devils. Gill's Exposition

johnnyis I know who I am for even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table (Matthew 15:27). And, I know whom I call upon for 'salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)."

So here's the point. When the distractions and persecutions from within and without arise I am quite happy in my daily life to sit as the blind beggar, beat my chest Luke 18:13, and cry all the louder, "thou son of David, have mercy on me."

Which raises a series of questions;

Are you above the blind beggar?

Do you need not call out?

If you need to call out, how persistent are you in calling?

As Jesus was walking by the blind beggar it would have taken only moments for Jesus to be on His way and the blind beggar may never have gotten the opportunity again to meet Jesus face to face. So it is in our life. Jesus may appear for an instant and if we don't make the choice to battle through the noise He may be gone just as quick.

Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  James 4:14

Shout the louder, seek, you will find.

[revelation19]

I've been following your blog for a short while now and am so on track with the information I'm reading. What blogs do you follow?

I don’t follow many. I keep it at an even 100 so as to not get too preoccupied with a never ending dash. I also don’t like or reblog things very often. But if I were to point people anywhere, I would say to follow

Protestant-Superman (Danny)Johnnyis (Johnny)Martellopinnions (Martell)Mikestoleyobike (Mike)ohfortunateone (Kevin)Joshuadparker (Josh)Nathanielstamper (Nathaniel)Musiqchild007 (Jherrel)

There are more that should be on that list, but yeah, that’s a start.

[academicatheism]

You Smear, I Relay Accurate Facts

Last night, I had a mostly inbox conversation with Johnnyis. He answered most things privately, but decided to respond to two things publicly (here and here). Conveniently, he says that those are my own words and as such, he's not smearing. They are my words and I don't regret them, but refusing to publish my reasons for feeling that way is, in fact, smearing.

I asked him, how would he respond if anyone spoke to his wife that way? I asked him, do you realize that I have two young relatives? I also asked him, if anything would move him to respond with physical violence? I also told him that children shouldn't be spoken about in that manner. He didn't publish that. His private response was "Cool story." He has led his followers into thinking he's some squeaky clean person. He clearly isn't. His reputation will need repair after such misrepresentation.

I told him that he smears often. He compared homosexuality to rape and to bestiality. He called the moderators at atheismforthewin a bunch of 13 year olds and even claimed that one of them was 13--even after I corrected him about that. He then responds by saying he won't be "baited" into further discussion after he accused me of taking his words out of context. I pressed him and told him that he indeed made some of the above claims; to be clear, in our inbox conversation I didn't accuse him of comparing homosexuality to bestiality though I should have.

Ultimately, this is my point: whenever he wants to dig himself out of hole, he makes some unfounded accusation and scurries away. He's now saying I'm "obsessive and creepy." Well, when you've made it your mission to engage in libel given that you have a good number of followers, of course I'm going to respond. My reputation doesn't need defending, but misrepresentation of any sort warrants correction. One of his followers called me a "jerk" based on the messages he published. I've since explained my reasons to her and I'm pretty sure her response will include an apology and a retraction of what she previously said.

So Johnny, do yourself a favor: stop being a coward. If my arguments are so "poor," prove it. All of your accusations simply won't stick. You are demonstrably a bigot and a hypocrite. How can you possibly criticize me for being against Christianity in the same way you're against Mormonism? You even invited Mormons to debate!? And I'm wrong for asking Christians to do the same? You see yourself as capable of refuting Mormonism. I see myself as capable of refuting Christianity. Yet this fact makes me hostile toward Christians? Then aren't you also hostile toward Mormons? Why the double standards?

I've no hostility toward Christians. I'm simply opposed to falsehoods--especially those that attempt to parade themselves as true or as, in the case of Christianity, the absolute truth. So this isn't about me or about my character; this is about your cowardice, your persistent ad hominems, your obvious smear campaign, and your avoidance of someone that can make quite the case against your religion; even this self-proclaimed "prolific debater" avoids my arguments because I guess he hasn't found such a match over in the Philippines.

If you're so capable of refuting atheism, climb to the top of our ranks here on Tumblr and prove it. If you want to continue avoiding me for the stupid reasons you've provided, there are other atheists on Tumblr I can fully endorse to debate in my place. The issue is that all of them are turned off to any further dialogue with you. I can't be blamed because I hadn't realized there was any history between you and one of them in particular. Just goes to show that you have a serious character deficit when dealing with atheists.

[brutangel22]

If anyone has the time, . . .

. . . I'm trying to understand Romans 4, and I'm a bit confused about verse 20, where it is said of Abraham "no unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God" (ESV). I'm trying to figure out what Paul means in light of those passages in Genesis, especially the conception of Ishmael in ch. 16 and Abraham's desperation of giving Sarah a child in ch. 17, which seem to show some doubt and to exhibit some wavering with regard to Abraham's faith in God's promise. I am separated from my usual commentaries, language tools, and theology resources, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks! God bless you all.