Ipertrich: Atheist Persecute free thinkers: Exampel of Atheist hate group taticsIpterrtich:

I am being persecuted by atheists for having a mind and trying to think. Here is the persecution of a little atheist bully boy who is totally stupid and have the reading or the education background to understand anthing. He should not be talking about God with people he should being learning, but he's too stupid to know that. This is nothing more than pure hate.

Metacrock
Posted 19 Apr 08 at 07:16:38 AM by lpetrich
I have completed reading his blog, to get a better picture of his ideas and interests.

Perhaps the first thing one notices about Metacrock's writing is his repeated, persistent misspellings. He simply cannot stop himself, and he once complained that he does not have the time to proofread what he writes. Yet he has plenty of time to compose those writings. And one of his admirers once posted in one of his forums
Quote:
Meta, please don't start any more threads with subject lines like "supid atheit tricks" -- it's like you're doing a self-parody.
He is dyslexic, and he has been that way since childhood, when his parents were relieved to discover that his difficulties with reading and writing were something other than laziness. Yet he seems reluctant to use spell checkers, despite their being readily available.

Isn't this what the FBI mode said hate groups do in stage four? This is ridicule, bad mouthing, mocking the target, the hate group gathers to mock the target, that's what happens in stage four.

They always say "he doesn't seem to ever use a spell check." What unobservant little know nothing bigots ridiculing people having handy caps. I use a spell check every single every one every little time. But what do I always say? I can't see the words the y way you do! what do you think that means? Can't you figure it out stupid?

Someone I know online found him very annoying for this reason, calling him someone "speshul", someone who wants to be given extra leeway for no better reason than his whining about wanting it. And although some people have complained about carping at his misspellings, there is a more serious problem with them. Many of them occur in some of the more obscure words that he uses and names that he mentions, words and names that may be difficult to guess from context. That can make it VERY hard to understand what he is writing about.

someone I know found him annoying. O did they? someone I know found Ipertrich to be a fucking piece of shit shit hold mother fuck.

Now for his ideas.

O yea! Now we are gonna talk about his ideas! yea,as though you could! First we bad mouth him and rak his personality over the coals, we mock and criticize him for his handicap then lie about him, they we talk about his ideas. As though really could really understand anything I have to say.

BTW do you know now many people have told me that they can understand what I'm saying? huge number. like maybe 80% of those who read my stuff profess to understand it. In fact that little turd will claim that he understands it. How can he claim that if he can't read it?

Although he claims not to be a fundamentalist, he spends MUCH more time criticizing atheism than criticizing fundamentalism, even though the latter features a lot of beliefs that he considers contrary to True Christianity. He complains about supposed atheist caricatures like God being "a big man in the sky" and the Bible being "a memo from the boss", but he is VERY reluctant to challenge any fellow Xian for believing in such things. But considering Xians' long history of fighting over even the smallest points of doctrine, such silence seems strange. However, Metacrock is far from alone there; many other "liberal" Xians much prefer denying that they are fundies to criticizing or challenging them.

The little monkey has learned some of my phrases. But does he really understand what they are talking about. Notice the internal contradiction here. He starts out arguing that I must really be a fundie because I criticize atheist only a fundie would criticize atheists. He cherishes this stupid illusion because he is obsessed with hating fundies and also because the only thing he knows about Christianity is some slogans of fundies. He doesn't really understand what a fundie is obviously. Look at the slogans by me that he talks about. These are indicative of things a liberal would say against the fundies. But he's clearly too stupid and too ignorant to understand that.

Notice the uses the atheist equivocate of hte N word "xian." If he was a KKK guy he would have just aid the N word. He's not full of hate is he? He's just having fun ridiculoing something he can't understand and he just uses this hateful insult name for the enemy group just for the hell of it right? His reasoning is of course idiotic. He argued I am laoth to criticize fundies therefore I'm a fundie. brilliant.

Of course the analysis that real fundies don't calling themselves fundie is of course stupid because that's I got teh term. It was a fundamentalist bible teacher in a class at UT Arlington (Bible chair) who first used that term. That's where I heard it first. I am the one who introduced the term on the net. No one called them "Fudnies" until I came to CARM back in 98.

According to Metacrock's Virtual Office,
Quote:
All religions seek to do three things:
a) to identify the human problematic,
b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the problematic,
c) to mediate between the two.
"Problematic" as a noun makes me rather suspicious. Why use that word when the word "problem" already exists?

Another illiterate atheist who had never heard the term "problematic." He's too stupid to go read some comparative religion stuff and see where I go tth term or why ti's used that way. He would rather be "suspeicious" but of course he would say about Paul Tillich, Issac Newton, Lock, Spinoza anyone. He would not respect any thinker he's stupid to know a great thinkers when he sees one.

I know this is hard for little highschool students and freshman to comprehend but in the intellectual world people often color outside the lines with words. They streach meanings and say that stuff sound different to make points. Derrida spells "difference" with an "a" as "differance" to make a point. I know this is hard for this little to face. He's never read any books and thinking is foreign to him.

Also, he seems to be claiming that all religion is Metacrockianity in drag, something that does not fit very well. Although in fairness, I've seen all too many discussions of religion that show basic ignorance of the nature of many religions.

that's what he makes of the common core thesis of William James. Because he's so fucking stupid he doesn't know about it and he's so hateful that he can't think to himself "well mabye I should go learn something maybe someone talks about this." He's an idiot so he can't learn. He just assumes I made it up because he's an idiot.

He talks about God quite a lot; the Metacrockian God is apparently "being itself" or a "ground of being", the sort of god that some other highbrow theologians, like Paul Tillich, have believed in. How something can be pure being he does not quite explain, but something that's pure being would apparently have no properties, and thus would be a VERY unsatisfactory kind of god.

Really when you think about it, what's going on here is I am being persectuted for having ideas and knowing things. I'm being called names, and ridiculed and called a lair and told that I don't know anything because I know stuff this imbecile doesn't know and will never hear of because he's too stupid to get an educated. So I am being hounded and bad mouthed for being smart.

Why are they doing it? To intimidate people who might consider learning about God. They want to sacred, ferigten cajole ridicule and bully anyone they can into not seeking God. So they are hounding and persecuting the people who know things. This is nothing more than the lynch mob driving the teacher away through aggression.

He makes lots of arguments for the existence of God, though he makes the two-step of how they are not "proofs" but "warrants for belief". That seems to me to be an evasion; those arguments have the form of proofs. His favorite arguments are cosmological arguments and arguments from religious experience; he does not find the argument from design very impressive.


His favorite cosmological arguments are the first-cause argument and related ones, like the necessary-being argument and the argument from temporal beginning. He denies that an infinite causal regress is possible, though it is difficult to follow his argument; he seems to think that the mathematics of infinity somehow does not follow.

The necessary vs. contingent being argument was stated by the Catholic Church's official philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. "Contingent" being means being dependent on something else for an entity's existence, while "necessary" being means being independent. However "necessary" implies something that ought to exist, thus making it a very misleading term. Something can be independent of the existence of anything else, yet not have any necessity of existing.

In any case, the argument is that if you track back entities' dependencies, you will find entities with independent existence.

This argument has the problem of how one tells what is independent and what is dependent, and also whether an independent entity would necessarily have the properties that a theologian might want out of a god.

His argument from temporal beginning led him to discuss quantum cosmology a lot; he seems out of his element there.


He loves the argument from religious experience; he uses words and phrases like "co-determinate" and "transcendental signifier" a lot. He seems to be arguing that we perceive the Metacrockian God in such experiences, though it can be hard to tell from his mass of verbiage. He also claims that we have a "God pod" in our brains that acts as a "God antenna", enabling us to perceive God.

He also objects rather indignantly to the view that atheism is somehow humanity's default state, claiming that it is religion that's humanity's default state. He makes arguments about mystical and "peak" experiences, even though many of those who have them have belief systems rather far removed from Metacrockianity.

He also claims that devotion to religion makes one happier and healthier, even though it has not cured the "Venus ulcer disease" (venous ulcer disease) of his legs. In fact, he got rather indignant at a site that points out that God never cures amputees, despite allegedly being responsible for numerous other cures.

Perhaps related to this, he once moaned that atheist deconversion testimonies seem like pale imitations of the "real thing", but did he expect some sort of Great Mystical Experience?


He likes postmodernism, which he considers a devastating argument against atheism, but the proper postmodernist position is dogmatic agnosticism,

"I don't know, and neither do you!"

which is hardly an improvement.


About Jesus Christ, he admires how the sixties counterculture treated him as a great hippie, and he gets annoyed at how present-day atheists don't seem to like JC very much and how they seemingly want to argue away his existence. He gets very annoyed by Jesus mythers; while he regards the early Old Testament as mythology, he nevertheless considers the Gospels reliable history, miracles and JC's resurrection and all.

I remember arguing with him about Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile on IIDB, and he claimed that it was invented to discredit JC's historicity. However, Lord Raglan himself avoided that question, because of the obvious potential for controversy; Alan Dundes later took it up, finding that he scored very high, about 19 out of 22.

that was so stupid. this cow turd thinks that's some kind of big scholarly thing he got hold of. My friend who is a real scholar at Cambridge laughed his head off about that.

His home page: DOXA, "Christian Thought in the 21th Century"
Some others' opinions on him: Debunking Christianity: Metacrock's Blog - including some very unflattering ones

I don't find enough substance there in any of this trash to actually bother answering. but what it really proves is the deep deep level of hate that atheist hold toward people who think and who have different ideas and don't cow tow to the atheist dunder head ideology of know nothingism. It also shows how well they conform to the FBI profile of hate groups. they are donig exactly what stage four says they will do. This is a perfect exampel of satage four.

Basically they are ridiculing me because I know stuff and I want to talk about it. That's so obviously hate group stuff. I can't see what thinking person with any kind of brain would associate with those people. They are pariahs.

Hermit,Do atheists have to start lynching Christians before you admit what they are?