NYC Atheists - When Atheism becomes Faitheism

[Xevious]

NYC Atheists - When Atheism becomes Faitheism

The activities of New York City Atheists Kenneth Bronstein and Jane
Everhart have come to our attention.

Kenneth Bronstein seems to have excommunicated all members not
subscribing to the right "lack of belief in gods" (anti-theism) and
pressured Massimo Pigliucci out from the board for asking too many
questions like how many bylaws did he violate before crowning him self
Pope of Atheism.

Jane Everhart created her own triple drama storm by pissing off the
youngsters with her ageist remarks, tried to resolve the situation by
getting a young 25 year old speaker that she claimed "translated the
bible from Greek". His lecture was long and inundated the audience
with poorly spelled Greek and a thesis that can be summed up "The
bible is crap, Jesus didn't exist, because there is no reason to think
he did." The kid was booed off stage. Jane Everhart was warned by
two people that this guy was not an expert, but this criticism was met
with accusations of being hired by the Vatican (not members of the
local Church) to silence someone whose biblical interpretation is a
threat to modern Catholicism, and as such molest alterboys. Rather
than admit a mistake, she has dug in her heels and ranted in a 3000
word response about how there was a conspiracy of scholarship that
didn't want an uncredentialed speaker at their meeting, when the issue
was intellectual fraud, presenting an unpublished unqualified bible
critic as someone who translated the whole bible from Greek and has
been invited to publish in academic series.

http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-real-rational-response.html

New pope of Atheism and narcissistic bigoted press agent willing to
lie to their members about the credentials of their speakers.

Learn more here:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York_City_Atheists

Talk about it here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=55333

[Timothy 1:4a]

Confusing but interesting.
Nice pictures.
Good idea to give blood on national prayer day.

[Xevious]

Blood drive was a good idea. That was Kenneth's idea, present
autocrat (Pope) of the NYCA. Granted the Red Cross likes to roll
around on the 1st of the month, but they don't argue if you want to
donate on odd days. It's good PR and it does some good.

Here's a vid from that event
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXUlsQXYW2k

But after 2007, no one seemed to bother.
http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/

Too bad.

---
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York_City_Atheists

[4praise]

Is Kenneth Bronstein AKA "Dev"?

[29fan]

another "who cares" moment. Believe whatever the hell you want, it
matters to no one but you. When you pay attention to extremists, you
get extreme points of view. That's all. If that's important to you,
fine. Just shut up about it. In every formal religion, there are
extreme points of view. Most involve God, or a god. Don't like it?
Too bad, we don't care. Create an only anti-theist discussion
group, you all will do well there. No reason for an only argumentative
group.

[Trance Gemini]

Rook Hawkins was the "kid"?

He's exceptionally bright and I've read his stuff on Rational Responders which is quite good.

What is your real problem?

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Trance Gemini]

Why do you hate Rational Responders and New York City Atheists so much that you're running all over the Internet spreading rumors about them Anonymously?

If you were being truthful why do you have to hide?

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Xevious <nyca...@live.com> wrote:

[Xevious]

It matters to more people than me. Extremists hurt everyone. When
you have atheist extremists, the theist extremists get out and vote.
If we are going to make the world a better place, we need to reject
bigotry.

It's up to the moderates to stand up and say NO.

[Drafterman]

Define: atheist extremist.

[Xevious]

I don't know much about the Rational Responders. Rook on the other
hand is the Kent Hovind of atheism.

I noticed your post on skepchic's blog. You don't seem to understand
that I posted this here because it's related to the topic Atheism vs
Christianity. I wrote a small essay that was deleted from ED.

"What can't be stressed enough is when ever you have an issue that
becomes polarized, each side is going to point at the worst of their
advocates. That's Kenneth Bronstein and Jane Everhart. Secularism is
not synonymous with atheism, and separation of church and state
doesn't just protect the populous from religion, it protects those who
enjoy religion. What they don't get is we arrived at our current
political situation because the fundamentalists, a small minority, are
easy to manipulate. Same is true for fundamentalist atheists. For us
to address this huge social issue, the moderates need to stand up and
raise a voice against the extremist bigots who let fear conquer
reason. If atheists go out of their way to destroy religion in a
democratic world, they'll lose miserably. The primary goal should be
keeping church and state separate, something we can sell to the
moderate Christians."

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I do have a life and can't
always respond as quickly as you would like. It wasn't that I spammed
and ran, I went to sleep and went to the fair.

I am anonymous because Jane is threating the critics with lawsuits,
using the threat of legal action to suppress free speech. I'm sure
you can understand under the circumstances why this should be
allowed. I like NYC Atheists but raising a voice will get you kicked
out. They censored every attempt to address these issues. Jane will
respond in her newsletter accusing everyone of being a Christian. The
critics are atheists.

Cults come in all shapes and sizes, but the silver bullet to any cult
is the truth and dissemination of the facts. That's what this is
about. So I hit the blogs and groups. I think that was reasonable.
But don't take my word for it. Look at both sides.

Have a nice day

Anonymous

---
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York_City_Atheists

[Dev]

Bullshit. The "moderate" position towards racism a hundred and fifty
years ago in the US was not racial equality--that was the "extreme"
position. But it was right. This "moderate position is the right one"
nonsense is retarded and only retarded people subscribe to it. A
position is right in that it is rationally and morally justified--it's
irrelevant how "moderate" it is. It is absolutely hypocritical to
bitch about one side being hostile towards the other side's viewpoints
because (no fucking d'uh) that in itself is a form of intolerance--and
untenable intolerance, because it's self-contradictory. You can't say
all intolerance is bad without being intolerant to intolerance, so the
attitude that all intolerance is bad is untenable. Theism should not
be tolerated just like racism should not be tolerated--they're both
evil and it is the moral imperative of good people to fight them.

It's a matter of right versus wrong, _not_ tolerance versus
intolerance or moderation versus extremism. "Moderate" evil is still
evil, and tolerance towards evil is evil. The definition of a good
person is one who will not tolerate what is wrong with the world.

> > group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dev]

Well, by the modern definitions an atheist extremist writes mean books
about how bad theism is for killing people, whereas a theist extremist
kills people.

[Trance Gemini]

On Aug 30, 8:30 pm, Xevious <nycac...@live.com> wrote:
> I don't know much about the Rational Responders.  Rook on the other
> hand is the Kent Hovind of atheism.
>
> I noticed your post on skepchic's blog.  You don't seem to understand
> that I posted this here because it's related to the topic Atheism vs
> Christianity.  

The atheists here would have an interest in it so I put it through.

Not a problem unless the Christians complain.

29Fan is just a troll so no-one listens to it.

> I wrote a small essay that was deleted from ED.
>

"deleted from ED"? I'm sorry I don't understand?

> "What can't be stressed enough is when ever you have an issue that
> becomes polarized, each side is going to point at the worst of their
> advocates.

True.

>That's Kenneth Bronstein and Jane Everhart.

And you, it would seem.

> Secularism is
> not synonymous with atheism,

Agreed.

> and separation of church and state
> doesn't just protect the populous from religion, it protects those who
> enjoy religion.

Freedom for all religions and freedom from religion. Yes that's true.

> What they don't get is we arrived at our current
> political situation because the fundamentalists, a small minority, are
> easy to manipulate. Same is true for fundamentalist atheists.

What is a fundamental atheist?

> For us
> to address this huge social issue, the moderates need to stand up and
> raise a voice against the extremist bigots who let fear conquer
> reason.

I'm assuming that you are referring here to NYCA and Rook Hawkins?

I checked the links and didn't find any evidence to speak of, which
you claim is there?

Perhaps you could recheck your links and provide ones which contain
actual evidence and not just your take on this situation?

> If atheists go out of their way to destroy religion in a
> democratic world, they'll lose miserably. The primary goal should be
> keeping church and state separate, something we can sell to the
> moderate Christians."

Okay well this is certainly an issue that we've been debating here and
I'm sure it's being debated elsewhere.

Are you saying that NYCA, Jane Everhart, and Rook Hawkins have stated
and/or believe that religion should be destroyed?

>
> Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I do have a life and can't
> always respond as quickly as you would like.  It wasn't that I spammed
> and ran, I went to sleep and went to the fair.
>

No problem. It's just that when people post and then don't respond it
certainly looks like they're spamming.

Thank you for responding now and I hope you continue to engage us in
this debate.

> I am anonymous because Jane is threating the critics with lawsuits,
> using the threat of legal action to suppress free speech.  I'm sure
> you can understand under the circumstances why this should be
> allowed.

Well people have threatened me that way too but as long as you can
prove what you're saying is true it's not usually a problem.

> I like NYC Atheists but raising a voice will get you kicked
> out.  They censored every attempt to address these issues.  Jane will
> respond in her newsletter accusing everyone of being a Christian.  The
> critics are atheists.

Do you have evidence of this? If so, I'd like to see it.

I'm not referring to her comment about you. I've seen that.

You state here that: "Jane will respond in her newsletter accusing

everyone of being a Christian."

You use the word "everyone".

So I'd like to see evidence her doing that to "everyone".

>
> Cults come in all shapes and sizes, but the silver bullet to any cult
> is the truth and dissemination of the facts.  That's what this is
> about.

Please explain your definition of Cult and then explain how NYCA fits
into that definition.

> So I hit the blogs and groups.  I think that was reasonable.
> But don't take my word for it.  Look at both sides.
>

Fair enough. You have a right to be heard as do Rook Hawkins and Jane
Everhart.

As an atheist, naturally this concerns me and I would like to
understand the situation fully and find out what's going on.

> Have a nice day

You too and I look forward to your response to this post.

>
> Anonymous
>
> ---http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York_City_Atheists

[rappoccio]

Hehe, now that's a sound-bite-worthy quote, brilliant :)

[Dev]

Thank you, thank you. The hypocrisy required for the other side to
pretend it makes sense never fails to amaze me.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Xevious]

On Aug 31, 5:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry it took me to long to get back to you, I'll have to delay
response until tomorrow. It's almost 3 and I just went through much
bother correcting some of Rook's Greek mistakes when I found out the
thread I started there was locked.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15212#comment-192637
The following image was deleted
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:RRS-Rook_Hawkins_Greek_epic_fail.jpg


This is my lengthy response.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15212#comment-192637
And copies here and here in case it too gets moved, deleted, or
vandalized.
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=13573
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38435&start=875#p1272619

While Rook isn't the main issue, it's only fair that we have it
documented we took up the issue with him. I talked with Jane
personally on this issue and addressed the issue on their website, but
all the comments were ignored. It's safe to say Rook never translated
the whole bible from Greek.

Oh, you wanted links. Sorry if I'm brainead. I understand your
confusion, panda did a good job saving everything, but not in the
correct order. I came on the scene 3 days after the lecture so
anything before the 10th is what I've read.

TIME LINE

Jane talks to Rook, issues a press release
Two users from Rantsnraves.org e-mail Jane regarding the website.
I don't have Rathpigs e-mails but Panda's are public
http://igepanda.blogspot.com/2008/08/e-mail-correspondence-with-jane.html


Then comes the press release which you can see from the first link in
his forum
http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-real-rational-response.html

But you an see it by it self without Jane's rebuttal here
http://atheists.meetup.com/24/calendar/8380293/

See where it says "truth seeker who translated the bible from Greek"
I saw the guy, and he was an ass, and his Greek was not Greek but
Latin with a greek font with Y and U transposed. To be fair there was
some correct Greek

I think this is where Rathpig and Panda come on the scene
Panda makes a public letter
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=408406#post408406
Rathpig and Panda post on the Meetup site
http://igepanda.blogspot.com/2008/08/deleted-comments-from-nyc-atheists.html
This is where Jane accuses them of being theists and Panda of being a
pedophile working for the Vatican, not the local Catholic church but
the Vatican.

I think this was August 13th
This was taken up in the MeetUp forum
http://igepanda.blogspot.com/2008/08/nyc-atheists-censored-forum-messages.html
Where Jane said they didn't believe in censorship, but 16 hours later
everything got deleted.

This censorship was covered by someone else on ED
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Brian_Sapient#Rook_Hawkins_speaks_to_NYC_Atheists_-_described_as_.22scholarly.22

Natty posted on his blog about the subject.
http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/08/atheist-torn.html
The issue was addressed on their own blog
http://nyc-atheists.org/blog/?p=500
Natty released Jane's rebuttal which totally missed the point
http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-real-rational-response.html
And it was also posted here
http://nyc-atheists.org/blog/?p=505
Which is now being censored


I'll work on a better time line in a while but I noticed on
skepchick's blog you talked about our motivation, questioning it, and
how we SHOULD talk to those involved first. They did, I did except
for Rook which really isn't the issue since there is no way he could
have translated the bible from Greek.

It's 3:30 and I can't be bothered to edit, I'll talk to you tomorrow
if you don't mind. Sorry I'm tried, I had to copy and paste the Greek
letters from Wiki to show Rook how wrong he was. But it looks like he
censors any corrections or criticism and plans to hide from this
issue.

Have a nice day







It's safe to say Rook didn't translate the bible from Greek. However
it's only fair to confront him with the spelling errors, and as
expected I was labeled a troll and my thread locked.

[Trance Gemini]

Thank you for your response Xevious.

I'll respond after you respond to my specific questions and comments.

However, I appreciate the timeline. It's clear I misunderstood some of the facts.