Monday, September 12, 2016

A Few Days at Gaia

I recently went into the nether world of the Gaia site, into the realm of the mutated Atheist. I say mutated because at this forum they no longer accept any definition of Atheism which is not merely that Atheism is nothing, a void consisting not of rejection but only of being “not convinced”. Other definitions of Atheism are ridiculed, and any one presenting them is attacked by a swarm of what can be described only as the site’s flying monkeys, hurling epithets and insults competitively in the background. There are a couple of dominant types there who jump in on top of other conversations, driving the original commenter into complete silence, even though the person is a sympathetic Atheist, but apparently menial.

The environment is completely open, meaning chaotic in the form of total anarchy, with zero principles for any type of considered conversation. They do assert rules for you, but for them there are none whatsoever. The tone is uniformly derogatory and destruction is the goal. Any interloper who is the Other is to be driven out by force of the stench they encounter there.

To get a feel of the maturity level, the site has its users choose a doll cartoon for a personal icon, and then play dress-up, outfitting the doll with clothes, armor, weapons, and other cartoon equipment. Seriously. The denizens themselves use garbage speak with as many expletives as they can muster instead of any meaningful information or content. They also post large semi-animated cartoons with similar verbiage as they use, as if that makes points which they are unable to make, in their state of semi-literacy.

The person I wound up having the discussion with, if it could be called that, assured me that he would escalate the garbage talk, and that the cursing was fun. That’s why he does it; it’s fun. And of course, the level of supposedly objectionable and aggressive attacks on the dignity of the opponent is at its maximum when someone like myself shows up. I've seen Atheists like these barrel-bottom specimens before; I'm not affected by their antics.

Here’s how it works in an anarchy, where principles and civility are foreign. First, anything the Other says is met with hoots of derision and claims of fallacy, which claims are entirely false. The Other will never convince the Atheist to admit that, though. And the attacks do not relent because apparently such tactics do work on reasonable people who turn away from the trash and decay, and leave. The anarchy is left intact and has been purified by the attacks.

Second, any rebuttal by the Other regarding the many actual logic deviations and standard fallacies committed by a resident Atheist is shouted down or ignored.

Third, any attack on the hollow VOID that is Atheism is met with demands to reveal whatever worldview that the Other might have. That serves as the sole answer to the question, “what threshold principles do you use for your rejection of theism?” The answer that eventually was actually betrayed accidentally was that they require “fallacy free” arguments. But that "principle" is immediately falsified by their double standard and corruption of the meaning of the concept: “fallacy”. In Atheist anarchy, the Atheist cannot make a fallacious statement by definition (theirs, unspoken but obviously axiomatic): these Atheists speak only the Truth, by definition (theirs, unspoken, but obviously axiomatic). Further, the Other speaks in fallacies in any case the Atheist dictates that to be the case, i.e., whenever convenient for his retorts.

Also, the Atheist ignores any request for information, and constantly demands to be allowed to deprecate the worldview of the Other, rather than reveal his own. In fact, at this site they readily claim that Atheism is nothing at all, no worldview, no possible reason to connect the Atheist anarchic void of principles to the life-system of the Atheist. They defend that denial with vehemence and escalated filth-speech. This is the intellectual level of the site.

So of course the intellectual path of any conversation is straight into that bottomless hole which constitutes Atheism. They truly are a Lord of the Flies, anarchic and principle-free group which considers themselves to be automatically far superior to any Other who shows up. So of course the loud, filthy denigration and derogation is deserved, because the Other is really an “idiot”, as they constantly jeer.

I have described the week-long visit there as a visit to a huge, rotting mountain of noxious garbage which is inhabited… infested… with a large population of rats. The rats need the garbage; it is their garbage; they derive their essence from the garbage. They become the garbage. They defend the garbage and purify the garbage-kingdom population by attacking any non-rats with as much poisonous effluent as they can spew from their filthy maws. No non-rat would stay in such a fetid, toxic garbage dump. The population of rats is secured and they congratulate themselves on their superiority as the Other leaves the toxins for better air.

Now that’s just my opinion, regarding my experience. You are free to go there and read the thread and see for yourself. But join up and post there only with the thought of venturing into the reeking fumes of the decay of human culture, civility, respect and literacy, and those who aggressively defend it.

14 comments:

Steven Satak said...

No, Good God, no. I don't have to visit Hell to know that I don't care for it. Or the company, if you can call it that, of the kind of people who would *enjoy* it.

It sounds like 4Chan on amphetamines.
What a wretched thing you've uncovered. I need brain bleach at the thought of it. What a horrible kind of freedom.

Steven Satak said...

I might add that this could only exist in the fantasyland that is the internet. They have shielded themselves as much from reality as they can, but they're only fooling themselves.

Let them go to hell in their own way.

Steven Satak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Satak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith Walker said...

the thread Stan started has been locked by an admin, i dont know who. no doubt the admin will claim it's Stan who was out of line. Stan's description of at least that forum in particular is completely accurate. in my opinion, the forum seems cult-ish, with a dominate Atheist rat, Arcoon, who, imo, didnt really even show up for the debate challenge. Rather some other rat showed up who just so happens to sound and post exactly like Arcoon. the debate was weird and i find it even weirder that the thread's been locked.

Stan said...

Not all Atheists descend to this level. Many Atheists do not. Some backfill the Atheist VOID with principles stolen from the Christian culture, like I did for my 40 years of Atheism. Others become Communists and mass murderers fixated on eugenics. The nature of the Atheist VOID is that it accepts whatever the Atheist chooses to put into it. After that the Atheist becomes whatever is backfilling his VOID.

There are some things, though, that cannot go into the VOID. Those include any externally authorized, immutable truths and principles. Atheism is self-organized and self-authorized. "No divine foot can be allowed in the door".

In a universe which the Atheist did not organize or authorize, he still feels the divine power himself - especially omniscience and inability to speak other than truth.

After all, humans are the pinnacle and culmination of evolution, and evolution has stopped.

Never mind that entropy has been acting on the homo sapiens sapiens species for eons. Is it possible that a subspecies has evolved with a new gene of self-delusions of wisdom and power?

Well, in evolution hypotheses, everything is possible, and nothing is refutable. The fact that such a theory exists and is revered is hard evidence for that.

Phoenix said...

I thought this comment in reply to Stan's post was really weird.

Your vocabulary is the cringiest thing I've seen all week.

I don't understand if Stan's vocabulary is cringy (whatever that means) or if the commenter cringed in response to Stan's post.

But what I do understand is that there is nothing to learn over there at Gaia. they should rename that site to "Atheists gone nuts"

Faith Walker said...

Stans vocabulary probably didnt have enough slang and cuss words for him.

i thought Arcoon's comment

"(Psst - you do realize that she's manipulated you into fighting her battle for her, right...?)"

was hilarious. Guess I manipulated poor gullible Stan guys. Poor guy walked in to a den of snakes.... and wiped the floor w/ their pathetic atheist faces.
Thanks Stan!

Steven Satak said...

I much prefer "Echo Chamber One".

Faith Walker said...

this by Rumblestiltskin?

"Hmmm...it's starting to sound like what you want isn't an open forum, but an echo chamber. Guess that's why you stick mainly to your pathetic little blog page, isn't it..."

the atheists gripe if more than one non-atheist begin agreeing w/ each other in the threads and are constantly using that term.

they have no problem whatsoever when it's an atheist echo-chamber tho.

Stan said...

Faith Walker,
That's an interesting example of the constant Red Herrings that are used to avoid answering the direct question he was asked. By throwing out random accusations which have no bearing on anything which I said, he was baiting, trying to get the discussion off track and away from the actual subject. So that observation had nothing to do with anything real, it was just bait to get me off track. Those don't work on me.

That is the underlying purpose of all their bluster and insults. They are all just bait to distract from the actual subject or to anger and fluster their opponent. It's just trash talk.

When you have nothing in the way of rational grounding for your position, then you have to resort to actions which you hope will befuddle your opponent or stop the direction which the argument is going, and redirect it in a nonsense direction which can make the opponent look trivialized.

Because Atheism really is nothing but negation, there is no rational case which they can make for it. Thus their only choice is to destroy the arguer or to stop the logic which the arguer brings.

And they hate being questioned; in an intellectual environment of "nothing" (the Atheist Void) they have no answers and they know it, deep down inside. Atheism is an emotional negation, not rational. Being an emotional state, they love posturing, but not responding.

Faith Walker said...

why do they get so bent out of shape if their negation, disbelief, state of being "not convinced" is referred to as a rejection? Actually, i suppose i know the answer to that. Arcoon claims that if he were to say he rejects God, that would then mean that God exists. least i think that's what he says. here's what Arcoon said to me:

"Get this through your precious little skull: Not believing in something =/= Rejecting something. Your insistence that atheism is "a rejection of Christ" not only begs the question, but is intellectually dishonest from its outset because those are not synonymous concepts."


I dont feel that because i reject the existence of flying pigs that it means they actually exist, and i wouldn't get emotional about it if someone referred to my disbelief in flying pigs as rejection.

Stan said...

The real reason is the need to protect themselves from being questioned about their reasons and reasoning for rejecting.

There is no functional difference between "not being convinced" and rejecting. But they would have you believe that there is by just declaring it to be so. They do that with increased emphasis as if they are authoritative, and with massive condescension as if you are not just not authoritative but are also way stupider than they are. That is all just show. There is no substance to it. They cannot defend the show of false power any more than they can defend their rejection of arguments which they don't like.

The idea that they are just "not convinced" is a transparently false claim which they use to deflect questions which they cannot and will not answer. That is exactly what Rumbles did, over and over.

I asked for the intellectual threshold with they used for rejection. That question was meant to demonstrate that either they had an intellectual reasoning criterion for accepting (and also rejecting), or they did not.

The response finally was "an argument without fallacies", and then it became obvious that the double standard for rejecting any argument they don't like is biased. The bias is in the Equivocation of the word "fallacy". They don't accept responsibility for any fallacy they use, and use wrongfully. But they assign fallacies to the Other's statements which have NO fallacy at all.

So they use an intellectual lie to filter out arguments that they don't like. No argument can convince them because they will assign arbitrary and phony "fallacy" labels where there are none, just so they can reject the argument and remain unconvinced.

There will be no convincing going on in their presence.

Their thought process is totally corrupt by the standards of Aristotelian logic. The reasons for the corruption are either (1) purposeful (intellectually evil) or (2) they are completely irrational and unable to discern their own irrationality (deranged, insane). Either way, it is not a good place for normal people to be, trying to communicate with such beings, and being swamped with their perverse behaviors.

Stan said...

I should have pointed out that Arcoon's comment to you was a spot-on example of the false assignment of "fallacy" to a position that was not fallacious. The "Beg the Question" claim is false; the "intellectual dishonesty" is on him, not you.

And notice the "authority" with which he makes his own fallacies seem to be inarguable Truths. But is all smoke, and no content. The small guy behind the curtain, the guy with the great big microphone and loudspeaker booming out pure crap.