Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dismantling dawkins. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dismantling dawkins. Sort by date Show all posts

December 12, 2012


Hat tip: Unnamed informant for the screen shot.

I should not take pleasure in helping atheist trolls humiliate themselves, but I can't help it with this one. Why do people like this think (a) that they have something worthwhile to say, and (b) everyone has to experience their silly remarks? Their egos are both fragile and phenomenally large.

Hey! He hates Dr. Georgia Purdom. (You know, she's the one that Bill Nye is afraid of debating.) Well, this font is called "Georgia". I picked it out just for him.

Here is a confession of him stalking me. And I caught him in some lies as well. And the sending of unwanted mail? That's spam. But he's been told that it won't get through.

I made some annotations, and my comments are in bright blue type (click for larger):
Edit: In my enthusiasm to post this, I forgot to mention that he made an assumption, that I am the Admin in the discussion and did the banning. Prove it.

By the way. He was crying about this post, where I proved myself right, and the Dawkins disciple a liar and a fool. Not a mention of that. Now who's the coward, Poindexter? Oh, and it's not libel when it's the truth, in people's own words.

December 11, 2012

Dismantling a Dawkins Disciple

An angry, uninformed atheopath took exception to The Question Evolution Project making sport of an atheist pope who ridicules the beliefs of others. Here is the "meme" that upset him:

Atheists tend to humiliate themselves by making accusations when they don't know what they're talking about.

This is what he said, and the provocative reply (with a bonus troll remark just above his):

Since some of us are not fond of bullies, trolls and obstreperous twits, it was kicked up a notch:

The "previous comment" referenced there was a link to an article with proof that many professional atheists do believe that everything came from nothing.

He did not like the way the game was going, and proceeded to fuss more:

Note the foolish attempt at ridicule by bringing up Jesus in an attempt to force us to a standard that he himself does not believe (typical hypocrisy of atheists), and then calling TQEP "liar". It's amazing how people love their hero but don't know much about what has been said or written. Here is proof in his own words that Richard Dawkins believes that life may have come from outer space:

Well, since some people are too lazy to do their own work (typical of atheopaths like the one that commented), here is something about the universe coming from nothing to make them gag.

First, In the afterward to A Universe from Nothing by Krauss:
Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.
Not good enough? OK. But it does carry the strong implication that Dawkins believes everything came from nothing.

I'll go one better. How about from Dawinks' The Ancestor's Tale, will that help?
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
For those who are not paying attention: "the universe evolved literally out of nothing". Got that?

"Gosh, Cowboy Bob, why are they so committed to protecting stupid comments from Dawkins?"

Probably because they revere him, even though he is a lousy philosopher. They get their material from him and spew it all over the Internet, especially on sites, forums and Pages that Christians have. Even so, I bet he'd stand by what he said, despite his defenders.

I think that Richard Lewontin set forth a kind of manifesto with this statement:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
They are committed to the horrible, self-refuting position of naturalism because they hate God. The original comment in the "meme" stands.

Oh, and that earlier crack about a stalker? This clown comes around and "likes" hateful, ignorant, arbitrary, illogical and downright stupid remarks (like the ones you saw above). EDIT: He got himself banned, finally.

July 7, 2010

Like I Said: The Atheist Agenda

“Fear is not in the habit of speaking truth; when perfect sincerity is expected, perfect freedom must be allowed; nor has anyone who is apt to be angry when he hears the truth any cause to wonder that he does not hear it.”

— Publius

People have given me grief over the use of the term "atheist agenda".

"What agenda? We have no agenda! We are just people who believe that there are no gods."

Well, when feeling obstreperous, atheists change the definition of the term. Presumably, it is for the sake of clouding the issue and finding any excuse to make their opponent look bad. The problem is, I have heard so many different definitions of "atheist" (and types of atheist), I almost feel that I need to have each person give their own definition.

Boy, do they get defensive when you say that they have an agenda, gibbering like their imaginary primordial ancestors!

But if atheists are just people who happen to believe that there is no God, that nothing exists except for material things (using the most popular definition), why are the obsessed with trolling, ridiculing, whining about Christmas images in public, infiltrating, humiliating, lying, protesting, removing the civil rights of the majority and being a general nuisance?

"Oh, come on, Cowboy Bob! You're confusing atheists with anti-theists!"

Yes, I've had that word game pulled on me, too. Problem is, the alleged atheist who said that was busy bashing Christians.

"You're lying. You made that up!"

Ummm...yeah. Whatever. Logic and proof are things that these militant so-called "new atheists" (the disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins and his ilk) say that they prefer, but are unable to furnish anything supporting their own accusations.

Listen. What's going on here is that I have had astonishingly stupid accusations leveled at m
e by these trolls from the intellectual desert of atheism. Militant atheists are mentally unstable because they are more intent on destroying than on doing anything useful, or even simply leaving people alone. (What happened to the "live and let live, you do your thing and I'll do mine" atheists? You know, the ones that were willing to discuss things intelligently if they felt like discussing their views at all?) Further, I think the militants believe their own nonsense. For instance, one believes that by closing off my comments due to atheist trolling, I negate everything I say. Wow! This clown had better stop smoking stuff, his ability to reason is fried! They also try to browbeat me into opening up the comments again so I can have more trolling. Here's a question for bloggers: If shutting off my comments negates what I have to say, what does comment moderation do, especially if you delete comments you do not like? Just curious. Too bad you cannot answer me.

"Militant atheists? Now you're really on a roll, Cowboy!"

Yep, I made that up, too.

Or did I? From Wikipedia: "Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion — it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." Oh, so that's what's going on! You are arrogant and destructive. Militant atheists are annoying to the rational atheists, it seems. A few want them to stop and think before acting up. Also, here is a view from a Christian who has debated Daffy and Hitchens, if you have the courage to read it.

Rev. Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry has told me about learning of atheists' plans to literally destroy his ministry by uploading viruses. Also, they infiltrate the chat rooms and discussion boards. You can imagine the fun that follows.

"Yeah, but we still don't have an agenda, you big liar!"

Well, when Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens write books attacking religion and God, saying that they are evil, people get influenced. Besides, it's "cool" to be an atheist these days. (Except for Peter Hitchens, Chris' brother, who is a Christian.)

By the way, here is one result of the atheist "message of hope".

Then it grows. Another thing I took heat for was the term "organized atheism". Well, atheism is a religion. And the Atheist Alliance has an agenda. And that agenda is to destroy religion. Oh, wait. That article is a bit old. OK, here's one from the World Atheists Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in June of 2010. Many atheists do have an agenda, and want to destroy religion at all costs.

How about this gem?

“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ ... It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own ... The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students ... When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank... You have to be educated in order to be ... a participant in our conversation ... So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours ... I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents ... I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.” – ‘Universality and Truth,’ in Robert B. Brandom (ed.), Rorty and his Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 21-2.
Audacity, arrogance, uppity, anything else... sounds like war to me.If I wanted to make this article ten times longer (and wanted to waste my time writing to people who will not care in the first place), I could easily copy and paste a great deal of the codswallop that arrogant atheists post. They troll Christian groups, obsessively attack Christians, are vicious and obscene. I cannot even quote some of the things I saw on a Bible group on Facebook. Or going onto discussions of America's founding fathers and lying about them being Deists, at best (certainly not Christians). Not true. Why is that? Also, I've asked before, but it bears repeating: Why don't you attack astrologers, spiritists, Mormons, Satanists and Muslims? Well, I can guess for the last two, you know they'll kill you.

They want to destroy religion, but it cannot be done with reason and logic. So, they resort to trolling tactics and ridicule. If you cannot bring down your opponent by dismantling his logic, then make people laugh at him. But this backfires. Not only are the militant, arrogant atheists irritating people, but they are laughed at themselves. Prov. 13.16

Or, find some other way of bringing your opponent down. They try, but they do not even believe that God, their opponent, even exists. Except when it's convenient to say how much they hate him, then he exists. Go figure. Frankly, I think they are also afraid; deep inside, some of them know that they're wrong. So they react with fear, and fear does not have a habit of speaking the truth, as Publius Cornelius Tacitus observed.

Kind of what I'm doing. I show these lovers of "reason" that they are failing in the most elementary logic skills. I laugh at them when they, who disbelieve in God and have a morality based on the convenience of the moment, dare to judge that I am a "bad Christian". So when I point out their folly, they retaliate.
Prov. 26.11 They are boring and predictable. It is indeed unfortunate that rational discussion, or even respectful silence, is impossible with that lot. If their methodology was rational and respectful, things might be different.

Actually, no, I do not think so. The bigger problem is that it is spiritual. Unfortunately, they cannot — and will not
see it. Rom. 1.20-22, Matt. 15:14, 1 Cor. 2.14, 1 Cor. 4:3-6, Eph. 4:18 John 8.43-45, 2 Cor. 4.4

"You stink, Cowboy Bob!"

Well... Jesus loved me enough to die for my sinful self. And he rose from the dead. You could have his love, but you're full of hate, and you are deceived.

Subscribe in a reader