"I can confirm that I for one have been repeatedly insulted because of my Christian beliefs (at times by admins) with no repercussions for the atheists insulting me, even though personal attacks are an explicit violation of the rules."
Overlapping Webclips of the FB Debate Group: Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic
1. In the following thread I attempted to discuss a question offered by a group member: "How could someone know that God had imparted this knowledge to them? How could one know that it wasn't just an intelligent demon?" - I offered that the fulfillment of prophecy in scripture is an example of verifiable divinely imparted knowledge and offer a linked reference to my point. When challenged by an administrator known for his abuse, I clarified that I would defend this position, but I also pointed out that I did not wish to debate personally with a moderator at that group due to the apparent probability that I would be blocked from the group for offending a moderator.
2. Though I had simply offered valid concerns and did not mention any names or offer any personal attack, administrator Simon Birch erroneously claimed that I had made an "ad hominem attack" that was "intellectually dishonest."
3. I then post a webclip of a testimony of Ron Morales, who claimed that he had been banned from the group last year for apparent invalid reasons. I noticed that he disappeared from the group and it was not understand why until I asked him about it later.
4. I reiterated that I believed Ron Morales was treated unfairly and that I wanted to only debate non-admins at their group.
.
5. Simon Birch ignored the points of abuse I brought up and the spurious reasons Ron Morales lists for being banned from the group. I then list the present rules of the group:
1. No Preaching.
2. No Personal attacks.
3. No Lying. two strikes.
4. No trolling.
Do not block the admins or you will be kicked.
I also pointed out that Mark Wittgruber and another moderator had recently offered that Ron Morales had been kicked from the group for "being a dick." - and that "being a dick" was not a violation of any rules. On a side note, the group founder's comment implying that Ron Morales was a "dick" was a violation of the rules, a personal attack.
6. Administrator Simon Birch then claims that my webclip of Ron Morales' testimony is "not evidence" of any abuse and offers that I am off topic. I explain that I cannot prove a negative, that I cannot prove that Morales was booted frivolously for no reason, but I have his testimony. I ask if it is against the rules to wish to refrain from debate with moderators and there is no reply to the question.
7. Then administrator Birch states, "I've been given permission to boot you, I'll give you one last chance." I ask, “What rule did I break? Don't I need 3 strikes?” - and there is no answer from Birch. (The "permission" was perhaps from the atheist group founder, Mark Wittgruber, who was probably observing this travesty and gloating.). Birch goes on, "Ron Morales can request to rejoin at any point," (as if Ron Morales wants more gratuitous insults, attacks and unjustified banning opportunities?) and, "but unless you strop trolling you are getting kicked." - Addressing a posted question and requesting fair treatment is not trolling, and none of my alleged "strikes" had ever been explained to me, not one.
8. Then a member named John Martin offers his opinion that I was guilty of "preaching" because I refer to historical biblical foreknowledge and prophecy as a means of identifying verifiable divine insight. He ads a personal attack, "I would kick you out for just being thick." - and gets a free pass from the administrator on this.
9. I again asked administrator Simon Birch what specific "strikes" I would possibly be booted for and there is no reply.
10. Again, I tried to obtain some useful information from administrator Simon: "It seems as though Simon has gone from no official "strikes" to one "last chance" to get booted. Should I take this to mean that I have one strike left? ...Will some administrator please list my strikes so far, when they were presented to me as warning. Thank you." Whoever was the secret admin that "gave permission" to boot me obviously did not offer any objective opinion on this travesty.
11. Next, at 2.42PM, John Martin offered a personal attack, a clear breach of the rules, and when I asked admin Simon Birch to give him a strike there is no answer.
12. Finally, at 3.01 I was blocked from the group, again, with no specifics explained at all.
Mark Wittgruber's FB debate group is disingenuous in that atheist moderators pretend to offer a forum where a civilized debate can take place, when all the while it is more like a tag team cage match prepared against anyone that dares to offer any serious challenges to the atheist egos there. While this is not nearly as serious as the type of persecution Christians face in staunch atheistic countries like China, the world is increasingly headed in that direction for Christians. You may roll your eyes in wonder as to why I would take time to document this incident. It's because atheists do come to belief in Christ in part through debates, apologetics and evidence, as noted here.
I've come across two other people so far that have been blocked from that debate group for spurious reasons, Ron Morales and a blogger named Jonathon, who's shared his experience regarding this debate group at his blog calling it "another de facto atheist religion leftist echo chamber." The following webclip documents Ron Morales' testimony of how he was unjustly booted from the Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic. If any admins in that group believe he was justifiably booted, then post webclips of the complete thread(s) where three supposed specific valid "strikes" were named against him. A second webclip below shows that a former admin at their group left because of Simon Birch's abuses. Brittlandt Abney stated, "I mentioned that I was an admin til recently. I left because of Simon." She also wrote, "If you were booted by Sinon, it's not your fault." Furthermore, she stated that "Mark enables Simon."
In accordance with Romans 8.28, these types of atheist abuses actually support the truth of scripture. I admit that I am myself a sinner saved by grace and inherently no better than anyone else. It was only by God's grace that I was able to come to embrace the gospel. This is such an important aspect of life that I would not waste an opportunity here to offer evidence of its truth.
The actions of the atheist administrators confirm the following aspects of scripture:
1. This atheist behavior confirms scripture predicting that Christians will be despised for no other reason than for following Jesus Christ and standing for the truth of scripture (Matthew 5.11, John 15.16).
2. Atheists (and all people) confirm the sin nature by actions, though atheists will deny it exists. (Romans 5.12, 7.18, Galatians 5.17)
3. Atheists are more inclined to illogical moral relativism, which leads towards increase abuse and injustice in society.
4. The abuse by these atheist administrators underscores why I wouldn't want to trust an un-moderated skype debate with an abusive atheist like Alex Botten (Matthew 5.11, John 15.16), though he insists I should do so.
5. Atheist moderators at the noted group have displayed very cowardly behavior. Though some seem to relish abusive group pile-ons, not one was willing to come to my blog to debate one on one, confirming another scripture (Proverbs 28.1). I've found this type of debate cowardice to be especially common among defenders of atheism. See Dawkins, Stephen Law, PZ Myers and the Atheist Blogosphere in general. The ones least likely to debate are the New Atheists, that explicitly promote intolerance of religion while at the same time being unable to logically defend their position of Atheism. That fcebook group reflects this attitude..
The inner despising of Christ by some atheists is not based on some collective conspiracy. It is based on the fact that unregenerate man has a guilty conscience and a propensity to rebel against God rather than to accept the grace and forgiveness offered by Christ. Any Christian that stands for truth can become a convenient object of derision for atheists that are in opposition to God.
Have you been harassed and / or blocked from an atheist facebook group or regarding a debate with atheists? Share your account in the comments.
Tags: atheist facebook group founder supports attacks on Christians, fake debate, pretentious debate groups on facebook, examples of the sin nature, how atheists are object lessons pointing to the truth of God's existence, Bible verse original sin, Bible verse sin nature, Bible verse on atheists hatred of Christians, intolerance of fair debate, intolerance of religion, example of New Atheism on Internet, atheist trolls, atheists harassing Christians on facebook
4. I reiterated that I believed Ron Morales was treated unfairly and that I wanted to only debate non-admins at their group.
.
5. Simon Birch ignored the points of abuse I brought up and the spurious reasons Ron Morales lists for being banned from the group. I then list the present rules of the group:
1. No Preaching.
2. No Personal attacks.
3. No Lying. two strikes.
4. No trolling.
Do not block the admins or you will be kicked.
I also pointed out that Mark Wittgruber and another moderator had recently offered that Ron Morales had been kicked from the group for "being a dick." - and that "being a dick" was not a violation of any rules. On a side note, the group founder's comment implying that Ron Morales was a "dick" was a violation of the rules, a personal attack.
6. Administrator Simon Birch then claims that my webclip of Ron Morales' testimony is "not evidence" of any abuse and offers that I am off topic. I explain that I cannot prove a negative, that I cannot prove that Morales was booted frivolously for no reason, but I have his testimony. I ask if it is against the rules to wish to refrain from debate with moderators and there is no reply to the question.
7. Then administrator Birch states, "I've been given permission to boot you, I'll give you one last chance." I ask, “What rule did I break? Don't I need 3 strikes?” - and there is no answer from Birch. (The "permission" was perhaps from the atheist group founder, Mark Wittgruber, who was probably observing this travesty and gloating.). Birch goes on, "Ron Morales can request to rejoin at any point," (as if Ron Morales wants more gratuitous insults, attacks and unjustified banning opportunities?) and, "but unless you strop trolling you are getting kicked." - Addressing a posted question and requesting fair treatment is not trolling, and none of my alleged "strikes" had ever been explained to me, not one.
8. Then a member named John Martin offers his opinion that I was guilty of "preaching" because I refer to historical biblical foreknowledge and prophecy as a means of identifying verifiable divine insight. He ads a personal attack, "I would kick you out for just being thick." - and gets a free pass from the administrator on this.
9. I again asked administrator Simon Birch what specific "strikes" I would possibly be booted for and there is no reply.
10. Again, I tried to obtain some useful information from administrator Simon: "It seems as though Simon has gone from no official "strikes" to one "last chance" to get booted. Should I take this to mean that I have one strike left? ...Will some administrator please list my strikes so far, when they were presented to me as warning. Thank you." Whoever was the secret admin that "gave permission" to boot me obviously did not offer any objective opinion on this travesty.
11. Next, at 2.42PM, John Martin offered a personal attack, a clear breach of the rules, and when I asked admin Simon Birch to give him a strike there is no answer.
12. Finally, at 3.01 I was blocked from the group, again, with no specifics explained at all.
Mark Wittgruber's FB debate group is disingenuous in that atheist moderators pretend to offer a forum where a civilized debate can take place, when all the while it is more like a tag team cage match prepared against anyone that dares to offer any serious challenges to the atheist egos there. While this is not nearly as serious as the type of persecution Christians face in staunch atheistic countries like China, the world is increasingly headed in that direction for Christians. You may roll your eyes in wonder as to why I would take time to document this incident. It's because atheists do come to belief in Christ in part through debates, apologetics and evidence, as noted here.
I've come across two other people so far that have been blocked from that debate group for spurious reasons, Ron Morales and a blogger named Jonathon, who's shared his experience regarding this debate group at his blog calling it "another de facto atheist religion leftist echo chamber." The following webclip documents Ron Morales' testimony of how he was unjustly booted from the Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic. If any admins in that group believe he was justifiably booted, then post webclips of the complete thread(s) where three supposed specific valid "strikes" were named against him. A second webclip below shows that a former admin at their group left because of Simon Birch's abuses. Brittlandt Abney stated, "I mentioned that I was an admin til recently. I left because of Simon." She also wrote, "If you were booted by Sinon, it's not your fault." Furthermore, she stated that "Mark enables Simon."
In accordance with Romans 8.28, these types of atheist abuses actually support the truth of scripture. I admit that I am myself a sinner saved by grace and inherently no better than anyone else. It was only by God's grace that I was able to come to embrace the gospel. This is such an important aspect of life that I would not waste an opportunity here to offer evidence of its truth.
The actions of the atheist administrators confirm the following aspects of scripture:
1. This atheist behavior confirms scripture predicting that Christians will be despised for no other reason than for following Jesus Christ and standing for the truth of scripture (Matthew 5.11, John 15.16).
2. Atheists (and all people) confirm the sin nature by actions, though atheists will deny it exists. (Romans 5.12, 7.18, Galatians 5.17)
3. Atheists are more inclined to illogical moral relativism, which leads towards increase abuse and injustice in society.
4. The abuse by these atheist administrators underscores why I wouldn't want to trust an un-moderated skype debate with an abusive atheist like Alex Botten (Matthew 5.11, John 15.16), though he insists I should do so.
The inner despising of Christ by some atheists is not based on some collective conspiracy. It is based on the fact that unregenerate man has a guilty conscience and a propensity to rebel against God rather than to accept the grace and forgiveness offered by Christ. Any Christian that stands for truth can become a convenient object of derision for atheists that are in opposition to God.
Have you been harassed and / or blocked from an atheist facebook group or regarding a debate with atheists? Share your account in the comments.
Tags: atheist facebook group founder supports attacks on Christians, fake debate, pretentious debate groups on facebook, examples of the sin nature, how atheists are object lessons pointing to the truth of God's existence, Bible verse original sin, Bible verse sin nature, Bible verse on atheists hatred of Christians, intolerance of fair debate, intolerance of religion, example of New Atheism on Internet, atheist trolls, atheists harassing Christians on facebook
Do you have a link to that FB thread?
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not have a link to the fb thread because I was suddenly and unjustifiably blocked from the group before I wrote this post.
DeleteBTW - Who are you? Is there a reason you wish to remain anonymous?
I'm another admin of that group
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou state that you are an administrator at Wittgruber's debate group. This "Haunted Shore" posting here claims that he is also an administer at that group and he has posted eight comments of unsubstantiated defamation against me. Do you know the real name of the person that goes by the pseudonym of Haunted Shore?
You are making some very serious claims in this statement. Particularly at the very end. And about people that you know nothing about. You seem to ignore the fact that you too , were provocative and rather hostile when all you were asked for was evidence for your claim. Maybe Philosophy does mix well with your interpretation of your religion.
ReplyDeleteYou are making some very serious claims in this statement. Particularly at the very end. And about people that you know nothing about.
Delete>You are generalizing so I don't know what you are referring to.
You seem to ignore the fact that you too , were provocative and rather hostile when all you were asked for was evidence for your claim.
> No hostility from me, I was being very cautious. I did not want to debate an administrator that had apparently been abusive to Ron Morales, so I stated such. I feared being blocked for no valid reason and guess what, my hesitation was completely justified because the administrator did block me for no specific set of strikes.
Maybe Philosophy does mix well with your interpretation of your religion.
>I get unjustifiably kicked out of an atheist-run debate group and you blame my interpretation of my religion? That's rich. Perhaps you should consider the extreme bias in your group against Christians by atheist moderators as an implication that the moderators are extremely insecure about their atheist beliefs.
At the end of my post I've added two webclip of comments by a former group administrator, Brittlandt Abney who stated, "I mentioned that I was an admin til recently. I left because of Simon." She also wrote, "If you were booted by Sinon, it's not your fault." And, "Mark enables Simon."
DeleteThis testimony corroborates my account and underscores that Birch has a reputation for abusive behavior and also that the founder of the group, Mark Wittgruber, is known for enabling abuse by atheist moderators against Christians.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHaunted Shore,
DeleteYou have a habit of slinging defamation that is completely unsubstantiated, and this is the eight time you have done so at comments in this post.
There are two points that I made in my post. The main point is that I was unjustly booted from your debate group. The post title identifies this travesty as a "drive-by shooting"
As my post outlines, the Brittlandt quote completely backs up may main point: "Brittlandt Abney stated, "I mentioned that I was an admin til recently. I left because of Simon." She also wrote, "If you were booted by Sinon, it's not your fault." Furthermore, she stated that "Mark enables Simon."
My second point in the post was my opinionn that there appeared to be an unfair bias against Christians at that group by administrators.
Brittlandt did not agree with me on this, and I never claimed that she did. Nevertheless, a testimony by Ron Morales supports my second point:
"I can confirm that I for one have been repeatedly insulted because of my Christian beliefs (at times by admins) with no repercussions for the atheists insulting me, even though personal attacks are an explicit violation of the rules."
So, Haunted, your claim that you "certainly know you are being dishonest" based on a private hearsay conversation with Abney underscores that your defamation is completely unsubstantiated. And it is evident by your eight counts of unsubstantiated defamation against me here at this blog that you do not realize that this is a serious offense, because this is a public venue.
The fact that you are supposedly an administrator at the debate group, "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic" underscores that they let loose cannons in as administrators that libel first and then ask questions later.
If you truly believe that you are right and I am wrong, then why were afraid to post your real name, as you described at this comment?
“I haven't given my name, because I know you would admin to DOX me.” (May 8, 2016 at 3:46 PM)
The reason is because you seem to be aware that your actions are unsupportable.
Just a quick comment: I don't know who Haunted Shore is but they're not being perfectly honest.
DeleteThey 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.
https://facebook.com/groups/18508426199925?view=permalink&id=509346365940378
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/185084261699925?view=permalink&id=509346365940378&ref=content_filter
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat 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:
Delete> Wow. I get kicked out of your atheist-run group for completely unjustified reasons and I'm supposedly the dishonest one. Another rich comment. They pick the cream of the crop for administrators there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I explained why your removal was justified."
Delete> According to your group rules, as I understand them, there are supposed to be at least three specific strikes for three specific instances. You state the following:
"you were removed for multiple instances of trolling by whining about an event that happened over a year ago."
I mentioned the abuse and unjustified removal of Ron Morales to a group member that was wondering why no moderators were addressing a specific problem. No administer at that thread claimed that this qualified as a "strike" for "trolling."
The only other thread I complained about Ron Morales was when the admin Birch insisted that I must debate with him (the thread copied and pasted above in the post). And Birch did not specifically state that my reference to Ron Morales would be a "strike" - let alone how or why it should be considered as such.
I have copied overlapping webclips of the entire thread in which I was booted and not one specific "strike" was referenced but the admin. that blocked me (Birch), even though I expressly asked him to identify specific strikes more than once.
So, no, Haunted Shore, my blocking by Birch was completely unjustified and you have offered no evidence whatsoever to show otherwise.
If you still contend that I had three valid strikes against me at your group, then copy webclips of the thread where these alleged valid strikes were identified against me.
I know that you will not be able to because they don't exist. Your statements here at my blog are false and you are either extremely dishonest or in a complete state of denial.
Furthermore, if Mark Wittergruber and other admins beleived that they booted Ron Morales for justified reasons, then post the threads and specific strikes here for all to see. If I am wrong, based on evidence, then I will admit it. Otherwise, I witnessed how Ron was abused by atheists and I read his testimony of it written to me.
So go to it.
@Haunted,
DeleteWhile you are gathering any possible webclips against me, can you do me a favor? In webclip 11 I show how John Martin posted a personal attack against me. And I show that I asked Birch to apply a strike for a clear violation of the rules. This is the quote by John Martin:
"I just don't have the power to boot you, but I know an asshole when I see one."
So, Haunted, to show how fair and just your group is, do post a webclip of Birch acknowledging my request to apply a strike against John Martin for his abuse. Post a link to it here for all to see. Thank you.
BTW: Any webclips you want to post in your defense can be posted at one of your friend's atheist blogs or if you want to email them to me and I will post them. My email is soul_safari ***@*** gmail.com and I will post them one by one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHaunted claims: “We explained quite clearly how your repeated instances of trying to ignore admins and whine about a year old incident counted as trolling. You are denial if you somehow think we didn't explain this.”
DeleteHaunted, you continue to make completely unsubstantiated claims.
1. First, no such warnings took place when I was online in dialogue. Why don't you post the complete thread context (even better with webclip evidence) where these so-called warnings that “counted as trolling” took place posted when I was actually in a dialogue at that group. So far you have not offered one single example.
2. Second, the only time I was warned of “trolling” while being present at that group was just before I was booted from your group. In webclip #6 above, Simon Birch states, “I'll give you one last chance. Ron Morales can request to rejoin at any point, but unless you stop trolling you are getting kicked.” Nowhere does Birch state that a reference to Ron counts as trolling and though I do not mention Ron again at all in that thread, Birch boots me. So, nothing “explained” no “last chance” at all
3. Third, since when is bringing up a complaint for the first time of apparent injustice, the witnessed unjust booting of Ron Mprales, considered trolling by any objective standard? Admins interested in being fair would not take a question of abuse as a threat, rather, they would explain why they believed their decision was fair.
Haunted states, “This is a lie. You brought up the instance of Ron Morales's removal in another thread.”
Delete>I stated “the only other thread” In case you don't understand English, “other” means that there is more than one. I never stated that I only mentioned Morales in one thread, I referred to the “other” time I did. You have serious reading comprehension issues, and calling another a liar based on your own reading comprehension problems is scraping the bottom of the barrel. So far your have called me “dishonest” in one of your first comments and “liar” just now without any basis. You called me “dishonest” again, but I'll give you four strikes. One more time and you are blocked from this blog. (Did you notice how I'm specifically identifying when and where you've abused your privilege and I'm letting you know you have one strike left? You can reference this. Your founder and admins might learn something from this.)
Hanuted stated, “Sure. Here is just three from the comment you said doesn't exist”
Again, I stated “other” referring to the second time time I mentioned Ron. I never stated that a second comment or thread mentioning Ron “doesn't exist.” Your critique is a sloppy disingenuous hatchet job.
And then, Haunted, you disingenuously cherry pick my comments completely out of context without showing what the context of the thread subject was and what was written before or after. If you had any sense of fairness you would have posted the thread title and the entire thread where my quotes had been cherry picked. But this unfair cherry picking is par for the course for the atheist admins at your group, isn't it? I'm definitely not surprised.
For example, why don't you show John Birch's comment in Linda's thread when Birch claims that Ron Morales must have been a “dick” if he was booted out of the group. That is why I wrote the following:
"Simon Birch has pretty much summed up the MO of most atheist guests and moderators I've found. If you aren't familiar with what someone is referring to then sling an ad hom attack. Good by group til next time. Linda Z Patterson I would recommend not wasting much time at this "debate" forum."
And why don't you write the comment from founder Mark Wittbruger here when he agrees with Birch that Morales must have been a “dick” to have been booted? Or were these comments already deleted from the thread? Here is my response to Mark's personal attack”
"Simon Birch offers ad hom attack from ignorance and Mark Wittgruber supports it. Typical MO at this group..."
Take note: When Haunted was asked to post a webclip of evidence that John Martin received a strike for a clear and obvious personal attack at a Christian, Haunted states the following:
“John was already publically warned by another admin. We have plenty of private conversations that you don't have any right to view.”
So, to clarify, at the group any atheist can make innumerable personal attacks and there may be warnings but no actual accounting of “strikes.” However, a Christian can be summarily booted from the group based on three unidentified strikes., apparently with founder and atheist Mark Wittbruger giving approval. This is not surprising to me at all considering that the founder and admins feel free to call people “dicks” at their group whenever they want to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the thread that led to Ron's removal:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/185084261699925?view=permalink&id=334660016742348&ref=content_filter
I cannot go there because i was unjustly blocked from the group. If you believe that Ron Was given three valid strikes by admins, then post the entire thread here piece by piece for all to see.
DeleteGo to it. Prove your position.
And when I say post the entire thread, I don't mean post text, I mean post webclips that prove your point. Otherwise, you should probably just stop spouting off unsubstantiated claims.
DeleteI cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that Ron was booted for strikes that did not exist, the burden lies upon you. I have Ron's testimony and webclips of abuse against me as evidence. The ball is in your court to justify your claims.
" I clarified that I would defend this position, but I also pointed out that I did not wish to debate with a moderator at that group due to the apparent probability that I would be blocked from the group for offending a moderator."
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is why you were removed. You do not have the right to ignore admins based off of perceived injustice that you can't even prove. Ironically, you've created your own self-fulfilling prophecy, by creating the exact negative responses you assumed the admins already had.
"I then post a webclip of a testimony of Ron Morales, who had been banned from the group last year for apparent invalid reasons. I noticed that he disappeared from the group and it was not understand why until I asked him about it later."
Like I said, if you were genuinely interested in why he was removed from the group, you should of asked one of the admins, instead of make a public attack on the admins. It only had you look like you were more interesting in whining than getting an answer.
Like I said, if you were genuinely interested in why he was removed from the group, you should of asked one of the admins,
Delete>You are misinformed, Haunted Shore. In the above webclips I refer to the only other previous thread where I complained that Ron had been booted from the group for unjustified reasons. When I asked an admin and the actual group founder for specific reasons, the both claimed that Ron was booted for "being a dick" and that was the end of the story as far as that was concerned. So get your facts straight. This was referenced by me in webclip 5 in the above post.
-It only had you look like you were more interesting in whining than getting an answer.
>No, I am very interested in the answer from your group. Again, show specific webclips detailing that I was justly banned and that Ron was justly banned for three valid "strikes."
In the mean time, stop promulgating grossly false statements and petty unsubstantiated allegations.
The evidence and facts so far all show that Christians are unfairly treated at your atheist-run group. This implies that founder Mark Wittergruber and admins like Simon Birch are extremely insecure and cowardly to promulgate such abuse as opposed to allowing for the fair debate of ideas that challenge their false preconceptions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHaunted claims: I'm not uninformed at all. You've failed to completely give the full story. Again, I'm not repeating myself, since you haven't actually refuted what I said.
DeleteReally? I've offered a complete thread in webclips in which reveals not one example where I was warned by an admin that referring to Ron's booting would be considered as trolling. And Haunted has not offered one single example in this new gassing off of comments which could be considered as such, not one reference from any other thread.
Haunted says: If you were genuinely interested, you would of privately messaged someone, not whine to the whole group.
Why would I believe that administrators would be interested in hearing my complaint about abuse, Mr. H., when the administrators themselves offer offensive comments against others? You, for example, have yet to offer one single example to support your point:
Haunted: “We explained quite clearly how your repeated instances of trying to ignore admins and whine about a year old incident counted as trolling.”
And yet you have called me a “liar” and “dishonest” for completely unjustified reasons. Your behavior is wholeheartedly confirming my point.
Haunted asks: I'd love to see your definiton of evidence.
My definition of evidence is exemplified in the seamless overlapping of comments posted above covering an entire thread wherein I was booted with no warning whatsoever that, “trying to ignore admins and whine about a year old incident counted as trolling.”
You so far have offered zero evidence to support your main claim. You seem to be adept only at offering unsubstantiated personal attacks. Thank you very much for underscoring my points. And, again, this is your last warning or you will be blocked. I've been patient with you.
"Really? I've offered a complete thread in webclips in which reveals not one example where I was warned by an admin that referring to Ron's booting would be considered as trolling. And Haunted has not offered one single example in this new gassing off of comments which could be considered as such, not one reference from any other thread."
DeleteAgain, you didn't provide the full context of the threads, and failed to show the warning against John, which contradicted your claim.
"Why would I believe that administrators would be interested in hearing my complaint about abuse, Mr. H., when the administrators themselves offer offensive comments against others? You, for example, have yet to offer one single example to support your point"
There are over 20 admins. It is incredibly illogical to assume that they all act the same, especially with your limited experience.
"
And yet you have called me a “liar” and “dishonest” for completely unjustified reasons. Your behavior is wholeheartedly confirming my point."
I've justified them all, except for one, which I admitted was wrong. You've failed to provide adequate evidence for an evil atheist admin conspiracy.
"My definition of evidence is exemplified in the seamless overlapping of comments posted above covering an entire thread wherein I was booted with no warning whatsoever that, “trying to ignore admins and whine about a year old incident counted as trolling.”
DeleteA single cherry-picked comment thread of a couple of people in it? Your definiton of evidence is even worse than I thought. And again, you are lying, since admins did explain how what you did violated the rules. Either that, or you just live in a delusion.
"You so far have offered zero evidence to support your main claim. You seem to be adept only at offering unsubstantiated personal attacks. Thank you very much for underscoring my points. And, again, this is your last warning or you will be blocked. I've been patient with you."
DeleteYou are more than welcome to block me, since its probably the best way for you to hide from your failures of substantiating your claims. I'll write a blog post about the evil censoring theist Rick Warden later.
“Simon Birch ignores the points of abuse and the spurious reasons Ron Morales lists for being banned from the group. I then list the present rules of the group:
ReplyDelete1. No Preaching.
2. No Personal attacks.
3. No Lying. two strikes.
4. No trolling.
Do not block the admins or you will be kicked.
I also pointed out that Mark Wittgruber and another moderator had offered that Ron Morales had been kicked from the group for "being a dick." - and that was not a violation of any rules.”
Simon didn’t ignore what you said. He said that you should bring up the discussion on Ron in the thread that you started about it. Also, “being a dick” is counted under all of the above rules. It shouldn’t be hard to understand.
“Administrator Simon Birch then claims that my webclip of Ron Morales' testimony is "not evidence" of any abuse and offers that I am off topic. I explain that I cannot prove a negative, that I cannot prove that Morales was booted frivolously for no reason, but I have his testimony. I ask if it is against the rules to wish to refrain from debate with moderators and there is no reply to the question.”
You should at least of tried to be honest enough to get a second opinion on why he was removed, but you actually tried to do that, as I’ve said already. His testimony is only his, and is worth just as much as Mark’s testimony. As was explained to you in other thread, ignoring admins is by claiming we are all evil atheists is a personal attack, and ignoring admins in general is being a dick. You were given plenty of time to understand this after we originally told you, but you still didn’t get it.
-You should at least of tried to be honest enough to get a second opinion on why he (Ron) was removed.
Delete>You are extremely misinformed, Haunted Shore. In the above webclips I refer to the only other previous thread where I complained that Ron had been booted from the group for unjustified reasons. When I asked an admin and the actual group founder for specific reasons, the both claimed that Ron was booted for "being a dick" and that was the end of the story as far as that was concerned. So get your facts straight. This was referenced by me in webclip 5 in the above post.
Yet again, I'll ask you, post webclips of the thread where Ron Was booted for three valid "strikes" Just claimed that he was booted for being a dick, as Wittgruber stated, is not acceptable.
"Yet again, I'll ask you, post webclips of the thread where Ron Was booted for three valid "strikes" Just claimed that he was booted for being a dick, as Wittgruber stated, is not acceptable."
DeleteThe burden of proof is on you to demonstrate abuse, which you have failed to do beyond personal testimony.
Then administrator Birch states, "I've been given permission to boot you, I'll give you one last chance." (Permission from the group founder, perhaps? Mark Wittgruber, who was probably observing this travesty and gloating?). He goes on, "Ron Morales can request to rejoin at any point," (as if Ron Morales wants more gratuitous insults, attacks and unjustified banning opportunities?) and, "but unless you strop trolling you are getting kicked." - Addressing a posted question and requesting fair treatment is not trolling, and it was never defined specifically when or where my comments were considered as such to warrant a "strike."
ReplyDeleteYou were not asking any “fair questions”. You were purposefully attacking admins based off of non-existent evidence of attacks based on his religious beliefs. You were given an explanation for why your comments were warranting you being removed from the group.
“Then a member named John Martin offers his opinion that I was guilty of "preaching" because I refer to historical biblical foreknowledge and prophecy as a means of identifying verifiable divine insight. He ads a personal attack, "I would kick you out for just being thick." - and gets a free pass from the administrator on this”
Regardless of whatever or not this was a personal attack, John was warned in the responses to your thread, so you are blatantly lying.
“Mark Witterburg's FB debate group is disingenuous in that atheist moderators pretend to offer a forum where a civilized debate can take place, when all the while it is more like a tag team cage match prepared against anyone that dares to offer any serious challenges to the atheist egos there.”
Just because you can’t handle your arguments being criticized does not mean that there is an atheist conspiracy to attack Christians. No one in the group has been removed for being a Christian, or trying to provide arguments for Christianity. Just recently, a member was removed for refusing to stop calling Christians misogynistic. He was removed with no controversy.
-Just because you can’t handle your arguments being criticized...
Delete>LOL. I try to engage in an honest debate on the subject of divine knowledge and I'm harassed by an atheist admin (John Birch) that insists that I must personally debate with him, though this rule is nowhere specified in your rules. So, instead of allowing me to debate with someone else, he blocks me for ambiguous whimsical reasons because he is personally offended, which is precisely what I predicted would happen, a complete justification of my concerns at your group.
So tell me, Haunted Shore, do the rules of the group state that any member must engage with a n administrator if an administrator demands this? I can answer for you, because I had posted the rule list in my comment at your group before I was booted. And the rule list is in webclip #5 above. And nowhere does it state that a member must debate with an administrator if a member wishes not to.
So, let's get real here. All the evidence shows that it is the atheist group admins that are so extremely insecure that they have to make up fraudulent excuses to block anyone that challenges atheism with questions and arguments that are apparently too difficult for the atheists in the group to handle.
Again, if you have webclips that show otherwise, then why don't you post them here for all to see?
" I try to engage in an honest debate on the subject of divine knowledge and I'm harassed by an atheist admin (John Birch) that insists that I must personally debate with him, though this rule is nowhere specified in your rules."
DeleteWe generally assume that people are smart enough to realize "don't be a dick" includes "not ignoring people", but I guess we will need to make that more clear if there are more blockheads like you.
"So, instead of allowing me to debate with someone else, he blocks me for ambiguous whimsical reasons because he is personally offended, which is precisely what I predicted would happen, a complete justification of my concerns at your group."
More denial.
"So tell me, Haunted Shore, do the rules of the group state that any member must engage with a n administrator if an administrator demands this? I can answer for you, because I had posted the rule list in my comment at your group before I was booted. And the rule list is in webclip #5 above. And nowhere does it state that a member must debate with an administrator if a member wishes not to."
No one is saying you have to debate, but you do have to acknowledge their existence, and you certainly shouldn't outright say that you will ignore their authority. This should be obvious to anyone trying to be respectable in a group.
"So, let's get real here. All the evidence shows that it is the atheist group admins that are so extremely insecure that they have to make up fraudulent excuses to block anyone that challenges atheism with questions and arguments that are apparently too difficult for the atheists in the group to handle."
You are so delusional. You haven't demonstrated anything, besides screencaps that you failed to give the full context of.
"Again, if you have webclips that show otherwise, then why don't you post them here for all to see?"
DeleteThe two posts you had are still viewable in the group, so anyone actually interested in what happened can see them.
“While this is not nearly as serious as the type of persecution Christians face in staunch atheistic countries like China, the world is increasingly headed in that direction for Christians. You may roll your eyes in wonder as to why I would take time to document this incident. It's because atheists do come to belief in Christ in part through debates, apologetics and evidence, as noted here.”
ReplyDeleteIt is incredibly idiotic to view criticism of your bad behavior as being comparable to persecution. I can just as easily list the fact that the vast majority of philosophers are atheists as a response to your list, but that’s irrelevant to this conversation, and doesn’t actually mean anything besides the fact that atheism is a perfectly defendable position.
“
I've come across two other people so far that have been blocked from that faux debate group for spurious reasons, or for no reason at all, Ron Morales and a blogger named Jonathon, who's shared his experience regarding this debate group at his blog calling it "another de facto atheist religion leftist echo chamber."
This person is an atheist, and was removed for racist attacks on Native American culture.
“In accordance with Romans 8.28, these types of atheist abuses actually support the truth of scripture”
From my own personal experience, and the experience of many other atheists, we have all been subject to being removed from Christian groups on facebook just for not being Christians. Also, mass groups of Christians have abused facebook to silence atheists. Does this disprove Christianity? Absolutely not, but it’s incredibly dishonest of you to claim atheists are the only people who “abuse” people for having differing opinions.
From my own personal experience, and the experience of many other atheists, we have all been subject to being removed from Christian groups on facebook just for not being Christians.
Delete>Based on your personal attacks and unsubstantiated comments at my blog, I find this to be doubtful. If you have evidence of your complaint, then why don't you post a webclip or two to show it? Without any other evidence I would more likely believe, based on your comments in this thread alone, that you have a habit of making unsubstantiated personal attacks, which I would certainly not accept as a moderator.
One of your very first comments at my blog states, "What an incredibly dishonest person you are." (May 6, 2016 at 1:39 PM) - without offering a single shred of evidence.
It's no wonder that you do not wish to post your real name. People that troll and post unsubstantiated comments such as this are usually cowardly liars.
vv
I have 12 webclips overlapping each other showing a complete thread of dialogue and a webclip of Ron Morales' testimony and you have offered zero as evidence in your favor and you claim that I am dishonest? Seriously.
"Based on your personal attacks and unsubstantiated comments at my blog, I find this to be doubtful."
DeleteI find your interpretation of what happened much more doubtful, based off of your lying and denial.
" If you have evidence of your complaint, then why don't you post a webclip or two to show it?"
There are plenty of atheists who can testify to this happening. I realize its just personal experience, but you seem to think that is all you need.
"Without any other evidence I would more likely believe, based on your comments in this thread alone, that you have a habit of making unsubstantiated personal attacks, which I would certainly not accept as a moderator."
My personal are substantiated based off of your lying.
"One of your very first comments at my blog states, "What an incredibly dishonest person you are." (May 6, 2016 at 1:39 PM) - without offering a single shred of evidence."
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.
"It's no wonder that you do not wish to post your real name. People that troll and post unsubstantiated comments such as this are usually cowardly liars."
Explaining your failure to be truthful is trolling. I haven't given my name, because I know you would admin to DOX me.
"I have 12 webclips overlapping each other showing a complete thread of dialogue and a webclip of Ron Morales' testimony and you have offered zero as evidence in your favor and you claim that I am dishonest? Seriously."
Considering the fact that none of them defend your points, and you failed to screencap parts of the conversation that contradict your narrative, its hilarious that you think they somehow count as evidence.
The rest of your post doesn’t needed to be directly responded to, since its mostly preaching. You’ve demonstrated that you have an incredibly delusional persecution complex that makes you assume that criticism of your beliefs constitutes persecution or personal attacks. The reason atheists probably don’t want to go on your blog to debate you is probably because you are a relative nobody in the great debate, and there are plenty of honest Christians who actually are interested in discussions. I honestly feel embarrassed that I wrote this much to you, but I hope you actually try to learn something from it.
ReplyDeleteI honestly feel embarrassed that I wrote this much to you, but I hope you actually try to learn something from it.
Delete> You should feel extremely embarrassed that you wrote I was "dishonest" so many times at my blog without offering one single shred of evidence, not one single webclip, to justify your claim, while I have offered 12 overlapping webclips that completely substantiate my claims and a weblip of Ron Morales that supports his account of abuse at your group. Again, if you have any actual evidence, other that your baseless accusations, post a string of webclips that show that I was given three valid strikes before being banned from your group. And show webclips of three valid strikes against Ron Morales from when he was banned, without seems in the thread. In the meantime, please stop wasting my time.
" You should feel extremely embarrassed that you wrote I was "dishonest" so many times at my blog without offering one single shred of evidence, not one single webclip, to justify your claim, while I have offered 12 overlapping webclips that completely substantiate my claims and a weblip of Ron Morales that supports his account of abuse at your group"
DeleteConsidering 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. You still have failed to actually respond to my points.
"Again, if you have any actual evidence, other that your baseless accusations, post a string of webclips that show that I was given three valid strikes before being banned from your group"
I copy-pasted three of your comments that violate the rules, in a thread that you said doesn't exist. This is why you are delusional. You outright deny events that actually happened. Again, you have the burden of proof to provide screencaps of Ron being unfairly removed, and his personal opinion on what happened doesn't count.
No, Haunted, you also have a burden of proof. As I've stated many times, I cannot prove a negative. If you have pinpointed three times when I was given strikes that had been explained to me, then if you are arguing on behalf of your group you have to present your evidence of this. So far, you have not offered one single comment to support this claim. Thus, we must assume the following statement you made is patently false:
Delete“We explained quite clearly how your repeated instances of trying to ignore admins and whine about a year old incident counted as trolling.”
This being completely false, your argument against me fails. Nowhere was there any such explanation when I was present in a dialogue.
Then, Hanunted, in your last offering you list this as your so-called evidence against me:
“I copy-pasted three of your comments that violate the rules...”
(These three comments are all from the “Linda thread”)
1. "Linda, I've found the group moderators (if not all atheists I'd be surprised) in this FB debate group to be extremely biased against Christians. There are other Christian/Atheist FB debate sites that offer more of a fair forum in which to discuss and debate ideas. If you present challenging arguments in this group you will most likely become attacked and slandered by the moderators"
2. "Simon Birch has pretty much summed up the MO of most atheist guests and moderators I've found. If you aren't familiar with what someone is referring to then sling an ad hom attack. Good by group til next time. Linda Z Patterson I would recommend not wasting much time at this "debate" forum."
3. "Simon Birch offers ad hom attack from ignorance and Mark Wittgruber supports it. Typical MO at this group..."
In all three of these examples you cherry pick my comments out of context, not including the thread subject name or the comments before and after them. This alone disqualifies these as valid evidence. It's really pretty pathetic that you are an administrator and do not understand this. And, yes, I do not need to genuflect to you now that I am no longer in your group. Does this make you feel insecure?
In comment #1, I was attempting to warn a group member of witnessed abusive behavior. My conscience led me to do this, because she seemed a bit naive about a lack of administrative governance. Posting the actual name of that thread would have helped to reveal this. If this was considered a rule violation, then why was this not stated at the time? Why is it being stated as a rule violation days after I have already been kicked from the group?
Had you, Haunted, included the additional comments of Simon Birch before comment #2 and Wittbruger's after #2. you would see that both of them referred to Ron Morales as a “dick” - which is an unnecessary personal insult.
It's not hard to find a site showing that calling someone a “dick” is a personal insult:
“Much like ass, this word for a below-the-belt body part is very commonly used as an insult meaning pretty much "jerk" or "idiot." ...Lots of people find this word offensive, especially parents, teachers, and other adults.”
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dick
The insults at your group are more like what you would hear at a child's playground. And perhaps, Haunted, you admins are so used to slinging insults that you do not even realize you are breaking your own rules.
Rule 2 of your group states
“No Personal attacks”
Far from indicating that I broke a rule, points #2 and #3 actually underscore how I had presented complaints of ad hominem attacks by both the founder, Mark Wittgruber and administrator Simon Birch.
So, please do explain how attempting to point out breaches of group rules is breaking the rules.
You have completely and utterly failed to defend the actions of your group founder and admins, Haunted, and, again, if you ever come back and refer to me as a “liar” or as “dishonest” you will be blocked.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete""No, Haunted, you also have a burden of proof. As I've stated many times, I cannot prove a negative. If you have pinpointed three times when I was given strikes that had been explained to me, then if you are arguing on behalf of your group you have to present your evidence of this. So far, you have not offered one single comment to support this claim. Thus, we must assume the following statement you made is patently false"
DeleteI already did this.
"In comment #1, I was attempting to warn a group member of witnessed abusive behavior. My conscience led me to do this, because she seemed a bit naive about a lack of administrative governance. Posting the actual name of that thread would have helped to reveal this. If this was considered a rule violation, then why was this not stated at the time? Why is it being stated as a rule violation days after I have already been kicked from the group?"
DeleteShe has been in this group for a long time, and you've demonstrated that you know nothing about how the admins operate, so you did nothing but give her false information, and she didn't even agree with you.
"Had you, Haunted, included the additional comments of Simon Birch before comment #2 and Wittbruger's after #2. you would see that both of them referred to Ron Morales as a “dick” - which is an unnecessary personal insult."
DeleteSimon was explaining why Ron was probably removed from the group. It was not an uneccesary insult. He was simply saying that if Mark removes someone, its probably because they have done something wrong.
"https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dick
DeleteThe insults at your group are more like what you would hear at a child's playground. And perhaps, Haunted, you admins are so used to slinging insults that you do not even realize you are breaking your own rules."
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.
Delete"You have completely and utterly failed to defend the actions of your group founder and admins, Haunted, and, again, if you ever come back and refer to me as a “liar” or as “dishonest” you will be blocked."
I've defended them just fine. You had the burden of proof to provide evidence of any actual grievances against Ron, and I provided plenty of examples for why you were a troll with an ego and a persecution complex. If blocking me makes you feel better, do it. It will save me the time from correcting your failures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow that I've original post you made, it becomes even more clear why you were removed. You attacked the admins personally, such as when you said that it was a good thing Cale no longer was an admin (even though this isn't true). Another admin explained to you why what Simon said wasn't an adhom, and you ignored that. They went out of their way to explain things clearly, and yet you disregarded all of it, and continued your persecution narrative.
ReplyDelete*Now that I've re-read the
Delete