@Fievel Re: Intruder

Hey there, dude. Here's the thing... Is Intruder an annoying little armpit rash? Sure, a little bit, but nothing too serious. Is Intruder a troll? Very likely. Even if he is, though, he is not very good at it. We have definitely had better trolls here. Plus, he isn't doing any real harm. Now for the biggie... Is Intruder a genuine Christian (or JW, as he so claims) theist who sincerely believes the horseshit spewing from his brain? Sadly (for him), that is a possibility. And if he truly is what he claims to be, then his being here is actually doing us a favor by demonstrating the detrimental effects of religion on the human mind. So, if he is a troll, then he is cheap entertainment until he slips up enough to get booted. And if he is a true theist, then he is helping us in an indirect manner. Either way, it is a win-win for us (atheists)... *chuckle*...

... he is no JW! Speaking of which I’m been dying for your update Tin Man. Did they show?

Intruder is here because he likes reading his own typing. If he is what says he is ( which I doubt) he is using this experience to hone his "pioneer" skills to convert the vulnerable when he goes door to door seeking more income for the elders in his cult.

His lack of education and inability to comprehend 'complicated' concepts, like the correct definition of atheism, for example is a barrier to critical thinking. Coupled with his natural arrogance and, if he really is a JW, his belief that he is of the very few "chosen ones' defends his ego from reality. It does not even set up, (as it would in a 'normal' person) any cognitive dissonance, not even curiosity.

Personally, as we have discussed before I am very glad that people like "JoC", "Jo", "Joy" and Intruder post their apologetic nonsense so freely.
I think we should indeed set up the "AR Atheist Recruiter of the Month" leading to "AR Atheist Recruiter of the Year" awards for the best theist garbage that could result in the lurkers rejecting their nonsense for ever.

You might have begun the thread, "Intruder, why are you here?" Then we would all know.

Cockatoos don't have noses...and yet part of me wishes I could claim responsibility...but a sock, you say?

I have noted similarities with a particular former contributor, the world travel, the dismay for the dreadful state of humankind, the confidence in the dismal end of the world, the arrogant piety and hubris..the unsteady command of English and vocab, the almost understandable suddenly turning to gibberish....but its not inconceivable that different attempts might end up sounding familiar...its English's vast vocabulary, with words with multiple meanings, that throw people more than the grammatical structure....didn't someone mention going to England or Canada?... maybe he's had time and opportunity to improve....and there's no reason there cant be thousands of like minded folks like the Intruder out there, but never mind...better he preach here with those impervious to his rants than to actually be knocking on the doors of the gullible or susceptible in the real world.

And improvement is just an outcome of practice, everyone gets better with everything with consistent application. There was time when I couldn't fly you know? I just kept at it, despite all the heavy crash landings on my head. Too stupid to quit but now I'm booming'n'zooming'n'squawking with the best of them.
Farts? No. But just be sure to cover your heads when I pass.

Although "The Intruder's" name makes me think of the two monster trucks used in "Idiocracy" (Assblaster and Dildozer), hey, sometimes a name is an insight into a person;s inner thoughts.

Is it supposed to be intimidating, or does it give him an erection every time he sees that name?

Anyhewww, he has the right to be here, and no matter how crazy the exchange, I always consider it an opportunity to learn.

I can understand why those who paid attention in class with respect to proper subjects such as mathematics and the physical sciences, might be puzzled as to why individuals of this ilk behave in this manner. Why parade one's frankly laughable combination of indolence, ignorance, hubristic entitlement, and manifest failure to comprehend elementary concepts, before a global audience? Especially when the resulting performance art is conducted in a manner that would invite well-deserved scorn and derision, if launched on behalf of something other than a religion?

It is, of course, yet another pointer to the manner in which mythology fanboys of various species have, over the centuries, corrupted and perverted the arena of discourse for their own sleazy ends, that behaviour of this sort is still regarded as permissible or even admirable, in quarters where the illusion of respectability for mythology-inspired malfeasance should long ago have withered into extinction.

However, while the behaviours seen here have, for obvious reasons, become indelibly associated with supernaturalism, supernaturalism in its various forms, is merely a subset of that mindset known as the doctrine centred world view, the pernicious effects of which were first brought home to me by one Storm Jameson, in her preface to my paperback edition of The Diary of Anne Frank. Quite simply, the mythology fanboy's mindset is merely a subset of the doctrine centred mindset, which operates as follows:

[1] The assertions of the doctrine are treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the universe and its contents, and the adherent regards those purported "axioms" as dictating how the universe operates, regardless of how much observational data ridicules this hubristic notion.

[2] Any contradictory data refuting the assertions of the doctrine, is hand-waved away by the erection of convoluted apologetic fabrications, frequently involving the deployment of well-known formal and informal logical fallacies. The purpose of said apologetics, is not to try and establish a proper, rigorous factual basis for the assertions in question, rather, said apologetics are erected to try and protect the doctrine and its assertions from inconvenient and frequently lethal fact. This exercise is conducted, regardless of how transparently ludicrous and duplicitous the prosecution of said exercise actually is.

[3] "Truth" is mendaciously redefined by the doctrinal adherent, not in terms of error-free logical deduction or correspondence with observational data, but in terms of conformity to the doctrine and its assertions.

[4] The above three activities are pursued by the doctrinal adherent, not because the doctrine and its assertions have any intrinsic merit, but because the doctrine and its assertions provide emotionally comforting and simplistic pseudo-answers, which require little in the way of diligent intellectual effort to absorb, and which, in addition, are found frequently to be of use in providing the adherent with a fake veneer of "validation" for his or her personal prejudices.

[5] Because the doctrine adhered to is frequently disconnected from, and in denial of, observational reality, the adherent is frequently required to peddle known and manifest lies, in order to continue supporting said adherence to the doctrine, to the point where this corrodes the adherent's reason and conscience, and ultimately the adherent's very humanity.

[6] The disconnects from reality arising from [3] to [5] above, result inevitably in the emergence of a partitioning of humanity on the part of doctrinal adherents. Those within the doctrinal pale are regarded as saintly moral exemplars, regardless of any monstrous behaviour on their part involving exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable - for the adherent, another individual merely being an adherent is considered a sufficient guarantor of righteousness to render any actual investigation of facts superfluous to requirements. On the other hand, those outside the doctrinal pale, are either regarded as intellectual inferiors in need of ideological potty training, or, in the case of informed and resolute critics of the doctrine, an enemy to be exterminated as vermin.

[7] The adherent is, frequently, not satisfied with being an adherent himself, but instead, exhibits a compulsive need to recruit other adherents, even without formal direction to this effect from the doctrine, or purveyors thereof, though this compulsion becomes particularly severe when the doctrine contains explicit exhortations to seek new recruits. While the notion of "salvation" via said recruitment was first deployed explicitly by supernaturalist doctrines, the concept can still be observed in action outside the supernaturalist realm, and the appearance of this concept is correlated with the degree of "us versus them" partitioning of humanity endemic to the doctrine, as covered in [6] above. For obvious reasons, adherents in such an environment exhibit a particularly strong compulsion to ensure that friends and family are brought within the fold, so to speak.

[8] Likewise, the adherent exhibits a strong compulsion to display, in what might be termed a suitably Pharisaic manner, certain ritual performances establishing validating conformity before appropriate peers. Some of the displays in question involve whatever level of attack the adherent can muster against critics of the beloved doctrine, performed in part out of rage at those critics daring to question his beloved "axioms", in part out of the need to establish credentials before other adherents. In the case of those whose attacks are reduced to exercises in apologetics, painted as a thin veneer over thicker coats of ad hominem paint, these are frequently banal, badly executed, and display both the indolence and ignorance that led to doctrinal adherence in the first place. In some instances, the resulting verbal diarrhoea constitutes an excursion into a world of surreal mental holograms, of the sort that point not merely to the construction of apologetic castles in the air, but attempts by the builders to reside therein - thanks are due, of course, to Jerome Lawrence for the original relevant aphorism.

While several political ideologies have provided us with useful case studies in the aetiology of doctrine centred thinking, and the manner in which attachment to unsupported doctrinal assertions results in malign consequences, supernaturalist doctrines have been particularly pernicious in this regard, both with respect to their infectivity and their subsequent virulence. Not least because appeals to appropriately constructed godlike figures, push buttons associated with particularly powerful psychological impulses, and indeed both the appeals and the nature of the invented gods, are frequently designed for that specific purpose. I'm reminded of the lyrics of a Gary Numan song at this juncture:

We'll show you religion
We'll show you a new god
We'll show you the meaning of fear

Indeed, having mentioned Storm Jameson above, it was she who wrote, "Men learned early how to press a doctrine over eyes and ears, so that they could torture without being distracted by the victim's agony". She might well have added, "and so that they can kill, happy in the knowledge that their act of murder fulfils a higher, ordained purpose". The most vicious killers find warm homes, in the conformity enforcement organs that invariably arise, whenever doctrinal hegemony becomes an integral part of the pursuit of naked power, and the only real difference between the Inquisition and the politically motivated horrors of more recent history, is that the pursuers of the latter had access to better weapons technology. Executors (yes, the pun is deliberate) of both, regarded themselves as fulfilling a destiny decreed from on high to be achieved, a ready excuse permitting sadists of various stripes to realise their nastiest fantasies, but also allowing the purer ideologue to join the throng of monsters with a clean conscience.

While Jameson's mistaken limitation of historical necessity to political ideologies mars an otherwise incisive and laser-precise dialectic, a lapse that has no obvious biographical pointer informing one of its origins, the dissection she provides is suitably thorough and forensic, and worthy of further reading, even if the conclusion drawn at the end is even more mistaken, than her failure to recognise historical necessity as being as much a part of supernaturalism as any secular ideology. It was, after all, digestion of that dissection and its masterstrokes, that propelled me to compile this post in the first place, and I shall not deny well-deserved credit to the teacher.

So, what to make of the specimen under consideration here? My view is that out of the eight aspects of the aetiology presented above, the latter four are the more compellingly informative in this case. I suspect that he considered the likelihood of impressing the audience here with his erudition and rigour, to be even lower than my likelihood of receiving oral sex from Anne Hathaway and Scarlett Johanssen, whilst being filmed by a CNN news crew aboard the bridge of an Independence Day flying saucer en route to Alpha Centauri. If so, for once I commend him on a decision that bore some connection to observational reality. Unfortunately, this has led him to adopt the playground spat approach to discourse, in a manner sleazily reminiscent of some of Dembski's well-publicised and infantile reactions to the destruction of his canards. He is apparently unaware of the extent to which he is in danger, for example, of becoming a veritable poster child for the famous admonition by Augustine of Hippo, whenever his lurid mythological clinging leads him to engage in even understated instances of science denialism, or of becoming almost as canonical an example of rampant duplicity as Kent Hovind.

He ploughs on with the deployment of purported "gotchas", that presumably constitute sparkling and pristine diamonds of wisdom, in the alternate parallel universe of the music of the spheres of his verbal diarrhoea, but which in the real world, exhibit the effectiveness of a peashooter volley against an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, and in so doing, exhibits much of the hilarious impotence that is characteristic of the amateur apologetics brigade. I suspect he possesses sufficient self-awareness to recognise that his activities, far from being an advertisement for his brand of mythology fanboyism to those outside the already lyrically devoted pale, constitute an even greater repellent to those of us who paid attention in class, than Geiger counter readings of the sort recorded around atmospheric nuclear test sites. My suspicion is that he's principally here to parade his fanboy credentials to fellow adherents, while venting rage in a manner that manifests to us as the hilarious squeaking noises produced by those desert frogs in Namibia.

Of course, I have encountered, elsewhere, specimens whose level of delusion is such, that they consider themselves genuinely to be advertisements for their brand of mythology fanboyism, despite exhibiting performance indicators indicative of clinically diagnosable (and severe) mental handicap. Some of the individuals who regularly parade their inadequacies on Facebook, for example, leave one wondering if they ever rose to the level of the potty trained. Some of the crayon chewers and consumers of lead paint chips performing their prokaryote-level circus acts over at that venue, are operating within a mental performance band that makes a broken Furby look like Schrödinger or Dirac by comparison. I encountered organisms in pond slime under the microscope at nine years of age, that were capable of more meaningful communication, than the products of heavy metal contamination queueing up to be cannon fodder for their invisible magic men on Facebook, in a manner that would have been considered embarrassing in Europe at the time Pope Urban II was announcing the First Crusade.

The decade or more of farcical fabrication, tiresome regurgitation of mythological assertion, in some cases peddling of outright lies, and the vomiting forth of nauseatingly duplicitous caricatures of scientific postulates, on the part of mythology fanboys I've encountered over that period, has inoculated me extremely effectively against the mythology fanboy virus. I take the view that if you have to lie to this extent in order to seek hegemony for your mythology, then said mythology is worthless to me, except perhaps as a supply of emergency toilet paper. The only reason I have to keep any copies thereof, is pedagogical utility, when dealing with the inevitable canards I encounter. Mythology fanboys who fail to exercise the requisite diligence and learn about this part of my life history, invariably attribute my subjecting their drivel to a well-deserved hosing with the discoursive minigun, to all the usual spurious and imaginary causes. It's reached the point where I expect the usual garbage to be sent my way, and said garbage will be returned to sender as a fine aerosol.

And with that, bed beckons. Lots of debugging to look forward to tomorrow ...