I published an open letter to Graham Langdon yesterday, which I ended with the suggestion that atheist blogs be move out of the religion and spirituality category. I wrote:

Lastly, the RagingRev blog should definitely not be listed in the Religion and Spirituality category by Entrecard. It should be listed in a separate category call non-religious, non-spiritual or words to that effect: Atheism. That blog is not religious or spiritual. It is the exact opposite. I was planning that as my first forum-statement but was cutoff by Satan [the forums were restricted shortly before], so I've stated it here to be heard.

In reaction, the atheist, M_att O_xley, left a comment on that post as follows:

Seeing as how my blog (the ragingrev one) is highly focused on religious subject matter and debunking religion or having religious debates, I don't see any reason to move it into it's own category. It simply wouldn't make sense and it would harm my current audience...people like you are the ones i want to read it...not just Atheists.

Furthermore, I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.

see...that doesn't feel too good does it?

My reply:

Well Matt,

The idea of having a category called "Atheism" offends you, you say. How does my calling for an atheist category appear analogous to your calling for a category for zealotry? The logic isn't there.

Your feelings are hurt because the Christian says you don't fall within the set defined as religious or spiritual? There are pagans in the set. They're spiritual. If there were subcategories for Christians and another for pagans, that wouldn't be disorganized. An atheist in with the religious and the spiritual though shows a lack of good organization. There are some gray areas, but atheism is not gray here.

This situation is analogous to atheist science teachers saying that there is no place in science classrooms for teaching the watchmaker concept of the origins of the material universe: Intelligent Design. Well, there is a place, but its limited and a class of its own called the Philosophy of Science. That though doesn't take up the whole category of what is currently termed science in the mundane. The same applies here. Your blog is not centered on religion and spirituality but against it, just as the atheist science teachers are dead set against centering any part of their courses on teaching any alternative to testing. Do you see that, or not? I know it isn't lost on the other readers here.

No one seeing the category "Atheist" would miss the idea that atheists blogs would be found there and that those blogs would be anti-religion and anti-spirituality.

You don't need to be in the Religion and Spirituality category to have people who are not atheists see your site. I visit plenty of sites that are decidedly anti-Christ. I'm not the only one who does.

Your position comes out here though. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much" even though your comment is not that long. Understand?

You want people to stumble onto your blog who would otherwise choose not to visit. Your 125x125 image is deceptive with your employment of the cross. Your use of the term "Rev" in your name is likewise deceptive. You are not a Reverend. When coupled with being listed in religion and spirituality, your image is designed so that the unsuspecting will click initially expecting to find a Christian site perhaps of a zealous Christian, hence "raging" in the name. It's all clearly deliberately deceptive.

Also important though concerns the numbers, in terms of popularity within the category. There are many religious and spiritual sites within the category. There are not many atheist sites. The atheist audience on Entrecard is not diluted across many sites with the category when dropping, etc. Such is not the cased with the other blogs in the category. That gives you an advantage for being nearly the only atheist site, at least the only one pushing nearly as hard as you are, working the system even from within.

No one would be harmed in the mundane or otherwise by a category "Atheist." In fact, you would be at the top of that category in terms of popularity. Everyone dropping on you now would still be directed to your site. People who want to avoid atheist sites though could. Atheists wanting to avoid religious and spiritual sites could too. My point was not to achieve that. I have regular back and forth with atheists on my blog. My point is being clearer for all the users and not to be benefiting you at the expense of most others, which is the current situation.

Of course you want non-atheists to read your blog. So what? Just because you want there not to be a category for atheism doesn't mean there shouldn't be such a category.

As for your more than insinuating that I, what are your choices of words, laid a personal attack on you, if you take my suggestion for an atheist category as a personal attack, you need to do quite a bit more growing up.

As for your attempt to hurt me, I know who the Zealots were and are. I'm not one of them. You claim to have been a Christian minister at one point. Don't you know who the Zealots were and what Jesus had to say to them and why? Well, no, you never really knew, did you?

Look, Matt, I don't have to be "nice" to you. I don't have to "like" you. I don't have to avoid saying that atheism and atheists are inherently evil, lost for a time in case of some, but nevertheless, still an evil condition or state of being, that is dead of the Holy Spirit.

If you don't like it, it doesn't mean I have to coddle you in your atheism.

You're an enemy of Christ, Matt. You're working for the satanic spirit. You're up to no good. It's obvious. I don't know the specifics of what happened to you that caused you to fall as you have. I'm sure it was bad. I've never heard of anyone falling on account of good things happening to that one.

You've commented on this blog before. I've replied. You never returned to answer even to give information you promised to supply. Now you're here sniveling. That's right.

So, Matthew ("The gift of the Lord"), what exactly do you have against Jesus that he doesn't countenance homosexuality or what?

There's something you're doing or want to do that Jesus says is wrong. What is it?

Why do you want to do it?

Where did you learn it?

Who did it to you?

Is it harmful in anyway to anyone?

Are you honest even with yourself?

I know you aren't. I don't say it to hurt you, but you ought to have a good very long, purgative cry, perhaps 40 days, and not blame God or Jesus or me.

You fell. So, get up. Don't imagine you've debunked anything. You haven't debunked God, Matt. You've been exposed and rebuked for cause. That's what's happened.

What were you expecting, popularity with the Christians. Keep going in the direction you're heading and you'll land in the proverbial Lake of Fire, and no Christian is going to pull you out at the last minute. They will rather be simultaneously sadden by your error but joyous at being delivered from evil temptation that you are supplying with a vengeance.

Truth, Matt, how does it feel? Does it feel good? It should. The righteous love it.

Tom Usher

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.