Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?

Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

Hi everyone,

I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.

I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.

The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

The phone calls are harassment, file a complaint. The emails can be ignored, learn to love the delete button.

[backslacker]

Ever wondered at the fact that the introduction of a chemical that interupts the process of a critical enzyme causes life to cease and the once living thing to become just a mass of chemicals which breaks down into component elements? In other words, we have known that the reverse of the process of life, death, is chemical or physical. Why shouldn't the process of life be the same?

Creating life has nothing in common with destroying life. I can destroy a car, for example; I cannot design a car from scratch.

I'll be holding my breath on you biology experiment. Good luck.

[Soliton]

You can not destroy what the car is made of. A car is just a special arrangement of atoms. It was designed by an animal that evolved from animals that are also just special arrangements of atoms.

[backslacker]

If you are a “professional writer”, then you should be able to defend your writing against criticism.

He is not complaining about CRITICISM. He is being harassed by left-wing evolutionists. Difference.

[backslacker]

You can not destroy what the car is made of. A car is just a special arrangement of atoms. It was designed by an animal that evolved from animals that are also just special arrangements of atoms.

One direction is more difficult, I would say impossible, than the other direction.

[Soliton]

I see no compelling reason why it should be impossible. Do you have any scientific proof of an alternative theory?

[js1138]

He is also scientifically illiterate and because of this does more harm to his friends than his enemies

Among other things, he epitomizes the FReeper approach to science. He will prosper here.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Thanks again to all of you. It's been going on non-stop and the reaction of some atheists has been "good, he wrote something that's contrary to our true heroes of science" (I kid you not, see the genius quote on the bottom). This is reminiscent of communists, and defamation was their tactic of choice while they were still an opposition group.

Look at PhillyChief, registered yesterday. He found this thread by googling me and has posted stalking comments on links in websites of local papers. Every day there's a malicious and ongoing campaign to bring false accusations onto the front page of my google results, all false accusations coming from the site he frequents.

Still, they can't get their accusations to show up in the first google link, so they're trying to vandalize and delete my wikipedia page. I'm I can ask for a favor, and I'm sorry to ask this and I'll return it at any time, if you can all take a second to stop their attempts to delete the page I'd be very thankful if you can go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yomin_Postelnik&action=edit and type:

*'''Do not delete''' Subject of vandalization or something of that nature below the other comments (and then just press save), I'd greatly appreciate it.

Special thanks to Jo Nuvark, Kimmer and ibtheman for your encouragement.

Thanks and blessings to you all and thank you for your encouragement during this time.

[Jo Nuvark]

You must have hit some kind of nerve to have
Richard Dawkins after you. If I were wiki,
that would be pretty terrific cred and reason
enough to leave you on their site.

[MrB]

“atheist” is a misnomer.

ANTItheist is more accurate.

If you didn’t believe in the existance of unicorns, would you attack those who did?

[MrB]

Why do you have to be condescending?

Haven't dealt with many atheists, then, have you?

I've never met one who wasn't condescending. To a person, they use "proof by arrogant condescension" as their debate style.

[Jo Nuvark]

I will adopt your new word ... ANTITHEIST.

Very good MrB.

[Jo Nuvark]

I’m impressed with your posting style, content and
maturity. Hope you don’t mind if I imitate.

Evo-Evangelists are indeed Anti-theists. I’ve yet
to observe one that was not narrow minded, self
righteous and caddish.

Your lights are shining. Don’t give up.

[PhillyChief]

The impetus for me replying here is you're deliberately misleading people, and to not address that would be wrong, Mr. Postelnik. How that affects a Google search is irrelevant. If you caught wind of someone spreading lies and misinformation on the internet, wouldn't it be your duty to confront such behavior?

If anyone is calling Mr. Postelnik to harass him or trying to do to his wikipedia page what he himself did to someone else's wikipedia page, that's wrong and I hope that doesn't continue, but I'm not even convinced either is happening or has happened. Regardless, such behavior is wrong.

Now I know how much everyone here would like to believe Mr. Postelnik and his allegations. Certainly if you agree with his opinions and don't care for the type of people he's vilifying, you're going to be inclined to just side with him and take his word, and that's precisely what he's counting on. All I can say is read everything for yourself first before deciding. What's going on is very simple. Mr. Postelnik simply can't stand that people are pointing out the errors in his article and rather than either trying to defend his article or try to drum up support for his article, he's expending considerable time and effort at places like this and releasing press releases (written by himself interviewing himself) about being "harassed" and "stalked".

I may not agree with most everyone's opinions around here, but I wouldn't assert you're fools. Ask yourself why he's not defending his article or any points in the article. Ask yourself why someone would try so hard to vilify his detractors rather than stand up to and challenge the points they raise. Ask yourself why someone would threaten legal action against a detractor if that detractor refused to delete a published objection to his work. Ask yourself what these "malicious" comments are that I've left or what "false accusations" I've made and finally, ask yourself why I, someone who Mr. Postelnik claims is lying, would actually encourage you to read his article to see for yourself all the errors in his logic, assertions without evidence and clear ignorance of even the basic concepts of which he argues. No one who truly respects free speech would want to censor Mr. Postelnik's work simply because we don't like it or find it riddled with errors, but likewise, if you truly due respect free speech, you must also respect and not try to censor public objections to that work. Someone needs to instruct Mr. Postelnik on how free speech works, and of course how America works.

"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection." - Colin Powell

[Jo Nuvark]

[... if you truly respect free speech, you must
also respect and not try to censor public objections
to that work...]

Sounds to me as if you should take your own advice.

[MrB]

Yeah, we all know how open to discussion the evos and atheists are,

especially in (90% God believing) taxpayer funded educational institutions.

[Coyoteman]

I am a geologist in training and know much of the fossil record and do not believe in Darwin.

Darwin was real. Photos exist. He wasn't a geologist though.

Nor do dozens of scientists who got their degrees from accredited universities.

Dozens? Color me unimpressed.

Tens of thousands of scientists who got degrees from accredited universities are convinced by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and you're crowing about "dozens" who don't?

[LukeL]

Every generation has a couple of rouge scientist who challenge the common way of thinking. Many scientist jumped on the string theory bandwagon a while back and now it seems that theory is falling apart. When plate tectonics was proposed at the beginning of the 20th century it was scoffed at, as being a fanciful idea.

This is the problem I have with arguing with atheists and/or evolutionist. They have a high level of arrogance because they know something the "common" person doesn't.

[Coyoteman]

This is the problem I have with arguing with atheists and/or evolutionist. They have a high level of arrogance because they know something the "common" person doesn't.

Actually, you are arguing with a scientist. It is you who is filling in the "atheists and/or evolutionist" business.

And scientists do know things the "common" person doesn't. Why do you think we spend years in school followed by decades of study and research if it isn't to learn something.

And with all of that research and study scientists still make mistakes. So sue us.

If you think you can to better you are welcome to try. (Hint: it's not as easy as it looks.)