Atheist Debate Administrator Believes Personal Insults Are Necessary

Haunted Shore, who claims to be an administrator at the atheist-run facebook debate group “Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic”, has the opinion that it is necessary for the administrators at that group to insult people. This is especially odd considering that a rule of the group explicitly states, “No personal attacks.” Here's the quote: 
   
"It was not an unnecessary insult. He was simply saying that if Mark removes someone, its probably because they have done something wrong."

       
Then Haunted Shore goes on to offer that insulting people is supposedly OK because people don't actually turn into the insults that they are called:

“If you call someone a bad person, that does not make you a bad person. Calling someone an asshole does not make you an asshole. This shouldn't be hard to understand.” (May 9, 2016 at 1:01 AM)

Haunted Shore may not only have logical problems, he may also have legal problems. As a self-identified administrator of the group, this person is helping to put atheism and the atheist leaders of that debate group in a bad light. But it seems that Haunted Shore does not realize that there can be costly legal damages for people that make reckless and harmful defamatory comments, such as falsely calling someone a “liar” or “dishonest.” The following are eight examples of such from one thread alone.

Eight Examples of Unsubstantiated Defamation From an Atheist Administrator
  

1. “What an incredibly dishonest person you are. As an admin of the group, I think I have some authority to clear up your many misrepresentations of what happened to you.” (May 6, 2016 at 1:39 PM)

That was the first comment by “Haunted Shore” at my blog. Without initially offering any commentary or evidence whatsoever in support of his defamatory comment, or any actual attempt to first “clear up” anything, Haunted simply offered the bald assertion that I'm, “incredibly dishonest.” Strike 1.

2. “Absolutely not, but it’s incredibly dishonest of you to claim atheists are the only people who “abuse” people for having differing opinions..” (May 6, 2016 at 1:43 PM)

Nowhere and at no time at their debate group or at my blog did I ever state that atheists are the only people that are abusive. I claimed that I observed a bias against Christians at their group. Again, with no evidence whatsoever Haunted's second act of defamation is completely unsubstantiated. Strike 2.

3. “This is a lie. You brought up the instance of Ron Morales's removal in another thread.” (May 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM)

  

Here “Haunted” was apparently lacking in reading comprehension skills and claimed that I was lying, based on his own misunderstanding. The comment thread shows that I never claimed that the final thread that I had commented on was the only thread that I had referenced Ron Morales. And, again, Haunted did not offer any valid evidence to support this strong allegation of me lying. Strike 3.

4. “More lying. The multiple comments I made explained why you gave an inaccurate perception of what happened, and you haven't actually responded to the criticisms directly at all, further giving me a reason to call you dishonest.” (May 8, 2016 at 3:46 PM)

Here is a double defamation, with both “lying” and “dishonest” - but we'll count it as one. The “multiple comments” Haunted made were void of any valid evidence and citations. And, contrary to his accusation, I had replied to every single one of his statements, as the comment thread shows. Again, serious defamation without support. Strike 4.

5. “Considering the fact that the burden of proof is on you, and your only "evidence" is a personal testimony and out of context screencaps that don't substanciate what you have said, it only furthers my perception of you as a dishonest troll.”  (May 8, 2016 at 3:49 PM)

The personal testimony of Ron Morales was not my only evidence. I posted a seamless and overlapping webclip account of my last dialogue at that group until I was suddenly blocked. This shows that I had addressed the main theme of the thread, that is, evidence of divine knowledge. And so this could not be considered as 'trolling” which was an off-hand accusation. When Simon Birch demanded that I debate with him, I offered valid concerns as to why I did not want to personally debate with him. I underscored that thee was no rule that a group member had to debate an administrator. Birch offered no rebuttal to my points but abruptly blocked me, even after just stating that I had another “chance.” Strike 5.

6. “I've demonstrated your dishonesty already, so I'm not afraid of you banning me for speaking the truth.” (May 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM).

As I've pointed out, Haunted Shore did not back up any of his defamatory claims. When I asked him specifically for evidence of his claims he flatly stated that he does not need to present any. I challenged on May 8, 2016 at 6:22PM, ““First, no such warnings took place when I was online in dialogue. Why don't you post the complete thread context...” Then, on May 9, 2016 at 12:35 AM Haunted states, “Thats not my job, asshat. We gave you plenty of warnings, and your posts are still public.” So Haunted here explicitly admits that he really has not “ demonstrated” my dishonesty at all and he apparently believes he can offer libel recklessly and freely. Strike 6.

7. “You stil haven't addressed your lie about how you said that no admins rebuked John Martin, when it did actually happen. You can view the thread if you want.” (May 9, 2016 at 12:41 AM)

This accusation is referring to the subject of Point 3 listed above. Haunted apparently misunderstood the dialogue and then calls me a liar based on his own misunderstandings. Again, if I had allegedly stated that I had mentioned Ron Morales in one thread alone, then Haunted should have shown some evidence of when and where. Strike 7.

8. “Now I certainly know you are being dishonest. I know Britlandt. I spoke to him personally about this, and read the thread that he had with you. He made it clear that he doesn't agree with your narrative, but just that one admin is problematic, according to his view”. (May 9, 2016 at 1:14 AM)

Britlandt Abney later had this to say about Haunted Shore:

“Just a quick comment: I don't know who Haunted Shore is but they're not being perfectly honest.

They said "I know Britlandt. I spoke to him personally about this, and read the thread that he had with you. He made it clear that he doesn't agree with your narrative, but just that one admin is problematic, according to his view."

This is not entirely true. While it is true that I said one admin (Simon) has a serious record of banning people without warrant, I didn't say that I don't agree with Rick's narrative.

I said I don't have enough information about the initial situation to comment one way or another, so I merely commented on Simon's well known reputation instead.

I'd appreciate if Haunted Shore quoted me accurately when speaking of me in the future.” (May 12, 2016 at 6:45 AM )

Here Britlandt insinuates that it is Haunted Shore, not me, that is being dishonest in the referenced dialogue. And, according to Britland's comments, “Simon's well known reputation” is such that, “If you were booted by Simon, its not your fault.” (May 3, 6.13PM facebook). Britlandt should know because he was a former administrator at that group. Strike 8 for Haunted Shore.

It's pretty clear from Haunted Shore's Google + comments that he's a devout and passionate atheist. If Haunted Shore and any of his atheist friends really believe that his defamatory comments are true and justified, then why all the apparent fear of posting his real name? Why not post it below in the comment area for all to see? In the mean, administrators at his "debate" group are making it difficult to actually debate without being harassed. And if administrators apparently sense a need to make up ridiculous excuses for blocking Christians, then in my opinion this suggests that they are extremely insecure about their their atheism.  


 
Tags: example of Internet defamation, libel, slander, facebook group Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic, Simon Birch, examples of abusive atheists, example of debate bias,