It seems UK atheists like Rosa Rubicondior are not the only ones who spend too much time at Prison Planet. American atheist Jnani joined Rosa Rubicondior in her efforts to use Twitter to expose the great conspiracy against atheists at Choosing Hats – https://twitter.com/#!/freethought4you/status/149248483218554881/photo/1.
Unfortunately he either did not read or did not understand what Rosa actually wrote before joining in on the protest. He writes, “Here is more proof that Choosing Hats selectively filters comments on its blog just like Rosa Rubicondior claims.” But Rosa Rubicondior did not make the claim Jnani attributes to her. Rosa accused us of “routinely deleting answers” from atheists so that we can claim that they are not posting any. Her claim was easily proven false here https://choosinghats.org/2011/12/a-brief-response-to-atheist-rosa-rubicondiors-conspiracy-theory and here https://choosinghats.org/2011/12/rosa-rubicondior-unsuccessfully-tries-to-save-face. Not only do we not claim that there are no comments from atheists, we claim the opposite and point them out in the two aforementioned posts. Not only do we not routinely delete atheist comments, we post them for all to see on our site in the two aforementioned posts. Rosa is just a conspiracy nut.
But apparently Jnani was impressed with Rosa’s theory. He claims that he has “more proof,” meaning that he accepts Rosa’s blatant lies despite their having been thoroughly rebutted. There are hundreds of atheist comments on this site, full length posts dedicated to atheists, a number of debates, and Rosa’s comment that has appeared on the site for months. Even Jnani has comments on our site – https://choosinghats.org/2011/10/fundamentalist-atheism-and-the-refusal-to-answer/#comment-2804 Rather than addressing any of this overwhelming evidence against the conspiracy theory in question, Jnani turns a blind eye to it and lodges his own embarrassing complaint quoted above. He claims we selectively filter our comments. Not only does this not mesh with Rosa’s absurd claim that we routinely delete atheist comments and say they never posted any, but it does not fit with all of the facts provided above concerning atheist activity on Choosing Hats. Why on earth would Jnani want to join a fundamentalist atheist like Rosa in promoting a half-baked conspiracy theory?
First, Jnani’s selective filtering conspiracy theory stems from his selective hearing. He not only ignores the mountain of evidence showing that Rosa is lying; he ignores the comment policy on Choosing Hats – https://choosinghats.org/site-rules. According to the site rules, the blog’s purpose, “is not to provide a preaching platform for non-Christian faiths, nor is its purpose to offer non-Christian faiths an equal say, or equal time.” More importantly, “Comments are moderated, and any and all will be passed through as we have the time to do so, whether for the purpose of asking questions, agreeing with a post, or disagreeing (i.e. debating).” Now if Jnani’s “selective filtering” refers to comment moderation, then we are guilty as charged, but it is hardly some great secret that we have comment moderation turned on, much less something for us to be ashamed about. It’s written pretty clearly in the portion of the site rules I just quoted, but it is not surprising that Jnani might selectively filter this information out like he did the lengthy rebuttal of Rosa’s ridiculous theory. Note also that the portion of the site rules just quoted makes it clear that comments are dealt with as we have the time to do so. Posting comments “is a privilege and not a right,” as they say, regardless of the misguided atheist sense of entitlement.
Second, Jnani submitted a comment last week that has not been posted to the site yet:
“The whole point is that there is no ought, purpose, or meaning in the unbelieving worldview.”
Sure there is. “ought, purpose, or meaning” all imply subjectivity. There are no issues with these things in a naturalist worldview since there is subjective conscious beings.
“It is because of random interactions”
This is just flat wrong as there is nothing *random* in a naturalistic worldview (I’m sure some will disagree). It seems to me that the Christian worldview is the one with the problem of randomness since god cannot be caused to do anything everything god does would be random including creating this universe.
Note that Jnani does not ask any questions. He does not provide any arguments. He just gainsays what was asserted in the post. So in response to Jnani’s comment I can just say, “Nope, there is not any ought, purpose, or meaning in the unbelieving worldview, and there are issues with these things in a naturalist worldview despite the alleged existence of subjective (whatever that is supposed to mean) conscious beings.” I might continue, “It is not flat wrong, but rather it is right, to say that there is randomness in a naturalistic worldview, and the Christian worldview does not have anything like a ‘problem of randomness,’ since God does everything in accord with His immutable nature.” I agree with what Paul Manata said to Jnani, “You state these things so matter-of-factly, as if reasonable and well-informed people do not disagree with you…” when he ran over Jnani in the comments that start here – http://fortheloveofreason.blogspot.com/2011/10/dusman-on-circularity-on-dusman-part-ii.html?showComment=1320366847499#c3761330359910065866. (As a side note, it is interesting to see how atheists and agnostics band together against Christians even when their views on such fundamental matters as logic and determinism are so violently opposed to one another.) Jnani falsely thinks that determinism solves the problem of induction. In his mind, he is so clever in proposing determinism in response to our skeptical concerns that we had to “filter” his comment. Of course, other atheists who have visited the site and did not have their comments immediately go through also thought that they had said something so profound that we had to hide it. They make an incredible leap and contend that moderated comments mean that Christians are afraid a flaw in their worldview might get exposed. Yeah, hundreds of other comments from atheists have been posted to the site, but your comment was so powerful that those nasty Christians had no choice but to delete it. Of course it might also be the case that we just did not think your comment was significant enough to respond to right now in the midst of the other things we have on our plates, but a significant number of atheists are far too arrogant to ever consider that possibility. They would rather Occupy Choosing Hats Twitter and help Rosa hand out tracts about The Great Atheist Comment Conspiracy.
In conclusion I offer some more of Manata’s observations directed toward Jnani here – http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/rhology-on-fundamentally-flawed-podcast.html#973649234020456175:
You’re trying to pick a fight. You’re trying to rile the Christians up and imply that they can’t deal with your awesomeness and so have to mess with lightweights like Baird. I have no time for schoolyard bullying. I always socked them in their jaw and got in trouble, and it never works out right. In any case, your “seemings” was an illogical leap. How in the world you get from “They’re dealing with Baird and not me, I’m more important and smart!” to “this seems to point to a weakness in the Christian worldview” simply doesn’t follow. How on earth the behavior of less than a half-dozen commenters on one Christian blog among thousands in who they choose to spend their time wrangling with shows you that *the worldview* is weak is beyond me. So, add that to your itching for a bar brawl, and I count myself out.