Do Most Atheists Condone These Vicious Tactics

[ypostelnik]

Before I go to the mainstream media about these harassment tactics, I'd like to get some opinions from atheists, in the interest of fairness.

As so many people on this forum know, I wrote a column about logical proof of the existence of a Divine Creator. In no place did I call atheists evil or even imply it. I simply said you're wrong and laid out some reasons why. Now I understand that you disagree. And I disagree with many columns written every day. But I don't react like this:

After writing the column I was the subject of a targetted write-in campaign. Many people on this forum wrote in to the Publisher asking how dare they run such an "illogical" column and demanding that they retract it. These tactics are more reminiscient of the communist party and the KGB than anything American. Those who engaged in same should be truly ashamed.

But it didn't stop there!

I also received both a torrent of emails and a torrent of calls to my business from all over the country. Some came from other parts of the world as well. 90% of these were harassing, badgering and profanity laced.

But it didn't stop there either!

One Martin Wagner of atheistexperience posted a post with my name in it 500 times, diriding me a nincompoop, making fun of my name, etc. and then kept googling my name (AS HE ADMITTED TO ON THIS FORUM) and upping it so that it comes up second on any search. When I contacted his co-administrator, Russell Glasser, he at first apologized but then later started googling me and writing comments in his full name.

Their website also published my business number and the name of an employee.

Did it stop there? No.

I asked someone who works with me and who saw the scope of the harassment to find out if Martin had done this before and how widespread it was. What he found was that Martin Wagner had a series called the Hepcats and if you go to what he called his official site http://hepcats.comicgenesis.com/, he was offering 3 updates a week and asking for paypal donations, but that no updates had been provided for over a year. This person emailed Martin and confronted him about it. I understand that as a result Martin changed the official site. Martin denies promising 3 updates but it's the first thing you see. The only other prominent part are the paypal links. I hadn't gotten a chance to look at it till tonight, but it is shocking.

But then Martin accused me of attacking his wikipedia page. I can assure everyone that I did not. Unlike Martin, I'm not a harasser. Just a columnist who gets harassed. In fact, my wikipedia page was minorly attacked by one of his goons, but that's not worth getting into.

I did, however, think that the guy who found the Hepcats info did mess with his wikipedia page. But when I confronted him about it he a) assured me he wouldn't do something that could backfire so easily and b) tonight he pointed out that in all likelihood, as Martin had been moderating my comments, one of his cronies faked my IP and proceeded to write the ridiculous things he attributes to me or my webmaster. This makes sense to me, especially since a few weeks ago, before the writing of the article, I'd been minorly attacked on about's atheism board and when both I and someone in the office responded, I publicly posted the IP address to show that there were no multiple usernames.

If anyone wants to know the true scope of Martin Wagner's lack of honesty (in case the Hepcats story isn't enough), one only has to look at his website where he still accuses me, in the title of a post, from "running and hiding" from debate (for saying that I can't debate on 50 boards and then offering a transcript of a similar debate that I was in). In fact, on Fri. I emailed him trying to settle this by agreeing to a full debate as long as him and his cronies stop playing games. He didn't publish the comment and keeps accusing me of running from debate instead.

I'm not going to sit back and take this outright defamation and onslaught. I reached out to both Martin and Russell several times to resolve this. They instead chose to keep google stalking me (WHICH, AGAIN, THEY OPENLY ADMIT TO), for the express purpose of trying to harm my name and my business (as their cohorts are very specific about in comments that Martin and Russell allow published) and posting derogatory comments all over the internet. They've downed positive links on my google search and keep bumping up negative ones and their manipulation of google is constant and ongoing.

If you think that these tactics and this ongoing harassment speaks well to atheists and to their cause, then give Martin, Russell and the Atheist Community of Austin, who's office manager Don called and harassed me twice after an employee called to simply find out Martin's contact info to save us from doing a public search. If, however, you think that these tactics are reminiscient of the Bolsheviks and the KGB, then maybe you'd like to ask them to backdown before they further harm the atheist cause.

I recognize that Martin is simply a liar, a bully and a thief and that Russell is simply a two faced lackey. I want to see if more respectable atheists believe that this harms their reputation as a whole, something I've always taken great care not to do.

I am looking to resolve this as I don't like pointing to the examples of some to be reflective of an entire group. That's why I'm asking if there's anyone here who would like to let them know the damage that they are doing to your cause. I would like to see if they speak for almost all atheists or for only the most militant.

And feel free to let Martin and Russell know your opinion of this.

[sciwoman]

Do you have a link to this column?

Do you have proof that people from the RichardDawkins.net forum wrote to the publisher of that paper?

[ScholasticSpastic]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

[RichardPrins]

As so many people on this forum know (...)

Since this is your first post here, I assume this is a copy and paste job from some other forum...

[ypostelnik]

As so many people on this forum know (...)

Since this is your first post here, I assume this is a copy and paste job from some other forum...

No. It's for this forum, on which my column had 400 posts written about it, some of which were quite obscence.

[ypostelnik]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

Why would it matter? It was a column pointing to problems with the philosophies generally espoused by atheists and about the existence of a conscious Creator. It was not vicious in any way. But what kind of column would merit such outrageous and false attacks?

[RichardPrins]

As so many people on this forum know (...)

Since this is your first post here, I assume this is a copy and paste job from some other forum...

No. It's for this forum, on which my column had 400 posts written about it, some of which were quite obscence.

Ah, I checked. You're referring to this article: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2694, ... Free-Press

Not exactly the same as the forum, since it's posted on the front page, which has its own comment section.

I see your (business?) phone number and email were listed on the web site from where the article came, and where it offers a free consultation.

[ScholasticSpastic]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

Why would it matter? It was a column pointing to problems with the philosophies generally espoused by atheists and about the existence of a conscious Creator. It was not vicious in any way. But what kind of column would merit such outrageous and false attacks?

I would be interested in seeing this column. I see two problems so far:

1. There is no philosophy to which atheists can be said to subscribe as a function of their atheism.
2. There is no evidence for a creator, conscious or otherwise.

So you're making a couple of unsupported claims there.

[Martini]

And from the Atheist Experience:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2 ... ogant.html

[ScholasticSpastic]

As so many people on this forum know (...)

Since this is your first post here, I assume this is a copy and paste job from some other forum...

No. It's for this forum, on which my column had 400 posts written about it, some of which were quite obscence.

Ah, I checked. You're referring to this article: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2694, ... Free-Press

Not exactly the same as the forum, since it's posted on the front page, which has its own comment section.

I'd like to add my voice to the multitude who had some very abusive things to say about the logic of that article. It's utter crap. ypostelnik, you're welcome on this forum, but I certainly don't at all agree with what you've written.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Those comments are certainly an entertaining read! I applaud the creativity of my fellow atheists and I truly hope that if (okay, when) I write something that utterly horrid I'll benefit from the same application of wit.

Also, I learned about ice worms. Those are pretty damn cool. How many religious arguments taught me about really neat organisms? Try none. Atheist arguments, on the other hand, seem to be full of exciting biological information.

[clouded_perception]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

Why would it matter? It was a column pointing to problems with the philosophies generally espoused by atheists and about the existence of a conscious Creator. It was not vicious in any way. But what kind of column would merit such outrageous and false attacks?

I would be interested in seeing this column. I see two problems so far:

1. There is no philosophy to which atheists can be said to subscribe as a function of their atheism.
2. There is no evidence for a creator, conscious or otherwise.

So you're making a couple of unsupported claims there.

He didn't mention philosophies generally subscribed to by atheists which are a part of their atheism, he just said philosophies that atheists generally subscribe to.

But I would be interested to see how he links that to atheism.

[Calilasseia]

So this individual regurgitates a heap of steaming canards about atheism being "irrational" (including summary dismissal of the scientific evidence for a whole host of phenomena that don't need any superfluous supernatural input), then comes here to whinge because people shredded his canards?

Well if he's decided to whinge here in the forums he's in for a shock. Because he's just stepped through the door of Reality Boot Camp. Where canards are not merely shredded, they are immolated with nuclear flamethrowers.

[clouded_perception]

So this individual regurgitates a heap of steaming canards about atheism being "irrational" (including summary dismissal of the scientific evidence for a whole host of phenomena that don't need any superfluous supernatural input), then comes here to whinge because people shredded his canards?

Well if he's decided to whinge here in the forums he's in for a shock. Because he's just stepped through the door of Reality Boot Camp. Where canards are not merely shredded, they are immolated with nuclear flamethrowers.

I thought he was complaining about this guy harrassing him, which is a fair complaint. I certainly wouldn't like it if somebody I had a conflict with started stalking me across the internet.

[born-again-atheist]

"Vicious"? It's utter tripe, and before we go about accusations of "internet stalking" how about a copy of these "vicious" e-mails and letters?

[ScholasticSpastic]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

Why would it matter? It was a column pointing to problems with the philosophies generally espoused by atheists and about the existence of a conscious Creator. It was not vicious in any way. But what kind of column would merit such outrageous and false attacks?

I would be interested in seeing this column. I see two problems so far:

1. There is no philosophy to which atheists can be said to subscribe as a function of their atheism.
2. There is no evidence for a creator, conscious or otherwise.

So you're making a couple of unsupported claims there.

He didn't mention philosophies generally subscribed to by atheists which are a part of their atheism, he just said philosophies that atheists generally subscribe to.

But I would be interested to see how he links that to atheism.

Even with the 'generally' tacked on, he's up in the night. There is no philosophy to which atheists subscribe which will not also have religious adherents. It would be more correct for him to say "philosophies to which atheists and theists generally subscribe."

Because atheism is not and has no philosophy there can be no philosophy to which only atheists subscribe. If it's not just atheists subscribing to those philosophies, there's a pretty good chance that more theists are proponents for the simple fact that we're outnumbered.

[clouded_perception]

What, exactly, were the claims you made which were accused of illogic? You've given us the behaviors of your alleged attackers, but we have no idea what you were up to. We can't accept your innocence in this issue on faith. We don't do faith.

Why would it matter? It was a column pointing to problems with the philosophies generally espoused by atheists and about the existence of a conscious Creator. It was not vicious in any way. But what kind of column would merit such outrageous and false attacks?

I would be interested in seeing this column. I see two problems so far:

1. There is no philosophy to which atheists can be said to subscribe as a function of their atheism.
2. There is no evidence for a creator, conscious or otherwise.

So you're making a couple of unsupported claims there.

He didn't mention philosophies generally subscribed to by atheists which are a part of their atheism, he just said philosophies that atheists generally subscribe to.

But I would be interested to see how he links that to atheism.

Even with the 'generally' tacked on, he's up in the night. There is no philosophy to which atheists subscribe which will not also have religious adherents. It would be more correct for him to say "philosophies to which atheists and theists generally subscribe."

Because atheism is not and has no philosophy there can be no philosophy to which only atheists subscribe. If it's not just atheists subscribing to those philosophies, there's a pretty good chance that more theists are proponents for the simple fact that we're outnumbered.

But there could be an uneven distribution. For instance, there is likely to be a higher percentage of atheists that disregard the supernatural, than theists.

Of course, once aknowledged this leads to a difficult question, the question being "so what? How does saying anything about a philosophy commonly held among atheists, say anything about atheism?"

[ypostelnik]

Guys,
I understand that you disagree with me and I with you. And that wouldn't stop me from giving you a lift somewhere if your car broke down and if I knew you were safe. What I'm saying is that these tactics, admitted google stalking (by the Austin group), harassing phone calls (largely not by the Austin group), wild and false accusations (by the Austin group and their friends) is not only making an enemy out of someone who never attacked you personally..

But.... Nothing in the world can excuse the kind of behavior.

And I'm not talking about his ridiculous first post. I'm talking about all the tactics described above. If you truly believe that this is alright then I don't know what to say. I'm not going to sit back and am going to the media (aside from a suit against the main harasser/instigator) about these tactics. I hope I can let them know that most atheists vociferously denounced them and tried to intervene to save their own reputations.

[born-again-atheist]

That's nice, how about you actually prove any of this actually happened?

[Astreja]

Sorry, Mr. Postelnik, but as far as I'm concerned your article fails right here:

Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available.

Your alleged proof is not 'readily available'; in fact, I rather doubt that such proof even exists. Apparent order in some observed aspects of the physical universe does not inexorably lead to 'There is a god, and it's the god of the Bible'. Not by a long, long shot.

And, in my opinion, trying to equate 'There is nothing new under the sun' with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just plain silly.

As for the abuse you have attracted with this article, here are two pieces of advice:

1. Never publish your real name, address and phone number unless you want people to contact you.

2. Don't write long articles on subjects outside your area of expertise unless you want people to tear them to shreds.

And personally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if this harms your business or even destroys it. I, for one, would never purchase a business plan from someone who levels accusations of incompetence, bias and malice at "the competition", while making the very same errors himself.

[ypostelnik]

There's also a really sad aspect to this. I tried from the beginning to reach out to Martin and Russell. I'd let bygones be bygones the moment he'd agree. Instead I'm continually harassed and his malicious links, and even he admits that he's not sure I did what he's saying (BECAUSE I DIDN'T) get posted and bumped up everywhere. His stated goal is also clear, defamation and malicious interference with business. I'm going to fight back big time, but I'm the last person who wants to and all he'd have to do is just to stop.

Do some of you guys actually condone this? Will you write him for the sake of your group's reputation, if nothing else? What he's done so far is enough for an entire book.

[ypostelnik]

That's nice, how about you actually prove any of this actually happened?

I have plenty of proof but you seem to be more interested in excuse making. Anyone could tell I wouldn't write this for nothing.

[Shaka]

That article was posted on the main page, not this forum.

You have your opinions, we have ours.

But of course, I do not support the harassment of others.

BUT, you messed up. You shouldn't have left your number and E-mail. Every group has assholes just itching to bully another, including those that don't believe in any god. It's common sense. You were pretty much just asking for it.

If you want to put the blame on someone, put it on the morons that are your harassers. But of course, you still messed up.

<-- Does not condone harassment by the way.

[Calilasseia]

Clouded_Perception, If he has a serious harassment problem, why hasn't he sought the assistance of law enforcement? Because that's the first thing I'd do if someone started posing a serious problem to me. Some jerkoff teenager posting a stream of pathetic insults, on the other hand, I'd just slap down occasionally when he became too much of an irritant.

If this individual has received actual threats against his person, he has a case to take to the police. And in that instance, I'd back him 100%, because creepy individuals who use the Internet for that kind of activity need a visit from the boys in blue. If someone is being a serious nuisance, he can take measures to have the ISP of the idiot in question shut him down for abusing the terms of service of his ISP. I've sent requests to ISPs myself asking for assorted trolls who launched repeat sock puppets for abuse purposes to be shut down, and they have been. Of course, it can be something of a lottery with respect to geography how seriously his complaint is taken, but if he provides evidence that he's been subject to sustained harassment, most reasonable ISPs will take his claim seriously.

Here's a tip: set your E-Mail service (whatever you use) to display and save full message headers. These always contain the true originating IP address, no matter how many proxies it's bounced through in order to try and disguise it. Likewise, it'll also contain the URL of the originating mail server. Keep a log of that data, along with precise dates and times (also included in the full message headers) and basically, morons are traceable. If the individual in question is stupid enough to conduct harassment activities from an academic network belonging to a college or university, and the relevant academic institution's IP addresses keep appearing in the message headers, then the idiot in question is doomed, because academic institutions right across the developed world treat that kind of abuse of their networks as an INSTANT dismissal offence - basically, you're tossed off the course, escorted from the premises and told never to darken their doors again. If you're occupying a hall of residence, you're given 24 hours to get out. If this person is being harassed by someone using an academic network for the purpose, then the individual harassing him is a grade A certifiable idiot, because that idiot has just flushed his life down the toilet.

[Zing]

I am looking to resolve this as I don't like pointing to the examples of some to be reflective of an entire group. That's why I'm asking if there's anyone here who would like to let them know the damage that they are doing to your cause. I would like to see if they speak for almost all atheists or for only the most militant.

As far as I was aware, atheists have no spokespeople. Or a cause.
So, no they don't speak for any atheists, let alone almost all, or even the most militant.